SAN FRANCISCO (July 18, 2014) – The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) today issued the following statement:
After several days of ongoing talks, both parties will break from negotiations next Monday and Tuesday in order for the ILWU to convene its previously scheduled Longshore Division Caucus in San Francisco. Negotiations are scheduled to resume Wednesday.
No talks will take place July 28 to Aug. 1 so the ILWU can resume unrelated contract negotiations in the Pacific Northwest.
The previous labor contract covering nearly 20,000 longshore workers at 29 West Coast ports expired July 1. While there is no contract extension in place, both parties have pledged to keep cargo moving.
The coast-wide labor contract is between employers who operate port terminals and shipping lines represented by the PMA and dockworkers represented by the ILWU. The parties have negotiated a West Coast collective bargaining agreement since the 1930s.
For Daimler, the truck driver of the future looks something like this: He is seated in the cab of a semi, eyes on a tablet and hands resting in his lap.
Daimler demonstrated its vision Thursday along a stretch of the A14 autobahn near Magdeburg in eastern Germany, the culmination of years of innovation. It says the vehicle — called the Mercedes-Benz Future Truck 2025, a nod to the year the carmaker hopes it will be introduced — is capable of responding to traffic while driving completely autonomously down a freeway at speeds of up to 85 kilometers per hour, or 52 miles per hour.
Click here to read more at The New York Times.Issues: Freight
US port strike fears hit supply chains
Thursday, 17 Jul 2014 | 8:43 AM ET
Fears of a strike or lockout at the west coast ports that handle more than 40 per cent of all container imports to the US are disrupting businesses' supply chains, as shippers anticipating a stoppage divert cargo to Canadian ports.
Canada's largest rail network has already imposed restrictions on handling goods bound for the US after a surge in cargo diverted to the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert in British Columbia. Prince Rupert's container imports for June were 22 per cent up on the same month last year. Canadian National Railway (CN) took the action amid concerns that talks between US port employers and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union over a new contract might end in a strike or lockout. The port workers' existing contract expired on July 1.
Patrick T. Fallon | Bloomberg | Getty Images
The Guenther Schulte container ship departs the Port of Los Angeles in San Pedro, Calif.
The expiry of a previous six-year contract in 2002 led to a 10-day lockout and serious traffic disruption that ended only when the federal government intervened. The two sides later reached agreement in 2008 with only minor disruption.
Truck drivers at Los Angeles and Long Beach ports – which handle around a third of US container imports – went on strike last week in a separate dispute.
CN said US-bound imports through Canadian west coast ports had increased "noticeably" as shippers sought to protect their supply chains against potential industrial action.
"During this short-term bump in volumes, CN and its terminal partners will be striving to ensure that our base level business . . . will continue to be supported appropriately . . . such that normal dwell time levels are maintained," CN said, referring to the time a container spends at a port before being moved on.
JJ Ruest, CN's chief marketing officer, told customers on July 8 that delays at terminals in Vancouver and Prince Rupert had become "untenable". The company would allot space on trains for shipping lines based on their traffic earlier this year and a percentage above that. Any other cargo might not be handled, he warned.
Jonathan Gold, vice-president for supply chains at the National Retail Federation, said many retailers had moved shipments to Canada and the US's east and Gulf coasts to avoid potential trouble. He hoped none would suffer serious consequences from the resulting congestion.
Read MoreWest Coast port talks more positive this time
"The whole point of companies' putting these contingency plans in place was to make sure that their cargo was able to move and wouldn't end up sitting somewhere else," he said.
Because it prioritises Canadian traffic, CN's stance should ensure the company avoids a repetition of the criticism it and Canadian Pacific, its main rival, faced earlier this year over their handling of grain from last year's record harvest. In March, the Canadian government threatened both railways with significant fines unless they boosted movements.
CP, which also serves Vancouver, said last week it was not imposing any limits to cargo growth.
Neil Davidson, ports analyst for London-based Drewry Shipping, said it was hard for shippers and shipping lines to know how serious the threat of a work stoppage was, given how differently the last two negotiations had turned out.
Read MoreClock winds down on West Coast port talks
"You've had two extremes – one with a 10-day blockade and one fairly smooth," he said.
Some shippers had moved their cargo to vessels heading to New York and New Jersey, Norfolk, Virginia and other US east coast ports, Mr Davidson said.
Anthony Hatch, an independent rail analyst, said that while a work stoppage would affect supply chains, rail companies had grown better since 2002 at handling unusual events. "From a rail perspective, I don't think it would be as disruptive," he said.
Read MoreWest Coast dockworker talks a tense time
The 2002 stoppage, together with severe service disruptions in 2004, prompted Prince Rupert to build a container terminal marketed as a route for importers around troubled US west coast ports.
The Prince Rupert Port Authority said its supply-chain partners had been able to recover quickly in the past from the effects of any short-term spikes in demand. "We're confident that will continue to be the case," it said.
Port Metro Vancouver confirmed it had seen diversions of US-bound cargo but could not quantify them.
—By Robert Wright, The Financial TimesTags: ILWU West Coast Contract
L.I.R.R. Strike Is Averted After Cuomo Intervenes in Labor Talks
By MATT FLEGENHEIMERJULY 17, 2014
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York discusses an agreement that averted a Long Island Rail Road strike. Video CreditBy Christian Roman on Publish DateJuly 17, 2014. Image CreditMichael Nagle for The New York Times
Travelers on the Long Island Rail Road were spared a debilitating midsummer strike on Thursday, when the railroad and its unions reached an agreement three days before a planned walkout.
Prodded by an 11th-hour, if unsurprising, intervention by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, the sides completed a deal that the governor called “a compromise by both parties” four years after the last contract expired.
The unions received raises of 17 percent over six and a half years. But following a national trend in which workers shoulder an increasing share of their health costs, the railroad employees will, for the first time, contribute a portion of their pay, 2 percent, toward their health coverage.
Throughout the week, labor leaders suggested a strike was all but certain on the railroad, which accounts for about 300,000 rider trips on weekdays. At the same time, the railroad’s operator, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, cast the workers as greedy public employees and warned that a deal too favorable to the unions could affect future fare increases and capital funding.
Long Island Rail Road riders at Pennsylvania Station on Thursday. Labor leaders for rail workers suggested a strike was all but certain. CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
Assembled for a news conference at the governor’s Manhattan office, where the sides were summoned on Thursday morning for final negotiations, transportation and union officials dialed back the rhetoric.
Thomas F. Prendergast, the authority’s chairman and a Cuomo appointee, said the contract was “fair and reasonable,” adding that it would “put no additional pressure” on fares.
Anthony Simon, the leader of the railroad’s largest labor group, said the agreement was “about the riders,” calling the negotiations “a tough road.” Earlier in the week, he had estimated, at turns, a “95 percent” and “100 percent” chance of a strike.
The wage agreement was effectively the average of the parties’ recent positions: The unions asked for 17 percent raises over six years; the authority offered the same increase over seven. But the terms represented a major shift from the authority’s past stance calling for a three-year wage freeze.
The deal creates a distinction between new and existing employees on some issues. Future hires will have to wait longer to reach certain pay grades and will contribute to their pension plans for a longer period.
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo held a news conference in Manhattan on Thursday with Anthony Simon, far left, the leader of the railroad’s largest labor group, and Thomas F. Prendergast, right, the chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. CreditMichael Nagle for The New York Times
Both new and existing workers will contribute 2 percent of their pay to health care costs, a significant change that could figure prominently in future negotiations throughout the region. Members of New York City’s municipal unions, for instance, generally do not pay for health care.
“They brought the union into the 21st century with regard to health care,” said Mitchell Moss, the director of the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University. “The vast ridership is paying some part of their health care cost. It’s inevitable that workers were going to have to start paying a portion of their health care.”
The deal must be approved by union members and the authority’s board. The contract is retroactive to June 2010, and expires in December 2016.
Continue reading the main story
Though Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, had initially kept a public distance from the negotiations — at an authority he oversees — transportation experts had long expected him to intervene.
Last week, after Mr. Cuomo suggested that Congress was better suited to weigh in on a possible strike, Mr. Prendergast went to Washington to discuss the potential for a strike with lawmakers. Members of both partiessaid they were unlikely to get involved, which some officials viewed as a blow to union leaders who might have expected Congress to intervene on their behalf during a strike.
Thomas F. Prendergast, chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, on the agreement reached with Long Island Rail Road labor unions to avert a potential strike. Video CreditBy Christian Roman on Publish DateJuly 17, 2014. Image CreditMichael Nagle for The New York Times
On Monday, discussions appeared to collapse. Mr. Prendergast suggested that transportation officials were “not going to negotiate against ourselves” when the unions had barely budged in months.
The governor directed the two sides back to the negotiating table on Wednesday. Soon after, the tone appeared to shift, with both sides agreeing to talk through the night before reconvening for formal discussions.
A spokesman for the governor said Mr. Cuomo fleshed out the final details of the deal at a lunch with transportation and union leaders on Thursday, downstairs from his office. The governor had fish.
Though the strike was scheduled for Sunday, the administration said there was particular urgency to complete a deal on Thursday to ensure there was no uncertainty for travelers and businesses before a summer weekend.
While Mr. Cuomo said Thursday that he was “not a labor negotiator for the M.T.A.,” recent history had suggested he was likely to become involved.
Approximately 300,000 riders use the Long Island Rail Road on weekdays.CreditDamon Winter/The New York Times
In April, Mr. Cuomo helped finalize a contract with subway and bus workers, an agreement that called for 8 percent raises over five years.
State officials had hoped to model their Long Island Rail Road labor deal after the transit workers’ pact, but a federal mediation panel in May rejected the authority’s argument. Another panel sided with the unions in December, after the authority proposed the three-year wage freeze.
The railroad dispute roiled the authority amid a period of upheaval and uncertainty. Its five-year capital plan, due in September, is largely unfunded. Its megaprojects have faced persistent delays and cost overruns. The presidents at the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North Railroad, which has recently faced a spate of disasters, were both replaced over the past several months.
A commission of transportation experts, created by Mr. Cuomo, began meetings this week to discuss the long-term future of the authority. The group will issue recommendations before the capital plan is scheduled for approval by the board this fall.
Though Mr. Prendergast said the agreement “protects the commuter as well as the long-term fiscal stability of the M.T.A.,” the contracts will probably require the authority to spend at least some money that could have gone toward capital expenses.
Rob Astorino, the Republican running against Mr. Cuomo for governor in this year’s election, said there were still “many unanswered questions about this deal and how much it will truly cost already overburdened taxpayers and commuters.”
Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
At the railroad’s Mineola station on Thursday afternoon, most riders expressed relief that their commutes or weekend plans would be spared.
But some wondered whether the deal had come at too great a cost.
“On the one hand, it’s wonderful,” said Peaches Hunter, 38, who commutes daily from Central Islip to Brooklyn. “On the other hand, if you make $85,000 a year, that is enough. Another 17 percent? That’s crazy.”
In newspaper and radio advertisements earlier this week, the transportation authority struck a similar tone, calling rail workers “the best paid in the nation,” with almost $90,000 in earnings, free health care and generous pensions.
“When is enough enough?” the ads asked.
Still, perhaps few New Yorkers were as grateful at the resolution as Mayor Bill de Blasio, who had faced criticism for scheduling a family vacation to Italy during a possible strike.
Now, Mr. Cuomo suggested, the mayor could take his vacation in peace.
“I hope he enjoys it,” the governor said. “I’m a tad envious, to tell you the truth.”
Joseph Berger, Steven Greenhouse and Tatiana Schlossberg contributed reporting.Tags: LIRRCuomo
Rail and Reason has recently posted this article on a simple, common-sense, and inexpensive way for decreasing disturbance caused by loud train whistles or horns, especially at night.
In Tasmania, a local railway company, TasRail, was so inundated with complaints about loud train whistles at road crossings that they did something about it. TasRail announced they would use a low-note horn between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., reduce the minimum duration a horn must be sounded as it approaches a road crossing (from 4 seconds to 1 second), and stop using a horn within TasRail’s operating and maintenance facilities in certain circumstances.
Our Canadian rail industry and Transport Canada could certainly learn a thing or two from this Tasmanian common-sense solution to a very aggravating problem.
Filed under: Noise and vibration, Rail and Reason
Facing fresh member dissatisfaction, Teamster President James Hoffa and his Secretary-Treasurer Ken Hall are headed to court to try to make contested Teamster elections a thing of the past.
Whether they succeed will determine the future of one of North America’s most powerful unions. Will it continue to manage decline and concessions, or tap the power of organized transport and distribution workers to reverse them?
The 1.25 million-member International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) is unique among the largest North American unions in that every five years it has a hotly contested rank-and-file election for the top leadership.
The right to vote is protected by a 1989 consent order, a court-approved agreement that Teamster officers reluctantly accepted to avoid a racketeering trial.
In that landmark legal case, the reform movement Teamsters for a Democratic Union intervened to oppose court-imposed government oversight of the union’s operations. Instead, to root out systemic corruption, TDU proposed that members directly elect top officers.
Previously, Teamster presidents were elected at conventions. The 1986 “election” gave incumbent Jackie Presser 99 percent of the vote.USING THE VOTE
TDU’s blueprint was largely adopted, and 1991 saw the first-ever election. Members used their new vote to elect a whole new leadership slate, headed by Ron Carey. The candidate who’d gotten 1 percent under the old system, Sam Theodus, easily won the rank-and-file vote for vice president.
The election rocked not only the Teamsters, but the labor movement. The first-ever contested election in the AFL-CIO quickly followed.
After Carey won again in 1996, defeating Hoffa, he led UPS workers out on strike in 1997. With bold demands such as 10,000 more full-time jobs (with the rallying cry, “Part-Time America Won’t Work”) and innovative tactics that evolved over the year of rank-and-file organizing leading up it, this strike started to put labor on the offensive.
That success was tragically cut short later that year when aides to Carey were found engaging in illegal campaign fundraising. The scandal paved the way for Hoffa’s rise and the old guard’s return to power.
Now the Hoffa administration has taken the first step to try to end the consent order by submitting a letter to federal judge Loretta Preska. The IBT claims the consent order is no longer needed because the union is reformed.
TDU agrees that mob control of the union has diminished—precisely because the right to vote has given members a tool to tackle corruption and hold leaders accountable.
Other unions have membership elections in their constitution, but what makes the Teamsters unique is independently supervised elections, coupled with an organized national reform movement of leaders, activists, and members. It’s TDU that gives life to members’ right to vote.‘GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT’
Hoffa and Hall claim their goal is to end government oversight. But their real target is the one-member, one-vote elections.
To be clear, there is no “government oversight” of any of the union’s operations—not bargaining, political action, organizing, contract campaigns, budgets, salaries, or hiring and firing.
Instead, the consent order provides for an Independent Review Board, selected by IBT leadership and the U.S. Attorney, to bring corruption charges against individual officials. And it provides for the right to vote for international officers under fair election rules.
Both are important to members, but the right to vote is the most critical.
Without these rules, the current leaders will be free to change nomination requirements to make it impossible for opposition candidates to get on the ballot.
Currently, nominations for top offices require 5 percent of elected convention delegates. But the incumbents want to raise that bar.
Every challenger to Hoffa has met the 5 percent requirement, but none would have been nominated if 10 percent were required—though each, once nominated, ran a competitive race and forced national debates on the union’s direction.
Teamster leaders have already amended the IBT constitution so the board can write its own rules for any election and pick the election supervisor. For now, these amendments are trumped by the provisions of the consent order.
But if the consent order were lifted, these safeguards would go out the window.
So would election rules that partially level the playing field by providing opposition campaigners’ access to employer parking lots, “battle pages” of campaign material in the Teamster magazine, and fair rules for delegate elections.WHY NOW?
Hoffa and Hall have good reason to make this move now. Hoffa, who won reelection in 2011 with 59 percent of the vote, faces a different political outlook as the 2015-2016 campaign approaches.
Over the past year, the majority of members in the freight industry, UPS Freight, and UPS have all voted to reject concessions in their contracts—only to have them imposed by Hoffa and Hall.
The Vote No movement helped launch a new formation, Take Back Our Union, that’s already organizing meetings to plan for the 2016 election.
Hoffa won most of the UPS locals in 2011. But his prospects among that group of 250,000 Teamsters look much dimmer today. And dissatisfaction is not limited to just UPS and trucking Teamsters: Hoffa’s policy of retreat has led to defeats and lackluster organizing in warehousing, delivery, public service, airlines, and other Teamster fields.
Take Back Our Union has started to forge a coalition of the opposition forces in the union, bringing together TDU, which backed New York Local 805 President Sandy Pope in the 2011 election, and other local officials who ran on a separate slate.
Combined, these contenders won 41 percent last time—and that was before this wave of membership anger at concessions.
Once again, members are gearing up to take the wheel of the union.Issues: Hoffa Watch
60 Years Later: On the Waterfront and Working-Class Studies
Posted on July 14, 2014 by knewman4 | 1 comment
For most Americans On the Waterfront is not a politically controversial film—it’s simply one of the best films of all time. Many know that the film’s director Elia Kazan did something shady and some might even know that he testified against his former Communist allies at the House UnAmerican Activities Committee (HUAC). An even smaller group might know that after testifying Kazan took out a full page New York Times ad to justify his decision.
But for the American left, Kazan is one of the worst traitors in American cultural history. When progressive scholars write about On the Waterfront, they draw parallels between Kazan, who betrayed his friends in order to clear his name (and to keep working in film), and Terry Malloy [Marlon Brando], who betrayed the members of his mob crew in order to clear his conscience of the wrong he had done in their name.
Kazan has done much to fuel this interpretation of the film. In his 1988 autobiography, A Life, Kazan explained the parallel between his naming names and Terry Malloy’s testimony before the Waterfront Commission: “When Brando, at the end [of On the Waterfront], yells as Lee Cobb, the mob boss, ’I’m glad what I done—you hear me?—glad what I done!’ that was me saying, with identical heat, that I was glad I’d testified as I had.”
But if we reduce On the Waterfront to Kazan’s personal story we lose sight of the real working-class social formation out of which this film was born and overlook the genuine progressive political commitments that led both Kazan and Schulberg to make On the Waterfront despite great obstacles.
The social formation of the postwar docks was rooted in the hiring process known as the “shape up.” It was estimated that there were half as many jobs as there were men who lined up for them every morning. Arthur Miller, who wrote several plays about the waterfront himself, described the “shape up” as he witnessed it in the late 1940s:
I stood around with longshoremen huddling in doorways in rain and snow on Columbia Street facing the piers, waiting for the hiring boss, on whose arrival they surged forward and formed up in a semicircle to attract his pointing finger and the numbered brass checks that guaranteed a job for the day. After distributing the checks to his favorites, who had quietly paid him off, the boss often found a couple left over and in his generosity tossed them into the air over the little crowd. In a frantic scramble, the men would tear at each other’s hands, sometimes getting into bad fights. Their cattle like acceptance of this humiliating process struck me as an outrage, even more sinister than the procedure itself. It was though they had lost the mere awareness of hope.
On the Waterfront began as a response to these working conditions—not as a vehicle for Kazan’s revenge. The film began in 1951, before the HUAC hearings, with Budd Schulberg, a self-described Hollywood “prince”—a writer who was the son of movie mogul B. P. Schulberg. Schulberg had never met Kazan when he was asked by a small film company, Monticello, to write a screenplay based on Malcolm Johnson’s Pulitzer Prize winning journalistic series, Crime on the Waterfront, which had been published in the New York Sun.
Schulberg became obsessed with the waterfront after Johnson introduced him to one of Johnson’s main sources: Father “Pete” Corridan, whom Schulberg described as “a rangy, fast-talking, chain-smoking West Side [priest] who talked the darndest language I ever heard, combining the gritty vocabulary of the longshoremen with mob talk, the statistical findings of a trained economist and the teachings of Christ.” Schulberg continued to obsess about the docks even after Monticello folded and the project was declared dead. After the publicity surrounding Kazan’s HUAC testimony, Schulberg wrote Kazan a letter expressing sympathy for the “vilification he was undergoing,” and, later, after they met for lunch, Kazan proposed they work together on a film about the Trenton Six—six African American youth who had been convicted of killing a white shop owner. Schulberg had other ideas: why shouldn’t the two of them work together on his waterfront film? Kazan agreed.
Though Howard Lawson, a blacklisted screenwriter, described On the Waterfront as the ultimate Hollywood film, the film was quashed by Hollywood more than once. In 1952, when Schulberg and Kazan tried to get Darryl Zanuck, head of 20th Century Fox, to produce the film, Zanuck told them, “what you’ve written is exactly what the American public doesn’t want to see.” Finally, in late 1952, when they were depressed and about the to junk the film, a washed-up producer, Sam Spiegel, agreed to bankroll it. Filming was completed in 1953, andOn the Waterfront was set to debut in the spring of 1954—just in time, everyone hoped, to help the honest dockworkers win an election against the real life “Johnny Friendly” types who controlled the docks.
Throughout the filmmaking, Kazan was inspired by Schulberg’s commitment to the dockworkers’ cause, and he saw Schulberg’s engagement with the subject matter as “passionate and true.” Kazan acknowledged that “Budd had made himself….a champion of humanity on that strip of shore.”
What about Kazan’s engagement? In a much less quoted passage from his autobiography, Kazan explained that his attachment to On the Waterfront came from a desire to show his old lefty enemies that he was the true progressive when it came to representing the working class: “I was…determined to show my old ‘comrades,’ those who’d attacked me so viciously, that there was an anti-Communist left, and that we were the true progressives and they were not. I’d come back to fight.”
This quote points to another parallel between Kazan and Terry Malloy: they were both fighters. In the final scene of On the Waterfront, Malloy is beaten nearly to a pulp by Johnny Friendly’s goons. He can barely walk. When his girlfriend Edie (Eva Saint Marie) tries to help him, Father Barry (Karl Malden) waves her off. In 1955, the radical British filmmaker, Lindsay Anderson, argued that this scene is “fascist.” Malloy, through violence, has simply become the new de facto “Johnny Friendly,” just another tough guy who is ready to rise up and exploit his brethren.
Anderson’s argument shows how judging Kazan for his political betrayal can lead to a misreading of the film. The closing scene isn’t fascist. It’s a scene that uses the language of fighting— specifically boxing. Malloy, a former boxer, is down for the count. If Edie or the priest helps him get up, then he can’t continue to fight. In this metaphorical boxing round he’ll be disqualified. And so he gets up, on his own, which means that the round is over but the match is not. He will live to fight again. Finally, in this scene, Malloy has become the contender he always knew he could be.
If you get a chance to see On the Waterfront this month, in honor of its 60thanniversary, think about this. As much as Terry Malloy might represent Kazan, ratting on his former friends, it is also true that Kazan and Schulberg were trying to rat on capitalism, to call out American business practices as corrupt, and to argue that something drastic needed to done to reform the docks. What Kazan did was wrong, but what happened to American dockworkers in this period, arguably, was even worse. Though the bitterness against Kazan has lingered lo these many years, we in working-class studies should reclaim On the Waterfrontas one of the important texts for understanding what happened to American labor in the postwar period. We do so not to redeem Kazan, but to honor the workers that he and Schulberg were trying to represent.
Kathy M. NewmanTags: On The Waterfront
Why Passengers Cheered a Vermont Bus Strike
April 22, 2014 / Ellen David Friedmanenlarge or shrink textlogin or register to comment
Burlington bus drivers started with a Sunday Morning Breakfast Club. They ended up marching miles with high school students and winning an 18-day strike. Photo: Vermont Workers' Center.
An 18-day bus drivers’ strike in Burlington, Vermont, ended in a win April 3 when drivers ratified a new contract 53-6.
Strikes are rare these days, and fewer still result in victories—so why was this one different? What generated public support for the strike, despite management’s aggressive plan to blame drivers for the loss of bus service for nearly three weeks?
This strike succeeded through a powerful combination of workers organizing on the job and organized community solidarity, the roots of which go back to at least 2009.
In the face of aggressive management and worsening working conditions, and dissatisfied with the response of their union, Teamsters Local 597, some drivers began to meet as the Sunday Morning Breakfast Club. They reached out to Teamsters for a Democratic Union in 2009 as they were getting ready for contract negotiations.
Through TDU they held workshops on member-to-member organizing and contract campaigns.
According to driver Jim Fouts, “When I first came here the union was weak, because it was a business-as-usual union. Then some activists started saying, ‘This is wrong. We can vote on things. This is supposed to be a democracy.’ And really it was a bottom-up movement to change our union.”
Their first success was winning the right to elect stewards and participating as equals with the Teamsters business agent on the bargaining team.
Members didn’t win the contract they wanted the first time, but they got organized, gained experience, broadened their leadership team, and built relationships with other labor activists and the Vermont Workers Center. That was the rehearsal for the current struggle, where rank-and-file organizing and community outreach came together in a big way.
By 2014 years of harassment by the Chittenden County Transit Authority (CCTA), forced-overtime shift spreads of up to 15 hours (where drivers work in the morning and afternoon-evening with unpaid hours in between), and the threat of replacing full-time jobs with part-time ones had created a toxic work environment. Drivers said the fatiguing long shifts were unsafe.
Management stonewalled negotiations for 10 months (the contract expired last June), refusing to bargain seriously over drivers’ demands for safe shifts and fair discipline procedures and even demanding to lengthen the “normal” working day from a 12.5-hour spread to 13.5.
“We have been swallowing this pain for the last 10 years. We cannot live in this hostile environment,” said driver Noor Ibrahim.
From the relationships built in the previous contract campaign, supporters knew the drivers were ready to make a fight. That confidence inspired community members and labor activists to form an energetic Committee to Support the CCTA Bus Drivers.
In February drivers voted to reject the company’s offer and authorize a strike.
The Committee made driver fatigue and public safety the issue. Driver Rob Slingerland promised, “We will not let the public down by driving under unsafe conditions. Driver fatigue is a leading factor in accidents in the transit industry.”
The Committee coordinated dropping 5,000 leaflets door to door and on buses the weekend before the strike, put out 500 lawn signs paid for by the AFL-CIO, scheduled “Invite a Driver” informational meetings, set up public forums, spoke out at CCTA commissioners meetings, organized rallies, marches, and daily pickets with up to 200 participants, and produced press releases, radio shows, video, and social media.
There was no discussion of the drivers’ issues on the Teamster Local 597 website or in Teamster press statements. The local’s top official even asked other unions not to publicly comment about the dispute, and especially not to mention public safety. But drivers maintained their own website, and supporters created a Facebook page, issued press releases, and made their own video.
CCTA and corporate-friendly politicians tried unsuccessfully to whip up public resentment against “greedy union drivers,” but the driver-community alliance managed instead to put “predatory management” on trial.
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS MARCH
On the strike’s first day, Burlington High School students, usually dependent on the buses to get to school, turned out on the picket line and then marched miles, accompanied by their bus drivers, to school.
A good list of Burlington-area unions took the initiative to support the drivers on the picket lines, with solidarity statements, and with funds, although Teamsters 597 officials had not authorized support. These included nurses, state employees, university professors, teachers, United Electrical Workers, and the Vermont Workers’ Center.
Soon they were joined by every vital element in the Vermont labor movement, student and environmental groups, the Vermont Progressive Party, and ultimately… Local 597, which organized the picket lines and paid out strike benefits.
Eight of the 14 members of Burlington’s City Council co-sponsored a resolution calling for binding arbitration—which at first confused many people. While the union rejected binding arbitration, it fell to the nurses’ union to issue a statement explaining why this was a strikebreaking maneuver.
When 150 chanting drivers and supporters packed the council’s March 26 meeting, the council retracted its call for binding arbitration and instead created a committee to review management’s labor practices.
Entering the third week on strike, union negotiators presented another “last best offer” from management, which drivers voted down 62- 0.
Finally, CCTA agreed to limit monitoring and unfair discipline, reduce forced overtime to 13.5 hours a day instead of 15, and maintain drivers’ split shifts at the current 12.5 hours. Though drivers conceded an increase from 13 to 15 part-time drivers, language prevents CCTA from using retirement or termination to reduce the entire bargaining unit slowly to part-time status.
In the aftermath, the “troublemakers wing” of the Vermont labor movement is growing. A citizens group that includes drivers, Vermonters United for Public Transportation, has started up, with a focus on both optimal working conditions for drivers and better transportation options for citizens.
The support committee has transformed itself into an ongoing Solidarity Committee and is planning a Labor Notes Troublemakers School to continue to build new leaders.
Ellen David Friedman is a retired organizer for Vermont NEA and a member of the Labor Notes Policy Committee.Teamsters Local 597bus drivers
Ship’s seafaring crew in Long Beach, CA organize picket line to protest outlaw employer; request support from the ITF and ILWU
Twenty-one crewmembers serving on the Liberian-flagged vessel Vega-Reederei have organized a picket line at the Port of Long Beach, CA, to protest their employer’s failure to pay workers for up to four months of back wages. Abuses of seafaring crew are common in the global shipping industry, and workers often hail from low-wage counties with few rights.
The crew of mostly Filipino nationals is seeking assistance from the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) and support from dockworkers belonging to the International Longshore & Warehouse Union (ILWU).
A German company, Arend Bruegge, is listed as the ship’s operator, and is said to owe workers more than $150,000 in unpaid wages. The company has a history of failing to pay crewmembers on other vessels operated by the Hamburg-based firm.
Earlier today, desperate crewmembers contacted Stefan Mueller-Dombois, an Inspector for the International Transport Workers’ Federation in Southern California. The crew pleaded for the ITF to help because workers’ families living in the Philippines haven’t received any wages in months and are going hungry.
The ITF has been working with ship operator to reach a settlement, but as of 2:30pm Pacific Time, company officials were refusing to negotiate with Mueller-Dumbois, and threatened to leave the berth without paying crewmembers.
The ship is carrying a cargo of wind turbines. At the ship’s previous port of call in Korea, the company made promises to pay but failed to do so. Workers were told that complaints about the failure to pay would cause the company to replace them with a Chinese crew.
Eleven of the ship’s seafaring crew say the company has kept them on board the ship beyond the original commitment, and are demanding to be repatriated and flown home to the Philippines immediately.
“It appears that this company has done this before by refusing to pay crewmembers on the ships they operate, “ said ITF West Coast Coordinator Jeff Engels. “The crew are seeking justice and support from other maritime workers in the area.” Engels said that ITF Inspector Stefan Mueller-Dumbois is contacting the ship’s owners to seek immediate payment for the crewmembers – and a written agreement that will prevent similar incidents from happening in the future.
“Our job is to help crewmembers from being exploited by powerful, international corporations that own and operate these vessels,” said Engels.
Unions’ Open Letter To The Riders of Long Island Rail Road
We deeply regret that MTA’s irresponsible actions will cause a strike beginning this weekend.
The unions representing Long Island workers have done all in our power to reach a reasonable settlement in four years of bargaining.
We have accepted the compromise recommendations of two Presidential Emergency Boards, comprised of six renowned arbitrators, including the selection of our last best offer as the “most reasonable”.
We have offered to delay the strike for sixty days or less.
We have made counter-offers that address MTA demands, but every time MTA just moves the ball. MTA’s latest take it or leave it offer is worth far less than both Emergency Board’s recommendations.
MTA knows full well that the selection of the most reasonable offer by a second Presidential Emergency Board is almost always accepted by both sides. The only time that hasn’t happened is when the party not satisfied with the recommendation forces a strike. That has not happened in the last twenty years. But that is the course MTA has chosen.
It is not because they cannot afford the settlement without raising fares.
If it were about money, the MTA Chairman would not have given his blessing to the state diverting $49 million from MTA revenues, saying “our needs are being met.”
If it were about money, MTA management would stop their own windfall benefits, like free lifetime medical coverage, for which MTA pays exorbitantly at active, not retiree, rates.
If it were about money, MTA would impose the so-called “modest” pension changes they are demanding from union workers on themselves. MTA union workers and management are under the same pension plan. Management pays zero, union workers pay 4% for ten years, and now MTA is demanding payment for life. The unions have offered to increase the duration of contributions, but MTA says it is not enough. The public should demand that when a contract is reached, MTA management pays the same as union workers for the same pension.
If it were about money, MTA wouldn’t be wasting precious dollars on dishonest attack ads instead of finding time to negotiate.
MTA has refused every compromise. It has decided a strike is its best course. It refuses to delay the strike past the summer season so vital to the Long Island economy. Yet, while telling the press it doesn’t want congressional intervention, MTA has been on Capitol Hill begging for a delay until December. At MTA, politics matters, people don’t.
The concessions MTA is demanding do not produce any savings until well into the future. MTA can seek all of them in negotiations that will begin in just a year and a half.
MTA’s stated goal is to change the Railway Labor Act. They believe they can achieve that by provoking a strike. It is a reckless and cynical strategy that will inflict much unnecessary pain on the people and business in the New York area.
Two neutral Presidential Emergency Boards were not wrong. MTA is. We regret that their intransigence will now cause a strike.
- Anthony Simon, SMART General Chairman and Coalition Spokesperson.Tags: LIRR Unions
Despite SF TWU 250 A union approval of Muni contract, some members not satisfied with concession contract
Despite SF TWU 250 A union approval of Muni contract, some members not fully satisfied
By Jessica Kwong @JessicaGKwong
• By Jessica Kwong
• SF EXAMINER FILE PHOTO
• A contract ratified by the Transport Workers Union Local 250-A will give Muni transit operators and fare inspectors a 14.25 percent wage increase over three years, while requiring workers to contribute more toward their pensions.
After a one-week delay to clarify financial impacts, Transport Workers Union Local 250-A members have ratified a new labor contract, but approval was narrow among transit operators, with some employees saying they are not completely satisfied.
While Muni fare inspectors accepted their contract 23-0, transit operators ratified their contract with 634-485 votes, a 57 percent approval. Of the seven transit operation divisions, cable car most overwhelmingly rejected the contract 90-22. The other two divisions that voted for rejection were Kirkland and Green, with 86-73 and 78-73 in opposition, respectively.
The ratified agreement gives transit operators and fare inspectors a 14.25 percent wage increase over three years that breaks down to a 9.5 percent raise intended to offset a 7.5 percent contribution toward worker pensions, and a 4.75 percent cost-of-living increase.
Those terms remained unchanged since July 7, when union members were originally scheduled to vote. But under the agreement that was set for vote on July 7, operators hired after July 2011 would have paid 5 percent toward their pensions, unlike those hired prior to that, explained Paul Rose, spokesman for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which governs Muni. The new agreement adjusts the wage formula so that all operators, regardless of their hire date, have the same wage within their classification and all operators will eventually pay 7.5 percent into pension by the end of the contract, he said.
"We determined after review that the agreement would have resulted in different hourly wage rates for employees based on their hire date and that was not the intent. We clarified that our intention was to have the same rate formula for all operators," he said of the change made since July 7.
The clarification "did change some of the fiscal impact" of the contract, said SFMTA Transportation Director Ed Reiskin, who disclosed the deal Tuesday and called it "a very good agreement for both the agency and the [union]."
Union member P.J. Williams, who drives in the Green division, told The San Francisco Examiner the 634-485 vote was as close as he expected, and that there was division among members caused by "a lot of confusion" over what operators of different seniorities would get.
"From what I was hearing, a lot of people voted yes throughout the seven divisions because they said, 'Well, if we vote no, we're not prepared to fight, so it's one of those situations," he said. Referencing future contract talks, he said, "Why fight in the next three weeks when we could be preparing for the battle that's to come?"
But TWU Local 250-A President Eric Williams' statement on the ratification projected a different sentiment.
"Our members have spoken," he said in the emailed statement. "We worked hard at the bargaining table and our members maintained extraordinary solidarity throughout the negotiating process."
The agreement, which will go before the SFMTA board of directors for approval July 30, "keeps our public-transportation system on a sustainable fiscal path," Mayor Ed Lee said in a statement.Tags: ATU 1555TWU 250AATU 192Concession Bargaining
7/26 The War on Transit Workers Lessons of Bay Area Transit Worker Battles
July 26 (Saturday) 7:00 PM (Free) 518 Valencia - near 16th St., SF
The War on Transit Workers
Lessons of Bay Area Transit Worker Battles
Last year, a major contract battle took place at BART and AC Transit as management and their respective elected boards took back even more worker benefits despite years of wage and benefit freezes. Management ordered these cuts as part of their scheme to make workers pay for upgrades in the transit system including new trains at BART.
Labor and their unions were in a one-sided war launched by management and the boards when the BART management hired Thomas Hock, VP of the international company, Veolia Transportation. They led a poisonous corporate media campaign of disinformation with the aide of the Bay Area Council which represents the billionaires.
SEIU and ATU which have over 100,000 members in the bay area had no mass mobilization of their entire membership in this crucial battle. This lack of preparation also resulted in a failure to successfully counter the anti-labor union busting campaign by mangement, the transit boards and politicians who demanded that transit workers take concessions and be banned from striking.
BART bosses and the board also sought to run the trains to break the strike by hiring scabs. This move directly resulted in the deaths of two strike-breakers. The National Transportation Safety Board, state legislators and Cal-OSHA all pointed to BART management being responsible for these deaths. The deaths finally led management and the board to agree to a contract while still pushing for concessions.
This film screening and forum will discuss the lessons of these critical transit struggles and the role of the international struggle against Veolia Transportation.
Speakers from BART ATU Local 1555, ATU 192, MTA Muni TWU 250A and other unions will be present.
Sponsored by the Transport Workers Solidarity Committee
Demo Gov Cuomo Gets Rail Union Tops To Call Off Strike At LIRR-NY Rail Union officials: LIRR unions, MTA to return to bargaining table
Demo Gov Cuomo Gets Rail Union Tops To Call Off Strike At LIRR-NY Rail Union officials: LIRR unions, MTA to return to bargaining table
NY Rail Union officials: LIRR unions, MTA to return to bargaining table
Originally published: July 16, 2014 9:31 AM
Updated: July 16, 2014 11:11 AM
By ALFONSO A. CASTILLO email@example.com
Talks between the LIRR unions and the MTA will resume Wednesday, union officials said, after calls from the governor and the transportation agency to return to the bargaining table.
Lead union negotiator Anthony Simon confirmed both sides will meet Wednesday. He did not disclose the time and location.
"The unions never wanted to leave the table," Simon said, adding that he hoped the calls to return to the table from Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and congressional members "sent a real message that we need to get this done."
A day after saying a strike by LIRR workers would not be a disaster, Cuomo said in a statement released Wednesday "we must do everything we can" to prevent a strike.
In the statement released by his office, the governor called for the two sides to return to the table.
"The Long Island Rail Road is a critical transportation system for Long Island and New York City," Cuomo said at governor.ny.gov. "We must do everything we can to prevent Long Islanders from being held hostage by a strike that would damage the regional economy and be highly disruptive for commuters. Both the MTA and the LIRR unions need to put the interests of New Yorkers first by returning to the table today and working continuously to avoid a strike."
Metropolitan Transportation Authority officials said they agreed with the governor, releasing a statement that includes a call to the unions to return to the bargaining table.
"As Governor Cuomo said, a strike would disrupt families and business across the New York metropolitan region, and the only way to prevent a strike is for both sides to negotiate a fair and reasonable settlement at the bargaining table," the statement said. "We have asked the LIRR unions to resume negotiations immediately."
Ricardo Sanchez, general chairman of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, one of the unions in negotiations with the MTA, said he is more optimistic after the calls from New York's congressional delegation and Cuomo's statement.
"The tone has changed," said Sanchez, who expects the MTA will come to the table with a new counter-offer. "They have to. Otherwise, why are we meeting today?"
He also hopes Cuomo will step into the dispute.
"Hopefully he's going to intervene and help the process along," Sanchez said. "We really don't want to go out on strike. But we will."
On Tuesday, union leaders and the head of the MTA delivered dueling messages to the public and railway workers.
MTA chairman Thomas Prendergast released an open letter to LIRR riders assuring them his agency "remains committed to settling this matter quickly."
Simon visited union offices throughout Long Island to coordinate Sunday's possible 12:01 a.m. work stoppage. The "MTA cannot settle quickly if they do not wake up," he said.
Cuomo on Tuesday, asked if he would intervene in negotiations, said: "Well, let's see how it goes."
He then downplayed the potential impact of a shutdown. "Look we've had strikes before, right? And we've survived. And we've had disasters. And we know what that's like. Hurricane Sandy was a disaster and we've gone through other disasters."
"This is not a disaster."
Among other key developments:
In contrast, State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli estimated an LIRR strike could cost the state $50 million a day in economic losses.
Members of Long Island's congressional delegation urged both sides to resume contract negotiations.
Prendergast's agency met with LIRR unions Monday in an abbreviated negotiation session, but rejected the unions' counteroffer without presenting a counter of its own. In his letter Tuesday, he wrote that an agreement with the unions would have to be "affordable not just today, but also into the future" without putting pressure on the MTA to raise fares or scale back capital investments.
"A strike would have a devastating impact," Prendergast wrote. "It's time to have productive negotiations to resolve our differences and return to what we all do best together -- serving our LIRR customers."
In his letter, Prendergast included details of the MTA's current proposal.
The plan calls for 17 percent raises for current workers over seven years and asks health care contributions of 2 percent of weekly wages. To help fund the raises, the MTA wants future workers to pay twice as much in health care costs, take twice as long to achieve top pay, and contribute to pensions permanently, instead of for 10 years, as most now do.
As part of its campaign, the MTA will also begin running print and radio ads Wednesday, detailing its offer and asking, "When is enough enough?"
The unions, following the recommendations of two federal mediation boards, want the 17 percent raises over six years, and, according to the MTA, have proposed much smaller concessions for future workers that amount to 0.15 percent savings from their previous offer.
With Gary Dymski
MTA chair: ‘No reason’ to further negotiate LIRR offer
Tom Prendergast. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)
By Nidhi Prakash 6:29 p.m. | Jul. 14, 2014follow this reporter
M.T.A. chairman and C.E.O. Tom Prendergast said today talks with the LIRR transit workers' unions have broken down because the unions’ latest offer was untenable.
He said the unions’ counteroffer, presented last Thursday, amounts to a 0.15 percent decrease in total cost on the deal they brought to the M.T.A. in December.
“They’re offering things that really don’t accrue savings to us,” said Prendergast.
As an LIRR transit workers’ strike approaches this Sunday, Prendergast said he would need to see more concessions from the unions for any talks to resume.
The M.T.A. has increased its offer over the past six months, currently offering the workers a seventeen percent rise in salaries over six years, with increased employee contributions to health care.
“Until they’re ready to move there’s no reason to have negotiations,” said Prendergast.
Anthony Simon, general chairman of transport workers' union SMART, said in a statement earlier today that the LIRR strike will go ahead on Sunday just after midnight.
“MTA rejected the counter-offer we presented last Thursday,” said Simon in the statement. “They presented no counter proposal.
They continue to insist that the unions agree to a contract worth less than the value of the compromise recommendations of two Presidential Emergency Boards.”
Prendergast said the current proposal from the unions is not financially responsible. He told reporters the deal included concessions to increase the time it takes for workers to vest in pensions, moving from five years to 10 years, but said this did not add up to much in terms of cost reduction.
“If we were to accept this deal on their terms, it would put additional pressure on both the fare increases that we have projected in the financial plan and pressure on funding of the capital program, both of which are exceptionally important to the M.T.A.,” he said.
Prendergast suggested national labor unions might be putting pressure on local unions to remain inflexible.
“Maybe they want to make sure that we cut a deal here that sets a pattern for the rest of the country, and if that’s what they want to do, fine," he said. "But the people who are responsible for running the system here … need to come to terms with the deal unencumbered by outside forces who have other interests."
Asked if he would request Governor Andrew Cuomo intervene directly, Prendergast told reporters that unions need to be pressured in some way to “get them to a different place”.
“We need a lot of people to step in and get us to a different place,” he said.
Prendergast said he was concerned that the strike would be taking place during hurricane season.
“The worst-case scenario we could find ourselves in is employees out on strike, may or may not come back to work, the Long Island Rail Road is one of the best evacuation means off the island for people that need to get off," he said. "You can’t put all the cars on the expressway."
Prendergast said the LIRR is making prepartions with the mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and other agencies.
In his statement, Simon said the strike could begin to affect trains by Wednesday. A spokesperson for the M.T.A. gave a different timeline, suggesting trains would only begin to be impacted starting on Saturday.Tags: CuomoMTARail Labor
L.I.R.R. Workers, on Brink of Strike, Prepare for Life on the Picket Line
By MATT FLEGENHEIMERJULY 15, 2014
Mr. D’Agostino waited a beat.
“I still think it’s the right thing to do,” he said. “But it’s scary.”
A potential strike on the Long Island Rail Road is just days away. A look at what that could mean to about 300,000 riders each weekday. Video CreditBy Christian Roman on Publish DateJuly 15, 2014. Image CreditKathy Kmonicek for The New York Times
The workers navigate trains and test signals, repair aging cars and scan moldering stretches of track on the nation’s oldest rail system still operating under its original name: the Long Island Rail Road, chartered in 1834.
Many have worked for the railroad, alongside friends and often relatives, for decades — long enough to know that occasional saber-rattling between management and union leadership is to be taken in stride. It has been 20 years, after all, since employees last walked off the job. So when workers voted several months ago to authorize a potential strike, it was still possible to view the action as a distant concern.
“You’re going on strike; you’re not going to get paid,” said Vincent D’Agostino, 31, a third-rail worker from Massapequa Park, on Long Island, describing employees’ collective epiphanies in recent days. “Back when we took the vote, it seemed so far away.”
Mr. D’Agostino waited a beat.
A possible walkout would affect about 5,400 Long Island Rail Road employees.CreditSeth Wenig/Associated Press
With a strike planned for as early as Sunday morning amid stalled negotiations between the railroad and its unions, workers now find themselves, ready or not, at the precipice.
They have been instructed to set money aside and curb expenses. They have been told to warn their children about insults that might be hurled at workers during a strike. And increasingly, they have been characterized by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority as greedy, relatively well-off government workers.
The authority’s chairman, Thomas F. Prendergast, told reporters on Monday that the employees were better compensated than any other rail workers in the country. A newspaper and radio advertising blitz, announced on Tuesday, will take this case directly to the public.
“They make almost $90,000 a year, get free health care and generous pensions,” the ads say, before alluding to the authority’s offer: raises that total 17 percent over seven years, with a handful of concessions from workers, especially new employees.
“Current employees would get everything they asked for. Yet the unions are still threatening to strike,” the ads continue. “When is enough enough?”
In an email, the authority compared wages on the Long Island Rail Road, which carries about 300,000 riders each weekday, with those on five comparable systems, including the Metro-North Railroad and New Jersey Transit. Long Island Rail Road conductors earn $36.25 an hour, according to the authority, while the median wage of their peers is almost $8 less. Among signal workers, car repair workers and electricians, the gap is smaller.
For many of the roughly 5,400 union members that a strike would affect, the knocks tend to rankle.
“We’re not millionaires,” said Robert Edzards, 44, a substation electrician, who said his base pay was about $65,000 per year, excluding overtime. “A lot of guys work week to week, month to month.”
Mr. Edzards, a 25-year veteran of the railroad who was part of the strike in 1994, said fellow workers had recently come to him for advice.
“I tell them how I do it: I’m trying to limit expenses, put everything on hold,” he said. “You never know how long it’s going to go.”
The railroad has long been a punching bag for frustrated commuters, though it is unclear where travelers might direct their ire during a strike. Some riders associate Long Island Rail Road workers with a major disability fraud scheme, first detailed in 2008. And in many circles, support for unions in general has diminished.
“The climate is not friendly toward unions,” said Louis Gentile, 52, the international president of the Independent Railway Supervisors Association and a gang foreman with the railroad.
“We’re waiting to see how the nation reacts,” he added. “We’re not sure how that will happen.”
The unions’ case is bolstered, leaders and members say, by the findings of two federal mediation panels since December. Twice, the panels ruled in favor of the unions, though the railroad’s offers in both cases were less generous than its current proposal.
Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, whom some transportation experts expect to intervene if negotiations remain at a stalemate, sought to play down the potential damage of a strike on Tuesday.
“We’ve had strikes before, right? And we survived,” the governor, a Democrat, said, adding that the possible shutdown was “not a disaster.”
It could be “a real pain,” he allowed, “but not a disaster.”
State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, also a Democrat, struck a different tone, estimating on Tuesday that a disruption could cause up to $50 million per day in lost economic activity.
Workers say the authority has left them little choice, rebuffing the recommendations of the federal panels. A union letter to machinists and other employees earlier this month said that the railroad and Mr. Cuomo had “made us the enemy and forced us off our jobs.”
Then there is a website for the railway supervisors group, with rousing quotes from the likes of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., John F. Kennedy and Rosa Parks.
“You have enemies? Good,” reads one, attributed to Winston Churchill. “That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”
Thomas Kaplan contributed reporting.Tags: LIRR Strikerailway workers