Interest arbitration in LA transit strike: a bad idea
CNN.com (AP) reports: “L.A. mayor asks for arbitrator in strike.”
“Mayor James Hahn urged the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to let an arbitrator take over negotiations after union mechanics overwhelmingly rejected the MTA’s final contract offer, continuing a paralyzing three-week strike.”
“Union leaders have offered to end the strike immediately if the agency agrees to settle the dispute through binding arbitration.”
“After the contract offer was rejected, the MTA again refused to let in an arbitrator. Transit officials say an independent arbitrator would not be responsible to taxpayers and could commit the county to a costly contract that might lead to fare hikes.”
Why would the union be so negative on the MTA’s offer, which “includes a 5 percent pay raise over three years as well as money to help bail out the union’s ailing health care fund,” yet so willing to hand over a blank check to an arbitrator? Probably because “interest arbitration” is a poor substitute for collective bargaining, and the union expects an arbitrator to give them more than they could get in bargaining. In contrast, mediation is not a substitute for collective bargaining, but an aid to it, with the mediator helping the parties reach an agreement, rather than imposing a particular settlement neither party may have desired, as an interest arbitrator can do. The MTA is right to hang tough; this demand is a sign the union is getting desperate.
