In sharp contrast to the contentious second round, the third Housing Division negotiation session on March 12 proceeded in a spirit of cooperation. Local 237 President Carl Haynes set the tone in his opening remarks, acknowledging that the Housing Authority has “a budget problem,” and driving home the point that members, including superintendents, managers and caretakers, “have done everything they could,” to work more efficiently with less equipment, supplies and manpower. “Yet we were attacked on every front,” said Haynes. “Our efforts are not appreciated. I’m hoping we can get this train back on track.”

Talks derailed on Feb. 10, after the Housing Authority presented a Draconian list of demands in response to the union’s proposal. At the time, members expressed outrage and Haynes even threatened to leave the room. The latest round, however, was an opportunity “to start fresh,” said Chiffon Edwards, a stock worker at Housing’s Long Island City warehouse and a newly elected negotiating committee member. “Both sides have a chance to look at things differently.” Haynes echoed the sentiment with a call to “look at demands and start narrowing our differences.”

Among the differences is Housing’s opposition to paying retroactive wage increases for the time lost between contracts. The agency has been stalling and “hiding behind the city,” says Haynes, describing Housing’s tactics of waiting to see the city’s results with contract talks.

“Every day that goes by is a loss of wages for us,” said union attorney Barry Peek.

“Even in the city, these are better times,” said Allen Brawer, financial analyst for the union, who noted that city leaders are arguing about where to give back money and how much a tax reduction should be.

Denying interest in the city’s contracts and economic outlook, Housing’s Deputy Director of Human Resources Dale Kutzbach said city “revenue isn’t available” to the agency, which is “a creature of the Federal government.” He admitted, however, that Housing “bargains separately and apart from the city.”

When Haynes asked if Housing was prepared to remove some demands, if the union would reciprocate, Kutzbach responded, “We’re here to demonstrate good faith.” To that end, Housing removed two minor demands, concerning release time, and the union dropped two non-essential items related to retirement.

Both parties also agreed to set up committees to deal with unit and title demands as well as general demands that can be addressed away from the main table. The committees will tackle issues in several categories, including quality of life and family; attendance, performance and arbitration; and safety, education and training.

Among Local 237 demands, “we’ll be pursuing on-site child care, flex-time for child care, the right to refuse unsafe job assignments, and on-the-job training for hazardous materials handling,” said Local 237’s Housing Division Director Edmund Kane.

Although nothing substantial was thrown overboard, goodwill was gained. “If we can get to wage increases and length of contract, I don’t want that to be held up,” Haynes told the union team during a break, emphasizing that quality of life issues need attention, too. “In 10 years the Housing work force has changed dramatically,” said Haynes. “With a surge in the percentage of female employees, there are still fewer bathrooms and locker room facilities for them.”

In final comments to the Housing Authority, Haynes offered to provide an updated list of union demands and committees at the next session, and assured the agency that the union “intends to work and cooperate with you.”

“Talks exceeded my expectations,” said Joseph Llanos Jr., a heating plant technician at Harlem River Houses and a nine-year Local 237 member. “Carl was very stern. I felt like some way, somehow, we’re going to make headway. There’s no way you can make everyone happy, but Carl represented the voice of the members very well. We’ve been doing a whole lot more for a whole lot less.”