Sweet TRANSIT STRIKE

[Thomas Rogers]

$1 Million a day...chump change in NYC terms. As the initial report says, it could be COSTING the city 400 times that a day.

 

[Todd Z]

Did you know that the unions are going to start ( in the construction field) taking an extra 1% in benefits from the employees pay check, Putting it in a bank, Then when they are under bid on a job, they are going to use that money to "BUY" the non union contractor out of his contract.....

Doesn't sound that legal to me and I know it will make my job harder to meet contract completion dates....



I now need to find 3 freaking people to go to a job in the city on Thursday, OR completely re arrange my day to get in there between the 4 person car rule...:angry::angry:

Todd Z

 

[Nelson Atwell]

The gridlock caused by the transit lines not working hampers the ability of emergency workers to respond. In addition, local law enforcement are occupied securing subway gates instead of patrolling the city.

 

[Gerald Pierce]

If you dont like the job or the benefits, get a different job. Always worked for me.... Sounds like MTA started to plan to ensure the retirement fund was shored up a little... so they don;t end up like GM, and the union wants to have no part of it.

 

[Deleted deleted]

Nelson: Ever visited NYC? Everyday is gridlock. I've driven Canal Street at 3pm and sat there for hours.

 

[Phill R]

Usually, I won't get involved in one of these discussions but, let me give you another side of this;



I work for NYC, I also fall under the Taylor law which makes job actions illegal. As of January, my title will be without a contract for 12 years. I am a Deputy Chief with 55 people working under me. The title imeadiately under me has been out of contract for over 5 years. The 2 remaining titles have been out of contract for a couple of years as well. The Taylor law was enacted because of a transit strike in the 1970's to avoid crippling the city like this. However, It doesn't seem to hurt the MTA because of the large number in the union. It does cripple most of the remaining civil service titles leaving no wieght to bargain with.



Now, with a daughter in college and expenses going up constantly, my SportTrac now sits in my driveway taken off the road until I can either afford to drive it or I have to sell it!



Although, a strike might be worth it in the future, Most bus drivers already make more than I do. This leaves me very little sympathy for the MTA as well as city government.



Some one once said, "Get a city job and your set for life!". Not anymore!

 

[Nelson Atwell]

Darin,



Only once in the 60's...no desire to ever return. I prefer my 20 minutes commute across OKC.



Say "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Holidays" (if he prefers) to John for me. I hope he comes back. He will be missed if he doesn't. His posts are always thought-provoking, and even though he and I don't always agree, I consider him a friend. I hope you, he and I can meet for lunch some day, along with AWeustenfeld and the other local OKC members.



May 2006 be prosperous for you, John and all your other coworkers at Hertz.

 

[TomT]

Like auto assembly workers, MTA jobs require very little training or education, yet they are all paid very good wages for what they do. Most make as much if not more then I do and I have a job that not only requires extensive training but is very dangerous to boot. So, even though I myself am a union person and probably should be supporting these people, I just can't seem to garner any sympathy for them. If they want something better, go back to school or find a skilled job.

I think most of the general public feels the same way and if you don't have the public on your side then your screwed.

 

[Nelson Atwell]

Someone else pointed out the "military sometimes put their lives on the line" What about the fine men and women in uniform in NYC? The put their lives on the line everyday and yet cannot retire at 38 years old, like the militray, who usually live off other civil service jobs after "retiring". There's another racket if you ask me. Collect two paychecks from the Gov! - Q

Q,



It is true that many military members decide to continue service to their country after their military careers are over. In return for that additional service, they are paid the same salary that their counterparts that never served in the military make.



What would be your preference? Should a military retiree give up his earned retirement so he can take a job with the government, or should he instead work for free if he decides to continue serving his country after retirement? Like I said before, a military retirement amounts to only 20-25% of active duty pay after taxes are taken out. I know I could not taek a 75-80% pay cut. Not many can live on that amount, unless they have tucked away a lot of money in their career (very hard to do) or hit the Lotto.



Should all military retirees be forced to work at a civilian job the rest of their lives, so they wouldn't be earning two government checks? What about Social Security? Should they also not be allowed to get that, even though they have paid into the system? :unsure:



Regarding union workers, a lot of folks bring up the unskilled/un-trained workers. I don't believe that for one second. Assembly work is often dangerous. I'm sure those guys go through weeks of OSHA training and the like before they ever touch a tool. I won't belittle anyone for getting a fair wage, and union members deserve just as much as their non-union brothers.



The only thing that bugs me about unions is their strong-arm tactics such as this transit strike, banning Marines from their parking lots, past mob activities, etc. As long as they treat their companies and employees fairly then they are OK with me.

 

[gary s]

unions suck !!!!!!, Tom T , you are 100% right !

 

[Tim Reynolds]

So what some folks are saying here is that if you're not pro union then you are ignorant and incapable of looking at the issue from both sides. Well that's a crock of you know what. And I know quite a few people that have union jobs and most of them think they suck. I'm sure that there are some very good ones out there but IMHO I think that they do more harm than good. Why couldn't this have been settled with binding arbitration?

 

[Chuck Lake]

I'm closer to making my 50 bucks every day



Two Words.... Reagan, PATCO



The strike is illegal so fire every last sucker that doesn't show up for work. Let's see if Bloomberg has the stones to do the right thing.

 

[Deleted deleted]

TimR: What I think Rocco was trying to put across is that some folks here have their minds made up that all unions are evil and completely shut down their brains when it comes to a debate on the issue.



Yours on or off?

 

[Dre L]

Bloomberg has no stones, he's a bright shining piece of corporate crap that bought his election... twice.



This city has no lack of funds, nor does an MTA with:



$4 each way bridges and tunnels

$2 fares for buses and trains

$6 fares for express buses

Not to mention the state funding



The last fare hike by the MTA was ruled illegal, yet the fares still stayed at the hiked price. The mayor, the courts, the state, no one complained about that.



Suddenly they have a billion dollar surplus, when they were saying they needed the fare hike to stay afloat.



This city is full of it, and the people who live here are just cows willing to sit here and follow the herd. Screw this city, screw it's administration. If the TWU wants to be the last group to stand its ground and champion the cause of the worker, more power to them. They're going to get dissolved for this anyway, so they might as well go out in a blaze of glory.



Yet the TWU stood by commuters whenever the MTA wanted to screw over commuters with fare hikes and un-supervised train stations.



Next time you think NYC has funding issues, consider that parking tickets here start at $65. There is no shortage of funds here, only beaurocrats that make them up in order to shift funds to their own cause.

 

[Tom Schindler]

What other choice does one have to get contract negotiations settled? Some people have worked years without a contract. Is that fair? Once you get to a breaking point, the only real way to get the point across is to strike. Most unions call a strike only as a last resort. What incentive does a company have to negotiate a contract if the employees are willing to work without one?



Take for example where I work. The union and the company worked towards a contract. Since a bunch of the old guys are retired and the shop is getting a bunch of new guys, one of the sticking points was berevement pay for the loss of a grand parent. All we wanted in the contract that the company did not want to negotiate is getting time paid off when Grandma or Grandpa dies. Get real. I can not even take that benefit because the only grandparent I have lives in Europe. Have respect for the new guys to be able to spend time at thier grandparents funeral.



There was no strike. Since Overtime is voluntary, meaning I can refuse any overtime offered to me without any repurcusions, nobody worked overtime for 2 weeks.



We now get time off to say goodbye to our grandparents. The next step would have been a strike.



Is that asking too much? Wages, medical & dental, vacation, etc. were fine with the company. What was the problem with berevment pay for the loss of a grand parent? Your answer is as good as mine.





Tom

 

[Kevin Long]

"All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms is treason...If a man tells you he loves America, yet hates labor, he is a liar...There is no America without labor, and to fleece one is to rob the other."

-Abraham Lincoln

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, I agree with everything you say, but a LOT of the anti-union bias comes from frustration and the fact that very few non-companies have anything close to "contract negotiations" with its employees over upcoming salaries and benefits, nor do they have the ability to negotiate things like bereavement time for death of a grandparent, etc. And what is wrong with bereavement pay for a grandparent? Well you need to draw the line somewhere lest it turns next to aunts and uncles, and cousins, etc. You can always take vacation time (okay call me cold hearted).



I changed jobs recently at at the age of 37 went from 4 weeks vacation back down to 2. I would have loved for a union, the govt, SOMEBODY to help me with that negotiation, but alas I was on my own.



The fact that unions are in place means union workers can negiotiate and can strike. It doesn't mean that they always SHOULD strike when demands aren't met. The overall good of your employer and the customers you serve SHOULD come into the decision, and in this case, laws are being broken and that can never be tolerated.



The MTA is a great example. It seems to me that the benefits were good, the MTA wanted to work with them, yet they striked anyway, illegally.



I think they should do the same thing Reagan did with the Air Traffic Controllers; fire them all and hire anew.



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Q, I hear you. The MTA is an interesting case study:



- The benefits before and the proposed new benefits were arguably VERY GOOD, and seemingly better than most of corp America



- The members couldn't legally strike, yet they did.



- The transit union will be fined $1M/day, and that doesn't seem to be phasing them



- Unlike most companies (say like GM for example), the MTA can easily increase the rates of its services to cover almost any additional benefits given to the union members, and the people of NYC and its burbs will pay; they have to, there is no choice.



When a union organization working under a monopoly company can strike, illegally, then I feel its the governments responsibility to step in and settle the dispute. And, as I said, the trump card as I see it is the government mandating that all striking MTA workers be fired and replaced temporarily with govt employees, then long-term with new hires.



This is NOT your typical union strike. It is much more like the air traffic controllers strike of the early 80s.



TJR

 

[TrainTrac]

A little historical perspective:



Prior to WWII, it was not common practice for private sector employers to offer "benefits" such as pension plans, health care plans, etc. It was up to each and every individual American to provide these things for themselves.



During the post WWII economic boom, the available pool of workers was so large and competition was so stiff to hire them that employers were forced to offer these types of benefits as incentives to recruit workers for their companies.



Gradually, over time, these "benefits" came to be viewed as entitlements and it was expected that the employer was required to provide them to all workers. Unions, at the height of their corruption in the 40's and 50's, used their strong-arm tactics to further shift the responsibility away from the individual worker and on to the employer. Workers became more content in the security of letting someone else manage these aspects of their lives instead of taking individual responsibility for their own lives.



Just another example of how Americans are more and more willing to relinquish individual freedoms and responsibility for "security"...

 

[Nelson Atwell]

Here is a study about how the average American views Unions