NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2005/12/16/ap2398692.html
In addition to being illegal, any strike would disrupt millions of lives and cost the city hundreds of millions of dollars every day. The transit workers are overpaid, rude, and inefficient. This being the public sector, that is tolerated, but in a city of winners, no one likes a sore looser like these guys.
I honestly don't know if the union's contract is approved by city council or simply by the mayor, but either way, they should tear it to shreds. They should follow the example of Ronald Reagan when the air traffic controllers went on strike: fire them, and higher less demanding workers. A strike would be unacceptable, and must be dealt with immediatly.

Obviously you don't work as one. When they have to deal with rude, and sometimes violent people, I'm sure they can have the leeway to become rude themselves. Also, I've lived in Queens for about 13 years or so, I've gone on practically every train except the brown ones (J, M?), and I haven't met a conductor who was rude/mean. I've only seen one case of occupational anger, and that was a ticketperson who was angry at people arguing because of line jumpers.

A strike is a means of free speech, and albeit it inconveniences the city by quite a bit, the transit workers have no other way of effectively convincing the MTA to give them the conditions they want.

I could never imagine it being illegal to walk out on your job.

I don't think I'd ever take a job where it was illegal for me to quit.

A strike is a means of free speech, and albeit it inconveniences the city by quite a bit, the transit workers have no other way of effectively convincing the MTA to give them the conditions they want.
It's illegal in New York State for anyone in the public sector to strike. It does happen, but not without legal consequences. I know, for instance, that in this state, a striking teacher must pay the equivilant of 2.5 days' wages for every day on strike.

Yes, I know it's illegal. However, as I said, a strike is a mean to free speech. The transit workers have no other way of effectively making people (i.e. the MTA) listen to them. Yes, they can go and tell the MTA "we need to have our raises with the cost of rent and such going up", but that doesn't mean the MTA will listen. The greatest weapon of a union is the peaceful strike.

Sounds to me like all cities with transit systems have things in common. And here there is an endless low-key battle over whether transit should be deemed an 'essential service', which somehow would make the likelihood of striking laughable at best. I'm not sure where I stand on issues pertaining to transit, though I use it on a daily basis, truth be told. I don't like the inconvenience of strikes, but I want the workers to be properly compensated and considered at the same time, while seeing improvements in service for as nominal an annual increase in the cost of a ticket, much like anyone else. How to resolve it? Negotiation. Compromise. Co-operation. And how do you get treated nicely by staffers? Make a point of being nice to them. Seems to work for me.

Yes, I know it's illegal. However, as I said, a strike is a mean to free speech. The transit workers have no other way of effectively making people (i.e. the MTA) listen to them. Yes, they can go and tell the MTA "we need to have our raises with the cost of rent and such going up", but that doesn't mean the MTA will listen. The greatest weapon of a union is the peaceful strike.
It is not an expression of anything when it is in breach of a contract. Of course, I have my own views on the MTA. I want it to be eventually deregulated in the same way power and water are, though New York will never go for that.

Well, what would you suggest the Transit Worker's Union do? Without the ability to strike, they cannot negotiate for better conditions for the workers. The MTA simply won't listen to them. I'd suppose lawsuits would work (for a share of the billion dollar surplus), but I'm not sure if that's entirely possible. My point being, they may be breaching their contract, but if that's what they must do to be heard, then it's they are still within their rights as an US citizen to protest.

And as a sidenote, the Taylor law in my opinion is somewhat unconstitutional.

Yes, I know it's illegal. However, as I said, a strike is a mean to free speech. The transit workers have no other way of effectively making people (i.e. the MTA) listen to them. Yes, they can go and tell the MTA "we need to have our raises with the cost of rent and such going up", but that doesn't mean the MTA will listen. The greatest weapon of a union is the peaceful strike.

Free speech, my ass. A strike is when you say, I'm not gonna work until you give me what I want. It's blackmail. It's the moral equivalent of holding someone hostage until someone gives you money. In this case, the hostages are the entire population of NYC.

Fuck strikes, and fuck unions. You want a "weapon" you can use to bludgeon employers into giving you money you obviously don't earn. Rent is going up? Big deal. Get a better paying job. Then again I guess no one wants to hire spoiled whiners who like to play footsie with employment contracts, eh?

It's the public sector what the hell do you expect?

Yes, I know it's illegal. However, as I said, a strike is a mean to free speech. The transit workers have no other way of effectively making people (i.e. the MTA) listen to them. Yes, they can go and tell the MTA "we need to have our raises with the cost of rent and such going up", but that doesn't mean the MTA will listen. The greatest weapon of a union is the peaceful strike.

I'd have a little more sympathy for them if their Union hadn't blocked every proposed technological upgrade to the infrastucture over the past fifty years. DC motors, 1930 solenoid driven switching relays, vacuum tubes. It's fucking ludicrous. And all because their workers don't want to learn any new skills.

London transport switched to AC motors in the 60s. It's saved them hundreds of millions of dollars since then. The transit workers need to realize if they insist on staying in the 1930s, then their pay packet should stay there too.

And don't even get me started on puzzle afternoons.

Sounds to me like all cities with transit systems have things in common. And here there is an endless low-key battle over whether transit should be deemed an 'essential service', which somehow would make the likelihood of striking laughable at best. I'm not sure where I stand on issues pertaining to transit, though I use it on a daily basis, truth be told. I don't like the inconvenience of strikes, but I want the workers to be properly compensated and considered at the same time, while seeing improvements in service for as nominal an annual increase in the cost of a ticket, much like anyone else. How to resolve it? Negotiation. Compromise. Co-operation. And how do you get treated nicely by staffers? Make a point of being nice to them. Seems to work for me.

I'm a big believer that mass transit is an essential service for any large city. But it should be treated as such. The MTA is just a big trough for civil servants and politicians to feed from unfortunately. Any actual transit that occurs is mostly a side effect.

Free speech, my ass.

So you're against free speech then?

A strike is when you say, I'm not gonna work until you give me what I want.

A strike can also mean they have tried other avenues of communication with their employer, who have been less than receptive.

It's blackmail. It's the moral equivalent of holding someone hostage until someone gives you money. In this case, the hostages are the entire population of NYC.

Blackmail is the act of threatening to reveal information about a person unless a monetary demand is met. Where does revealing information come into this?

These workers are holding no one hostage; the people of NYC can always drive, walk, bike. No one's lives have been threatened. I'd admit that if these workers were policemen or firemen I'd be more critical of them going to full-blown strike, since it will endanger lives.


Fuck strikes, and fuck unions. You want a "weapon" you can use to bludgeon employers into giving you money you obviously don't earn. Rent is going up? Big deal. Get a better paying job.


I'd imagine these transit workers include bus drivers, subway conductors. If we don't give them a living wage, they can't provide for themselves with the basics. So they arrive at work hungry or without taking their diabetes medication first (because they couldn't afford it). Then they pass out at the wheel/controls; do you want your loved ones or childern on that bus/subway?


Then again I guess no one wants to hire spoiled whiners who like to play footsie with employment contracts, eh?


I guess you're angry because you're probably disrupted by this strike. Say they all found jobs with a business tomorrow (because they simply can't continue to live on MTA-paid wage) and stopped coming in on the day after that. That would be worse than a strike situation as its not that there's noone willing to drive the subway; its there is NOONE who knows how to operate the subway.

Free speech, my ass. A strike is when you say, I'm not gonna work until you give me what I want. It's blackmail. It's the moral equivalent of holding someone hostage until someone gives you money. In this case, the hostages are the entire population of NYC.

Fuck strikes, and fuck unions. You want a "weapon" you can use to bludgeon employers into giving you money you obviously don't earn. Rent is going up? Big deal. Get a better paying job. Then again I guess no one wants to hire spoiled whiners who like to play footsie with employment contracts, eh?

Unfortunately, if there aren't unions and such, then worker's rights are pretty much non-existant. I don't know what job you have, but I'm pretty sure you're quite satisfied with it. There is the problem, however, of everyone else. There will always be people who are less fortunate than you, and cannot get a better paying job. There are many reasons why people have to work at certain jobs, or else become homeless (which is why I am getting a nice engineering job while having multiple disciplines so I won't ever not have a job available to me). And there are some people who WANT to work as a civil servant, as a transit worker. Don't ask me why, but there are people like that. What they are looking for is to better their working conditions and their lives and such. My point after that rambling, is that if they don't fight for better working conditions, etc, then in the future they never will be able to. The transit system will be a job no want will want, and it'll collapse on itself.

I'd have a little more sympathy for them if their Union hadn't blocked every proposed technological upgrade to the infrastucture over the past fifty years. DC motors, 1930 solenoid driven switching relays, vacuum tubes. It's fucking ludicrous. And all because their workers don't want to learn any new skills.

London transport switched to AC motors in the 60s. It's saved them hundreds of millions of dollars since then. The transit workers need to realize if they insist on staying in the 1930s, then their pay packet should stay there too.

And don't even get me started on puzzle afternoons.

This argument has merit and I find it more enjoyable to read than the one I quoted before. I didn't know that the Union had done such stuff, so thank you for pointing that out to me.

http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2005/12/16/ap2398692.html
In addition to being illegal, any strike would disrupt millions of lives and cost the city hundreds of millions of dollars every day. The transit workers are overpaid, rude, and inefficient. This being the public sector, that is tolerated, but in a city of winners, no one likes a sore looser like these guys.
I honestly don't know if the union's contract is approved by city council or simply by the mayor, but either way, they should tear it to shreds. They should follow the example of Ronald Reagan when the air traffic controllers went on strike: fire them, and higher less demanding workers. A strike would be unacceptable, and must be dealt with immediatly.
well, disrupting the city and costing it money is kinda the point. As for them being rude...um...its New York;)

The city hiring new workers is always an option in the case of a strike.
Granted, they don't have the easiest job, and I don't think their demands are totally outrageous...both sides just need to be willing to compromise. but then again, isn't that always the case?

Free speech, my ass. A strike is when you say, I'm not gonna work until you give me what I want. It's blackmail. It's the moral equivalent of holding someone hostage until someone gives you money. In this case, the hostages are the entire population of NYC.

Fuck strikes, and fuck unions. You want a "weapon" you can use to bludgeon employers into giving you money you obviously don't earn. Rent is going up? Big deal. Get a better paying job. Then again I guess no one wants to hire spoiled whiners who like to play footsie with employment contracts, eh?
as a counter argument, unions do have their needs. Research the Triange Shirt Waist fire. Without unions, there is a good chance that we would still be in those circumstances. Also, there are people who can't get a better job. (can't is the wrong word...don't have the education and the ability to get educated for it is more accurate).

While I agree that many many unions have gotten too much power, I still say that they have their purpose.