NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, IT (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/NY1ToGo/Story/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=55748) has happened after days of tension. NYC transit workers are on strike. My school is cancelled for the day. 7 MILLION people have been forced to find another route and, believe me, not even close to everyone will be able to. New York City alone will lose an estimated 1.6 billion the first week, and the worst loss will come today. Even as a New Yorker, I can definitely detect the huge upswing of tourists this time of year(they actually place barricades on stretches of sidewalk on 5th and IIRC other Aves., so people aren't pushed into the streets by the huge crowds). It's even harder to think of the millions of everyday people here, and in the suberbs, who stand to lose so much.

Both sides have been at fault here. Both the MTA (metropolitan transit athority) and the TWU(transit workers union) have been stubborn and not in the least amicable. The TWU, IMHO, has asked for a little too much, the MTA has been unyeilding with their final offer. although I'm selfishly enjoying a break from school, I can't totally forget my 18.5 million neighbors in the world's 3rd largest metro area (and more importantly, my home;) )

Sorry for this long monolouge but, in essence, I HOPE THIS ENDS! Any thoughts?

An update that just recently Mayor Bloomberg has declared the strike illegal.

Also, this really doesn't affect me, and from what I see anything like this never will (We pay the workers on the Cleveland Rapid more then fair wages, and even if they DID go on strike, I'm in the Suburban area) but I really hope this stops soon, the last thing we want is morning travel to turn into mass rioting because the crowds are so large.

What pisses me off is because of funding there's only 1 feild trip outside the county. The School Bus Driver's Union(WTF) won't let us rent a public bus which would be much teacher

This is the sort of thing they do in France all the time.

It's not really over the wages at this point, but retirement age. The TWU wants retirement age lowered to 50. The MTA wants it to remain at 55.

BTW Bloomberg, good job closing the private bus lines in the Bronx. Well thought out.

transport infrastructure is a public service.
it is an externality for private agents.
as such it should be funded by the government and not privatised in the name of 'efficiency' (but kept nationalised in the name of better service).
i don't know how the MTA or transport workers are funded in NYC, but here in britain the rail networks were incorrectly (and very messily) privatised. (that said i think the subway in london is still govt owned)

but because transport infrastructure is so important to businesses (just look at those prjected losses), the workers really should be paid a fair whack... what % increase are they demanding? if it's anything less than 10% above inflation i think its more than fair because of this importance.

but then i'm still a socialist at heart :)


edit: but if its about retirement age... thats a whole different story! public sector workers should work just the same number of years as private sector workers. if the private retirement age in 64, so should it be for public sector workers, damnit. this is currently an issue here in the uk too (fucking teachers!) :headbang:
here's where my mean side comes out: if the strike goes on, fire all of the workers and hire new ones who won't complain. they're relatively unskilled jobs anyway and with so many million people about it won't be hard recruiting...

Is there really a point in firing a whole industry. It'd take weeks or months to get enough workers to replace the 90% of Bus drivers and subway workers, teach them all how to work the damn things, and get it back and running.

What you don't understand is that Mass transit is the bloodline of New York City. Many New Yorkers don't even have cars because the transit system WAS effective enough. This is affecting millions.

Awesome. I wish workers in all fields everywhere had this kind of power.

My half-brother takes a commuter train into Manhattan to go to work...

...well, he won't be today. :p

If this is about being able to retire at age 50, then those workers can fuck right the hell off. Hell, the retirement age for them is only 55?? They should consider themselves fucking lucky.

Normally I'm in favor of unions striking, but this isn't about money, it's about laziness, and the transit workers have imagined themselves into believing they have a "right" to be lazier than everyone else.

Losers...find new jobs. If you find anything that lets you retire at age 50 with decent retirement benefits, then you can bitch all you want about the state of your current retirement plans.

Idiots. :mad:

It's not really over the wages at this point, but retirement age. The TWU wants retirement age lowered to 50. The MTA wants it to remain at 55.
I assume they want a wage rise as well? If the retirement age is lowered, they'll have to put more of their money into a pension fund. Admittedly, I don't know how the pension system works in the US, but that would certainly be the case over here (UK). If the retirement age does stay the same, then wages will have to increase, or they'll be poorer (assuming they do put aside more for their pension).
If the above is true, then the MTA probably wants the retirement age to stay at 55 because they know if they lower it the TWU will want a wage rise to cover the extra they need to maintain their pension plan.

It's not really over the wages at this point, but retirement age. The TWU wants retirement age lowered to 50. The MTA wants it to remain at 55.

BTW Bloomberg, good job closing the private bus lines in the Bronx. Well thought out.

Well this is a patently false statement. The fact is, the MTA is attempting to raise the retirement age to 62 and the TWU wants it to stay at 55.

Is there really a point in firing a whole industry. It'd take weeks or months to get enough workers to replace the 90% of Bus drivers and subway workers, teach them all how to work the damn things, and get it back and running.

What you don't understand is that Mass transit is the bloodline of New York City. Many New Yorkers don't even have cars because the transit system WAS effective enough. This is affecting millions.

You just fire them, and re-hire ones as needed. It worked with the air traffic controllers. (LOL @ ATC union).

There is so much wrong with the current system anyway, not least of which is the 1930s technology that the union won't allow to be upgraded.

While I am at it, this strike has caused chaos with emergency services. Good job TWU, people are going to die because you can't retire at fifty. Real humanitarians, the lot of you. So if it's all the same, I'll waste my sympathy on people who deserve it.

Awesome. I wish workers in all fields everywhere had this kind of power.
Not exactly. Strikes make the TWU very unpopular with the public. This is why they don't happen every time their contract is up.

Lil' correction about it being illigal: It has been that way for years, I think even decades. It's not "breaking news".

I know that they deserve a fair deal, but IIRC what they want is better than that for police, teachers and firefighters. I usually support strikes, but this is rediculous.

EDIT: The workers WERE trying to lower it IIRC, but I can't find evidence right now.

It's not really over the wages at this point, but retirement age. The TWU wants retirement age lowered to 50. The MTA wants it to remain at 55.

Well this is a patently false statement. The fact is, the MTA is attempting to raise the retirement age to 62 and the TWU wants it to stay at 55.

I'm going to call both of you out and ask for both of you for sources.

Well this is a patently false statement. The fact is, the MTA is attempting to raise the retirement age to 62 and the TWU wants it to stay at 55.

No, the MTA wanted to raise it. They backed down. The last offer kept the retirement age at 55. The TWU wants to lower it to 50. Also the MTA's proposal - the one that they dropped - only effected new hires. Not current employees.

Given that these people are paid more than teachers, why the hell shouldn't they work till 62 anyway? Last I looked, sitting in a booth looking retarded wasn't that physically demanding.

Edit: Sourcey (http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/59178.htm)


But sources said the MTA offered the union a 10.5 percent pay hike over three years — up from the original 9 percent offer — and decided to maintain the retirement age at 55 for new workers.

You have to use bugmenot. I am sure by later on today though "free media" will have caught up.

You just fire them, and re-hire ones as needed. It worked with the air traffic controllers.
Out of all the despicable things that Reagan did (and there were a lot), that was probably the most despicable.

Not exactly. Strikes make the TWU very unpopular with the public. This is why they don't happen every time their contract is up.Well of course, the public is being inconvenienced, naturally they're going to be upset.

I assume they want a wage rise as well? If the retirement age is lowered, they'll have to put more of their money into a pension fund. Admittedly, I don't know how the pension system works in the US, but that would certainly be the case over here (UK). If the retirement age does stay the same, then wages will have to increase, or they'll be poorer (assuming they do put aside more for their pension).
If the above is true, then the MTA probably wants the retirement age to stay at 55 because they know if they lower it the TWU will want a wage rise to cover the extra they need to maintain their pension plan.

The pensions are linked to current MTA salaries, and are individually set by the final years wages. (Which is why they work crazy overtime in their final year). They don't have to set money aside, so that's not really an issue.

It's true that the MTA wants new hires to contribute 6% of pre-tax salary instead of the current 2%. But I don't think that is unreasonable. It's still far below what most people contribute, and doesn't effect current workers.

I'm going to call both of you out and ask for both of you for sources.

My sources were DANIEL MACHALABA and KRIS MAHER
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Their article contains quotes from city officials attempting to defend the cuts in pension benefits and raising of the retirement age as their solution to guarding against a "projected" defecit, while sitting on a 1 billion dollar surplus for this year alone.


Personally I will take the WSJ story as the one I'd bank on. Accuracy in things financial is their bread and butter as opposed to popular opinion, advertising and political leanings.

Out of all the despicable things that Reagan did (and there were a lot), that was probably the most despicable.


You can't argue with success.

My half-brother takes a commuter train into Manhattan to go to work...

...well, he won't be today. :p

If this is about being able to retire at age 50, then those workers can fuck right the hell off. Hell, the retirement age for them is only 55?? They should consider themselves fucking lucky.

Normally I'm in favor of unions striking, but this isn't about money, it's about laziness, and the transit workers have imagined themselves into believing they have a "right" to be lazier than everyone else.

Losers...find new jobs. If you find anything that lets you retire at age 50 with decent retirement benefits, then you can bitch all you want about the state of your current retirement plans.

Idiots. :mad:


I happen to agree , if this is about retirement age they should re-evaluate why they are striking

MTA's got a one billion dollar surplus and claims it still needs to cut back. It's only right that they share the wealth with the employees who helped earn that money.

Still, a transit strike in NYC can't be allowed to last long. The government should step in and mediate the dispute. Reach a deal that gets NYC working again and adequately compensates the Transit workers.
Why mediate when you can legislate? Alberta's Ralph Klein has pretty much decided that striking at all is illegal, since everything is an essential service. Bastard.

Everybody hates people who strike...until their situation is such that a strike is the only option for them...

Why mediate when you can legislate? Alberta's Ralph Klein has pretty much decided that striking at all is illegal, since everything is an essential service. Bastard.

Everybody hates people who strike...until their situation is such that a strike is the only option for them...

Sometimes strikers are replaceable. Sometimes they are not.

It's an illegal strike. They should just fire every last one of the strikers and hire all new operators, regardless of how long it takes. I recall what President Reagan did with the illegal strike by aircraft controlers. :)

It's an illegal strike. They should just fire every last one of the strikers and hire all new operators, regardless of how long it takes. I recall what President Reagan did with the illegal strike by aircraft controlers. :)

I agree. Whiny bastards. They don't wanna work? Fine, don't work: YOURE FIRED!

This is basically just economic terrorism. Oh sure, there's not as much explosions and bloodshed - but the cost to the people of NY is just as bad as a bomb or two.

Naturally, communists and socialists are masturbating furiously to this like it's some great revolution of the proletariat. I wonder how'd they feel if firemen on 9/11 decided to strike that day.

GIMMEGIMMEGIMME is what this - and frankly, communism and socialism - is all about. Not worker's rights, not oppression or tyranny, not "fair," it's about ME getting more.

It's like capitalism, except without the hard work.

I agree. Whiny bastards. They don't wanna work? Fine, don't work: YOURE FIRED!

This is basically just economic terrorism. Oh sure, there's not as much explosions and bloodshed - but the cost to the people of NY is just as bad as a bomb or two.

Naturally, communists and socialists are masturbating furiously to this like it's some great revolution of the proletariat. I wonder how'd they feel if firemen on 9/11 decided to strike that day.

GIMMEGIMMEGIMME is what this - and frankly, communism and socialism - is all about. Not worker's rights, not oppression or tyranny, not "fair," it's about ME getting more.

It's like capitalism, except without the hard work.Well, we could always go back to the days before the 40 hour work week, before OSHA, before paid vacations and sick leave and health insurance. We could go back to the days of the company store, of child labor and people dying of old age when they're forty. We could go back to sweatshops. We could go back to "if you get hurt on the job, we don't owe you shit, even if it was our fault" employment standards.

Or rather, you can. Me, I'm a union member, and I appreciate everything that unions have brought us.

Well, we could always go back to the days before the 40 hour work week, before OSHA, before paid vacations and sick leave and health insurance. We could go back to the days of the company store, of child labor and people dying of old age when they're forty. We could go back to sweatshops. We could go back to "if you get hurt on the job, we don't owe you shit, even if it was our fault" employment standards.

Yeah. We could also go back to the days of Stalin's purges!


Or rather, you can. Me, I'm a union member, and I appreciate everything that unions have brought us.

Including a city paralyzed because a bunch of whiny bastards feel like the economy of NYC is their personal bargaining chip to negotiate for extra bennies? Are you perhaps a resident of NYC too, or are you just championing this on the sidelines while being totally unaffected from the consequences of their greed?

Well, we could always go back to the days before the 40 hour work week, before OSHA, before paid vacations and sick leave and health insurance. We could go back to the days of the company store, of child labor and people dying of old age when they're forty. We could go back to sweatshops. We could go back to "if you get hurt on the job, we don't owe you shit, even if it was our fault" employment standards.

Or rather, you can. Me, I'm a union member, and I appreciate everything that unions have brought us.
I still, so far as I know, belong to three labor organizations. I have also helped negotiate union contracts as a member of the management team. I think that if unions ceased to exist today, tomorrow we would have sweatshops all over the place. However, as with most things, there has to be a balance. In this case, the strike was illegal and the strikers should suffer the consequences.

Yeah. We could also go back to the days of Stalin's purges!
One major difference--the US didn't have Stalin's purges, but it did have those labor conditions I described. What the hell kind of response is that?


Including a city paralyzed because a bunch of whiny bastards feel like the economy of NYC is their personal bargaining chip to negotiate for extra bennies? Are you perhaps a resident of NYC too, or are you just championing this on the sidelines while being totally unaffected from the consequences of their greed?
You can call the union a bunch of whiny bastards all you want--you can also say the same of the transit Authority and Pataki, who could ned this in a heartbeat if he wanted to. No, I'm not a NYC resident, but I've supported similar strikes in the past, and would do so if there were one down here where I live. Nothing's free--you want better working conditions, you've got to support those who are fighting for them. I support those people because I've been one of them and am currently one of them.

I still, so far as I know, belong to three labor organizations. I have also helped negotiate union contracts as a member of the management team. I think that if unions ceased to exist today, tomorrow we would have sweatshops all over the place. However, as with most things, there has to be a balance. In this case, the strike was illegal and the strikers should suffer the consequences.
From what I've read, the strike wasn't declared illegal until after it began, but I could very well be wrong about that. Regardless, though, a union has no real power unless it has the ability to strike--that is its only weapon--so whether the strike is illegal or not, I support it. Besides, as someone earlier in the thread pointed out, to try to replace that number of workers and do it safely is impossible, at least in the short term. Both sides need to get back to the negotiating table and work something out.

Yeah. We could also go back to the days of Stalin's purges!
Red herring.

Well, we could always go back to the days before the 40 hour work week, before OSHA, before paid vacations and sick leave and health insurance. We could go back to the days of the company store, of child labor and people dying of old age when they're forty. We could go back to sweatshops. We could go back to "if you get hurt on the job, we don't owe you shit, even if it was our fault" employment standards.

Or rather, you can. Me, I'm a union member, and I appreciate everything that unions have brought us.

And if this strike was about a forty hour work week or health and safety at the workplace &c. I would support the workers for making a principled stand about something important.

But since it is really about lowering the retirement age to 50 (for no good reason: indeed, why can't they work until 65 like everyone else), it's pathetic. Doubly so because of the disrpution this type on industrial action causes in the emergency services. And these people already have a better deal than teachers, so they as far as I am concerened they are just engaging in extortion at this point.

No sympathy.

One major difference--the US didn't have Stalin's purges, but it did have those labor conditions I described. What the hell kind of response is that?

You can call the union a bunch of whiny bastards all you want--you can also say the same of the transit Authority and Pataki, who could ned this in a heartbeat if he wanted to. No, I'm not a NYC resident, but I've supported similar strikes in the past, and would do so if there were one down here where I live. Nothing's free--you want better working conditions, you've got to support those who are fighting for them. I support those people because I've been one of them and am currently one of them.
A: Where do you come off saying Pataki would be any better at the negotiations then the schlocks from the MTA and the union?

B: Do I support strikes that give people a reasonable improvement in their lives? Yes, even at the age of 14 I realize workers' rights are important. But the union is asking for a contract, as I said earlier, better than that of NYC's teachers, firefighters or policemen.It's simply too much. Considering most people of my parents generation will reach retiring age in about 15-20 years to find a likely dead social security program, I see no reason why these people, however much I respect their demands for better conditions, should be retiring at 50. It's going overboard.

From what I've read, the strike wasn't declared illegal until after it began, but I could very well be wrong about that. Regardless, though, a union has no real power unless it has the ability to strike--that is its only weapon--so whether the strike is illegal or not, I support it. Besides, as someone earlier in the thread pointed out, to try to replace that number of workers and do it safely is impossible, at least in the short term. Both sides need to get back to the negotiating table and work something out.

It's always been illegal under the taylor law. But you have to get a court to issue the fines &ct. Which is why there was no court action on this till after the strike began. (And the city also obtained an injunction over a week ago, prohibiting any strike, so the union is in contempt of court as well.)

The taylor law is a lot more liberal than the law it replaced however. The Condon Wadlin act called for the mandatory firing of all striking workers, and the jailing of union reps/leaders.

Some interesting numbers ala CNN:
• 7 million-plus -- Daily commuters affected
• 30,000-plus -- Transit workers on strike
• $440 million-$660 million -- Daily economic loss to city
• $1 million -- City damages sought against Transport Workers Union on first day
• 490 -- Subway stations affected
• 244 -- Bus routes affected
• 10,693 -- Buses and subway cars affected
• 55.7% -- New York City residents who don't own a car
• 23 F -- Temperature in New York at 9 a.m. ET
Sources: Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2000 U.S. census, New York Office of Emergency Management, court papers

God I love a good strike

It's not so fun for myself and the 7 million other users of NYC transit, but at least I have a day off from school. It's not worth it though.:(

23F? Psh, it was 22F here.

Yeah. We could also go back to the days of Stalin's purges!



Including a city paralyzed because a bunch of whiny bastards feel like the economy of NYC is their personal bargaining chip to negotiate for extra bennies? Are you perhaps a resident of NYC too, or are you just championing this on the sidelines while being totally unaffected from the consequences of their greed?


Wow, Santy. You are ALWAYS wrong. How can you get through an average day always being WRONG? It's amazing. You'd call your left hand your right hand if a "liberal" insisted that it was in fact your left. Breathtaking in it's simplicity, yet saddening in its approach.

From what I've read, the strike wasn't declared illegal until after it began, but I could very well be wrong about that. Regardless, though, a union has no real power unless it has the ability to strike--that is its only weapon--so whether the strike is illegal or not, I support it. Besides, as someone earlier in the thread pointed out, to try to replace that number of workers and do it safely is impossible, at least in the short term. Both sides need to get back to the negotiating table and work something out.
Yeah. You're wrong about that. Last I heard, ex post facto laws were still against the Constitution.

"... whether the strike is illegal or not, I support it." How very ... knee-jerk of you. :rolleyes:

Wow, Santy. You are ALWAYS wrong. How can you get through an average day always being WRONG? It's amazing. You'd call your left hand your right hand if a "liberal" insisted that it was in fact your left. Breathtaking in it's simplicity, yet saddening in its approach.
Pot, meet kettle. :p

Yeah. You're wrong about that. Last I heard, ex post facto laws were still against the Constitution.

"... whether the strike is illegal or not, I support it." How very ... knee-jerk of you. :rolleyes:
Actually Lacadaemon explained it nicely above--has to do with the Taylor law.

As to the second part of your "statement," let me ask you--if a union doesn't strike, is not allowed to strike, then what power does it have? You say you're a member of three labor organizations and that you've negotiated from the management side--you should be able to offer some insight on this. If you're negotiating and you know that the other side can't walk out, then why would you ever give on anything? You'd be stupid to do so.

That's why I support the strike, even if I don't know the issues involved intimately--because it's the only weapon labor has to level the playing field against management. Without the strike, you don't have a labor movement--period.

That's why I support the strike, even if I don't know the issues involved intimately--because it's the only weapon labor has to level the playing field against management. Without the strike, you don't have a labor movement--period.

Your point is well taken about it being usually the only weapon. However, in the case of public sector employees, there are a variety of administrative solutions to labor impasses that are not available to ordinary private sector employees. On its own motion the union can require the state (actually PERB -public employment realtions board) to appoint mediators, a fact finding panel, a public arbitration panel &c. Nor does this automatically entail binding arbitration (something that obviously the union would want to avoid in this case).

Given that their contract only expired last friday, and that none of the administrative options have even been tried - and also the de minimus nature of the unions demands - I really don't see a strike as justified at this point.

I mean no-one was being fired, no-one's pay was being cut, it wouldn't have hurt to try and exhaust the non-strike options first.

That's why I support the strike, even if I don't know the issues involved intimately--because it's the only weapon labor has to level the playing field against management. Without the strike, you don't have a labor movement--period. Then read a few articles on NY1's website. As we have been saying, the TWU is asking for a overboard contract better than that of teachers, firefighters and police. Considering this, this is an unjustified strike.

It's not really over the wages at this point, but retirement age. The TWU wants retirement age lowered to 50. The MTA wants it to remain at 55.

BTW Bloomberg, good job closing the private bus lines in the Bronx. Well thought out.

thats in correct actually. the MTA want to raise it from 55 to 67, while the TWU want it to remain the same. Also, while its against the law for the Union to strike, its also against the law for the MTA to force negotiations on benifits in the contract. That said, the TWU are still too greedy and will pay for this, dearly.

Without the strike, you don't have a labor movement--period.
Not quite true, although you do have a point. The reason there are laws against employees in certain fields going on strike is almost always because their field is vital to the effective functioning of a community or society. This is why security officer unions are prohibited by law from striking. Management realizes, however, that there are such things as "work to rule" and "slowdowns," which is why even the unions prohibited from striking can and do successufully negotiate pay and benefits increases, etc.

thats in correct actually. the MTA want to raise it from 55 to 67, while the TWU want it to remain the same.
Actually, the TWU wanted 50, the MTA wanted 63 (in general, I think they can't make the retirement age above 65).

It's not so fun for myself and the 7 million other users of NYC transit, but at least I have a day off from school. It's not worth it though.:(

Its probably not too much fun for the workers who will recieve no wages for several days and risk being fired/penalised when the strikes over.

I wasn't responding to something about the union, I was responding to a silly comment. I realize the workers also face trouble here.

I wasn't responding to something about the union, I was responding to a silly comment. I realize the workers also face trouble here.

fair enough. my mistake

thats in correct actually. the MTA want to raise it from 55 to 67, while the TWU want it to remain the same. Also, while its against the law for the Union to strike, its also against the law for the MTA to force negotiations on benifits in the contract. That said, the TWU are still too greedy and will pay for this, dearly.

Just, you know, actually try and follow the news before telling people they are incorrect.

The MTA dropped that position this weekend in an effort to avoid a strike, and are prepared to leave it at 55 (it would only have effected new workers anyway, and with the aging population I think it is a fairly reasonable request). The TWU however is still insisting that the age is lowered to 50, and this is why there is a strike. That's the main sticking point as of 11pm last night.

The TWU has been found in contempt. The penalty is $1 million dollars per day the TWU is out on strike. Given that they only have 3.6 million in the bank, I don't imagine that this can go on much longer.

It'll be over by thursday.

The TWU has been found in contempt. The penalty is $1 million dollars per day the TWU is out on strike. Given that they only have 3.6 million in the bank, I don't imagine that this can go on much longer.

It'll be over by thursday.

"You can't catch a naked man by his pockets."

Just, you know, actually try and follow the news before telling people they are incorrect.

The MTA dropped that position this weekend in an effort to avoid a strike, and are prepared to leave it at 55 (it would only have effected new workers anyway, and with the aging population I think it is a fairly reasonable request). The TWU however is still insisting that the age is lowered to 50, and this is why there is a strike. That's the main sticking point as of 11pm last night.Can you point me in the direction of something that talks about the TWU's demands? The articles I'm finding confirm the first part--that the MTA dropped that position, although it asked for new employees to triple their pension contribution in exchange--but I haven't seen the lowering of the retirement age anywhere.