NationStates Jolt Archive

Boston Police Strike of 1919 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Police_Strike#1919_Police_Strike)

You all know the TWU went on strike. If I were the MTA head, I would say: "Fine, here is a pretty pink slip for you." And then hire already unemployed New Yorkers. You just can't plunge a city into anarchy or in this case you can't paralyze a city.

Boston Police Strike of 1919 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Police_Strike#1919_Police_Strike)

You all know the TWU went on strike. If I were the MTA head, I would say: "Fine, here is a pretty pink slip for you." And then hire already unemployed New Yorkers. You just can't plunge a city into anarchy or in this case you can't paralyze a city.
Yes, yes you can. Strikes, and general strikes, are meant to shut things down.

Go ahead. Fire them, and hire people off the street. Just don't be surprised when that situation turns violent, fast.

I meant ethically you just can't do it. And there are plenty of people who would gladly take their jobs.

Boston Police Strike of 1919 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Police_Strike#1919_Police_Strike)

You all know the TWU went on strike. If I were the MTA head, I would say: "Fine, here is a pretty pink slip for you." And then hire already unemployed New Yorkers. You just can't plunge a city into anarchy or in this case you can't paralyze a city.

So you propose hiring completely untrained individuals and entrusting them with the safety of 7 million people a day? I don't see how that would make things much better.

I already made a thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=460167) about this. By the way Sel, I wound up buying the sony radio from amazon, thanks for your help.:)

The problem is that the MTA counts on this. That no matter how the negotiations turn out, that the Union can't strike because they're 'public workers'. What leverage does that give the union?

They should have done a one-day strike, however. I think that one day would get the point across.

The problem is that the MTA counts on this. That no matter how the negotiations turn out, that the Union can't strike because they're 'public workers'. What leverage does that give the union?

They should have done a one-day strike, however. I think that one day would get the point across.
Yup. Even a slowage instead of a stopage.

Boston Police Strike of 1919 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Police_Strike#1919_Police_Strike)

You all know the TWU went on strike. If I were the MTA head, I would say: "Fine, here is a pretty pink slip for you." And then hire already unemployed New Yorkers. You just can't plunge a city into anarchy or in this case you can't paralyze a city.
Well, I guess we'd better make sure no stupid, lazy, Spanish speakers get hired on after everyone in the TWU is fired.

I hate Spanish because it is fucking up my country. I see it as a lazy and dumb langugage considering the speakers and learners. You can't order a Big Mac without saying "Comprende?"

So you propose hiring completely untrained individuals and entrusting them with the safety of 7 million people a day? I don't see how that would make things much better.
Wow it's hard to drive a bus when you've ridden one for years. Subways can be computer-controlled indefininetly or until new workers are trained.

Yes, yes you can. Strikes, and general strikes, are meant to shut things down.

Go ahead. Fire them, and hire people off the street. Just don't be surprised when that situation turns violent, fast.

And what justification do the strikers have for turning anything violent?

Wow it's hard to drive a bus when you've ridden one for years. You mean, because I've been on nearly a 100+ flights, I have absorbed how to fly a plane properly? Golly!


Subways can be computer-controlled indefininetly or until new workers are trained.
Ah. Indefinately. So why bother training anyone at all? Automate it completely...should be simple.

And what justification do the strikers have for turning anything violent?
Right now they don't.

Fire them all.

Hire people off the street to replace them.

THEN they would likely feel justified in trying to prevent the scabs from crossing the picket lines...which is what invariably leads to some violence.

I never said violence would be justified, or that they would be justified in using violence. Justified is YOUR word.

Both subways and buses require training. Also, the subways here in NYC do not have automation capabilities (the one exception being the G train, which requires no driver but still has a conductor) and, let's face it, no one rides the G!;:p

Both subways and buses require training. Also, the subways here in NYC do not have automation capabilities (the one exception being the G train, which requires no driver but still has a conductor).
*gasp*
Firing them en masse is not going to solve anything. Hey NYC, how long is the strike supposed to last?

Wow it's hard to drive a bus when you've ridden one for years. Subways can be computer-controlled indefininetly or until new workers are trained.
the mechanisms to run mass transit, particularly the New York subway, are not in place. Had they been in place, it would have been swapped over.
And busses are very difficult to drive. Most people have trouble shifting from a car to a truck, or hell, even the boat that is Buick. Multiply that a couple dozen times. Busses are massive. Therefore, they are inherently difficult to control and menuver, particularly in streets such as New York, which are constantly choked in most areas.

Also, a police strike (those trusted with the safety of the community) is very different from mass transit workers (those trusted with the convenience of the community). Most of the people in the city could walk, get a ride, call a cab, etc. Is it a pain in the ass? yes. Is it impossible? hell no.

Hell, MLK's transit strike proved that it is entirely possible to find alternate means of transportation.

@Sinuhue: It's anyone's guess now. The predominant opinion I've heard today is that it will last a few more days.

Sinuhue, I'm not even going to bother reading your posts. Feel free to do the same.

Both subways and buses require training. Also, the subways here in NYC do not have automation capabilities (the one exception being the G train, which requires no driver but still has a conductor).
just out of curiosity, what is the conductors responsibility? In Boston, aside from physically driving the trains, they close the doors (usually making sure noone gets trapped in them, although, it still does happen) and providing security and first aid services when needed. Particularly on a line like the red line where there have been stabbings, it is vital to have someone trained in crowd control, risk management, and first aid, as well as someone to start an emergency action plan (Subway=concrete and steel cage underground. Cell phones don't work, so civillian communication is impossible)

Wow it's hard to drive a bus when you've ridden one for years. Subways can be computer-controlled indefininetly or until new workers are trained.

You mean to imply that it's easy to drive a bus...in the middle of Manhattan?

Sinuhue, I'm not even going to bother reading your posts. Feel free to do the same.
Yes...having your hateful, and ignorant remarks questioned must be really frustrating for you. Carry on.

Well, conductors make announcments and check to see no one's caught in the doors. Besides that, I'm unclear as to what jobs are relegated to them, and which go to the driver.

Well, conductors make announcments and check to see no one's caught in the doors. Besides that, I'm unclear as to what jobs are relegated to them, and which go to the driver.
sounds about the same as up here...kinda figured, but it has been a while since I've been on the NYC subway (I prefer walking in that city if possible), so just wanted to see if it was totally different from the T

I meant ethically you just can't do it.

Ah, but you can: if you do not have the right to strike then you are no more than serf.

Stand up, stand and unite
It's time for a general strike
Stand up, stand and unite
It's time for a general strike

If I were the MTA head, I would say: "Fine, here is a pretty pink slip for you."Oh, when will someone as great as Reagan come again?

Yes, yes you can. Strikes, and general strikes, are meant to shut things down.

Go ahead. Fire them, and hire people off the street. Just don't be surprised when that situation turns violent, fast.

The city of NY will not do it. The last time they did, in 1917, the unskilled workers managed to kill 100 commuters.

BTW, as a member of another union in NYC, the teachers' union, I can tell you we all have been shamefully treated by the city. "Do more with less" is their watchword, and what it means is more hours, more days, more givebacks for a pittance.

If you make 5 dollars an hour at McDonalds for 8 hrs a day, is it a raise when your boss tells you that you're now going to work a nine hour day -- but don't worry, he's giving you a raise to 44 dollars a day now?

That's what the city is doing, and they are trying to pit us all against each other so they can pay for new sports stadiums and play "hide the surplus" rather than use it to, I don't know, repair the crumbling infrastructure.

Wow it's hard to drive a bus when you've ridden one for years. Subways can be computer-controlled indefininetly or until new workers are trained.


The fact that you even said this shows your lack of comprehension in how difficult it is to drive a bus, let alone through gridlocked Manhattan streets, and that you know precisely nothing about the subway system.

(Hint: Subway trains will not move without someone to phyiscally drive them -- there is a mechanism called a "dead man's switch" which must be actively manipulated to show there is a live body present that prevents this, and the cars are, in any case, not computerized.)

The city of NY will not do it. The last time they did, in 1917, the unskilled workers managed to kill 100 commuters.I don't think any sane municipality would do it, exactly because it WOULD spark violence, or cause fatalities as untrained people took over. It's not really an option...which I wish people would understand.

BTW, as a member of another union in NYC, the teachers' union, I can tell you we all have been shamefully treated by the city. "Do more with less" is their watchword, and what it means is more hours, more days, more givebacks for a pittance. I think that's about true for how most teacher's unions in North America are dealt with. And if we strike, it's often declared 'illegal'. And then, despite the fact that we fight for things like smaller class sizes, and increased funding WHICH DO NOT BENEFIT US, RATHER THE CHILDREN IN THE SCHOOLS, it gets twisted into 'oh, the teachers want more money wa wa wa'.:rolleyes:

If you make 5 dollars an hour at McDonalds for 8 hrs a day, is it a raise when your boss tells you that you're now going to work a nine hour day -- but don't worry, he's giving you a raise to 44 dollars a day now?

That's what the city is doing, and they are trying to pit us all against each other so they can pay for new sports stadiums and play "hide the surplus" rather than use it to, I don't know, repair the crumbling infrastructure.That's exactly it...conquer and divide...compare these workers to other workers in order to decide if their cause is 'worthy'. Oh...they aren't doctors, so they aren't as important and should quit whining...clearly they are essential, and valuable...and worth some consideration. The funny thing is...most people don't actually bother to read what is being asked for. They just take other people's words for it.

To suggest hiring scabs for the subways seems to be a dissaster waiting to happen. After all, what about the fact that NYC fears it's subways are the most likely target for terrorists? Don't you think it's a bit unsafe to do mass hirings of new employees? Besides which, these people deserve the right to organize to be treated properly.

Well, conductors make announcments and check to see no one's caught in the doors. Besides that, I'm unclear as to what jobs are relegated to them, and which go to the driver.


They also give directions to patrons who wish to know if they can make their connection; also, they are responsible for making sure that the platform is clear front and back before the train moves... that no one is leaning close enough to be whacked by the train as it leaves the station or that people are not about to be dragged or in danger of being shoved onto the tracks between the cars.

They call for emergency assistance with sick and injured passengers.

To drive a train with only a motorman responsible for seeing any possible dangers ten cars back is unsafe in the extreme.

W00t good old fashioned New York common sense. My grandma was a teacher too! She still reveres the union. The city cas be a real a$$ sometimes...

Time to privatize the transportation workers.

Time to privatize the transportation workers.

So that they are no longer denyed the right to strike by city law? Hey.. That aint such a bad idea! :p

So that they are no longer denyed the right to strike by city law? Hey.. That aint such a bad idea! :p
So that the company that employs them can fire their asses when they don't bother to come to work.

So that the company that employs them can fire their asses when they don't bother to come to work.

Well y'see.. I coulda sworn that the labor movement has already weighed in on that and there were somelaws preventing dirty industry like that.

Funny enough, the people who seem to be complaining most bitterly about the strike are, by and large, not the working class -- it's the Mayor (the billionaire businessman and former head of the Bloomberg news agency), and people with nice big salaries who live in nice big houses in nice suburban communities who are inconvenienced by this.

If the MTA is smart, they will sit down and work with the TWU to ensure the strike does not last longer than until Friday. If they settle by then, the transit system would be up and running during Christmas week which is a BIG tourist time.

(BTW, once the subway has been shut down like this, it will take a minimum of 24 hrs to get things running again -- I am told that since there are no mechanics to keep the trains warmed up in the yards, the majority of trains have been moved underground (into the tunnels and stations) to keep them from freezing.)

Nice to see more people walking.

So that the company that employs them can fire their asses when they don't bother to come to work.
Don't you mean "so they can triple the fares and cut service to the point that it becomes inefficient to use?"

Boston Police Strike of 1919 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Police_Strike#1919_Police_Strike)

You all know the TWU went on strike. If I were the MTA head, I would say: "Fine, here is a pretty pink slip for you." And then hire already unemployed New Yorkers. You just can't plunge a city into anarchy or in this case you can't paralyze a city.
i have to ask: how many unemployed were there back then?

Boston Police Strike of 1919 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Police_Strike#1919_Police_Strike)

You all know the TWU went on strike. If I were the MTA head, I would say: "Fine, here is a pretty pink slip for you." And then hire already unemployed New Yorkers. You just can't plunge a city into anarchy or in this case you can't paralyze a city.
I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this to you, but if you want to plunge the city into anarchy or really paralyze it, a good place to start would be to try to replace tens of thousands of transit workers with new hires who don't know the first thing about the job.

Funny enough, the people who seem to be complaining most bitterly about the strike are, by and large, not the working class -- it's the Mayor (the billionaire businessman and former head of the Bloomberg news agency), and people with nice big salaries who live in nice big houses in nice suburban communities who are inconvenienced by this.
I also think that most people complaining aren't anywhere near the city, and have possibly never been there. It doesnt impact them in the least.

By the way, about the whole teachers union thing...it really is a bitch. And it seems to be spreading around the entire northeast from what I can see. I've seen the same tactics used in CT, MA, and RI...and have read reports out of NH, PA, NY and NJ. It's really a shame. I just hope that I didn't choose the wrong field to go into.

The simple truth is they are breaking the law by participating in an illegal strike, they are shutting down large parts of the cities economy, and all because they're getting paid exactly what the agreed to work for. So thanks alot.

They need to use firm, coercive action to get these people back to work. I wouldn't fire them, but rather make striking so unpleasant that they have little choice but to stop the strike. Their stunt is doing nothing but hurting people and the city's economy during a critical time of the year.

They need to use firm, coercive action to get these people back to work. I wouldn't fire them, but rather make striking so unpleasant that they have little choice but to stop the strike. Their stunt is doing nothing but hurting people and the city's economy during a critical time of the year.
Well that's basically what's happening isn't it? The individual workers are being fined two days pay for every day they miss, the leadership may be fined a grand a day, and the union itself is being fined a million a day. That's pretty coercive by my book.

Don't you mean "so they can triple the fares and cut service to the point that it becomes inefficient to use?"
But that would be the death of the contractor's company, too. It wouldn't pay to make mass transit unaffordable.

They need to use firm, coercive action to get these people back to work. I wouldn't fire them, but rather make striking so unpleasant that they have little choice but to stop the strike. Their stunt is doing nothing but hurting people and the city's economy during a critical time of the year.
Isn't that the point of a strike? Cost the business money and cause a disturbance?

Perhaps a good way to get people back to work is to, oh, I don't know...meet? talk? compromise? have both sides stop being jackasses and actually get something done, and understand that getting a little ground is better than nothing?

but thats just me.

The simple truth is they are breaking the law by participating in an illegal strike, they are shutting down large parts of the cities economy, and all because they're getting paid exactly what the agreed to work for. So thanks alot.
appearently, they no longer agree to work for that pay. Time to compromise on something new.

Whatever happened to "I need more money than my job is paying so let go find a new job that pays better."

appearently, they no longer agree to work for that pay. Time to compromise on something new.

So just because they're not happy it's morally acceptible for them to break contract and the law?

Whatever happened to "I need more money than my job is paying so let go find a new job that pays better."
limited options? You train to run a subway. corporations don't want to train 30-40 year olds when they can train someone younger for less money.

But that would be the death of the contractor's company, too. It wouldn't pay to make mass transit unaffordable.
My point is that every public transit system in the nation is subsidized by the government, often on mutliple levels, state, federal and city--I would assume that any for-profit transit company would necessarily not receive those same subsidies, and as a result, the company would either have to raise fares, cut services, or do both just to survive. Fares pay for about 2/3 of even the most efficient transit systems in the US right now--some places they cover about a third of the total costs. This really is one of those things that government can do more efficiently than the private sector can.

My point is that every public transit system in the nation is subsidized by the government, often on mutliple levels, state, federal and city--I would assume that any for-profit transit company would necessarily not receive those same subsidies, and as a result, the company would either have to raise fares, cut services, or do both just to survive. Fares pay for about 2/3 of even the most efficient transit systems in the US right now--some places they cover about a third of the total costs. This really is one of those things that government can do more efficiently than the private sector can.
The city could always maintain the capital equipment and right of ways. They could then contract out for labor. That's probably the biggest expense, anyway. Hiring in contract labor would certainly pave the way to fixed prices and no overhead.

The city could always maintain the capital equipment and right of ways. They could then contract out for labor. That's probably the biggest expense, anyway. Hiring in contract labor would certainly pave the way to fixed prices and no overhead.
I may be wrong, but wouldn't that cost more? If you are paying for someone else to do the hiring, then you are paying (indirectly) for the workers and the people who work for the company you've contracted, if I'm correct in my assumptions.

I may be wrong, but wouldn't that cost more? If you are paying for someone else to do the hiring, then you are paying (indirectly) for the workers and the people who work for the company you've contracted, if I'm correct in my assumptions.
I think the assumption Myrmidonisia is working under is that the people actually running the system would be paid less than the civic workers who are currently doing the job.

I may be wrong, but wouldn't that cost more? If you are paying for someone else to do the hiring, then you are paying (indirectly) for the workers and the people who work for the company you've contracted, if I'm correct in my assumptions.
Outsourcing labor is a time-honored way of reducing costs. The extra freight that the company has to pay for a direct employee in the form of payroll taxes and fringe benefits adds up to more than they would pay the contracting company for the same hourly employee. Contract employees don't usually get any fringe benefits, so the margin to be profitable comes out of that difference.

I think the assumption Myrmidonisia is working under is that the people actually running the system would be paid less than the civic workers who are currently doing the job.
And that isn't always true, but it can be.

Outsourcing labor is a time-honored way of reducing costs. The extra freight that the company has to pay for a direct employee in the form of payroll taxes and fringe benefits adds up to more than they would pay the contracting company for the same hourly employee. Contract employees don't usually get any fringe benefits, so the margin to be profitable comes out of that difference.
Ah, I see where you're coming from. My objection to that idea would be that the jobs that the city provides in this case are good quality jobs that allow for social mobility--there's really something to be said for the social good that comes from finding ways for people to move into the middle class.

Outsourcing labor is a time-honored way of reducing costs. The extra freight that the company has to pay for a direct employee in the form of payroll taxes and fringe benefits adds up to more than they would pay the contracting company for the same hourly employee. Contract employees don't usually get any fringe benefits, so the margin to be profitable comes out of that difference.
ahh...gotcha. Thanks.

Like Nazz said, while it reduces costs, it also provides good working conditions for people who otherwise don't have such options.

Oh, when will someone as great as Reagan come again?

Hey, Thatcher is still alive, and you're welcome to the bitch if you want her.

Why stop at firing them ! Shoot them and replace them with robotic buses ! :rolleyes:

A strike is generally a sign of a breakdown in negotiations, and historically there are two ways around this ... 1> resume negotiations 2> a massacre. I know which one I would suggest.

Why stop at firing them ! Shoot them and replace them with robotic buses ! :rolleyes:

A strike is generally a sign of a breakdown in negotiations, and historically there are two ways around this ... 1> resume negotiations 2> a massacre. I know which one I would suggest.
WOOO!!! MASSACRE! *grabs pitchfork*

Yes, yes you can. Strikes, and general strikes, are meant to shut things down.

Go ahead. Fire them, and hire people off the street. Just don't be surprised when that situation turns violent, fast.

If they are public employees and in there contract it states they cannot strike then they should be fired on the spot.

The ATC Strike during the Reagan years is proof of this. Those that didn't return to work within 72 hours were fired. During the strike the Air Force took over ATC and everything went fine.

In regards to the transit strike by the public employees, they are being slapt with a $1,000,000 a day fine.

Well that's basically what's happening isn't it? The individual workers are being fined two days pay for every day they miss, the leadership may be fined a grand a day, and the union itself is being fined a million a day. That's pretty coercive by my book.

A $1 million dollar a day fine for this illegal strike is a good start :D

Ah, I see where you're coming from. My objection to that idea would be that the jobs that the city provides in this case are good quality jobs that allow for social mobility--there's really something to be said for the social good that comes from finding ways for people to move into the middle class.
But the city is also bound to use tax revenue wisely. Unions don't have any sense of responsibility to the city or the population of the city. Their only goal is to increase membership. The results of that are the things we all joke about. Road crews that have extra members with no purpose, guys riding in the second or third T car with no job, just extra bodies that the union has been able to add during contract negotiation.

Going to contract labor would give the city an opportunity to throw out TWU and either be done with union representation on transit, or at least start over and negotiate a more favorable contract. Contract workers don't have to earn any less than they do now, depending on the way the city lets the contract, the contract company may even have to provide certain benefits to them. Probably not vacation or sick time, but a lot of the job shops around here offer 401k and insurance plans. Even with that, we save money on temporary workers, I suspect the city could realize some pretty substantial savings on a permanent contract labor arrangement.

Right now they don't.

Fire them all.

Hire people off the street to replace them.

THEN they would likely feel justified in trying to prevent the scabs from crossing the picket lines...which is what invariably leads to some violence.

I never said violence would be justified, or that they would be justified in using violence. Justified is YOUR word.

Well, then I believe that although the strikers would not be justified in being violent, the police would certainly be justified if the strikers started something.

Good move, but I still think every last one of them should be fired, regardless of how long it takes to replace them.

What are they striking about?

Yeah, screw workers! They only make the whole deal function! Down with living wages! Let's hear it for 14 hour work days!! Let's get some kids in there, too!!! It's thier fault for trying to provide for their families...

Yeah, screw workers! They only make the whole deal function! Down with living wages! Let's hear it for 14 hour work days!! Let's get some kids in there, too!!! It's thier fault for trying to provide for their families...
Uh ... when a bus driver makes over $60,000 a year, I don't think they're being exactly "oppressed."

There is a very valid reason why this strike is an illegal one: it not only hurts those who have to ride the bus or subway to work ( which, as I recall, is in the millions ), it has a ripple effect to the entire economy. Last I heard, the strike is estimated to have an economic cost of over $1.5 BILLION.

Nice rant, btw. :p

What are they striking about?
Wages, even though the average bus driver in NYC is making about $60,000 a year! :headbang:

This is outrageous. I'm ambivalent about the actual strike action, but to discover that New York State has a law prohibiting strikes by public sector workers is shocking. It's a fundamental abuse of the right of workers to take collective action if they feel unhappy at the circumstances of work or other such reasons. Shame on the judge and shame of New York State legislators for passing that law in the first place.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/13/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/13cnd-mta.html?ex=1135314000&en=b18dc94558ee57dc&ei=5070

There is one of the articles on this incase anyone wants to look

Uh ... when a bus driver makes over $60,000 a year, I don't think they're being exactly "oppressed."

There is a very valid reason why this strike is an illegal one: it not only hurts those who have to ride the bus or subway to work ( which, as I recall, is in the millions ), it has a ripple effect to the entire economy. Last I heard, the strike is estimated to have an economic cost of over $1.5 BILLION.

Nice rant, btw. :p
So the strike is about them feeling they are not being paid a fair rate for their services and so they are withdrawing labour?

Wages, even though the average bus driver in NYC is making about $60,000 a year! :headbang:
from NYT article
Before overtime, the transit workers' base pay averages $47,000.

Now while I understand some overtime is involved I doubt it is enough to raise the AVERAGE to 60 k

And I wonder what the cost of living in New York actualy is (Seriously no idea)

Though I do think their request for 24 percent raise in 3 years is a bit much

This is outrageous. I'm ambivalent about the actual strike action, but to discover that New York State has a law prohibiting strikes by public sector workers is shocking. It's a fundamental abuse of the right of workers to take collective action if they feel unhappy at the circumstances of work or other such reasons. Shame on the judge and shame of New York State legislators for passing that law in the first place.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but ... unadulterated bullshit! Why let a small group of disgrunnled workers hold the entire City of New York, not to mention the entire State of New York and beyond that, the economy of the US, to ransom? There are many occupations where strikes are illegal, and rightly so. The cost is just too high.

Uh ... when a bus driver makes over $60,000 a year, I don't think they're being exactly "oppressed."

There is a very valid reason why this strike is an illegal one: it not only hurts those who have to ride the bus or subway to work ( which, as I recall, is in the millions ), it has a ripple effect to the entire economy. Last I heard, the strike is estimated to have an economic cost of over $1.5 BILLION.

Nice rant, btw. :p
Again according to everything I have seen their average wages are at about 47 thousand not 60

You're telling me that 47,000 is not enough to DRIVE a bus all day? Man, I would love to that instead of lifting 200 pound shit all day.

So the strike is about them feeling they are not being paid a fair rate for their services and so they are withdrawing labour?
To a degree, according to the union. I personally think it's the old Samuel Gompers philosophy. When asked what it was the union wanted, he simply replied, "More." :rolleyes:

Canada City']You're telling me that 47,000 is not enough to DRIVE a bus all day? Man, I would love to that instead of lifting 200 pound shit all day.
In all fairness, the cost of living is probably higher in NYC than wherever it is you live right now. However, your point is well taken. The transit union is simply being a collective dick and holding the City to ransom.

Wages, even though the average bus driver in NYC is making about $60,000 a year! :headbang:
Personally I am not a massive fan of strikes when they take the piss, but I do find it a little hypocritical when those on the Right (although i understand you're a semi-centrist) (who generally support a free market view and a right to be rewarded for work done) object to industrial action. People shold be paid the market rate for their work, and if they feel they are not getting the market rate then surely under a capitalist/free market system they should be free to withdraw labor to demonstrate to people the value of their work and why they should be paid more.

It seems people get a bit snobby about some jobs being very well paid. nobody would blink an eye at doctors, lawyers or any other profession refusing to work for less than 60K. nobody would object to a buisness exec refusing to work for 60K when they could easily get more. So why do people object to "lower class" workers getting paid over 60K when clearly their work is worth more than that to the people who use their services?

In all fairness, the cost of living is probably higher in NYC than wherever it is you live right now. However, your point is well taken. The transit union is simply being a collective dick and holding the City to ransom.

Well I know that a medicore shitty apartment is around 1000-1200 CANADIAN $$ each month in the GTA (Toronto Area). Basement apartments are like 800.

Enlighten me on the NYC rent on crappy apartments. I'm curious.

Canada City']You're telling me that 47,000 is not enough to DRIVE a bus all day? Man, I would love to that instead of lifting 200 pound shit all day.
No thats NOT what I said

I was just pointing out that it was 47 not 60 ... I know it was not intentional but misrepresenting the wages by 13 k does not lead to accurate discussion on the topic

Also I have asked before but 47 k sounds an awfull lot here with our relitivly low standard of living
For all I know living in new york that might be poverty level

People shold be paid the market rate for their work, and if they feel they are not getting the market rate then surely under a capitalist/free market system they should be free to withdraw labor to demonstrate to people the value of their work and why they should be paid more.


The problem with labor is they tend to abuse whatever power they have.

For example, I read around here that some unions prevent new technological breakthroughs for transit (something about AC and DC motors) and that NYC transit union stopped it because they didn't want to learn any new skills.

Canada City']Well I know that a medicore shitty apartment is around 1000-1200 CANADIAN $$ each month in the GTA (Toronto Area). Basement apartments are like 800.

Enlighten me on the NYC rent on crappy apartments. I'm curious.
My friend who lives down town in a one room efficeny apartment has a rent of about 1300 USD a month

But I am not sure how this fits in with larger picture of cost of living there

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/13/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/13cnd-mta.html?ex=1135314000&en=b18dc94558ee57dc&ei=5070

There is one of the articles on this incase anyone wants to look
"The city has estimated that in the event of a strike, $440 million to $660 million worth of business would be lost each day."

Ultimately, the employess of these businesses and the public in general will pay the freight for this illegal strike. Nice going, TWU. :headbang:

"The union was holding a rally this afternoon at Grand Central Station, at which the Rev. Al Sharpton was scheduled to speak."

Figures. :rolleyes:

Again according to everything I have seen their average wages are at about 47 thousand not 60
No way! Eutrusca misrepresented the matter at hand? This shatters everything! No, wait...

Before overtime, the transit workers' base pay averages $47,000.

During contract negotiations three years ago, the union had originally demanded an 8 percent wage increase in each of the contract's three years, but ultimately settled on a pay freeze in the first year and increases of 3 percent in each of the next two years.
So, they let their increase drag and are trying to catch up. Those bastards.
In its latest offer to bus and subway workers today, the authority proposed a 6 percent raise over 27 months, up from about 5 percent over 24 months.
Doesn't seem eye to eye. What would be useful is if someone where to compare to see if these raises matched things like cost of living increases and falling dollar values. But all I ever hear is "Fire 'em! I need to get around in a city I'm not in! Screw workers, bend over and take it!"

This-
. The authority also proposed having the contract expire in March instead of during the holiday season.
seems like something that should have been thought through on the first contract...
Source, posted by another poster (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/13/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/13cnd-mta.html?ex=1135314000&en=b18dc94558ee57dc&ei=5070)

"The city has estimated that in the event of a strike, $440 million to $660 million worth of business would be lost each day."

Ultimately, the employess of these businesses and the public in general will pay the freight for this illegal strike. Nice going, TWU. :headbang:

"The union was holding a rally this afternoon at Grand Central Station, at which the Rev. Al Sharpton was scheduled to speak."

Figures. :rolleyes:
Sounds like it's in the cities transit authority's best interest then to look after its workers to prevent losing all that money.

"The city has estimated that in the event of a strike, $440 million to $660 million worth of business would be lost each day."

This would mean the city benefits by between $440 to $660million a day from the workers labor.

How do the collective wages of the workers on strike compare to this?

Good move, but I still think every last one of them should be fired, regardless of how long it takes to replace them.I was just saying yesterday that if I were Bloomberg or Pataki, I'd do to them what Reagan did to the air traffic controllers. Then I'd fine the transit authority for being idiots and putting out their senseless demand when it would have saved them far less than they're putting out for police overtime.

Also I have asked before but 47 k sounds an awfull lot here with our relitivly low standard of living. For all I know living in new york that might be poverty level
"Within the United States, New York remains the most expensive city with Los Angeles at twenty-seven and Chicago at thirty-five. The median income of a New York is $60,765, $10,000 more than the national median. Based on a US average at an index of 100.0, the overall cost of living in New York is 189.1. Housing is almost triple the national average at $314,000 for a house and $2,483.64 for one months rent of a two bedroom apartment. Secondary education is about $2,000 more than the national average at $7,428. Utilities, including electricity and gas, are almost twice the national index at 179.9. Food and groceries is about 1.5x the nation's index at 142.5. A mere cup of coffee with table service is $5.48 while in Buenos Aires, ranked 141st, the same service costs $1.10. In fact, despite attaining a lower ranking than cities like London and Tokyo, one thing remains the most expensive in New York, phone service for one month at $25.99. The cheapest city surveyed by Mercer Resource Consulting was Pittsburgh ranked 112th. According to the index, a person who earns $50,000 in Pittsburgh will need $97,9776 in New York. Overall, New York City is two-times as expensive as any other city in the United States."

From http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/GeetaMalieckal.shtml

Wages, even though the average bus driver in NYC is making about $60,000 a year! :headbang:
Bang your head all you want--you want to try living in NYC on $60K a year? When housing costs are such that you can't even think about buying in that market? Jesus Eut--my girlfriend make that combined here in south Florida and we're priced out. We can barely afford to rent without living in the ghetto--we live on the outskirts instead. New York is worse. Why don't you try understanding that while $60K may go a long way in North Carolina, it doesn't go so far in New York City?

Sounds like it's in the cities transit authority's best interest then to look after its workers to prevent losing all that money.
Which satement presumes they're not already "taking care of them." :rolleyes:

Bang your head all you want--you want to try living in NYC on $60K a year? When housing costs are such that you can't even think about buying in that market? Jesus Eut--my girlfriend make that combined here in south Florida and we're priced out. We can barely afford to rent without living in the ghetto--we live on the outskirts instead. New York is worse. Why don't you try understanding that while $60K may go a long way in North Carolina, it doesn't go so far in New York City?
I do understand that. See the last post I made about the cost of living in NYC.

Canada City']The problem with labor is they tend to abuse whatever power they have.But management never abuses their power huh? Jesus.

For example, I read around here that some unions prevent new technological breakthroughs for transit (something about AC and DC motors) and that NYC transit union stopped it because they didn't want to learn any new skills.
Got anything to back up what sounds eerily like pretty much every anti-union salespitch I've ever heard? Doubt it.

Which satement presumes they're not already "taking care of them." :rolleyes:
You're statement supposed that they where and it was all on the tranist workers. We'll call it a push.
However-
Given the info you posted it doesn't look like they are.

I do understand that. See the last post I made about the cost of living in NYC.
Ah. So does that mean you're softening your stance on these workers?

Uh ... when a bus driver makes over $60,000 a year, I don't think they're being exactly "oppressed."

There is a very valid reason why this strike is an illegal one: it not only hurts those who have to ride the bus or subway to work ( which, as I recall, is in the millions ), it has a ripple effect to the entire economy. Last I heard, the strike is estimated to have an economic cost of over $1.5 BILLION.

Nice rant, btw. :p

Not to mention it violates state law. Public Workers cannot strike according to NY state law.

But management never abuses their power huh? Jesus.
That wasn't what the discusion was all about, you twit. It's about the current NYC transit strike. Hello???

hey, since the right to strike has been removed in ny, we might as well get some illegal secondary strike action going too. cripple the bastards!

Good move, but I still think every last one of them should be fired, regardless of how long it takes to replace them.

I thought that, since they are not allowed to strike, the NYC govt was allowed to fire them all and hire without a Union.

Ah. So does that mean you're softening your stance on these workers?
Not at all. They're engaging in an illegal strike and should be treated like any other law-breaker.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but ... unadulterated bullshit! Why let a small group of disgrunnled workers hold the entire City of New York, not to mention the entire State of New York and beyond that, the economy of the US, to ransom? There are many occupations where strikes are illegal, and rightly so. The cost is just too high.

Federal Employees cannot strike as the ATC people found out :D

That wasn't what the discusion was all about, you twit. It's about the current NYC transit strike. Hello???
Check what he was responding to before you get all 'twittery,' and keep in mind a discussion about a strike does include discussions about management and how they weild thier power. Hiya.

Doesn't seem eye to eye. What would be useful is if someone where to compare to see if these raises matched things like cost of living increases and falling dollar values. But all I ever hear is "Fire 'em! I need to get around in a city I'm not in! Screw workers, bend over and take it!"


To be fair, we did almost have a problem with the TTC (The Toronto Transit system) with them arguing about wage increases and that they don't get enough money from the provience or government.

We give them some money, and the first thing they do? They want to make the Museum Subway Platform look like an egyptian tomb for 1.5 million dollars. Instead of improving current services, routes, or technology, they honestly believe the best course of action is changing the appearance on a subway platform for 'cultural' proposes.

So excuse me for thinking Unions are a crook of shit.

EDIT: In case you don't believe me, http://www.paved.ca/paved/2005/11/subways_refresh.html

I thought that, since they are not allowed to strike, the NYC govt was allowed to fire them all and hire without a Union.
You would think so. But I'm sure there's some NYC or NY State regulation which prohibits that. Plus the disruption resulting from having to replace them all would probably discomfit the politicians too much.

Canada City']To be fair, we did almost have a problem with the TTC (The Toronto Transit system) with them arguing about wage increases and that they don't get enough money from the provience or government.

We give them some money, and the first thing they do? They want to make the Muesum Subway Platform look like an egyptian tomb for 1.5 million dollars. Instead of improving current services, routes, or technology, they honestly believe the best course of action is changing the appearance on a subway platform for 'cultural' proposes.

So excuse me for thinking Unions are a crook of shit.
That sounds like you gave the transit authority money to spend on the transit system and they thought they'd redecorate rather than you gave workers a cost of living raise who then used it to redecorate the station. Do you have a link to this story? EDIT: You added a link, but that only announces the display and doesn't describe the situation.

Originally Posted by Eutrusca
There are many occupations where strikes are illegal, and rightly so. The cost is just too high.

If the work is so valueable then why the hell are they being paid about 25% less than the average wage for the city they are keeping working?

(25% based on $47K average for transit worker vs 60K average salary based on information provided in this thread)

hey, since the right to strike has been removed in ny, we might as well get some illegal secondary strike action going too. cripple the bastards!

Wow someone didnt get the memo whatsoever. Public Workers do not have that right to strike however there are 2 private companies that can legally strike.

There still is a right to strike but NOT the public workers.

I believe that Lunatic Goofballs originally said this, but the transit authority counts on this when the do negotiate with the unions. They know that the unions are legally not allowed to strike, so they become infinitely less accommodating in negotiations. How fair is it for a business to count on government intervention when negotating wages?

All the ubercapitalist types are saying that all these workers should be fired and replaced by people willing to do the jobs for less, yet to them it's somehow perfectly within reason for management to rely on the government to prevent the workers from walking out?

This strike may be illegal, but if the workers really aren't being paid shit, (they're being paid well, just not by new york standards.) then the Transit needs to pay up, they don't nessisarily have to meet the Strikers INCREDIBLE and OUTRAGEOUS demands, try a compromise. Not everyone get's what they want, to give a little, take a little, everyone is somewhat happy.

This strike may be illegal, but if the workers really aren't being paid shit, (they're being paid well, just not by new york standards.) then the Transit needs to pay up, they don't nessisarily have to meet the Strikers INCREDIBLE and OUTRAGEOUS demands, try a compromise. Not everyone get's what they want, to give a little, take a little, everyone is somewhat happy.

$47,000 a year is not what I call "getting paid shit" Now if they were getting paid 15,000 then maybe you'll have a case.

That sounds like you gave the transit authority money to spend on the transit system and they thought they'd redecorate rather than you gave workers a cost of living raise who then used it to redecorate the station. Do you have a link to this story? EDIT: You added a link, but that only announces the display and doesn't describe the situation.

http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/story/to-deal20050408.html

Long story short, the strike didn't really happen and our provinicial government did believe that TTC was underfunded, asked the Federal Government to help out. They agreed, and we end up wasting money on subway platforms and somewhat increased wages.

http://www.cilt.ca/Lists/News%20Items/DispForm.aspx?ID=3

Nonetheless, it's still the union's idea for subway platforms instead of improving the core issues with the public transportation.

If the work is so valueable then why the hell are they being paid about 25% less than the average wage for the city they are keeping working?
I don't know if that's the case or not. Regardless, the strike is still illegal.

The reason so few people seem to have power all beyond reason is because of the harm they can inflict when they get disgrunnled, which goes a long way toward explaining why the strike is illegal.

There still is a right to strike but NOT the public workers.

in other words, the right to strike has been forcefully blocked from certain sectors.

but they still retain the right to strike, just like people did back when the government responded to all strikes by calling out the troops to open fire on the strikers.

$47,000 a year is not what I call "getting paid shit" Now if they were getting paid 15,000 then maybe you'll have a case.

You can call it whatever you want, but the fact is that the average wage in the city is $60,000, so they're already paid less than average in the most expensive city in the US.

"Within the United States, New York remains the most expensive city with Los Angeles at twenty-seven and Chicago at thirty-five. The median income of a New York is $60,765, $10,000 more than the national median. Based on a US average at an index of 100.0, the overall cost of living in New York is 189.1. Housing is almost triple the national average at $314,000 for a house and $2,483.64 for one months rent of a two bedroom apartment. Secondary education is about $2,000 more than the national average at $7,428. Utilities, including electricity and gas, are almost twice the national index at 179.9. Food and groceries is about 1.5x the nation's index at 142.5. A mere cup of coffee with table service is $5.48 while in Buenos Aires, ranked 141st, the same service costs $1.10. In fact, despite attaining a lower ranking than cities like London and Tokyo, one thing remains the most expensive in New York, phone service for one month at $25.99. The cheapest city surveyed by Mercer Resource Consulting was Pittsburgh ranked 112th. According to the index, a person who earns $50,000 in Pittsburgh will need $97,9776 in New York. Overall, New York City is two-times as expensive as any other city in the United States."

From http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/...alieckal.shtml

Living in NYC costs almost twice as much as living anywhere else. Doing the math, they would make about $23,500 where you live. A pay raise to $30,000 isn't too much, especially when they've agreed to a pay freeze and insignificant raises in the past at the behest of the transit authority.

This strike may be illegal, but if the workers really aren't being paid shit, (they're being paid well, just not by new york standards.) then the Transit needs to pay up, they don't nessisarily have to meet the Strikers INCREDIBLE and OUTRAGEOUS demands, try a compromise. Not everyone get's what they want, to give a little, take a little, everyone is somewhat happy.
Exactly. It's called negotiation. But before that happens, they need to address the illegality of the strike.

$47,000 a year is not what I call "getting paid shit" Now if they were getting paid 15,000 then maybe you'll have a case.
Yeah, well as I pointed out to Eutrusca, trying to live on $47K a year in New York City is more than a bit of a challenge. I realize you're young, Corneliu, and you don't have any real concept of what that means, but you might want to recognize that before you type a snarky response and come off looking dumb.

Canada City']http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/story/to-deal20050408.html

Long story short, the strike didn't really happen and our provinicial government did believe that TTC was underfunded, asked the Federal Government to help out. They agreed, and we end up wasting money on subway platforms and somewhat increased wages.

http://www.cilt.ca/Lists/News%20Items/DispForm.aspx?ID=3

Nonetheless, it's still the union's idea for subway platforms instead of improving the core issues with the public transportation.
This still doesn't follow what you've claimed. This looks like a raise issue, they where striking for a raise in wages. I don't see the connection between the worker raises and the re-decorated station.

Exactly. It's called negotiation. But before that happens, they need to address the illegality of the strike.
Yes, negotiation-but first remove all of one sides bargianing chips...so it's sure to turn out fair...

You can call it whatever you want, but the fact is that the average wage in the city is $60,000, so they're already paid less than average in the most expensive city in the US.
So??

What are you saying, that everyone should be paid at the "average" rate? They drive busses and subway trains, for crying out loud. :headbang:

Yes, negotiation-but first remove all of one sides bargianing chips...so it's sure to turn out fair...
Don't like it? Change the law.

Regardless, the strike is still illegal.

so was the pullman strike, so were the 8 hour day strikes, so was the strike before the ludlow massacre, etc.

Exactly. It's called negotiation. But before that happens, they need to address the illegality of the strike.
But how do you negotiate when you have no bargining power? If they are not allowed to strike then what can they do - call the paymasters mean names?

Hell - they had to take a pay freeze before - effectively a pay-cut in real terms. Without strike action as a bargining chip there is no point of a negotiation as there is no reason at all for the city to increase their pay.

Don't like it? Change the law.

the best way for workers to change such laws is a large scale bit of civil disobedience. the transit union should actually get in touch with the cop union and work out a bit of a deal. make the bastards call in the army.

Yeah, well as I pointed out to Eutrusca, trying to live on $47K a year in New York City is more than a bit of a challenge. I realize you're young, Corneliu, and you don't have any real concept of what that means, but you might want to recognize that before you type a snarky response and come off looking dumb.

Dude, I was on the receiving end of a government stoppage during the Clinton Administration. It wasn't a strike perse but a stoppage none the less. Because of that stoppage, my father didn't get paid. Because he didn't get paid, we were very close to have ZERO money in my parents bank accounts. We barely scraped together enough for food but that was it.

The only thing a strike hurts is those that are striking. They won't get paid for the time they strike and that'll take money out of there mouths as well as money for presents for their kids.

You may think I'm young and your right, I am, however I also know just what strikes can do. Not a day goes by here when I'm hearing of someone striking or hearing a threat of a strike. A teacher strike forces kids to go to school through mid June whereas those that haven't struck get out on time. You know what that does to family vacations? Money is wasted because they have to change dates or cancel them all together. Economically, a strike is worthless as it costs more money to strike than it does not too.

So??

What are you saying, that everyone should be paid at the "average" rate? They drive busses and subway trains, for crying out loud. :headbang:
Again, bang your head all you fucking want--maybe you'll bang some sense into it. On one hand, you say these guys shouldn't be allowed to strike because they're too essential to city services. On the other hand, you say they shouldn't be paid at the "average" rate, because they're just bus and subway drivers. And you don't see any disconnect there?

So??

What are you saying, that everyone should be paid at the "average" rate? They drive busses and subway trains, for crying out loud. :headbang:
This is just snobbery about which jobs you feel should be well rewarded. Surely they should be allowed to earn the market rate for their work.

Economically, a strike is worthless as it costs more money to strike than it does not too.

you know, you're certainly old enough to work 15 hour days in the coal mines with no safety equipment and no insurance for the inevitable mining accident...

Wages, even though the average bus driver in NYC is making about $60,000 a year! :headbang:
$60,000:eek: I need to be movin to New york.Anyone goin that way?:)

Again, bang your head all you fucking want--maybe you'll bang some sense into it. On one hand, you say these guys shouldn't be allowed to strike because they're too essential to city services. On the other hand, you say they shouldn't be paid at the "average" rate, because they're just bus and subway drivers. And you don't see any disconnect there?
Uh ... no. Show me where the "disconnect" is. They are two different things. One is the power the union has because of the necessity of public transportation to the welfare of the City. The other has to do with skill level, which is one of the major items which determines rates of pay.

Again, bang your head all you fucking want--maybe you'll bang some sense into it. On one hand, you say these guys shouldn't be allowed to strike because they're too essential to city services. On the other hand, you say they shouldn't be paid at the "average" rate, because they're just bus and subway drivers. And you don't see any disconnect there?

it seems sorta like the disconnect you see when people complain about how good a militant union has got it compared to them and that's why the union is bad, rather than an argument for them to form or join a militant union too.

anything to slam worker solidarity, i guess.

This is just snobbery about which jobs you feel should be well rewarded. Surely they should be allowed to earn the market rate for their work.
Of course they should. How difficult is it to train someone to drive a bus or a subway train?

It has nothing to do with your specious allegation of "snobbery." I have worked at jobs I'm certain you wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. What determines whether a job is paid "market rate" is largely the skill level required to perform it and how many people either have that skill or can be trained to it.

it seems sorta like the disconnect you see when people complain about how good a militant union has got it compared to them and that's why the union is bad, rather than an argument for them to form or join a militant union too.

anything to slam worker solidarity, i guess.
Unadulterated bullshit.

. The other has to do with skill level, which is one of the major items which determines rates of pay.
Snobbery.
The value of a persons work is the benefit is gives to the person they are doing the work for combined with demand for the service. Skill creates demand due to a reduced supply which is why skilled work is often paid well.

The work of the trasnport workers is clearly valueable and there is clearly demand - so they should be paid accrodingly - under the current system the government is keeping their wages artifically below their market rate.

The average wage in NY is NOT 60,000.

Manhattan's wages ($2,025) were over two and a half times the
national average of $775 in the first quarter of 2005, highest in
the nation among the 322 large counties. (In Manhattan, average
wages in the first and fourth quarters tend to be high because of
the payment of annual bonuses in certain industries.) None of
the other four counties in the City had an average weekly wage
above that for the nation, although the average in Queens ($759)
was close. (See table 1.) Average weekly wages in Bronx,
Richmond, and Kings Counties were $705, $664, and $660,
respectively, ranging from 9.1- to 14.8-percent below the
national level. (See map 1.)
http://www.bls.gov/ro2/qcew9310.htm

And BTW: the Union is illegally striking against the city because they don't want the retirement age for new employees only to be moved to 62 from it's current age of 55.

This Union is full of shit. They get paid a more than average wage (even in the city) AND they have early retirements benefits (half wage of your highest three year average - starting at 55) AND it's illegal for them to strike AND their mother union itself said the local should NOT strike but stay at the negotiation table...

They should be collectively burned at the stake, a million dollar a day fine for the union local AND each individual striker should have to re-pay two days wages for each day of strike (making it a total of three days loss for each day) as the NY Taylor law stipulates as punishment for the violation.

Uh ... no. Show me where the "disconnect" is. They are two different things. One is the power the union has because of the necessity of public transportation to the welfare of the City. The other has to do with skill level, which is one of the major items which determines rates of pay.
No--a large part of any negotiation has to be the amount of pain one side can exert on the other. The more pain that can be exerted, the more leverage and the better bargaining position. That's the reason that seemingly unskilled workers like drivers (and their level of skill is another matter to debate--you ever tried to drive a bus in a big city? I doubt it) deserve higher pay than someone like you apparently thinks they deserve.

you know, you're certainly old enough to work 15 hour days in the coal mines with no safety equipment and no insurance for the inevitable mining accident...

Luckily for me, I don't live in the coal belt of beautiful PA.

What determines whether a job is paid "market rate" is largely the skill level required to perform it and how many people either have that skill or can be trained to it.

only if you believe that market rates should be completely determined by employers, rather than the outcome of negotiations between buyers and sellers (of labor in this case).

which means that it wouldn't be a market rate at all.

unions are a market force. strikes are 100% legitimate - to say they aren't is to say that people can be compelled to work against their wishes, like slaves - and therefore are also a market force. what you want is to be able to dictate terms to a crushed enemy, not make a deal that both sides can tolerate.

Luckily for me, I don't live in the coal belt of beautiful PA.
I'm sure there are dozens of other local industries you could have been swept up in, with similar working conditions--meat packing plant for 15 hours a day and no protections, a sweatshop making clothes, picking fruit in the fields. Pick your poison.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but ... unadulterated bullshit! Why let a small group of disgrunnled workers hold the entire City of New York, not to mention the entire State of New York and beyond that, the economy of the US, to ransom? There are many occupations where strikes are illegal, and rightly so. The cost is just too high.

Well Eut this is where we part ways in our basic belief system. I am a dedicated free market capitalist, but have also been a representative for the old International Typographical Union. One must realize and accept the fact that workers have the same principle right to market their labor in a free system just the same as a company has to sell their products. They both have the same basic right to withhold thier products or services if their situation dictates. In cases of emergency services such as Fire, Police, Corrections, Military and a very few other professions there is justifiable cause to prevent work stoppages via government prohibition.
Transportation personel most certainly do not fit in this catagory, and the local authority's attempts to use governmental mandates to pevent these people from maintaining their standard of living is absoultely reprehensible. Especially in light of the fact that the MTA is sitting on a 1 billion dollar surplus for this year alone. The MTA and about every other psudo government agency have been accepting concessions in compenstation for the past several years from these workers based on operational defecits, and now you would have them accept cuts in their pension benefits and retirement ages based on "projected defecits"?
Let me explain the "projected defecits" scam as implimented by my own states procedures as I was instructed to contribute. Every department head is instructed to compile to the best of their ability the highest possible cost, including capital improvements, operational costs, normal and potiential maintence, emergency capital outlay potiential and administrative costs. All this information is compiled and added up then multiplied by a factor of 1.5 and compared to the current revenue allocated to the department, thus guarenteeing a required "projected defecit."
New York should be absolutely ashamed of attempting to pull off such a scam while sitting on an obscene budget surplus, and even more ashamed of attemting to discredit these 30,000 employees for the crime of wanting to maintain there megar living.
As I said, I am a free market capitalist and a conservative, however, for the system to work for all, all must be able to compete on the same level and that includes the right for workers to withdraw their services when treated unfairly.

I'm sure there are dozens of other local industries you could have been swept up in, with similar working conditions--meat packing plant for 15 hours a day and no protections, a sweatshop making clothes, picking fruit in the fields. Pick your poison.

*ponders*

Education actually.

This is just snobbery about which jobs you feel should be well rewarded. Surely they should be allowed to earn the market rate for their work.Of course they should. How difficult is it to train someone to drive a bus or a subway train?

It has nothing to do with your specious allegation of "snobbery." I have worked at jobs I'm certain you wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. What determines whether a job is paid "market rate" is largely the skill level required to perform it and how many people either have that skill or can be trained to it.
Wait, seriously-did you just answer the snobbery challenge with-
How difficult is it to train someone to drive a bus or a subway train? and I have worked at jobs I'm certain you wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole.
Classic.

Anyhoo-value of the work is also determined on what the work generates, by your own estemation $440-$660 million in a short period of time--certainly raises thier value. Further, cost of living, which you've also provided and puts them on a low end, is a factor. If you do not pay the workers that make youre city tick enough money to live in the city they operate you have a problem. It shouldn't have to take a strike to point that out...

timely...

And BTW: the Union is illegally striking against the city because they don't want the retirement age for new employees only to be moved to 62 from it's current age of 55.

This Union is full of shit. They get paid a more than average wage (even in the city) AND they have early retirements benefits (half wage of your highest three year average - starting at 55)

it seems sorta like the disconnect you see when people complain about how good a militant union has got it compared to them and that's why the union is bad, rather than an argument for them to form or join a militant union too.

anything to slam worker solidarity, i guess.

Snobbery.
The value of a persons work is the benefit is gives to the person they are doing the work for combined with demand for the service. Skill creates demand due to a reduced supply which is why skilled work is often paid well.

The work of the trasnport workers is clearly valueable and there is clearly demand - so they should be paid accrodingly - under the current system the government is keeping their wages artifically below their market rate.
No one is saying their work isn't valuable or in demand. That's not the issue. There are actually only three issues here:

1. The availability of those capable of performing the work in question, whether already trained or not.

2. Whether the State has a right or obligation in the public interest to forbid strikes by public workers.

3. The disparate power of organized labor to force wages for their members to levels beyond what the fair market value of the skills of their members would yield.

I haven't followed this story from the beginning, but I just read that this strike isn't about the retirement age, but rather the fact that the MTA put forward the demand that new workers triple their pension contribution, and what's more significant, did it at the last minute, when the union thought a strike had been averted. In short, the MTA stuck a new demand in there, told the union to take it or leave it, and the union left it. Why isn't that getting more play in the media coverage here?

No--a large part of any negotiation has to be the amount of pain one side can exert on the other. The more pain that can be exerted, the more leverage and the better bargaining position. That's the reason that seemingly unskilled workers like drivers (and their level of skill is another matter to debate--you ever tried to drive a bus in a big city? I doubt it) deserve higher pay than someone like you apparently thinks they deserve.
"Might makes right?" As I recall, you took exactly the opposite position when talking about the US vis-a-vis the current situation in Iraq?

You guys are all arguing over the basic concept of management and labor... However, this case is about 'public employees.' And that changes things.

In some states, like NY, it is illegal to strike. In some states, they have binding arbitration without the power to strike.

The problem with NY is that they don't have the right to strike but they still have management/labor negotiations. NY needs to remove the power of negotiation from both sides (Transportation company and the Union), and arbitrate via federal employee a fair wage.

IMO: public employees should no more have the right to strike than a prison guard or an army soldier. If you want to be able to negotiate your own wages you shouldn't be working for the government, you should be in the private sector. However, I do admit that NY has it mixed up right now, allowing the management the ability to make an offer during negotiations without the power to strike on the other side is just asking for trouble. But the solution is in the state congress and writing laws, not on performing your own illegal strike and expecting to get away with it.

The strikers here should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

3. The disparate power of organized labor to force wages for their members to levels beyond what the fair market value of the skills of their members would yield.

if it's the result of negotiations between buyers and sellers operating as relative equals, then it is 'the fair market value' by definition. if those 'negotiations' are completely lopsided because one party can be forced to work no matter what, then what you have is slavery.

I haven't followed this story from the beginning, but I just read that this strike isn't about the retirement age, but rather the fact that the MTA put forward the demand that new workers triple their pension contribution, and what's more significant, did it at the last minute, when the union thought a strike had been averted. In short, the MTA stuck a new demand in there, told the union to take it or leave it, and the union left it. Why isn't that getting more play in the media coverage here?

3x their pension? Don't they know that'll cause a rate hike?

only if you believe that market rates should be completely determined by employers, rather than the outcome of negotiations between buyers and sellers (of labor in this case).

which means that it wouldn't be a market rate at all.

unions are a market force. strikes are 100% legitimate - to say they aren't is to say that people can be compelled to work against their wishes, like slaves - and therefore are also a market force. what you want is to be able to dictate terms to a crushed enemy, not make a deal that both sides can tolerate.
No. Not at all.

What I "want" is the end to an illegal strike, followed by deliberate negotiations between City management and the transit workers.

timely...

A militant union illegally striking against the state, it's called treason.

The Union wanted 3x their pension? Don't they know that'll cause a rate hike?
Like they care??? They're just like Samuel Gompers ... they just want "More."

I haven't followed this story from the beginning, but I just read that this strike isn't about the retirement age, but rather the fact that the MTA put forward the demand that new workers triple their pension contribution, and what's more significant, did it at the last minute, when the union thought a strike had been averted. In short, the MTA stuck a new demand in there, told the union to take it or leave it, and the union left it. Why isn't that getting more play in the media coverage here?
Especially in light of the fact that the MTA is sitting on a 1 billion dollar surplus for this year alone.
Curiouser and curiouser. More and more it looks like someone has been playing to the refs.

if it's the result of negotiations between buyers and sellers operating as relative equals, then it is 'the fair market value' by definition. if those 'negotiations' are completely lopsided because one party can be forced to work no matter what, then what you have is slavery.
No. What you have is called "sanity."

Why isn't that getting more play in the media coverage here?

because the corprorate media never sides with strikers, except sometimes when they are in other countries - like poland, for example.

The Union wanted 3x their pension? Don't they know that'll cause a rate hike?Like they care??? They're just like Samuel Gompers ... they just want "More."
You two might want to re-read that post...

I haven't followed this story from the beginning, but I just read that this strike isn't about the retirement age, but rather the fact that the MTA put forward the demand that new workers triple their pension contribution, and what's more significant, did it at the last minute, when the union thought a strike had been averted. In short, the MTA stuck a new demand in there, told the union to take it or leave it, and the union left it.
Whoops! I didn't see that. This, if true, is definitely not kosher. Do you have a link?

A militant union illegally striking against the state, it's called treason.

actually, it's called freedom. learn it, live it, love it.

to expand on this:
if the law says that some people can be compelled to go to work, that they don't have the right to withhold their labor, then what you have is a law that in every possible sense creates a situation of involuntary servitude. which is not only wrong and something to be fought against on the face of it, but it is also unconstitutional in the u.s. thanks to the 13th amendment.

You two might want to re-read that post...

I did. Hence why I removed a couple of words and kept 3X the pension? don't they know that'll cause a rate hike.

"Might makes right?" As I recall, you took exactly the opposite position when talking about the US vis-a-vis the current situation in Iraq?
That's not what I'm saying and you fucking well know it. I'm talking about leverage in negotiations--both sides have the ability to exert pain on the other, and the amount of pain either side is willing to bear is an integral part of any negotiation.

actually, it's called freedom. learn it, live it, love it.


No, it's called dictatorship. when the Army strikes under the leadership of a general that promises to pay them more than the civil government does, the strike is called a coup. Public employees should NOT have the right to strike, they should have arbitrated wages.

That's not what I'm saying and you fucking well know it. I'm talking about leverage in negotiations--both sides have the ability to exert pain on the other, and the amount of pain either side is willing to bear is an integral part of any negotiation.
LOL!

With no consideration for the "pain" of third parties, such as those in NYC who have to rely on public transportation to get to work, or those in NY State and the rest of the Country who are "pained" by the ripple effect?

I haven't followed this story from the beginning, but I just read that this strike isn't about the retirement age, but rather the fact that the MTA put forward the demand that new workers triple their pension contribution, and what's more significant, did it at the last minute, when the union thought a strike had been averted. In short, the MTA stuck a new demand in there, told the union to take it or leave it, and the union left it. Why isn't that getting more play in the media coverage here?


Do you have a link? If it's true, why did the International TWU advise the local against the stoppage?

No one is saying their work isn't valuable or in demand. That's not the issue. There are actually only three issues here:

1. The availability of those capable of performing the work in question, whether already trained or not.

2. Whether the State has a right or obligation in the public interest to forbid strikes by public workers.

3. The disparate power of organized labor to force wages for their members to levels beyond what the fair market value of the skills of their members would yield.
1. This point is also Demand. Supply and Demand are impossible to seperate. There is clearly Demand for the service. True many could do it with training, but the same is true for many jobs.

2 and 3. True. But that should not give the government automatic rights to veto any negotiations and dictate pay cuts when there is no recource for the worker. If you make it illegal for a certain worker to strike you should also put in place a system to ensure they are paid fairly - such as indexing their pay to the average where they are required to work. In this case the average wage of people living in the extent of NY covered by the transit system. The difficulty is getting the correct factor on the average, but i think for an essential service the average should be the minimum.

I missed you previous response - trust me, although i work in a good job these days, in my youth i worked in many really really crap jobs for crap wages. I probably did touch them with a lot less than a ten-foot pole.

No, it's called dictatorship. when the Army strikes under the leadership of a general that promises to pay them more than the civil government does, the strike is called a coup. Public employees should NOT have the right to strike, they should have arbitrated wages.
I think someone else on here pointed out that the contract between NYC and the transit workers provides for arbitration. Since sriking is illegal, I would imagine that the arbitration is final and binding. If this is the case, the apparent disparity between big-bad City management and the union is just that ... apparent.

LOL!

With no consideration for the "pain" of third parties, such as those in NYC who have to rely on public transportation to get to work, or those in NY State and the rest of the Country who are "pained" by the ripple effect?
Again with the assumption that only one side bears the responsability for this...

There is a very valid reason why this strike is an illegal one: it not only hurts those who have to ride the bus or subway to work ( which, as I recall, is in the millions ), it has a ripple effect to the entire economy. Last I heard, the strike is estimated to have an economic cost of over $1.5 BILLION.
So firing the whole workforce and having the bus and subway lines shut down completely while new staff are trained wouldn't really be a good idea, then?

No, it's called dictatorship. when the Army strikes under the leadership of a general that promises to pay them more than the civil government does, the strike is called a coup. Public employees should NOT have the right to strike, they should have arbitrated wages.

if the army overthrows the government on the promise that the new military leadership will pay them more, that's a coup. if the military just stops showing up to work to make the current government pay them more, that would be a strike. there is a bit of a difference.

all people have a right to withhold their labor. if you are not allowed to withhold your labor, then you are a slave.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but ... unadulterated bullshit! Why let a small group of disgrunnled workers hold the entire City of New York, not to mention the entire State of New York and beyond that, the economy of the US, to ransom? There are many occupations where strikes are illegal, and rightly so. The cost is just too high.

Bullshit?, I already said I was ambivalent about the strike, but to restrict strike actions is fundamentally wrong. The economy is composed of working people and if we take away their rights unduly, then we are ultimately harming its interests in the long run.

There are five impasse remedies offered under the Taylor law, none of which the union tried before calling a strike. It seems to me therefore that the fine is perfectly reasonable.

And as I pointed out yesterday, the main sticking point, according to all news media in the city, the main sticking point is that the union won't budge on lowering retirement age. (Which is unrealistic, considering chnaging demographics).

As to the cost of living issue, mostly no-one pays market rate rent in NYC, except for college grads who move here to work "office" jobs. Draw your own conclusions.

3. The disparate power of organized labor to force wages for their members to levels beyond what the fair market value of the skills of their members would yield.

Ah, but the organized labor isn't forcing the wages anywhere, because whenever they attempt to negotiate higher wages, they are blockaded until they strike, at which point it is promptly declared illegal. In this situation, the union has very little power, as the transit authority has the government fighting on their behalf.

You can't say on the one hand that these employees are so vital to the city's interests that they cannot be allowed to strike, and then on the other hand say they don't deserve the raises they want because they're not that important. If they are so vital to the city that one day of striking costs them several hundred million dollars, then they are clearly important and should be paid what they want. But if they are just bus drivers and subway operators, then they are not important to the city's interests and should be allowed to strike if negotiations do not proceed they way they want. We can't have it both ways, where they're not important enough to get paid what they consider a fair wage but too important to strike.

With no consideration for the "pain" of third parties, such as those in NYC who have to rely on public transportation to get to work, or those in NY State and the rest of the Country who are "pained" by the ripple effect?

yeah, the transporation authority really should have thought of that before they decided to be dicks and create the need for the strike.

blame never goes to those with the least power.

Uh ... when a bus driver makes over $60,000 a year, I don't think they're being exactly "oppressed."



It's not much when you have a family to support. Besides, how much money do you make? Would you voluntarily agree to work for less? Or, like most of us, would you like to maintain your current standard of living in the face of rising fuel costs, which are in turn causing the cost of almost everything else to increase?

Thank God we have a few unions who are willing to stand up to the Ebenezer Scrooges of the world!

1. This point is also Demand. Supply and Demand are impossible to seperate. There is clearly Demand for the service. True many could do it with training, but the same is true for many jobs.

2 and 3. True. But that should not give the government automatic rights to veto any negotiations and dictate pay cuts when there is no recource for the worker. If you make it illegal for a certain worker to strike you should also put in place a system to ensure they are paid fairly - such as indexing their pay to the average where they are required to work. In this case the average wage of people living in the extent of NY covered by the transit system. The difficulty is getting the correct factor on the average, but i think for an essential service the average should be the minimum.

I missed you previous response - trust me, although i work in a good job these days, in my youth i worked in many really really crap jobs for crap wages. I probably did touch them with a lot less than a ten-foot pole.
1. Yes, there is demand for the service or the jobs would not exist. But the supply is more than adequate due to the low skill level of the jobs in question. This is why the workers joined a union in the first place, to give them more clout in negotiating with City management over terms and conditions of employment.

2. I don't recall anything which indicated that management was "dictating" anything in the current situation, and as another poster pointed out, the contract provides for arbitration.

3. Why should anyone's pay be "indexed" to the "average?" That obviates the "supply and demand" issue you mentioned above. It would be great if we could pay everyone an "average" wage, but that's just not going to happen.

4. If providing an "essential service" were the determining factor, nurses, emergency personnel, soldiers and police would be earning WAY more than they do now.

Whoops! I didn't see that. This, if true, is definitely not kosher. Do you have a link?
Sorry for the delay--my computer just decided to get really slow for a minute there. Here's the story (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/21collapse.html) and the relevant quote:
On the final day of intense negotiations, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, it turns out, greatly altered what it had called its final offer, to address many of the objections of the transit workers' union. The authority improved its earlier wage proposals, dropped its demand for concessions on health benefits and stopped calling for an increase in the retirement age, to 62 from 55.

But then, just hours before the strike deadline, the authority's chairman, Peter S. Kalikow, put forward a surprise demand that stunned the union. Seeking to rein in the authority's soaring pension costs, he asked that all new transit workers contribute 6 percent of their wages toward their pensions, up from the 2 percent that current workers pay. The union balked, and then shut down the nation's largest transit system for the first time in a quarter-century.

Yet for all the rage and bluster that followed, this war was declared over a pension proposal that would have saved the transit authority less than $20 million over the next three years.

It seemed a small figure, considering that the city says that every day of the strike will cost its businesses hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues. But the authority contends that it must act now to prevent a "tidal wave" of pension outlays if costs are not brought under control.

Roger Toussaint, the president of the union, Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union, said the pension proposal, made Monday night just before the 12:01 a.m. strike deadline, would effectively cut the wages of new workers by 4 percent.

We can't have it both ways, where they're not important enough to get paid what they consider a fair wage but too important to strike.

Very well put. :)

There are five impasse remedies offered under the Taylor law, none of which the union tried before calling a strike. It seems to me therefore that the fine is perfectly reasonable.

except that the law itself is unjust and ought be ignored and destroyed.

And as I pointed out yesterday, the main sticking point, according to all news media in the city, the main sticking point is that the union won't budge on lowering retirement age. (Which is unrealistic, considering chnaging demographics).

we should be lowering retirement ages all around, as well as cutting back working hours and increasing wages. what the hell is the point of being the wealthiest society ever if every year wages fail to keep up with inflation and people are expected to work until they die?

there is nothing unrealistic about it at all.

It's not much when you have a family to support. Besides, how much money do you make? Would you voluntarily agree to work for less? Or, like most of us, would you like to maintain your currently standard of living in the face of rising fuel costs, which are in turn causing the cost of almost everything else to increase?

Thank God we have a few unions who are willing to stand up to the Ebenezer Scrooges of the world!
Oh, for God's sake. Groan.

You obviously don't read signatures. :rolleyes:

Sorry for the delay--my computer just decided to get really slow for a minute there. Here's the story (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/21collapse.html) and the relevant quote:
Well, damn! This puts an entirely different spin on things. Given this, I can almost agree with the union's decision to go on strike. This was more than a little stupid on the part of NYC management, it was unacceptable practice in a contract negotiation. Sigh. :headbang:

You obviously don't read signatures. :rolleyes:

Sorry if I replied to the wrong person. Just take it as a general statement, then. :)

Sorry for the delay--my computer just decided to get really slow for a minute there. Here's the story (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/21collapse.html) and the relevant quote:
To back this up, cause I went lookin'-
In its last offer before negotiations broke down, the MTA had proposed increasing employee contributions to the pension plan from 2 percent to 6 percent, said union lawyer Walter Meginniss Jr. He added that such a change would be "impossible" for the union to accept.

"Were it not for the pension piece, we would not be out on strike," union president Roger Toussaint said in an interview with NY1. "All it needs to do is take its pension proposal off the table."


EDIT:forgot the source (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20051221-0658-nyc-transitstrike.html), took out the comment because it no longer fits the tone.

we should be lowering retirement ages all around, as well as cutting back working hours and increasing wages. what the hell is the point of being the wealthiest society ever if every year wages fail to keep up with inflation and people are expected to work until they die?

.

Amen!

Ah, but the organized labor isn't forcing the wages anywhere, because whenever they attempt to negotiate higher wages, they are blockaded until they strike, at which point it is promptly declared illegal. In this situation, the union has very little power, as the transit authority has the government fighting on their behalf.

You can't say on the one hand that these employees are so vital to the city's interests that they cannot be allowed to strike, and then on the other hand say they don't deserve the raises they want because they're not that important. If they are so vital to the city that one day of striking costs them several hundred million dollars, then they are clearly important and should be paid what they want. But if they are just bus drivers and subway operators, then they are not important to the city's interests and should be allowed to strike if negotiations do not proceed they way they want. We can't have it both ways, where they're not important enough to get paid what they consider a fair wage but too important to strike.
Sigh. It's not a lack of "importance."

The importance of the service is beyond question. That's not the issue. The issue is how difficult is the job in terms of training and skill level when compared to other jobs. The wages are subject to negotiation and the union, together with the requirement in the contract to submit to arbitration, provides a measure of equality in the workers' relationship with management.

2. I don't recall anything which indicated that management was "dictating" anything in the current situation, and as another poster pointed out, the contract provides for arbitration.

3. Why should anyone's pay be "indexed" to the "average?" That obviates the "supply and demand" issue you mentioned above. It would be great if we could pay everyone an "average" wage, but that's just not going to happen.

4. If providing an "essential service" were the determining factor, nurses, emergency personnel, soldiers and police would be earning WAY more than they do now.
2. Without a bargining chip the unions are unable to effectively negotiate. The transport company is able to set the terms of the pay agreement and there is not much the unions can do about it. True there are other options of recourse in the contract (not sure what they are) but somehow i doubt arbitration would really give the workers what they were asking for and they would be bound into something less than their wishes and less than the service they provide.

3. If you make it illegal for someone to have effective negotiations about their pay you have to have a system in place to ensure their pay keeps with the living costs where they live. Hence indexing it - its just a suggestion on how you could get a long term agreement that stays fair.

4. Nobody gripes about doctors getting paid a lot for providing a service that people place a lot of demand on (keeping people alive...). Really teachers, nurses, police and so on should be well paid. They are vital to the organisations they work for and (normally) are very skilled at what they do. Their jobs all require skill and responsibility and provide a vital service, however they are not people who DIRECTLY help an individual taxpayer face to face (like a doctor) and so many have a lower opinion of them than they should. Their wages are kept down by a lack of respect for their jobs by the general public.

2. Without a bargining chip the unions are unable to effectively negotiate. The transport company is able to set the terms of the pay agreement and there is not much the unions can do about it. True there are other options of recourse in the contract (not sure what they are) but somehow i doubt arbitration would really give the workers what they were asking for and they would be bound into something less than their wishes and less than the service they provide.

3. If you make it illegal for someone to have effective negotiations about their pay you have to have a system in place to ensure their pay keeps with the living costs where they live. Hence indexing it - its just a suggestion on how you could get a long term agreement that stays fair.

4. Nobody gripes about doctors getting paid a lot for providing a service that people place a lot of demand on (keeping people alive...). Really teachers, nurses, police and so on should be well paid. They are vital to the organisations they work for and (normally) are very skilled at what they do. Their jobs all require skill and responsibility and provide a vital service, however they are not people who DIRECTLY help an individual taxpayer face to face (like a doctor) and so many have a lower opinion of them than they should. Their wages are kept down by a lack of respect for their jobs by the general public.
Where in God's name do you get such ideas??? The wages paid to people, regardless of job, have virtually nothing to do with "lack of respect." Nurses interact with patients far more than doctors ever thought to do, for example, and most people have great respect for the jobs they do.

As to workers getting "what they want," should that ever happen, entire industries would disappear from sight.

Sigh. It's not a lack of "importance."

The importance of the service is beyond question. That's not the issue. The issue is how difficult is the job in terms of training and skill level when compared to other jobs. The wages are subject to negotiation and the union, together with the requirement in the contract to submit to arbitration, provides a measure of equality in the workers' relationship with management.
That is another discussion entirely--what I think you're missing, however, is the level of skill and ability it takes to do these jobs. Have you ever lived in a major metropolis like New York, Eutrusca? I've never lived there, but I spent two years in San Francisco, which has a comparable transit system and traffic problems, and let me tell you, driving a bus in those conditions is a masterful feat, especially if we're talking about one of those double-long fuckers down streets where cars are doing everything they can not to be behind you, and pedestrians often just walk out in the street assuming you'll stop.

Plus, we're not just talking about drivers here--we're talking about mechanics, about people who maintain the tracks and train cars and busses, about dispatchers and logistics people who make sure that trains don't run into each other or that busses get rerouted when there's a mechanical breakdown.

Sigh. It's not a lack of "importance."

The importance of the service is beyond question. That's not the issue. The issue is how difficult is the job in terms of training and skill level when compared to other jobs. The wages are subject to negotiation and the union, together with the requirement in the contract to submit to arbitration, provides a measure of equality in the workers' relationship with management.

But there is also the issue of trying to maintain and hopefully even improve upon the standard of living you already have. Unions have good cause to distrust arbitrators (they've been burned before), so if management isn't going to budge, then what other options do they have? It's either submit to management's proposals, even if those proposals are detrimental to your interests, or use the one remaining bargaining chip: the strike.

Btw, I also work for a public entity. Last year, contract negogiations broke down and we staged a one-day strike. It proved to be enough to restart negogiations, which eventually had to go to fact-finding (a form of arbitration). Neither side got everything they wanted, but the union got a much better deal than management's final offer, so the loss of a day's wages seemed worth it to most of us.

except that the law itself is unjust and ought be ignored and destroyed.

We should be lowering retirement ages all around, as well as cutting back working hours and increasing wages. what the hell is the point of being the wealthiest society ever if every year wages fail to keep up with inflation and people are expected to work until they die?
Yup. That's right. Just overrule laws you don't like, and ignore the elected representatives of the people. :rolleyes:

You just keep getting further and further out there, don't ya. At the same time that the entire population is getting older because of both longer lifespans and the frakking Baby Boomers reaching 60, just lower retirement age and everything will be great. As if. :rolleyes:

That is another discussion entirely--what I think you're missing, however, is the level of skill and ability it takes to do these jobs. Have you ever lived in a major metropolis like New York, Eutrusca? I've never lived there, but I spent two years in San Francisco, which has a comparable transit system and traffic problems, and let me tell you, driving a bus in those conditions is a masterful feat, especially if we're talking about one of those double-long fuckers down streets where cars are doing everything they can not to be behind you, and pedestrians often just walk out in the street assuming you'll stop.

Plus, we're not just talking about drivers here--we're talking about mechanics, about people who maintain the tracks and train cars and busses, about dispatchers and logistics people who make sure that trains don't run into each other or that busses get rerouted when there's a mechanical breakdown.
They're called 'articulated' buses. Sorry, geek moment. I bolded something being missed, just to stay on track...no pun intended...

Yup. That's right. Just overrule laws you don't like, and ignore the elected representatives of the people. :rolleyes:

You just keep getting further and further out there, don't ya. At the same time that the entire population is getting older because of both longer lifespans and the frakking Baby Boomers reaching 60, just lower retirement age and everything will be great. As if. :rolleyes:
Are you suggesting that we are not ruled by a 'living document' and that we cannot compell against laws, that we don't have a tradition and in fact foundation of that which includes acts of civil disobedience dating back to a party involving tea?

Where in God's name do you get such ideas??? The wages paid to people, regardless of job, have virtually nothing to do with "lack of respect." Nurses interact with patients far more than doctors ever thought to do, for example, and most people have great respect for the jobs they do.

As to workers getting "what they want," should that ever happen, entire industries would disappear from sight.
By lack of respect i think "lack of appreciation of value of the work done" might be better. The doctors work is very obvious and so people appreciate it a lot, respect the work done and are willing to pay. The benefit of the nurse is less directly noticeable and so people are less willing to pay a large amount for it.

Nurses, teachers cops and so on. They are all vital jobs, people respect the work they do but there is a public consensus that they should not be well paid. And these are SKILLED jobs, which also require the people who work in them to be hugely responsible for the health and lives of the general public. Why if people respect them are they so poorly paid?

even under your definition of "skill" as the primary requirement for pay levels they are underpaid. when you factor in massive responsibility, huge demand and great importance of the work they do it is even worse. Why?

Yup. That's right. Just overrule laws you don't like, and ignore the elected representatives of the people. :rolleyes:

when the law is unjust, then justice is to be found in breaking the law.

fuck 'elected representatives of the people' - being elected doesn't make you incapable of creating and enforcing unjust laws. and this law, and all the ones like it, enforce involuntary servitude. if you can't agree that involuntary servitude is unjust, then we can never agree. additionally, the taylor law makes it illegal to even call for a strike - a clear violation of freedom of speech.

That is another discussion entirely--what I think you're missing, however, is the level of skill and ability it takes to do these jobs. Have you ever lived in a major metropolis like New York, Eutrusca? I've never lived there, but I spent two years in San Francisco, which has a comparable transit system and traffic problems, and let me tell you, driving a bus in those conditions is a masterful feat, especially if we're talking about one of those double-long fuckers down streets where cars are doing everything they can not to be behind you, and pedestrians often just walk out in the street assuming you'll stop.

Plus, we're not just talking about drivers here--we're talking about mechanics, about people who maintain the tracks and train cars and busses, about dispatchers and logistics people who make sure that trains don't run into each other or that busses get rerouted when there's a mechanical breakdown.
I've never lived in a larger metropolitan area than Cincinnati, Ohio, which was bigger than I ever want to experience again. I understand what you're saying about the differences in job skills between workers within a particular organization. During the time I was in Cincinnati, I was a Compensation Analyst for General Electric. Part of my job was conducting wage and salary surveys to determine what our "indexed jobs" were being paid throughout the Cincinnati metropolitan area. "Indexed jobs" are those relatively identical jobs common across industries. The goal in doing these surveys was to determine the "going rate" for easily comparable jobs so we could be competitive in hiring and in pay rates.

After determining the going rate for the indexed jobs, we compared skill levels within the organization to determine what was required for every job and how each job compared with skill levels in the index jobs.

The end result of this was an organizational pay structure designed to pay for skill level as well as going rates. Since we seldom had problems hiring, and few pay rate complaints, we were apparently doing something right.

I'm fairly certain that a major employer like the City of New York has something similar, so that employees are paid for what they do whether they are driver, mechanic or dispatcher.

when the law is unjust, then justice is to be found in breaking the law.

fuck 'elected representatives of the people' - being elected doesn't make you incapable of creating and enforcing unjust laws. and this law, and all the ones like it, enforce involuntary servitude. if you can't agree that involuntary servitude is unjust, then we can never agree. additionally, the taylor law makes it illegal to even call for a strike - a clear violation of freedom of speech.
You're a piece of work, that much is sure.

By lack of respect i think "lack of appreciation of value of the work done" might be better. The doctors work is very obvious and so people appreciate it a lot, respect the work done and are willing to pay. The benefit of the nurse is less directly noticeable and so people are less willing to pay a large amount for it.

Nurses, teachers cops and so on. They are all vital jobs, people respect the work they do but there is a public consensus that they should not be well paid. And these are SKILLED jobs, which also require the people who work in them to be hugely responsible for the health and lives of the general public. Why if people respect them are they so poorly paid?

even under your definition of "skill" as the primary requirement for pay levels they are underpaid. when you factor in massive responsibility, huge demand and great importance of the work they do it is even worse. Why?
Damned if I know, but I'm sure you'll enlighten me.

This is outrageous. I'm ambivalent about the actual strike action, but to discover that New York State has a law prohibiting strikes by public sector workers is shocking. It's a fundamental abuse of the right of workers to take collective action if they feel unhappy at the circumstances of work or other such reasons. Shame on the judge and shame of New York State legislators for passing that law in the first place.

There are reasons why some unions are prohibited from striking.. because they are incharge of vital services.. (airlines for one).. without such laws, every time the contract ends they can force outragous benifit and wage increases under threat of crippling the economies of whole cities and/or the nation itself. In this case, the city of new york is losing somewhere between 100 and 400 million a day

Yup. That's right. Just overrule laws you don't like, and ignore the elected representatives of the people. :rolleyes:
If it's good enough for Bush...

Are you suggesting that we are not ruled by a 'living document' and that we cannot compell against laws, that we don't have a tradition and in fact foundation of that which includes acts of civil disobedience dating back to a party involving tea?
I was under the, perhaps mistaken, impression that this was one reason the US court system was in place.

I was under the, perhaps mistaken, impression that this was one reason the US court system was in place.
You have to disobey the law in order to get it in court.

There are reasons why some unions are prohibited from striking.. because they are incharge of vital services.. (airlines for one).. without such laws, every time the contract ends they can force outragous benifit and wage increases under threat of crippling the economies of whole cities and/or the nation itself. In this case, the city of new york is losing somewhere between 100 and 400 million a day
Precisely. Allowing a small group of people to hold the entire economy, or even just the economy of one city, hostage is unacceptable.

You have to disobey the law in order to get it in court.
Not always, but I see your point.

Are you suggesting that we are not ruled by a 'living document' and that we cannot compell against laws, that we don't have a tradition and in fact foundation of that which includes acts of civil disobedience dating back to a party involving tea?

The boston tea party was held not just because some people disagreed with the laws, but also because they had no other means to change the laws because the American Colonies lacked representation in England's legislature at that time. We can now petition our government to change laws we disagree with, and elect officials that will change them if the petitioning proves ineffective.

There are reasons why some unions are prohibited from striking.. because they are incharge of vital services.. (airlines for one).. without such laws, every time the contract ends they can force outragous benifit and wage increases under threat of crippling the economies of whole cities and/or the nation itself. In this case, the city of new york is losing somewhere between 100 and 400 million a day

of course, nobody really likes striking. especially in winter - it's cold and boring, and you are going broke doing it too. strikes can usually be avoided, as long as the bosses aren't being dicks.

if some group of workers has the power to instantly cripple the the economy, you should really think about not being dicks to them. it's not the fault of the workers that you are absolutely dependent on them showing up to work. it's your own fault, and you should either give them what they are willing to settle for or find alternative solutions.


me, i'm more in favor of fare strikes when it comes to public transport. of course, those are even more illegal than regular strikes.

Precisely. Allowing a small group of people to hold the entire economy, or even just the economy of one city, hostage is unacceptable.

so when the bosses do the same (for example, in pretty much every labor dispute ever, and every time they try to get more favors from the state), you oppose them with even more intesity, since they are an even smaller group?

when the law is unjust, then justice is to be found in breaking the law.

fuck 'elected representatives of the people' - being elected doesn't make you incapable of creating and enforcing unjust laws. and this law, and all the ones like it, enforce involuntary servitude. if you can't agree that involuntary servitude is unjust, then we can never agree. additionally, the taylor law makes it illegal to even call for a strike - a clear violation of freedom of speech.

Equating the lack of the right to strike to involuntary servitude and "slavery" as you have been doing throughout this thread is a load of horseshit. The workers are free to quit whenever they want and find another job and the transit authority is not holding anyone against their will. Use a more appropriate word or phrase.

NOTE: Apparently, the decision to strike was far from unanimous, incuring the disapproval of even the Local's parent union.


Transit Union Lacks Support of Its Parent


By SEWELL CHAN
Published: December 21, 2005
The transit workers' union, despite taking the extraordinary step of calling its first strike in 25 years, has revealed itself over the last 48 hours to be an organization wrestling with considerable discord - a local union, in fact, that is at complete odds with its larger parent organization.

The union's vote to strike, made at 1:15 a.m. yesterday in a closed-door session of the executive board, was opposed by three of seven vice presidents of the union, Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union. A fourth abstained.

And yesterday, merely hours into the paralyzing job action, Michael T. O'Brien, the international president of the parent union, the Transport Workers Union of America, urged the city's transit workers to abandon the strike and return to work immediately. He said the parent union would provide no money or other assistance to Local 100.

Those two facts - a lack of unanimity among its own leaders and an absence of help from fellow transit workers across the country - could complicate the union's ability to hold up under the mounting public criticism, enormous fines and escalating attacks by the city and state's top political leaders.

In a Brooklyn courtroom, where a state judge imposed fines of $1 million a day on Local 100, the union's own representatives made clear their vulnerability, saying they had only $3.6 million in cash. The union even found itself contemplating the sale of its West Side headquarters as a way to withstand the penalties.

"This begins the process of crippling the union," Arthur Z. Schwartz, a lawyer for Local 100, said of the steep fines.

The state of Local 100 - historically one of the city's most militant unions and with two citywide transit strikes, in 1966 and 1980, under its belt - owes much to rivalries and personal politics that are not uncommon in unions but have been amplified by the personality of the union's outspoken leader, Roger Toussaint.

In Mr. Toussaint's five years at the helm of the union, there have been battles over his forceful style and his desire to sell the union hall, an office building at 80 West End Avenue between 63rd and 64th Streets, to an unnamed developer for $60 million.

But Mr. Toussaint took the boldest step of his tenure Monday night, when he broke off talks with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's top negotiators and returned to the union hall to recommend that the executive board, the union's 47-member governing body, call its first strike in a quarter-century.

He encountered a board that was somber and divided.

According to several board members, Mr. Toussaint laid out the progress of talks since early Friday, when the board had last met and voted to authorize a strike at two private bus companies in Queens starting Monday and a systemwide strike starting yesterday.

Mr. Toussaint explained the authority's final offer: wage increases of 3 percent, 4 percent and 3.5 percent over the next three years; a requirement that new workers pay 6 percent of their pretax earnings toward their pensions; and an additional holiday to mark the birthday of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The authority had agreed to drop its demands that new workers pay 1 percent of their earnings toward health-care premiums and that new workers reach age 62 before becoming eligible to collect full pensions, compared with age 55 for most current workers.

Board members began to offer their thoughts. Randy Nevels, a vice president who represents subway conductors and operators, said the total package would raise average wages by 11.5 percent over 3 years - an offer, he said, that many workers could accept.

The union's top lawyer, Walter M. Meginniss Jr., warned that the state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg would pursue penalties against the union and its officers, who could face individual fines of $250 a day and up to 30 days in jail.

Mr. O'Brien, the international president, generated the most discussion, participants said, when he told the board that the authority had significantly improved its offer and that talks should continue. "Talk is cheap," he said. "Strikes can be very costly." A strike by Local 100 in 1980 resulted in steep fines and a divided executive board.

When Norman W. Pou, a board member who represents station agents and cleaners, asked if the international union would support the local, the answer was short and clear: No. Soon after, members called the vote, and the decision to strike was approved 28 to 10, with 5 members abstaining.

Mr. Toussaint, in an interview yesterday, discounted the dissent and said he did not believe "there has ever been such a wide margin of support" for such a momentous decision.

The practical effect of the parent union's opposition remained unclear, but at the very least, Mr. O'Brien's open call to workers to return to their jobs did not help Local 100's public image or bargaining position.

Mr. O'Brien declined to comment yesterday, but he issued a statement describing his remarks to the executive board. "I told them that the only road to contract victory for the membership was not by strike but continued negotiation," he said. "I continue to believe this."

Mr. Toussaint discounted the significance of Mr. O'Brien's remarks. He suggested that Mr. O'Brien was mainly trying to limit potential liability the parent union might face.

"What's going on there is that the injunction against both the local and the international requires both parties to not participate or encourage a strike," he said, "so in order to protect itself from any claims or potential claims of contempt of court, the international said it wasn't encouraging or approving a strike."

The test of Mr. Toussaint's leadership is apt to continue at least as long as the strike does.

"Roger is not someone who tends to brook a lot of dissent within the union," said Richard Steier, editor of The Chief-Leader, a weekly newspaper for civil-service workers. "He has shed an awful lot of his allies from early on. His explanation is that they weren't willing to work hard enough or do things the way he thought they ought to be done. He has a contentious board with contentious factions, something you'd think he'd be used to."

Mr. Steier said, however, that Mr. Toussaint had projected a confident and resolute public image that revealed no hint of the dissent.

"Outwardly it doesn't seem to faze him, but I wonder whether it doesn't begin to wear on him, all these internal controversies," Mr. Steier said. "Some people thrive on an atmosphere of tension, but I'm not sure it's the ideal environment to be in during these high-pressure conditions."

so when the bosses do the same (for example, in pretty much every labor dispute ever, and every time they try to get more favors from the state), you oppose them with even more intesity, since they are an even smaller group?
Holding the economy hostage? Of course.

Equating the lack of the right to strike to involuntary servitude and "slavery" as you have been doing throughout this thread is a load of horseshit. The workers are free to quit whenever they want and find another job and the transit authority is not holding anyone against their will. Use a more appropriate word or phrase.

actually, if they get together and agree on a date to stop working, they would be considered to be on strike and subject to legal penalties. they literally are forced to show up to work. so what word or phrase accurately covers the idea that these people are not free to withhold their labor other than involuntary servitude?


from the taylor law:

§201 Definitions
...
9. The term "strike" means any strike or other concerted stoppage of work or slowdown by public employees.

...

§210 Prohibition of Strikes

1. No public employee or employee organization shall engage in a strike, and no public employee or employee organization shall cause, instigate, encourage, or condone a strike.

2. Violations and penalties; presumption; prohibition against consent to strike; determination; notice; probation; payroll deductions; objections; and restoration.

(a) Violations and penalties. A public employee shall violate this subdivision by engaging in a strike or violating paragraph (c) of this subdivision and shall be liable as provided in this subdivision pursuant to the procedures contained herein. In addition, any public employee who violates subdivision one of this section may be subject to removal or other disciplinary action provided by law for misconduct.

(b) Presumption. For purposes of this subdivision an employee who is absent from work without permission, or who abstains wholly or in part from the full performance of his duties in his normal manner without permission, on the date or dates when a strike occurs, shall be presumed to have engaged in such strike on such date or dates.

(c) Prohibition against consent to strike. No person exercising on behalf of any public employer any authority, supervision or direction over any public employee shall have the power to authorize, approve, condone or consent to a strike, or the engaging in a strike, by one or more public employees, and such person shall not authorize, approve, condone or consent to such strike or engagement.

actually, if they get together and agree on a date to stop working, they would be considered to be on strike and subject to legal penalties. they literally are forced to show up to work.
How dare the City do such a thing! Actually expecting people to show up for work! Oh, the horror! :rolleyes:

NYC Tranist Workers! We stand by you!

Stand up, all victims of oppression,
For the tyrants fear your might!
Don't cling so hard to your possessions,
For you have nothing if you have no rights!
Let racist ignorance be ended,
For respect makes the empires fall!
Freedom is merely privilege extended,
Unless enjoyed by one and all.

So come brothers and sisters,
For the struggle carries on.
The Internationale,
Unites the world in song.
So comrades, come rally,
For this is the time and place!
The international ideal,
Unites the human race.

Holding the economy hostage? Of course.

so when they say, 'take a pay cut or we'll close down the airlines', for example? or, 'give us what we want or we'll move the factory to mexico'? or ' give us what we want or we won't build here'?

the bosses do this shit all the time - like several times a week. they hold all of the power and they get away with it constantly.

so when they say, 'take a pay cut or we'll close down the airlines', for example? or, 'give us what we want or we'll move the factory to mexico'? or ' give us what we want or we won't build here'?

the bosses do this shit all the time - like several times a week. they hold all of the power and they get away with it constantly.
So start your own company and try to run it the way you would like and see how far you get. I'm sure there are plenty of like minded investors with a socialist streak.

actually, if they get together and agree on a date to stop working, they would be considered to be on strike and subject to legal penalties. they literally are forced to show up to work. so what word or phrase accurately covers the idea that these people are not free to withhold their labor other than involuntary servitude?


from the taylor law:

§201 Definitions
...
9. The term "strike" means any strike or other concerted stoppage of work or slowdown by public employees.

...

§210 Prohibition of Strikes

1. No public employee or employee organization shall engage in a strike, and no public employee or employee organization shall cause, instigate, encourage, or condone a strike.

2. Violations and penalties; presumption; prohibition against consent to strike; determination; notice; probation; payroll deductions; objections; and restoration.

(a) Violations and penalties. A public employee shall violate this subdivision by engaging in a strike or violating paragraph (c) of this subdivision and shall be liable as provided in this subdivision pursuant to the procedures contained herein. In addition, any public employee who violates subdivision one of this section may be subject to removal or other disciplinary action provided by law for misconduct.

(b) Presumption. For purposes of this subdivision an employee who is absent from work without permission, or who abstains wholly or in part from the full performance of his duties in his normal manner without permission, on the date or dates when a strike occurs, shall be presumed to have engaged in such strike on such date or dates.

(c) Prohibition against consent to strike. No person exercising on behalf of any public employer any authority, supervision or direction over any public employee shall have the power to authorize, approve, condone or consent to a strike, or the engaging in a strike, by one or more public employees, and such person shall not authorize, approve, condone or consent to such strike or engagement.

I didn't read anything in there that prohibited employees from quitting as long as it wasn't a concerted effort. Joe Schmoe is free to leave whenever he wants as long as he doesn't collaborate with other workers, making your labeling of him as a slave totally unfounded.

so when they say, 'take a pay cut or we'll close down the airlines', for example? or, 'give us what we want or we'll move the factory to mexico'? or ' give us what we want or we won't build here'?

the bosses do this shit all the time - like several times a week. they hold all of the power and they get away with it constantly.
Other than the airlines thing, I tend to agree with you. The airlines are a special case due to fall in revenues and rise in fuel prices. For them it's a matter of survival.

I have never believed that "might makes right." The larger businesses are in the catbird seat because they provide both products/services that everyone wants and jobs.

How dare the City do such a thing! Actually expecting people to show up for work! Oh, the horror! :rolleyes:

you see, in the modern world we have outlawed involuntary servitude and enshrined certain principles, like the right of free association - a right that necessarily entails the freedom to disassociate. saying that people cannot collectively agree to stop giving their labor to some boss is exactly the same as making them slaves to that boss and removing their right of free association.

it isn't about merely expecting them to show up to work. it is about using the state's legal apparatus to punish them if they don't. in this case, the law says that each worker will be fined twice their daily pay for each day they didn't work (they aren't doing that so far, because that would probably get the whole law thrown out as unconstitutional all the quicker - though it's hard to tell these days.).

I didn't read anything in there that prohibited employees from quitting as long as it wasn't a concerted effort. Joe Schmoe is free to leave whenever he wants as long as he doesn't collaborate with other workers, making your labeling of him as a slave totally unfounded.

in other words, "you can quit but we can regulate the conditions of your quitting. we control whether you can quit or not in any particular instance. if we don't like it, you didn't quit and will be fined for it."

what part of that isn't involuntary servitutde then?

... saying that people cannot collectively agree to stop giving their labor to some boss is exactly the same as making them slaves to that boss and removing their right of free association.
No it isn't. Any individual employee can leave any time he or she feels like it. Nor can they be "fined" for doing so. That doesn't sound like "involuntary servitude" to me.

"Within the United States, New York remains the most expensive city with Los Angeles at twenty-seven and Chicago at thirty-five. The median income of a New York is $60,765, $10,000 more than the national median. Based on a US average at an index of 100.0, the overall cost of living in New York is 189.1. Housing is almost triple the national average at $314,000 for a house and $2,483.64 for one months rent of a two bedroom apartment. Secondary education is about $2,000 more than the national average at $7,428. Utilities, including electricity and gas, are almost twice the national index at 179.9. Food and groceries is about 1.5x the nation's index at 142.5. A mere cup of coffee with table service is $5.48 while in Buenos Aires, ranked 141st, the same service costs $1.10. In fact, despite attaining a lower ranking than cities like London and Tokyo, one thing remains the most expensive in New York, phone service for one month at $25.99. The cheapest city surveyed by Mercer Resource Consulting was Pittsburgh ranked 112th. According to the index, a person who earns $50,000 in Pittsburgh will need $97,9776 in New York. Overall, New York City is two-times as expensive as any other city in the United States."

From http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2005/GeetaMalieckal.shtml


Thanks for the info :) (ps YAY finals are done!)

of course, nobody really likes striking. especially in winter - it's cold and boring, and you are going broke doing it too. strikes can usually be avoided, as long as the bosses aren't being dicks.

if some group of workers has the power to instantly cripple the the economy, you should really think about not being dicks to them. it's not the fault of the workers that you are absolutely dependent on them showing up to work. it's your own fault, and you should either give them what they are willing to settle for or find alternative solutions.


me, i'm more in favor of fare strikes when it comes to public transport. of course, those are even more illegal than regular strikes.

So then your saying, we should avoid employing workers in otherwise critical infastructure.. or allowing them to form unions.. I for on am in favor of this. Workers employed in criticle infastructure positions such as mass transport should be prohibited from forming unions since they can have such a detremental effect. Imagine if Bankers could form unions and went on strike. You'd be singing a different tune when you couldnt' access any of your money.

The reality is, the TWU 101 is being overly greedy here, asking for 8% raises for the next 3 years, and lowering of the retirement age to 50, in addition to profit sharing (when massive deficits are projected for the future). All this is a better arrangement then teachers, police and firemen (who preform more nessesary or more dangerous duties). This is the very reason why Unions accross the country are dying (ie. automotive industry). Their greed knows know bounds. And I speak from the family of an MTA employee (union member)

in other words, "you can quit but we can regulate the conditions of your quitting. we control whether you can quit or not in any particular instance. if we don't like it, you didn't quit and will be fined for it."

what part of that isn't involuntary servitutde then?

There is only one case where workers cannot quit, and that is when they all decide to quit at once. They are all free to come and go as they please, as long as it is not a concerted effort. That doesn't even come close to matching the definition of slavery, or even indentured servitude for that matter.

Edit: what the workers are being fined for here is not for quitting, but for a stoppage of work until demands are met. If a couple hundred of them quit 2 weeks ago te government would not have fined any of them a dime.

The reality is, the TWU 101 is being overly greedy here, asking for 8% raises for the next 3 years, and lowering of the retirement age to 50, in addition to profit sharing (when massive deficits are projected for the future). All this is a better arrangement then teachers, police and firemen (who preform more nessesary or more dangerous duties). This is the very reason why Unions accross the country are dying (ie. automotive industry). Their greed knows know bounds. And I speak from the family of an MTA employee (union member)
The lowering of the retirement age has been debunked--it's not the case. The sticking point, according to an article I posted a few pages back, was that at the last minute, the MTA dropped a bomb on the union at the last minute--that they wanted new employees to start contributing triple what they would be under the current contract to their pension fund--that equated to a 4% wage cut for new hires from the current contract. Now we can debate the rights and wrongs of that request--I'm undecided on it--but what management did, dropping that in at literally the last minute and making it a take or leave it demand was bullshit, and the union was right to tell them to jam it. That's a case of negotiating in bad faith.

The lowering of the retirement age has been debunked--it's not the case. The sticking point, according to an article I posted a few pages back, was that at the last minute, the MTA dropped a bomb on the union at the last minute--that they wanted new employees to start contributing triple what they would be under the current contract to their pension fund--that equated to a 4% wage cut for new hires from the current contract. Now we can debate the rights and wrongs of that request--I'm undecided on it--but what management did, dropping that in at literally the last minute and making it a take or leave it demand was bullshit, and the union was right to tell them to jam it. That's a case of negotiating in bad faith.

From what I recall reading in recent articles, Triple was more like double, from previous 3% contributions to 6% contributions. However, the MTA also intially offered them 6% raises over a 27 month period as opposed to their demands for 8% over 3 years. And while im not sure what you consider to be the "last minute" negotiations between the MTA and TWU were going no where weeks in advance, and a strike was well underconsideration before this.

The TWU was more annoyed that the MTA passed its budget (to spend the 1+ billion surplus) without speaking with the Unions first. Unions also opposed rate reductions when the surplus was first realized as they wanted those raises... so the Unions are no innocent victims

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/12/21/national/a111433S07.DTL

Sounds like their will be possible jailtime for leaders

That and they are trying to add a 25 k a day fine per worker

(though expected to be set by the judge at a few hundred)

From what I recall reading in recent articles, Triple was more like double, from previous 3% contributions to 6% contributions. However, the MTA also intially offered them 6% raises over a 27 month period as opposed to their demands for 8% over 3 years. And while im not sure what you consider to be the "last minute" negotiations between the MTA and TWU were going no where weeks in advance, and a strike was well underconsideration before this.

The TWU was more annoyed that the MTA passed its budget (to spend the 1+ billion surplus) without speaking with the Unions first. Unions also opposed rate reductions when the surplus was first realized as they wanted those raises... so the Unions are no innocent victims
The article I posted a few pages ago (NY times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/13/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/13cnd-mta.html?ex=1135314000&en=b18dc94558ee57dc&ei=5070

says
the union is seeking a 24 percent raise over three years

The article I posted a few pages ago (NY times)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/13/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/13cnd-mta.html?ex=1135314000&en=b18dc94558ee57dc&ei=5070

says

sry... when i said 8% over 3 years.. i meant 8% each year for 3 years.. which would equate that 24%

sry... when i said 8% over 3 years.. i meant 8% each year for 3 years.. which would equate that 24%
Fair enough :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Strikes should be illegal. Period. They should all be fired regardless of how long it will take to replace them, because they aren't working now anyways. The government should make an example of them.

Strikes should be illegal. Period. They should all be fired regardless of how long it will take to replace them, because they aren't working now anyways. The government should make an example of them.
I think strikes should be perfectly legal (not counting in cases of public service ... that is more a case by case situation)

But I think companies should have the full ability to fire thoes that do strike

Strikes should be illegal. Period. They should all be fired regardless of how long it will take to replace them, because they aren't working now anyways. The government should make an example of them.

I hope you get laid off.

Strikes should be illegal. Period. They should all be fired regardless of how long it will take to replace them, because they aren't working now anyways. The government should make an example of them.

For what?

Wanting to be treated better?

Wanting to be justly compensated for their labor?

Not accepting a state of affairs where management has all the leverage?

Your proposal would nearly demolish the ability of labor to resist its exploitation and oppression by the capitalist class, and result in essential wage-slavery.

The government does intend to make an example of them, an example for all other workers who dare raise their heads in protest against mistreatment, against exploitation. That is the point of this whole matter.

I stand fully behind the workers of TWU Local 100.

Your proposal would nearly demolish the ability of labor to resist its exploitation and oppression by the capitalist class, and result in essential wage-slavery.

Only 12.9% of the US workforce is unionized, and there isn't any wage-slavery. Most of the people who aren't unionized are doing very well and are salaried employees who have better pay, opportunities, and lifestyles than any union members.

For what?

Wanting to be treated better?

Wanting to be justly compensated for their labor?

Not accepting a state of affairs where management has all the leverage?

Your proposal would nearly demolish the ability of labor to resist its exploitation and oppression by the capitalist class, and result in essential wage-slavery.

The government does intend to make an example of them, an example for all other workers who dare raise their heads in protest against mistreatment, against exploitation. That is the point of this whole matter.

I stand fully behind the workers of TWU Local 100.


While I agree that all but vital service workers should be alowed to strike

I feel they have every right to be fired if they company so decieds as well, this will lead to workers geting their max value
If they push beyond what their real economic value is the company will hire new workers

I think in this case they are pushing for a bit much , we will see what comes of it

from NYT article


Now while I understand some overtime is involved I doubt it is enough to raise the AVERAGE to 60 k

And I wonder what the cost of living in New York actualy is (Seriously no idea)

Though I do think their request for 24 percent raise in 3 years is a bit much

Actually, that was an opening suggestion which they reduced to a much more sane 6 percent raise.

To give an idea of the cost of living, a tiny apartment in a shit neighborhood in NY will cost you 1300 a month. We're talking a couple or three hundred square feet.

The workers are also treated pretty harshly -- I've a friend who, after pulling a number of double shifts refused on on the grounds he was too tired to do his job safely -- and they tried to fire him.

Workers are being harshly punished for getting to the end of their bus and train runs late -- no matter WHAT the traffic conditions.

Workers are being punished harshly if they take too long on their bathroom break between runs. I dunno about you, but think of a job where you can only use the bathroom once every 2-3 hrs, and then have a ridiculously short break in which you are supposed to relieve yourself...

Yes, it's inconvenient and I wish that they'd found another way, but I wouldn't be so quick to line them up and shoot them all -- especially those of you who don't live here and aren't affected by it.

$47,000 a year is not what I call "getting paid shit" Now if they were getting paid 15,000 then maybe you'll have a case.


Do the math. 1300 a month for a 300 square foot apartment.
Oh and those inconviences like food, and clothing.

Read Eut's post on cost of living in NYC.

Remove foot from mouth.

Only 12.9% of the US workforce is unionized, and there isn't any wage-slavery. Most of the people who aren't unionized are doing very well and are salaried employees who have better pay, opportunities, and lifestyles than any union members.

The labor movement does not merely exist in the present, it has a history.

NYC Tranist Workers! We stand by you!

Stand up, all victims of oppression,
For the tyrants fear your might!
Don't cling so hard to your possessions,
For you have nothing if you have no rights!
Let racist ignorance be ended,
For respect makes the empires fall!
Freedom is merely privilege extended,
Unless enjoyed by one and all.

So come brothers and sisters,
For the struggle carries on.
The Internationale,
Unites the world in song.
So comrades, come rally,
For this is the time and place!
The international ideal,
Unites the human race.

Oh, communistwank. Racist ignorance? What exactly does that have to do with this? Ugh.

I wish strikes worked for schools. You know, "Give us all better grades or we STOP ATTENDING!"

Of course in that case the only loser is the striker, and not for example, the ENTIRE CITY of New York.

I have no sympathy for this strike. Buncha whiners.

Good move, but I still think every last one of them should be fired, regardless of how long it takes to replace them.

Agreed.

Only 12.9% of the US workforce is unionized

...thanks entirely to harsh anti-union rules and a government that rarely takes the side of the workers in labor disputes. surveys consistently show that most workers want to be in unions.

the bosses can be found in violation of all sorts of labor laws by the nlrb and the government will still back them against the union. they've created laws severely limiting the fundamental right of free association, undermined the legally recognized right to strike, illegalized perfectly valid contract option like union shops, allowed the bosses to fire people for completely legal union activities, etc. the u.s. is frequently in violation of many of the fundamental rights of labor recognized internationally in (for example) the conventions of the UN's international labour organization, as well as it's own labor laws.

for more info, check out the international confederation for free trade unions' annual survey of violations of trade union rights (http://www.icftu.org/displaydocument.asp?Index=991219513&Language=EN), or this report (http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/uslabor/) on the same subject from human rights watch.

This is outrageous. I'm ambivalent about the actual strike action, but to discover that New York State has a law prohibiting strikes by public sector workers is shocking. It's a fundamental abuse of the right of workers to take collective action if they feel unhappy at the circumstances of work or other such reasons. Shame on the judge and shame of New York State legislators for passing that law in the first place.

another example of unions screwing everything up in the information age.

They accomplished so much back in the day (40-hour week, benefits, etc.) but now it seems they just like to try to lord it over owners of businesses. (although in this case i guess the owners of the business are the texpayers of new york)

Owners own, managers manage, workers work. If a worker doesn't like his job, he can always resign and find work that's more to his liking. Nobody is forcing him to be there. (this is assuming he's bitching about $60,000 not being a big enough salary for driving a freaking bus as opposed to a real gripe... like maybe being paid way below industry average or not getting any benefits..)

another example of unions screwing everything up in the information age.

They accomplished so much back in the day (40-hour week, benefits, etc.) but now it seems they just like to try to lord it over owners of businesses. (although in this case i guess the owners of the business are the texpayers of new york)

Owners own, managers manage, workers work. If a worker doesn't like his job, he can always resign and find work that's more to his liking. Nobody is forcing him to be there. (this is assuming he's bitching about $60,000 not being a big enough salary for driving a freaking bus as opposed to a real gripe... like maybe being paid way below industry average or not getting any benefits..)
47 not 60
Multipul sources already posted

Not to mention figure in cost of living, a 300 foot apartment in a crappy neighborhood there costs roughly 16 k a year just to put it in perspective

From what I recall reading in recent articles, Triple was more like double, from previous 3% contributions to 6% contributions. However, the MTA also intially offered them 6% raises over a 27 month period as opposed to their demands for 8% over 3 years. And while im not sure what you consider to be the "last minute" negotiations between the MTA and TWU were going no where weeks in advance, and a strike was well underconsideration before this.

The TWU was more annoyed that the MTA passed its budget (to spend the 1+ billion surplus) without speaking with the Unions first. Unions also opposed rate reductions when the surplus was first realized as they wanted those raises... so the Unions are no innocent victims
How about hours?
But then, just hours before the strike deadline, the authority's chairman, Peter S. Kalikow, put forward a surprise demand that stunned the union. Seeking to rein in the authority's soaring pension costs, he asked that all new transit workers contribute 6 percent of their wages toward their pensions, up from the 2 percent that current workers pay. The union balked, and then shut down the nation's largest transit system for the first time in a quarter-century.
This has been covered twice (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10136621&postcount=116).

"Were it not for the pension piece, we would not be out on strike," union president Roger Toussaint said in an interview with NY1. "All it needs to do is take its pension proposal off the table."

I understand if you don't read the whole thread, but when someone tells you they've covered something at least scroll back so as not to be silly.

I read and heard how screwed up NYC is now. They have to be fired and Toussaint fined to the poorhouse. It doesn't matter how long it will take to train new workers, you can't keep people who are basically terrorists.

Good move, but I still think every last one of them should be fired, regardless of how long it takes to replace them.

Way to stand up for the working men and women of this country. :rolleyes:

another example of unions screwing everything up in the information age.

They accomplished so much back in the day (40-hour week, benefits, etc.) but now it seems they just like to try to lord it over owners of businesses. (although in this case i guess the owners of the business are the texpayers of new york)

Owners own, managers manage, workers work. If a worker doesn't like his job, he can always resign and find work that's more to his liking. Nobody is forcing him to be there. (this is assuming he's bitching about $60,000 not being a big enough salary for driving a freaking bus as opposed to a real gripe... like maybe being paid way below industry average or not getting any benefits..)

another example of someone with no sense of history or empathy for his fellow man

For what?

Wanting to be treated better?

Wanting to be justly compensated for their labor?

Not accepting a state of affairs where management has all the leverage?

Your proposal would nearly demolish the ability of labor to resist its exploitation and oppression by the capitalist class, and result in essential wage-slavery.

The government does intend to make an example of them, an example for all other workers who dare raise their heads in protest against mistreatment, against exploitation. That is the point of this whole matter.

I stand fully behind the workers of TWU Local 100.


compare how "justly compensated" they are today with other public services such as police, fire and teachers. You will see these train operators have the cream of the crop. As well, the TWU just turned down a new offer which would have all but address many of the issues they complained of.

1. the MTA offered to have the retirement age REMAIN at 55
2. Only new hirees would be subject to a 6% controbution to pension (not current employees)
3. No changes in health benifits
4. 3, 4.5, and 3.5% raises respectivly over the next 3 years.

This of course was staunchly rejected.

The TWU is fighting for benifits for employees who haven't even been hired yet, risking their current employees now with 2 days pay for every 1 day they strike, and if a new court order is passed up to 25,000 dollar fines for each employee striking.

New Employees would always be able to renegoiate their pension plans at a later date, much like current employees did.

Not only that, but a full and complete strike is almost the most severe actiont he Union could have taken. They had the options of partial strikes, or work slow downs which are far more legal, just as pressure inducing and less detremental to the City and average citizens.

As a resident of New York, I can tell you.. there are view people here who are left to sympathise with the Union leadership (who even defy their international leaders calling on workers to return to work)

They had the options of partial strikes, or work slow downs which are far more legal

not under the taylor law they aren't.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051221/hl_afp/ustransportstrike_051221191818

Now these bastards are really starting to piss me off! :mad:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051221/hl_afp/ustransportstrike_051221191818

Now these bastards are really starting to piss me off! :mad:

How dare workers stand up for themselves!

How dare workers stand up for themselves!
True.
Must be something particular about the States, where workers who strike are automatically the bad guys, while in some other places, it's automatically the bosses.

They earn more then they should (60,000 a year per worker) and by doing this strike now during the holidays and collage finals they have proven to be complete cocksuckers who ask for more then they deserve. Screw those lazy socialist union members. One day machines will be able to operate buses and trains on their own and those bastards will be out on the streets.

Yeah, damn strikers! Lately, Robinho's been playing like cra... *reads article* oh.

I heard yesterday on the news that the courts imposed a million dollar a day fine... that's amazing. And that's it costing, what, 4.5 billion a day in lost business...