NationStates Jolt Archive

See, this is a strike. This isn't some walk-out where people stand on the corner and hold signs. This is how you reach the brains of retarded Americans: slow their commutes and make them wait and work for something (gasp!).

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.

Irrelevant. Better compensation than others is not equivalent to just compensation. Furthermore, if the government gets away with this now it will try to get away with it later, and the other public sector workers will suffer.

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.

Because it did not remove the objectionable part about the pensions, and thus did not sufficiently address the issue.

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.

Considering that they have not won by resorting to the most extreme option, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that less extreme options would have worked.

I live in NYC. We don't "automatically think they're the bad guys". In fact, I tend to support strikes. However, the general opinion I hear from my 8 million neigbors is that the union has been quite unreasonable on this one(this in one of the most liberal cities on earth, where sympathies usually lie with the poor, small businesses, unions and democrats), although ALL sides have made mistakes.

if this is what it is like when a city goes on strike, imagine what would be like if the whole nation went on strike

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.

and it's been like this from the beginning. i'm just thankful that we've pretty much stopped shooting strikers at this point.

For the most part, we (New Yorkers) are with the strikers in principal. They are fighting for future members and the MTA can be a bitch to work for. Most of us realize that this is the most leverage they have, so they are pressing it.

However, Toussant is insane. He is completly going about this the wrong way. He says that $1 billion surplus is because of the transit workers(even if the MTA has cut back hiring and hours). Its actually from the whacky property taxes we have in this state that go directly to the MTA. We had a huge real estate boom here the last year or so.

As for the us getting stranded, we are a resourceful bunch. I've survived the trip to work two days now, and I'll make it tomorrow


This is how you reach the brains of retarded Americans: slow their commutes and make them wait and work for something (gasp!).
Today 2:13 AM

So, if a pharmacutical company was withholding medication because it wants more money, what would you say?

Because this strike is tying up the blood drives( as mentioned in the article you didn't read) and meals on wheels.

How dare workers stand up for themselves!
Stand up for themselves?

So that's what you call it when you make 50-60k a year, with a guaranteed 3% payraise over the next 3 years, with retirement at 55 with 25 years on the job, and then strike, leaving millions without a ride to work in sub-freezing temperatures, all so you can get more?

I call that selfish and disgusting and I hope Bloomberg fires every single one of those assholes.

I think this strike is a really bad thing. I generally support unions and strikes, but striking around the holidays, college finals, etc. is just low. People are actually LOSING jobs while the transit workers are whining to be payed more. My oldest sister now needs to commute 3 HOURS to the school she teaches at in the South Bronx. The strike is costing more than $440 million a day. It is causing way too much to put a few more bucks in these people's pockets. And yes, cost of living is really high in New York City, but these people make $60,000 a year. My sister is living on less than $40,000.

I think this strike is a really bad thing. I generally support unions and strikes, but striking around the holidays, college finals, etc. is just low. People are actually LOSING jobs while the transit workers are whining to be payed more. My oldest sister now needs to commute 3 HOURS to the school she teaches at in the South Bronx. The strike is costing more than $440 million a day. It is causing way too much to put a few more bucks in these people's pockets. And yes, cost of living is really high in New York City, but these people make $60,000 a year. My sister is living on less than $40,000.
Another good point. Why the fuck should we pay bus drivers and subway drivers more than teachers, and then put up with their shit when they get greedy and basically shut down the city?

Fine them, then fire them all.

What are they striking about?Money.

actually I do not know... Im taking a wild guess.

Certain person here need to learn that the whole union thing was to prevent such abuse as firing everybody because you either : #1 find your own familiy and/or friend cooler workers than your actual employee, #2 because salariates have families to feed, #3 You're in your period (k, k bad joke), #4 you just don't like those proletarian bastards.

That's why I fondamentaly with the union, because people like me could need my support to get a better life, while boss usually don't care having me finding them cool with their six-number salary and all the stuff.

Now the problem is that the strike occurs in a public sector, so technically all the residents of New York (or sourroundings, I don't know who actually pay taxes for maintain the transit in NYC) are the bosses. It became more complex since the transit system cannot use the usual boss argument : "cease the strike or we will close our doors !"

Myself, I found the situation very interesting, and I could understand that some people in New York are upset about the strike because it's causing themp trouble. When this happen, ask yourself : "All that, Is it the fault of the workers, who want betters conditions (that when the fact of them having what sound like cool conditions hurt them back) or the fault of the bosses of the transit service who want either better rentability of lesser deficit". I feel concerned about this strike because where I live (Sweet Québec) we happen to have some problems with our public sector workers, always complaining about the government neoliberalizing the nation. It is clear that the union in New York choose to take the public in hostage in some way, saying that they have to support them to get back their way of live (wich include avoid blood shortage, as we can see from the article).

I think the union is likely to lose its fight with such strategy because even if New York is a democrat et liberal city, "aggress" people to get something out of them doesn't sound good in the post-9/11 America (well, if American are the aggressed, because in Irak they have exactly done that). More, I agree with the fact that transit worker are usually enjoy greats conditions(like one said, driving vehicules endlessy in a city gets you more buck than educating the Nation youth...).

Finally, I think the issue of the strike will tell whether is was bright or not to use that tactic in a mediatised strike in the public sector.

Its almoast purly the fact that it isnt at all uncommon to see a train conductor drunk or drinking or blitzed. but they also get paid an insain amount of money for high school drop outs.

Go Unions...down with walmart....
fuck the twu, get back to your fucking jobs and dont miss a fucking day in paying that fine back to the city of new york that you are fucking screwing up and while your at it pay the other 4 bil your lazy drunks are costing the real people of new york.

and im not some angry person who doesnt know his facts.. my aunt who is sitting here right now is a social worker and drug rehab center dir that is in a contract with the nyta (transit) to get those bastards clean and back to work. they get so many chances. they need to stfu and take what money we decide to throw their way:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: : :mad: :mad:

$60,000 a year is a fallacy. It was pointed out earlier that these folks make an average of $47000 a year, in a city where a 300 square foot shithole of a studio apartment costs a minimum of $1300 a month.

Then again, it's really easy to talk tough when you're not even affected by the strike.

As for the idiotic notion that they should all be fired -- and then who are you going to get to run the system? It's not like you can train a workforce overnight.

Considering that they have not won by resorting to the most extreme option, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that less extreme options would have worked.

They are not succeeding because the bosses know they can't keep it up. They are being fined off their asses and everyone now hates them. Why couldn't they do something respectable that didn't intefere with everyone else so much? Where I live (In New Zealand) the bus drivers went on strike a while ago, at least they had the decency to make the strike between 10am and 2pm so people could still get to work and school.

They are not succeeding because the bosses know they can't keep it up. They are being fined off their asses and everyone now hates them. Why couldn't they do something respectable that didn't intefere with everyone else so much? Where I live (In New Zealand) the bus drivers went on strike a while ago, at least they had the decency to make the strike between 10am and 2pm so people could still get to work and school.

Because that would be ignored.

There is no reason for labor to calmly, respectably, meekly accept whatever is shoved upon them.

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

So was Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus...

Because that would be ignored.

There is no reason for labor to calmly, respectably, meekly accept whatever is shoved upon them.

I guess there is also no reason for labor to calmly, respectably, meekly accept the contracts they themselves agree to.

Or for the city of NY to calmly, respectably, meekly accept economic terrorism.

Or for the government to calmly, respectably, meekly accept an illegal strike.

Yes, this kind of thing gets media attention. Or as "Soviet Americas" puts it, reaches the brains of us dumb Americans. It doesn't however gain sympathy or solve anything, and it just creates a lot of problems for working america. What did the residents of NYC who need to get to THEIR own jobs, do to deserve this kind of crap? Nothing.

They don't wanna work? Fine. Get a new job.

Because that would be ignored.

There is no reason for labor to calmly, respectably, meekly accept whatever is shoved upon them.

They would not be ignored, there is a significant loss in profits while not causing widespread chaos in the city. And for your information the NZ bus service was able to settle.

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

... Wow. Nice made-up definition there.

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 you need a new dictionary.

THave 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.


The Nazz: I LIVE in NYC, and I have visited San Francisco -- San Fran doesn't have a TENTH of the congestion or idiot drivers and pedestrians to contend with that NY does.

The idea that driving a bus here is easy is ridiculous enough to send one into a fit of hysterical tear-filled laughter. I won't even drive my car into Manhattan because it's so brutal. -- and this from someone who regularly drives 400+ miles every couple weeks.

I think you need a new dictionary.

A public employee striking against their boss is essentially a strike against the citizens themselves... Where's your dictionary?

NY needs to change their laws so that they go straight to arbitration, the negotiations shouldn't exist. Neither management nor labor should be able to make demands when public employees are concerned, they should make arguments for judgment and that's it.

Or for the city of NY to calmly, respectably, meekly accept economic terrorism.

"Economic terrorism"? :rolleyes:

Or for the government to calmly, respectably, meekly accept an illegal strike.

Illegality is not immorality. The government does not have the right to do as it sees fit.

Yes, this kind of thing gets media attention. Or as "Soviet Americas" puts it, reaches the brains of us dumb Americans. It doesn't however gain sympathy or solve anything, and it just creates a lot of problems for working america. What did the residents of NYC who need to get to THEIR own jobs, do to deserve this kind of crap? Nothing.

The citizens of New York City do not have any inherent right to be granted mass transit by exploited labor, though it is unfortunate that those not responsible for that exploitation are suffering.

They don't wanna work? Fine. Get a new job.

As if that were the easiest thing in the world.

"Economic terrorism"? :rolleyes:


Yep. The use of force to coerce a government to cave in to demands. Force currently directed against the city.


Illegality is not immorality. The government does not have the right to do as it sees fit.

But the "workers" do? Nice double standard.


The citizens of New York City do not have any inherent right to be granted mass transit by exploited labor,

What's exploitive about it?

though it is unfortunate that those not responsible for that exploitation are suffering.

Yeah okay, and it's 'unfortunate' that rent is going up. That doesn't excuse anyones behavior.


As if that were the easiest thing in the world.

I admit that these people might have trouble getting hired now that its clear they have no problem blackmailing their employers whenever they feel like it. But that would be their problem.

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)

Um -- 6% over three years, and keeping the retirement age at 55 rather than 62.

And the contract teachers got, which Bloomberg crows about as such a success, was nothing too spectacular, let me tell you.
Where else are you told to work more hours, have your preparation time taken from you so that you can do supervised administrative crap (rather than actually do one's job which is purportedly to educate students, prepare meaningful lessons for them, and grade their work product) have the ability to grieve inaccurate letters placed in your file at the whim of an administrator removed, and be told after two successive contracts in which you were forced to work what comes out to almost another week for nothing, and then told that for all this you should be HAPPY to get 6 or 8% spread out over three years?

Please.

Illegally refusing to work is one thing, punishing innocent civilians until the government gives you what you want is something else. They have a name for that in the middle east.

Was the 1 billion dollar surplus people speak of due to property taxes?

Um -- 6% over three years, ...*snip*.

I heard it was, 3, 4 and 3.5%. That's 10.5% over three years.

A public employee striking against their boss is essentially a strike against the citizens themselves... Where's your dictionary?

NY needs to change their laws so that they go straight to arbitration, the negotiations shouldn't exist. Neither management nor labor should be able to make demands when public employees are concerned, they should make arguments for judgment and that's it.

You said a strike=dictatorship.
Explain please how workers stopping work =

Main Entry: dic·ta·tor·ship
Pronunciation: dik-'tA-t&r-"ship, 'dik-"
Function: noun
1 : the office of dictator
2 : autocratic rule, control, or leadership
3 a : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c : a despotic state

Methinks you are accusing the wrong side of being the dictators.
Of course, throwing around terms like "terrorists" "dictators" et al is very fashionable when people who have little power to negotiate a living wage are peaceably protesting the situation.

Have they blown anyone up yet? Executed them? Thrown them in jail? Fined them to the poorhouse?

...oh wait... aren't those last two what some people here are advocating against the workers?

Yep. The use of force to coerce a government to cave in to demands.


I thought that was called "the will of the people."

Yep. The use of force to coerce a government to cave in to demands. Force currently directed against the city.

"Force," that is, the withholding of labor.

By the same logic, if a capitalist does not, of his own altruistic will, attempt to feed his workers without making them work, he is committing terrorism against them.

But the "workers" do? Nice double standard.

I do have a double standard on this question.open Justice is on the side of labor, and thus there are more legitimate means for labor to achieve its will than there is for the government.

What's exploitive about it?

Denying them just compensation for their labor.

Yeah okay, and it's 'unfortunate' that rent is going up. That doesn't excuse anyones behavior.

No, it doesn't, it was not meant to. Independent on any political viewpoint, I think that it is unfortunate that innocent citizens of New York City are suffering, and I hope that the strike ends swiftly to prevent further harm to them.

"Force," that is, the withholding of labor.

No, force, that is, deliberately causing harm to the city. If it was merely withholding labor, they would get a new job.


By the same logic, if a capitalist does not, of his own altruistic will, attempt to feed his workers without making them work, he is committing terrorism against them.

That doesn't exactly make sense.


I do have a double standard on this question.open Justice is on the side of labor, and thus there are more legitimate means for labor to achieve its will than there is for the government.

Yep, you do have a double standard, and it's morally reprehensible. Justice isn't on their side; it's an illegal strike. You're using circular logic, saying it's legitimate because justice is somehow on their side. That doesn't justify a thing.


Denying them just compensation for their labor.

What is just? There is no objective payment that is "just." There is only what the workers agree to. This isn't re-negotiable at any time they want, otherwise I could just go to work one day and be justified in demanding a 5 million dollar raise. I think thats just, no! Sure, I signed on for a different wage but hey, I have bills to pay.


No, it doesn't, it was not meant to. Independent on any political viewpoint, I think that it is unfortunate that innocent citizens of New York City are suffering, and I hope that the strike ends swiftly to prevent further harm to them.

That's nice of you to say. And I do think its unfortunate that rent goes up. But that's how life works.

I thought that was called "the will of the people."

It's not the will of the people. Most people just want to get to their work without having to walk all the way.

*snipped Dictatorship word post/objection*.

I said, military strikes against civilian governments leads to dictatorships. If federal employees, such as soldiers, were to follow the lead of the public employees whom strike in NY, they would be liable to put a general in charge and with their threat of arms or even use of weapons, they would 'win' their demands. Thus ending in dictatorships.

Public employees in a republic cannot be allowed to strike, ever. But neither should the elected governments that they work for be allowed or able to 'negotiate' their wages.

Civilian and secular strikes and labor management issues I couldn't care less about. Public employees on the other hand are different, such as Prison guards, FBI, CIA, Marshals, Judges, FAA safety inspectors etc., these people should NOT be allowed to strike, it is illegal for them to strike, the same is it is illegal for the public employees in NY to strike. It should not be in their arsenal of choices, and if they choose to be criminals, they should be treated as criminals.

IF you work for the government, I don't care if you are a secret service agent or the janitor that cleans the secretaries’ waste baskets in the middle of the night, striking against the government should immediately result in your dismissal, as Reagan did with the Air Traffic Controllers.

But, like I said before, neither should the immediate managing entity be allowed to low-ball the wages of those employees, federal arbitration for all public employees should be mandatory and especially in states where it's illegal for the public employees to strike now (such as NY).

In addition to my post above, what's it called when businesses lobby government for subsidies and bailouts at taxpayer expense? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare) What's it called when businesses use the force of government to remove individuals from their property in the name of profit? (http://www.ij.org/private_property/index.html) What's it called when businesses plant malicous code in people's computers? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4459620.stm) What's it called when sport franchises threaten to move venues if the local municipality will not agree to subsidize new sports facilities?
Those are wrong as well. We are capitalists, not corporatists.

No, force, that is, deliberately causing harm to the city.

By withholding their labor.

That doesn't exactly make sense.

Someone who withholds his labor, manifested in capital, from others in order to coerce them into working is committing "economic terrorism," by your definition.

Justice isn't on their side; it's an illegal strike.

Doesn't follow. It was illegal to help runaway slaves, too, but doing so was quite just.

You're using circular logic, saying it's legitimate because justice is somehow on their side. That doesn't justify a thing.

Not circular logic.

There are two issues here.

One is the question of ends - of whose objectives are preferable. I say the objectives of the union are preferable to the objectives of the government.

The other is the question of means - of what means are legitimate for either side to use to achieve their objectives. Since I am opposed to the government's objectives, I hold their means to stricter standards than those of the workers.

What is just? There is no objective payment that is "just." There is only what the workers agree to. This isn't re-negotiable at any time they want, otherwise I could just go to work one day and be justified in demanding a 5 million dollar raise. I think thats just, no! Sure, I signed on for a different wage but hey, I have bills to pay.

You definitely have the right to withhold your labor for as long as you see fit in order to attain that $5,000,000 raise.

Furthermore, the demands of the workers are not even close to as absurd as the demand you are using as an example.

Those are wrong as well. We are capitalists, not corporatists.

I've deleted my post and withdrawn that point. I simply become tired of what appears to be a tendency to damn the worker while praising the virtue of the boss, when, as far as I can tell, the boss neither has nor deserves any such thing. However, since we are dealing with a government entity, and not a private organization, my tirade kind of went off topic.

Even so, I still maintain that the boss (including goverment) tends to get exactly what he deserves.

It's not the will of the people. Most people just want to get to their work without having to walk all the way.

Ah, I had forgotten that only the will of the majority means anything. This is a "demo"cracy after all.

At any rate, please explain why "most" people have a right to be provided with transportation or to compel others to labor for that purpose?

At any rate, please explain why "most" people have a right to be provided with transportation or to compel others to labor for that purpose?

The people in NYC city have a right to consider the TA an essential service because of the past fifty years the MTA and the UWT local 100 have conspired together to eliminate all other alternatives.

If this was anything like a free market you may have a point, but considering the MTA and the UWT do everything in their power to prevent private bus lines from operating, or block any private mass transit alternatives (citing economy of scale, or revenue recapture) they have effectively created a situation where they have become absolutely essential and a de facto monopoly.

In any case, all those who take a job with the TA know that striking is illegal before they accept employment. It's part of the conditions of service. You might as well complain that the army isn't allowed to go on strike.

By withholding their labor.


Sigh, yes, by withholding their labor in an attempt to harm the city so that they can get their demands. Kind of like holding a hostage. Or a few million hostages.


Someone who withholds his labor, manifested in capital, from others in order to coerce them into working is committing "economic terrorism," by your definition.

I've never heard of anyone being NOT paid so that they are coerced into working. So that doesnt fit my definition of economic terrorism.


Doesn't follow. It was illegal to help runaway slaves, too, but doing so was quite just.

It does follow. If you welch on a bet its your fault. This is the same thing - it's kind of like when Darth Vader "altered" his deal with Lando in Star Wars Episode II. He had the power to just alter a set contract at will and force his demands on the other party. This is what the 'workers' are doing here, and it's unjust.


You definitely have the right to withhold your labor for as long as you see fit in order to attain that $5,000,000 raise.

I do? What if I was a fireman? On 9/11? What if I was a soldier? Still my right to blackmail employers for money in that case?


Furthermore, the demands of the workers are not even close to as absurd as the demand you are using as an example.

No they aren't. It's the principle and that was an exagerration.

At any rate, please explain why "most" people have a right to be provided with transportation ...

Because they first voted for, then paid for those services via taxes and user fees.

or to compel others to labor for that purpose?

They don't 'compel' anyone's labor, they 'hire' labor for that purpose, and if that hired labor refuses to work for the wages given, the labor should be dismissed and the citizens free and able to hire different labor to do that work.

You might as well complain that the army isn't allowed to go on strike.

False analogy. Driving a bus or conducting a train is not similar to engaging in combat on a battlefield.

False analogy. Driving a bus or conducting a train is not similar to engaging in combat on a battlefield.

Or ambulance driver then, or a National Park Ranger, or a Police Officer, or an Air-traffic controller. Some jobs are considered essential services. This is one of them.

And don't think for a second that this strike is not going to cause deaths.

Also the analogy does not speak to the battlefield per se, but the expectations of the employed. Soldiers can't strike during peacetime either. They accept that as part of their employment conditions. No-one working for the TA today accepted employment when striking for transit workers was legal.

False analogy. Driving a bus or conducting a train is not similar to engaging in combat on a battlefield.

Public employees, one and all. AND currently illegal for Public employee in NY and National Guard in NY to strike... what's false about the analogy?

They don't 'compel' anyone's labor

except that labor is in fact compelled under the current law. thems just the facts.

False analogy. Driving a bus or conducting a train is not similar to engaging in combat on a battlefield.

The effect it is having on the people who live in NY is pretty catastrophic. They are suffering because of what the workers are doing as they would if soldiers abandoned their posts in a war.

except that labor is in fact compelled under the current law. thems just the facts.

No it's not. Quit whenever you want. you just can't 'quit' temporarily and expect to not be punished.

except that labor is in fact compelled under the current law. thems just the facts.

They accepted the fact that they couldn't strike when they got employed by the government. They can quit if they wish.

except that labor is in fact compelled under the current law. thems just the facts.

You can quit anytime you want. You may lose your pension, and you won't be rehired, but they can't keep you on the job.

Public employess.

so you would be opposed to any unions at all in countries where everything is owned by the state, right? and therefore you were a big supporter of the imprisonment of lech walesa in poland during the 80s, yes?

You can quit anytime you want. You may lose your pension, and you won't be rehired, but they can't keep you on the job.

if you and some friends decided to quit together, it counts as a strike and you will be fined for doing so until you come back to work. that's what the law says.

see my earlier post here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10137054&postcount=207).

Sigh, yes, by withholding their labor in an attempt to harm the city so that they can get their demands. Kind of like holding a hostage. Or a few million hostages.

That's how the current economic system works. In a sense the grocery stores hold "a few million hostages" by refusing to give people food unless they pay sufficiently for it. Similarly, the workers are refusing to provide their labor unless they are paid sufficiently for it.

I've never heard of anyone being NOT paid so that they are coerced into working.

The workers striking right now are not being paid.

It does follow. If you welch on a bet its your fault. This is the same thing - it's kind of like when Darth Vader "altered" his deal with Lando in Star Wars Episode II. He had the power to just alter a set contract at will and force his demands on the other party. This is what the 'workers' are doing here, and it's unjust.

You are pointing out that just contracts require a balance of power. I agree. The labor movement is a partial and insufficient correction for the imbalance of power inherent to the labor-capital relationship.

I do? What if I was a fireman? On 9/11? What if I was a soldier?

I think those are legitimate exceptions. It is acceptable to compel labor is such circumstances.

so you would be opposed to any unions at all in countries where everything is owned by the state, right? and therefore you were a big supporter of the imprisonment of lech walesa in poland during the 80s, yes?

Cute, but inapposite. The state should no more have a monopoly over a service than a private company. That's the problem in the first place. So the Poland example doesn't apply.

And why is it that government can be trusted to act as an honest broker when holding monopoly power over commuters, but isn't when it is dealing with its own employees?

And why is it that government can be trusted to act as an honest broker when holding monopoly power over commuters

it can't. not on it's own, anyway.

That's how the current economic system works. In a sense the grocery stores hold "a few million hostages" by refusing to give people food unless they pay sufficiently for it. Similarly, the workers are refusing to provide their labor unless they are paid sufficiently for it.

Most unions are reasonable and do not withdraw a needed service with no alternative. Or plan their strike so it effects people less or for a shorter amount of time.

The workers striking right now are not being paid.

Of course they arent, they arent really being workers at the moment.

That's how the current economic system works. In a sense the grocery stores hold "a few million hostages" by refusing to give people food unless they pay sufficiently for it. Similarly, the workers are refusing to provide their labor unless they are paid sufficiently for it.


I don't think thats a valid analogy. A better one would be if a grocery store sold you food and then, later, came to your house and took it away unless you paid them even more money.

The transaction was already agreed upon by both parties and done. The workers just changed their definition of "sufficiently" after the fact. That's not really how the economic system works.


The workers striking right now are not being paid.


And? No one's coercing them to work. I would prefer they all get fired. Either work or don't.


I think those are legitimate exceptions. It is acceptable to compel labor is such circumstances.

As myself and others have argued, I don't think this situation is an exception to those exceptions. The state made sure that the public transportation system is pretty much all there is in NYC, as such its an essential service as surely as those other jobs.

if you and some friends decided to quit together, it counts as a strike and you will be fined for doing so until you come back to work. that's what the law says.

see my earlier post here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10137054&postcount=207).

Actually it doesn't say that. Of course they actually have to quit, i.e, say they are quitting, not just go absent, or not show up to work. But there is nothing stopping them from resigning. Especially now their contract has expired.

I don't think thats a valid analogy. A better one would be if a grocery store sold you food and then, later, came to your house and took it away unless you paid them even more money.

The transaction was already agreed upon by both parties and done. The workers just changed their definition of "sufficiently" after the fact. That's not really how the economic system works.

No, a better one would be the grocery store raising prices.

And? No one's coercing them to work. I would prefer they all get fired. Either work or don't.

By the same logic, no one is coercing the government into paying them more, either.

As myself and others have argued, I don't think this situation is an exception to those exceptions. The state made sure that the public transportation system is pretty much all there is in NYC, as such its an essential service as surely as those other jobs.

I do not think mass transit is an essential service in any city where there are roads.

Most unions are reasonable and do not withdraw a needed service with no alternative. Or plan their strike so it effects people less or for a shorter amount of time.

any strike action they went for would be equally illegal, so when the state negotiated in bad faith they had to go big to show that they meant business.

it can't. not on it's own, anyway.

What's the alternative? (Other than allowing a mixed private public system).

... what's false about the analogy?

The potential concequences resulting from transit workers and soldiers going on strike are not comparable.

any strike action they went for would be equally illegal, so when the state negotiated in bad faith they had to go big to show that they meant business.

Which is why the judge imposed a big fine to show them that they wont be bullied. If the union had not been so blind to the needs of everyone else (selfish in other words) the government would not have to shut them down to protect the cities interests.

I do not think mass transit is an essential service in any city where there are roads.

....Are you kidding me. Have you even read what has been happening in NY since the transit stoped. Have you tried driving in a big city, especialy when millions more than the roads have to handle normaly (which are bad enough) are using them.

I going to repost an article that The Nazz posted, because I think it's very illustrative...

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.

If the idea of contract negotiations is that both sides start at either end, and work towards a mutually agreeable middle ground, then it certainly seems that the Transportation Authority was doing it's part.

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.

I'm no economic expert, but it seems to me that if there is a pending crisis relating to pension costs, then the best way to alleviate it is EXACTLY the way that the Transportation Authority proposed...increasing new worker contributions.

If they just let the problem snowball, then they're just going to keep having this same problem every time the workers contract expires.

Besides...heaven forbid that a person actually contribute more to their OWN retirement. :rolleyes:

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.

And that, right there, ends ANY sympathy I might have had for these workers.

They are costing the city hundreds of millions of dollars, and inconveniencing a city of millions of people RIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS...over a measly $6.6 million a year?? None of which is actually theirs, but "belongs" to people who haven't even been hired yet?!?!

Those workers can fuck right off, as far as I'm concerned.

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

And this seems to reenforce my point...if they hope to alleviate rising costs, SOMETHING has to be done. Not later, when it will cost more and be more harmful to the workers, but NOW.

They tried, and failed. When they try again, the problem will have worsened...and either EVERY worker will have to increase their pension contributions, or those pensions will have to be trimmed.

Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, Local 100. :rolleyes:

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.

Perhaps I'm dumb, but if it's a pension contribution, would they not still recieve that 4%? Just at a different time?

I must be dumb...because surely people aren't striking simply because potential coworkers will be paid part of their wages later instead of now...:headbang:

---

An interesting note...Toussaint and two other top union officials didn't show up for court Wednesday morning. Hopefully they realize that this strike won't accomplish anything. With luck everything will be running again by Saturday for National Get Pissed at Your Local Retail Clerk Day....I mean...the day before Christmas.

You know something I find interesting about this whole debate? No one has bothered to discuss how the people most affected by this strike feel. There's been a lot of bitching and moaning and talk about how the strikers ought to be fired for walking out at the last minute, and a lot of bashing of management for dumping a bullshit demand on the union at the last minute, lots of praise for the harsh fines leveled by the courts and lots of "talk" about the pros and cons of unions and the right to strike.

But on one has thought to look at what New Yorkers feel, at least not on the pages I've seen.

So someone commissioned SUSA to do a survey, a real straightforward question--do you support the TWU or the MTA. The answer (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=traffic&id=3747432)?
Our Ken Rosato reported at Noontime that Toussaint quoted from an Eyewitness News survey USA poll of 800 people in the area. It showed that 52 percent of the people say they were on the side of the Transport Workers Union. It said only 40 percent said they supported the MTA.
I guess New Yorkers in general aren't pissed about it, so maybe the rest of us would do well to sit back and shut the hell up about it and let them work it out.

-snip-

Well, I live in the city, and I have been commenting quite a lot. So has Kat. Most people I've spoken to have sympathy with the strikers, but at the same time feel the union has asked for too much. They also feel both sides have been unable to negotiate well, and instead are playing fingerpointing.

Well, I live in the city, and I have been commenting quite a lot. So has Kat. Most people I've spoken to have sympathy with the strikers, but at the same time feel the union has asked for too much. They also feel both sides have been unable to negotiate well, and instead are playing fingerpointing.I realize that, and that's why I ended my post the way I did--you guys are the ones most affected, and you're the ones who can provide the most insight. I posted the poll because I was shocked by it when I saw it this morning--and I had to look pretty hard to find it. The story that New Yorkers are supporting the union by a pretty solid margin isn't getting played--the coverage is pretty much all "Union-Bad!" in that lovely "liberal-media" way.

So what I'm saying is that I'm willing to back off and let those of you who are on the ground there give us a greater sense of what's happening.

I just saw on the news:
THE UNION HEADS HAVE RECOMMENDED THE WORKERS RETURN TO WORK.:) :) :) :) :) :)

Hopefully the union board will agree, in which case...*does a little dance* If all goes well, transport should start in the next 12-24 hours! They will continue to negotiate after the strike ends

EDIT: I just talked to a former TWU member, who says this might just mean they will talk for hours on end. This doesn't mean it will end, but Toussaint has warmed to the idea, a good first step.

That's good. You know, another thing I read in one of the many articles on this the other day was a recommendation by the union that the next contract be extended by three months so the next time it comes up for renewal, it doesn't fall during the holiday season. I wonder how the MTA responded to that idea? Because I can see--and I'm not bashing them for this--how they'd like having a holiday shutdown as leverage against the union.

http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_356054551.html sounds like the strike is done