TWU sux
 

I can't beleive they are striking.
I can't beleive the amount of walking in the cold that I have to do right noe.

Some one should strike the union.
The MTA came back with a decent offer last night.

THis is so so crappy.

ITS COLD OUTSIDE lol

wish me luck.
I live all the way out in Queens and need to get to NJ.
2 hour walk to lirr huge wait prolly then walk from penn st to path then to Joysey.

I hope this works.

Oh snap!!! you pass THROUGH the city to work... man.. good luck to you!

I was pissed off I have to walk 3+ miles to work because I live in the city.


I hope that they slap the union with millions in fines AND fire the workers for walking off the job.

Damn.


Now you all feel dumb for not ownin' cars...

oh... I own a car and I live in Manhattan but it's going to be gridlock anyways.

Those that live in Queens and such have to thave 4 person carpool to get across any bridges below 96th street.

Yeah, I was just going to mention that having a car might be an even bigger liability now. Four-person carpool? Hot damn.

now you are gonna need 3 mannequins to get in the carpool lane

They can afford this

but they are griping about not getting 8% raises?

somehow that just doesnt make sense

Thats the kind of thing that often gets negotiated away after its resolved. I like the concept of automatic termination instead.

Yeah... that would solve the problem. Fire all of the strikers. The transit is open for business but there is no one to drive the trains and buses...

100 to one odds says they would have to hire back the people they fire because of the lack of trained employees.

As new employees with no senority.

They didn't hire back the Air Traffic Controllers that walked off the job in the 80's. Reagan was right to fire them all. I hope that Pataki has the stones to do it to them all.

Also the fines are supposed to be pretty stiff:

I hope that they bankrupt the union.

Fair enough.

I didn't realize that. Interesting.


This is an illegal strike correct? If they fines aren't enough, firing should definately be an option.

Legal strikes are another issue entirely.

Yes, the Taylor law stipulates that City workers cannot strike.

For those of you that aren't in the NYC area, there are a couple more issues at hand...

It is hard to sympathize for the striking workers when the Transit Authority made a new offer last night at 11 PM. This offer was rejected and the union made no counter-offer. It was at this point that the union walked out of negotiations and took 4 hours to decide to strike. It is not as if the union made some offer that was dismissed without a couter-offer. In fact, the opposite has occurred.

Further complicating the union's case is the fact that the national transportation worker's union DOES NOT SUPPORT local 100's decision to strike, as they see the Transit Authority's latest offer as representing progress.

Further, the issues left have to do with luxurious demands that do not fall into the category of basic work rights. The union wishes to lower the retirement age (with pensioned benefits) from an already low 55 to 50. The authority is willing to leave that age at 55. Do you get to retire when you are 50? I don't. I also don't get a pension. I get to contribute to a retirement plan. Secondly, the union is angry over the fact that the Transit Authority wishes for new workers to contribute part of their salaries to the pension plan - which is how most of the country does it. The employees will be guaranteed raises of 3%, 4%, and 3.5%, respectively, for the next 3 years. This is the minimum.

Keep in mind that these proposed changes are ONLY FOR NEW EMPLOYEES. They will not affect those already in the system. Secondly, remember what we've seen of pension plans in the last couple of years. To put it bluntly, even if the MTA agrees to the union's demands, the money simply won't be there. We can't afford it. Our system already faces a large deficit in the coming years, so this argument is moot in a way...

Also, NYC relies on its public transportation system to a much larger degree than other US cities. 7 million riders a day is a lot of people finding an alternative to work. The traffic regulations that the police are instituting in an admirable effort to keep things moving are making it nearly impossible to get around. Many businesses in the city, both small and large, are suffering immensely under the strain posed by this strike. I sincerely believe that the TWU has misunderstood its relationship to the public. This strike does not engender sympathy, and the longer it goes on, the more the public resents the histrionics Roger Toussaint (the local president) engages in for the press.

Cyn, I'm not sure that the fine scheme imposed is the one which doubles each day. I know that was discussed a couple of days ago, but everything I've seen today has omitted that detail. Too bad, because the idea of facing a $127 million in fines (total) by next Monday would probably give local 100 some motivation to work it out without breaking the law...

yes, I heard that the fine levied will only be $1M/day which is still something but the snowball effect would be interesting to see how it emptied out the Union coffers.

Give the union members some money back too... charge less for the union dues.

i agree. and if you think about it they are really losing 3 days pay. they are so stupid they are gonna get it even worse than they had it.

It's strikes like this that give unions a bad name and abuse the system.

Unions are the workers only tool against management (we worked for many years without unions and the workers were not taken care of, so the need is there).

All this strike will do is force scabs to cross the line and the union to be broken.

This is very bad for all unions and will weaken them even more because of the bad PR.

I've never been a fan of unions as I see a lot of abuse of their purpose, as seems to be apparent in this case.

For a strike this public to be effective, the union needs the public on their side. Reading the posts here and listening to those being interviewed, it doesn't seem as if the union has the public on their side. This was a dumb move on their part, I think. I don't think they realized this could backfire on them.

I believe unions are necessary, but I also believe that too many of them abuse the power and trust they are given.

So my question is, since it's illegal, can individual fines be given to the workers themselves? Like, send Steve Smith and Jane Johnson Transit Worker a ticket for $x personally, in addition to the fines put against the union?

And if so, can the workers have any recourse on this, saying they were forced to walk out?

My guess is what will happen is fines will be passed out to the workers and they'll cross the line to go back to work, thus breaking the union.

Sad really, at a time when we need unions to be stronger and recruit so that policies change, we have a glaring example thatshows the abuses and stupidity.

If I were a conspiracist I'd swear this strike was set up to weaken unions beyond repair.

I agree. As part of a teacher's union, I wasn't a huge fan of the dues but I knew that at some point, I might need their help. Stopping school for weeks on end, however, does not garner public support... and neither does stopping transit in NYC. This is just stupid.

Now, at my graduate school I took part in efforts to unionize the grad assistants, since we had no dental or vision benefits. (Yes, lots of toothless and blind TAs on that campus!) So in cases like that, I do support unions. There was too much political apathy among grad students to get a majority signing cards, but in the end, the threat of getting organized finally pushed the university to give us those benefits. I know we would have had the community behind us, though, which was key.

I'll state the obvious.
Striking right before Christmas is probably the most leverage this union will ever have. If they are unsuccessful this will probably backfire and weaken them considerably. They are gambling and taking their best shot now.

[QUOTE=Cynthetiq]snip... I hope that Pataki has the stones to do it to them all.

QUOTE]

Pataki?? isn't he the one that blamed Ontario for the power failure back in the summer of '03? Do you think he's got good information or the balls?

I hope that they fire them all, I hear New Orleans has a lot of unemployment, lets do our best and give them 33,700 jobs! They talk about respect, but at the same time they disrespect and hold hostage 7 million people! They should hire new people, and for every person hired one union person cannot come back (if not hire a whole new crew!). They got a great offer, they walked from the table...

Heck the mother union disagrees with the strike, this is a rogue branch!

I'm pretty sure Pataki does not have the stones to do anything significant here. Bloomberg is more vocal, even though he technically doesn't have a say.

New York is a city that has very strong unions in a lot of industries - I've been told that local 802 of musicians is the most powerful in the country. Unfortunately, that sort of power does not ensure that they always act in ways that are beneficial to the public or even to their own members. It seems that TWU 100 was counting on the courts feeling that the union had been subject to unreasonable demands during negotiations. However, the state Supreme Court justice working this case does not agree. Nor does the state's Public Employment Relations Board. I think New Yorkers are becoming more hostile to this union's leadership by the hour. At this point, the union is starting to say that they are willing to resume bargaining. Bloomberg (the mayor) thinks that bargaining should wait until the strike ends, and I agree with him. However, he doesn't actually get to decide that, as the MTA is a stage agency. It sounds like the state wants a binding arbitration, which, it would seem, would favor the MTA's latest proposal as the court and PERB have. TWU 100 opposes this because it would force a contract on its workers without them being able to vote on it. I say tough cookies.

The union feels that the fact that the MTA is running a modest surplus this year should obligate it to agree to terms that will prove extremely expensive in the 5-20 year term. Other than this one year, the MTA is projecting yearly deficits in the range of billions of dollars. Quite simply, they can't afford what the TWU workers get now, let alone an increase in benefits. Even if they agree to these demands, the benefits simply won't be present when payment time comes.

Lastly, here are some choice quotes from a NY Times article:

Yeah. Its pretty screwed up.

There are fines on individuals outside of the $1 million/day on the union. Each worker will lose 2 day's pay for each day of the strike. This is under the Taylor Law, which does not prevent the city from seeking more damages in a separate lawsuit later. It is this separate action that Cynthetiq and I referenced above that would entail a snowballing scheme of fines. However, the city has not yet sought an injunction for this matter, which is required before those fines can be assessed.

I don't think there will be scabs, but the commuter railroads here are not helping TWU 100 in the strike. Long Island Railroad and Metro North are working at double capacity to help alleviate strain on the system. Additionally, the National TWU does not support local 100's strike.

oh boo hoo maybe they should have thought about the fines before they went on strike

[QUOTE=Janey]I don't recall who stated who was responsible for the blackout in '03. I do recall seeing something on Discory Channel or National Geographic that sourced it north of the Canadian border as the origins.

As far as Pataki having the stones, no he's never had the stones. Would Cuomo? (edited for wrong name)

As far as getting public sympathy for the unions, you strike before Christmas when people are already stretched thin for money and you make them have to spend extra money taking cabs or extra time walking/biking.

There's also lots of other unions watching this, the police, teachers, sanitation, etc. because they are going to see just how far they can or cannot go in the future or if they didn't go far enough in the past.

I say bankrupt the union. They played their hand as best as they saw it. You bluff and if they lose, they lose. Period.

Just to be the devil's advocate, however...

You should share the benefits of the surplus with those who work for it, shouldn't you? Why, especially knowing that they'll have deficits shortly, would they decide to give big discounts to riders etc rather than settle the contract with their workers? It's bad form to crow about a surplus and then try to cheap out on your employees.

I do believe the 3% per year is reasonable, but I also think that the retirement age doesn't need to be 62 (most places you can't get your money until 59 1/2 however). The MTA dropped that, however. And I do think it's reasonable to run the MTA like a regular business. At our hospital, we're not-for-profit. When we make money, that money is invested back into the hospital and we all get cost of living increases - from 3- 5% depending on how well we did - and we all contribute to the costs of health care. We DON'T contribute to our pension plan, however. We can add to it by doing a 403(b) thing (non-profit's 401(k)), but we don't have to.

We're running fine... so it seems to me that they should split the differences down the middle like reasonable folks.

I don't see where they are cheaping out on their employees.

Your last paragraph underlines that YOU get fair treatment and that is what was similar in offering to the workers.

Is your devil's advocate suggesting giving them more?

I will state that the last contract that they got just after 9/11 they got ZERO increases.

Pataki did say something like that but there were just as many erroneous statements made north of the border as well (i.e. Chretien said it stemmed from a lighning strike on a Nuclear Power Plant in new Jersey or something like that).

What happened

/end threadjack

Nope, not us. They eventually placed the blame for that one on a power station in NY state.

I think guaranteed raises that exceed 3% qualifies as sharing a surplus. Although I agree that a fare discount was a bad way of squandering this temporary surplus, I do think that if you want to redistribute a surplus you give it back to the people that created it. After all, you and I paid for the MTA in the first place by buying metrocards and paying our taxes. A subsidized agency SHOULD give the money back to the people who paid it in the first place. THE MTA is not a non-profit organization - it is a government agency subsidized by taxes. At any rate, it is pretty well established at this point that this year's surplus is very temporary - even as currently projected the MTA is facing multi-billion dollar deficits in the near future.

Jess, did you know this (from a NY Sun article )?
and regarding pension outlays, this (from the NY Times )?

Holy Hell you said walk for two hours?!? Screw that!!! Sorry to hear bout the long walk boss. I hope these guys get bit in the ass on this one. Yeah striking right before Christmas is huge leverage for them but that's just shitty. Go and screw everyone's holiday because you want to through a tantrum over 8%.

The NYC TWU is childish...it's complete bullshit, if only because they are bankrupting the City as we speak. Regardless, the unions as asking for God's gift...guaranteed inflationary raises (what real job has that?), guaranteed pension (which NYC is having trouble affording already), and, most abhorrent of all, reducing retirement from 50 to 55.

First of all, even today you're *lucky* to retire at 55! Second of all, with special attention paid to increasing life expectancy, the age should be going *up*, not down.

I'm glad that most of you here realize how ridiculous the union is being, and how they should be rightfully punished for the brutal damage they are inflicting on NYC.

The surplus is not a million dollars sitting in the bank. But money they did not expect to have for projects so was not budgeted. They have a ton of work to do, not including the 2nd avenue line etc.. And their base salary rocks, retiring at 55, etc.. I am sorry they ask for respect, where is the respect for the millions of clients who use them. Seriously I wish the judge threw their board in jail for contempt as well. Heck the parent union even agrees.

But crippling the entire city, causing this amount of damage, is just wrong, there is nothing that can even begin to justify their actions.

nice article from NYTIMES

I just saw this posted on the NY Times discussion board. I haven't tracked down original sources yet, but it does match what I've seen claimed by these agencies...


Starting Salaries for NYC Agencies

for more comparison, FOX 5 in new york said the average salary for a new yorker is $45,000
the channel doesn't seem to support the strike, as transitional graphics say "Illegal Subway Strike"

NYPD: $25,100 ($32,700 after 6 months)
NYFD: $25,100
DSNY: $26,000
MTA: $52,644 (train operator)


How does anyone live on 25K a year in NYC?

I see the number of $52,644 being mentioned with the caveat that it is a train operator's salary. Can someone just walk off the street and become a train operator or do you have to have worked at the MTA for a few years in a more junior position?

What is the ground floor, first day on the job salary for an MTA employee? I bet there's a difference.

Charlatan - you're probably right about the first day salary. I am getting the impression that train operators are usually hired internally. However, the NYPD and FDNY do cap salaries for officers (not sergeants, lieutenants, detectives, etc.) at around $59,000, which is only $7,000 more than the starting train operator...

I'll see if I can find more and post it.

This is all I've found yet, and I've got to go do some work... I've yet to find anything that contradicts the idea that transit workers get paid 75-110% more than NYPD, FDNY, and DSNY workers in similar positions.

From world socialist web site:
From a NY Times article (I lost the link, sorry)
From New York Daily News (yes I know it is an Op/Ed)

I did a quick search and came up with some similar numbers but they were all average salaries rather than entry level salaries.

Regardless... these guys are getting paid a lot. I can see that a motorman might get paid a lot or even a bus driver. This is some skill involved and you are operating some serious machinery (even if you are just pushing buttons).

But a ticket agent or a conductor? Come on.

These guys appear to have a very sweet deal.

LOL, the president of the union (at 4:15 today on tv), explained why they can break the law, they are mentioned Rosa Parks, and then of course mentioned Martin Luther King. I find it sad that they basically are pulling the race card. Then they talk about 'respect' again...

roommates or a spouse that works...

They live in Jersey or a tenament in Queens, Brooklyn or the Bronx, and get married or have roommates who also have an income.

MY bro and his g-friend do it.

Anyway, I am totally in favor of this Union, and these striking tactics.

THIS IS exactly what collectivism is all about.

I can't possibly imagine what purpose a Union can have if it is barred from striking by law. What kind of shit is that? I guess when you run the assylum, appoint the judges, and bribe the legislators it is quite likely that you will be the one who holds all the cards, like making it illegal for your opposing union to strike. What a freaking joke.

If this is costing NYC's ecomony billions of dollars every day then it might be in your best interest to come up with an offer the union WILL except.

I wonder really, casting aside this questionable strike illegality nonsense, who really holds all the cards here? Pony up MTA bitches, you've been played and played good.

I fully support the Union on this one. I completely distrust the government, and feel awful for those effected by the strike. Blame and demonize the union, but don't forget they are reacting (and did so by a memeber referendum) to the negotiations which occured with the MTA. Corrupt unaccountable politician types, to be sure. Can't you just see the 'government/management/MTA' negotiator tisk tisking, wagging his little finger, and smirking while he reminds himself that these idiots have no bargaining power because they can't strike. Ouch.

Of cousr if I was the man on this one, I'd fire them all as fast as they could say "one million dollars a day?"

Solidarity TWU, :thumbsup:

-bear

darn you Mal....;)

I think it went more the other way in this case.

The union figured they had the city over a barrel and could make unreasonable demands.

I'd fire them all and let them come crawling back for their jobs one by one :)

Jersey isn't all that much cheaper... :) at one point, i thought cops and firemen in nyc had to live in one of the five boroughs... living in jersey wasnt an option.

I see because you aren't "the man" that's why you're supportive of them but if you were the man you'd screw them all.

Nice to see you have strong convictions in your beliefs.

and sorry, they were offered a fair deal... fairer than anyone who's NOT a union person like myself.

That is a conclusion not a fact. A conclusion not supported by the union's referendum. Fair to you or "fairer then others" is irrelevant. And while you do live in NYC and are probably more effected by this action then most of us, remember it probably colors your opinion.

Attempting to demean my character with a "lack of conviction" charge shows very little class on your part.

And for what's it's worth :

1. What kind of system allows unions, and then forbids them to strike. I advocate a strength of conviction that permits you to defy unreasonable laws, and protect your best interests.

2. When you've been beaten down by the game at which you have modified the rules in your favor, I similarly advocate strong and decisive action to defeat and break your opponent.

The real and larger problem remains that we have one of the most important economies being crippled by a transit strike. Demean and demogoue all you like, who ever you like. Remember that BOTH parties hold culpibility here.

-bear

Maybe.

Me too. Although, there are lots of jobs out there right now. Who knows what that would do. Cripple the city further? On the other hand these union pussies who have become so accustomed to no responsibilty, gauranteed wage increases, and government quality entitlements, that they might have a tough time in the private sector.

-bear

*edit cleaned up some quoting snafu's

Sussex county is quite a haul, but you get two to three times the crib for half the price...even of one of the lesser burroughs. I know many many long distance commutors. And I've seen my brothers "walk in closet" and the kitchen and bed it contains in the Brooklyn. Ouch.

In fact I just moved to Sussex County, and have been offered several positions in the city. I'm out though. For me it's a life of Gentlemen Farming, with a consultation or two from time to time from hear on out.

As far as living in the city, I remember hearing something about that too. I'm quite certain that it didn't happen, or at least didn't apply to legacy crews since I also know a few of New York's finest and bravest who live in Jersey.

-bear

Hey all,

Well i wound up walking only an hour and a half yesterday and received a ride over the bridge to Manhattan then took the Path train to Jersey city.
Istayed over night in Manhattan and am staying in manhattan untill Friday if the strike lasts.
Which sux becasue my wife is 8 months preggers.

Anyway you cut it the people of nyc are being screwed and I dont blame the transit workers for it. I blame the union that laeds them. I know of many transit workers who do want to go to work.
But anyone who understands union politics know that those employees would be outcasted.

It is really sad.

SOmetimes I thikn that we actually live in a soap opera and things like this are planned to just give the city a good story line to follow. lol

I want to go home, becasue I'm staying at my friends place who is out of town and all he has is Gay porn.(nothing against gay porn Im just not into it) and this really sucks becasue when you are by yourself in a strange apartment you get well horny, damn the Union and damn gay porn. I want to go home.

not demeaning your lack of conviction, but if you TRULY supported your beliefs as for the union, then you'd carry those over to if you were to be on the other side. To speak from both sides of your mouth shows me that you aren't strong in your conviction, you are as stong in your opinion depending on which way the wind blows. If you were the Man you'd sock it to them, but since you aren't, you are sympathetic to them.

As for me being a NYC person. I didn't walk to work. I drove to work as I have a car here in NYC, which costs me extra to own and house. If I walk to work it's a CHOICE not forced upon me by some asshole who decided to not do his job. Yesterday I worked from home.

They didn't fuck me. They fucked all the other people who live with roommates and get paidn $5.35/hr and barely make ends meet by making it hard for THEM to get to work. Do you really think they have sympathy for someone who is going to make $50k+?????

Read up the the Taylor Law that was enacted in 1967.

J8ear,
I've got a couple of questions for you, if you don't mind. Do you also feel that police and firefighters should be allowed to strike? How do you feel about President Reagan firing 11,000 Air Traffic Controllers who struck illegally? Do you feel that workers should be allowed to bring larger society to its knees because their occupation falls into an area that is necessary? Do you feel that the fact that a public servant's salary is paid by taxes should obligate them to work while negotiating? Do you think that teachers should be able to strike? Workers at the electric utility? Water utility? What about the military?

Here's another tack: A central tenant of our country's legal principals involves the freedom to engage in an act coupled with the responsibility to assume the consequences of those actions. While it is illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater that isn't on fire, you'll be hailed as a hero for getting people out if such a danger actually exists. Given this, do you feel that it is fair to hold the TWU local 100 responsible for the massive economic harm their illegal actions have caused to businesses, individuals, and government? After all, their choice to walk off their jobs has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to the city. This ranges from the Gap selling less sweaters to workers commuting from the outer boroughs paying over $70/day to get to work and back home. This is a real and measurable harm directly caused by an avoidable choice local 100 has made.

The point of a union that can't strike is that it permits workers to engage in collective bargaining, which is actually the whole point of a union (not work stoppages) while making sure that essential public services are not disrupted. While not being able to strike legally does take the fangs out of a union's teeth, it doesn't render it powerless. In fact, obviously, it doesn't even prevent the union from striking. What a law like the taylor amendment does is ensure that employees of agencies that provide essential services do not strike unless it is worth breaking the law and facing stiff fines over. The taylor amendment even even offers provisions for mediation and arbitration if negotiations stall to ensure that workers are not backed into a corner by their lack of striking power. TWU local 100 has chosen not to exercise all of these options.

I mentioned the air traffic controllers before, and I think it is worth mentioning that not all the strikers were fired immediately. There was a grace period of 48 (I think) hours for some workers to reconsider the illegality of their actions. Those 1,500 who did change their minds kept their jobs. In my mind, this is a dangerous kindness. Keeping individuals around that have already shown such a willingness to express their desires in such harmful ways doesn't seem intelligent.

P.S. I didn't walk to work either (and it sure as hell wasn't because I make a lot of money!). I took the elevator (I live and work in the same building). My commute clocked in at a solid 75 seconds.

Of course police and firefighters should be able to strike, and ALL so called public sector, for the good of the people types, OF COURSE AND WITHOUT QUESTION they should be able to strike. And at the same time, if their employers find it in their best interest to fire them all, then so be it. That's how it works, you pay me what I'm worth, and I'll do the job you require. If you demand more then the market will allow, you don't get a job? Why is this a question? Do some employees have such impact on society, yet we pay them too little? Perhaps. Solution. Prevent them from job actions? With laws? Instead of paying them what the market will bear? Am I the only one who sees the folly in this?

I'm so exasperated by the vastly superior "I can afford to own and house an automobile in Manhattan" Cyn that I am a little beside myself right now. How the fuck is his wealth and superiority to the rest of us commoners relevant? How does it do anything to forward this discussion?

I need to take 5...or maybe 24...

I'll be back....maybe.

-bear

bear,

I might agree with your attitude if workers weren't organized. Meaning, if they individually felt they weren't being paid enough, they could threaten to leave. If their employer missed them enough, they'd get what they want. This is how negotiations work in at at will setting. However, essential public sector employees can hold society hostage whether their demands are reasonable or not. What if policemen struck because the city wouldn't pay them each $1,000,000 holiday bonuses? Would we then have to fire all of them and be without police protection until replacements were trained? THAT doesn't seem right to me. Your argument only makes sense to me if you assume that everything a union asks for is within the realm of reason. Do you think all policemen should get holiday bonuses of $1,000,000?

Further complicating the issue is the fact that workers don't really decide to strike - union leadership does. Worse still is the fact that this union leadership makes decisions for everyone when individuals are not allowed to not belong to the union! It is simplistic opinions like these that cause my doubts about the validity of a few people (union leaders) bringing NY to its knees (from a NY Times article):
andAlso, I can see that you are exasperated, but I hope you'll stick around. Your ideas are important and you may yet convince me of something... :icare:

I don't think policemen should get holiday bonuses of a million dollars. And while I bet, most policement also do not, those that do, would get fired, the rest would go back to work, and the greedy ones would be replaced. Very little disruption of "society." I think. That's the market place. Jobs for those who will work. When you can't fill the positions you need you widen the job pool by lowering standards, or ideally increasing compensation packages.

By the way, there is no police protection or responsibility of the police to protect...this has been decided in a number of Supreme Court Decisions. Just saying is all.

Let's look at the ATC strike during Reagan's era. He fired all of them. Some were allowed back. Sure Air traffic was effected for a fair amount of time, but things returned to levels far better then before the strike. Society took a hit, albeit a realtively insignificant one, and came out better and STRONGER on the other side. A better pool of ATC's now man the nations airways. That's economics, and market forces working together to make improvements.

I like that the ATC union went on strike. I was impressed with ~their~ conviction and dedication to ~their~ cause. I was also impressed with Reagan's handling of the situation. We ended up with some out of work ATC's and some new ones. All in all the Air Traffic Control System and society is better for the action...from both parties as a result.

Hey, that's just how I see it.

-bear

I'm not stating it from superiority but rather my choices of how I choose my lifestyle. There are other people in the city who cannot afford to and there are also those who CHOOSE not to. I'm stating it because I don't need to rely on the MTA if I don't care to. Thus the strike doesn't affect me as much as it does someone else who had to walk 4 hours to work, took vacation/sick days instead of coming in, doesn't have the option of telecommuting, lost jobs because they could not appear at the worksite, small shops who cannot get staff into the city to open stores, pick one.

edit: I'm trying to state this matter of factly not as a superiority position.

Who is going to be the policemen while the ones are still in training? I don't want some yahaoo with little training to be a police officer. I don't want someone who hasn't had the same level of training that I know goes into being an officer of the law. Same goes with firemen.

They did that already with teachers a few years ago because they couldn't get enough teachers because paying what the market would bear isn't possible due to the union setups. Now that they don't need the extras anymore they have been cast aside with no job.

supposedly they are going to stop the strike and go back to the negotiating table.

if the are no going to the negotiating table and bringing back workers without a contract, then WTF was the point of the strike??? for Toussant's ego?

They could not continue the strike past thursday, since they all have to go home to the families (no one on the picket line), and they might get more fines and jail time...

In the meantime Pataki wants to be president which is why he hid during the whole fiasco, and did not even comment until a day after bloomberg did! And even then he did not threaten firing anyone, since he needs the unions for any possible run for president.

Basically we all get screwed they go back to their job, with losing a week pay, and maybe 3 million dollars (depending on the courts ruling). And we set a bad precident allowing a strike to happen.

Oooooh I hate putting my head in a hornets nest, especially when I seem to be in the minority.

From what I am reading from all the New York writers they are saying how hard it is without these workers. Which is the same thing as saying how important they are. Well if they are that important shouldn't they be paid accordingly.

To compare them to the Fire and Police which are obviously under paid isn't really the issue. Fire, Police and teachers should have gone on strike for more money years ago.

People should be allowed to charge for their services whatever the public thinks they are worth.

If you don't think their services are worth what they are asking continue walking to work and quit complaining and the strike will fail and the union will have to take less.