TWU sux - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Esen · 12-20-2005, 01:38 AM

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.

Cynthetiq · 12-20-2005, 01:42 AM

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.

World's King · 12-20-2005, 01:54 AM

Damn.

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

Cynthetiq · 12-20-2005, 01:57 AM

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.

Gabbyness · 12-20-2005, 06:42 AM

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

barenakedladies · 12-20-2005, 07:08 AM

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

ShaniFaye · 12-20-2005, 07:11 AM

They can afford this

Quote:

The strike defies the Taylor Law, which forbids public employees from walking off the job. The law imposes a fine of two days' pay for each day of an illegal strike.

but they are griping about not getting 8% raises?

somehow that just doesnt make sense

Ustwo · 12-20-2005, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

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.

Charlatan · 12-20-2005, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

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.

Ustwo · 12-20-2005, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

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.

Cynthetiq · 12-20-2005, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

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.

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:

Quote:

City Hall piggybacked onto that ruling — demanding that the union be fined $1,000,000 and each worker $25,000 on the first day of the strike with a doubling of the fines on each subsequent day, the sanctions to be assessed in addition to those stipulated under Taylor.

I hope that they bankrupt the union.

Charlatan · 12-20-2005, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

As new employees with no senority.

Fair enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

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 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.

Cynthetiq · 12-20-2005, 08:01 AM

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

Quote:

New York State Public Employees Fair Employment Act - The Taylor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What Is It?

The Public Employees Fair Employment Act, commonly known as the Taylor Law, is a labor relations statute covering most public employees in New York State-- whether employed by the State, or by counties, cities, towns, villages, school districts, public authorities or certain special service districts. It became effective September 1, 1967 and was the first comprehensive labor relations law for public employees in the State, and among the first in the United States. It is the legal foundation used by GOER in its negotiations with New York State's public employee unions.

What Does It Do?

The Taylor Law:

grants public employees the right to organize and to be represented by employee organizations of their own choice; requires public employers to negotiate and enter into agreements with public employee organizations regarding their employees' terms and conditions of employment; establishes impasse procedures for the resolution of collective bargaining disputes;
defines and prohibits improper practices by public employers and public employee organizations; prohibits strikes by public employees; and
establishes a state agency to administer the Law- The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB).

Administration Of The Taylor Law

The New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) was created as an independent, neutral agency to administer the Taylor Law. The three member Board is appointed by the Governor, with the consent of the State Senate. The Board's major responsibility is to act as an umpire in disputes arising under the Taylor Law. Other responsibilities include: administration of the Taylor Law statewide; resolution of representation disputes; provision of impasse resolution services; adjudication of improper practice charges; designation of management/confidential employees; determination of employee organization responsibility for striking and ordering forfeiture of dues and agency fee check-off privileges; and, administration of grievance and interest arbitration panels.

Resolution of Contract Disputes

Mediation: Generally under the Taylor Law there are four impasse resolution systems, and in each system, mediation is the required first step. Either or both parties may request mediation assistance by filing a "Declaration of Impasse" with PERB's Director of Conciliation. The mediator is appointed by the Director from PERB's full-time staff or its panel of per diem mediators. The mediator acts as liaison between the parties, and seeks to effect a settlement through persuasion and compromise.

Fact-Finding: If mediation fails to resolve the impasse, then Fact-Finding is the next step. The fact-finder may attempt to resolve the dispute through further mediation. If not, or if unsuccessful in that effort, the fact-finder then holds a hearing, takes testimony of witnesses, accepts briefs from the parties, and then makes a written, nonbinding recommendation for settlement to both parties. The Fact-Finder then makes the report and recommendations public within five days of transmission of the report to the parties.

Binding Arbitration: For New York State Police units, the procedure is similar to what the law provides for local police, fire fighters, and certain transit employees. The Taylor Law provides that if the dispute is not resolved in mediation, PERB, on petition of either party, will generally refer the dispute to arbitration. Arbitration for New York State Police units is restricted to issues directly related to compensation and the decision of the arbitrator is binding on both parties.

Legislative Hearing: In those instances where arbitration is not permitted, if one or both parties does not accept the fact-finding report in its entirety, then for public employees (with the exception of public employees of educational institutions, police, fire fighters and certain transit employees) the next step is a legislative hearing. The Governor's Office of Employee Relations submits to the Legislature a copy of the fact-finding report plus the agency's own recommendations for resolving the dispute. The employee organization may submit its recommendations for settling the dispute as well. A public hearing is then conducted by the Legislature or a legislative committee to hear the positions of both sides. The Legislature usually directs both parties to resume negotiations but occasionally, the legislature will choose to impose employment terms. Such imposition may be for no more than a single fiscal year. A legislative determination cannot change the terms of an expired agreement unless the employee organization has waived its right to stand on those terms.

Conciliation: Is mediation assistance which PERB may offer, at its discretion, if an impasse continues after a fact-finding report has been issued.

ubertuber · 12-20-2005, 05:22 PM

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...

Cynthetiq · 12-20-2005, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

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.

Bagezio2 · 12-20-2005, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

They can afford this

but they are griping about not getting 8% raises?

somehow that just doesnt make sense

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.

pan6467 · 12-20-2005, 09:08 PM

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.

JumpinJesus · 12-20-2005, 09:23 PM

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.

analog · 12-20-2005, 09:24 PM

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?

pan6467 · 12-20-2005, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by analog

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.

abaya · 12-20-2005, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

For a strike this public to be effective, the union needs the public on their side. -snip- I believe unions are necessary, but I also believe that too many of them abuse the power and trust they are given.

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.

flstf · 12-20-2005, 09:47 PM

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.

Janey · 12-21-2005, 04:25 AM

[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?

Xazy · 12-21-2005, 06:23 AM

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!

ubertuber · 12-21-2005, 06:30 AM

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:

Quote:

Mr. Schwartz also argued that Local 100 could not afford to pay the $1 million daily fines imposed by the court, and he introduced tax records for 2004 that showed the union's assets to be about $3.6 million. "This begins the process of crippling the union," he said.

Quote:

The Public Employment Relations Board denied the union's request for an injunction by saying that the strike "is neither a consequence of the M.T.A.'s bargaining demand regarding a new pension plan, nor within control of the M.T.A."

The panel also said that both parties still had more opportunities to resolve the dispute and that any injury to the union because of the strike would be "self-inflicted."

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.

ShaniFaye · 12-21-2005, 06:33 AM

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

Cynthetiq · 12-21-2005, 07:03 AM

[QUOTE=Janey]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 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.

JustJess · 12-21-2005, 07:24 AM

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.

Cynthetiq · 12-21-2005, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustJess

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.

Charlatan · 12-21-2005, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

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.

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

Quote:

On November 19, 2003, the U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Force released an interim report placing the cause of the blackout on FirstEnergy Corporation's failure to trim trees in part of its Ohio service area. The report said that a generating plant in the Cleveland, Ohio area went off-line amid high electrical demand and strained high-voltage power lines later went out of service when they came in contact with "overgrown trees". It also found that FirstEnergy did not warn other control centers until it was too late because of a bug in the UNIX based General Electric Energy's XA/21 system [2] (http://www.securityfocus.com/news/8016) and inadequate staff. The cascading effect that resulted ultimately forced the shutdown of more than 100 power plants.

/end threadjack

Lucifer · 12-21-2005, 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

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.

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

ubertuber · 12-21-2005, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustJess

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 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 )?

Quote:

A subway-train operator starts at $52,644 a year, more than double the starting salaries of police officers, fire fighters, and trash collectors.

and regarding pension outlays, this (from the NY Times )?

Quote:

"Pension changes always have small effects at the beginning and grow over time," he said... The authority's pension proposal would have a modest saving at first: $2.25 million in the first year, $4.8 million in the second year and $7.8 million in the third year. But he [John J. Murphy, a pension expert and former executive director of the New York City Employees' Retirement System] said the plan would achieve significant savings, more than $160 million in the first 10 years, with some officials estimating that it would save more than $80 million a year after 20 years. Mr. Dellaverson said it was important for the authority to try to control its pension outlays even in a year when it had a surplus. The authority's pension outlays for the transit workers have soared to $453 million this year, triple the amount in 2002.

Dragonknight · 12-21-2005, 08:11 AM

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%.

macmanmike6100 · 12-21-2005, 08:25 AM

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.

Xazy · 12-21-2005, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJess
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 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.

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.

Cynthetiq · 12-21-2005, 09:13 AM

nice article from NYTIMES

Quote:

The strike called early yesterday by subway and bus workers had a "severe to devastating" effect on businesses, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said, denouncing the Transport Workers Union and demanding an end to the walkout. City Comptroller William C. Thompson Jr. estimated the cost to the city's economy at $400 million the first day, and $300 million for each subsequent weekday this week.

Whether or not such assessments are accurate, a drive past storefronts with their security gates locked at midday or a stroll through eerily quiet shops the week before Christmas left no doubt that the strike was inflicting widespread economic pain.

Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, an alliance of hundreds of businesses, said that about 20 percent of those companies' employees were absent. Most affected, she said, were the lower-level employees who are more likely to live in the city and are most reliant on public transportation.

Quote:

The stores and restaurants so reliant on the surge of commuters into the city and the holiday boom in sales were especially injured.

Quote:

Ordinarily, commuters stream through Flushing News Island, a shop next to a No. 7 subway entrance in Flushing, Queens, but not yesterday. "I'm just sitting here," said Qamar Ali, the owner. "It's totally dead. I hope this strike ends soon, or otherwise we can't pay next month's rent."

Quote:

The drop in retail and restaurant sales also cut into the city's and the state's sales tax revenues. But the city's loss could be a gain for the suburbs and businesses with Internet sites, if shoppers who do not want to come into Manhattan decide to shop near home or online instead.

Quote:

"The nursing aides, the nannies, the store clerks, the people with back-room jobs at restaurants - these are the hardest hit, but we can't see it as readily as the big businesses," said Ms. Scanlon, who teaches at New York University. "There's a real income class difference in who can work at home on the computer and who can't, and that's one of the biggest changes from previous strikes."

ubertuber · 12-21-2005, 10:46 AM

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

Quote:

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

trickyy · 12-21-2005, 11:11 AM

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"

Charlatan · 12-21-2005, 11:18 AM

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.

ubertuber · 12-21-2005, 11:22 AM

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.

12-20-2005, 01:38 AM	#1 (permalink)
Esen TFPer formaly known as Chauncey Location: North East	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. __________________ ~Esen What is everyone doing in my room?

12-20-2005, 01:42 AM	#2 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	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. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION! Last edited by Cynthetiq; 12-20-2005 at 01:54 AM..

12-20-2005, 01:54 AM	#3 (permalink)
World's King Here Location: Denver City Denver	Damn. Now you all feel dumb for not ownin' cars... __________________ heavy is the head that wears the crown

12-20-2005, 01:57 AM	#4 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	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. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

12-20-2005, 06:42 AM	#5 (permalink)
Gabbyness Chicken scratch. Location: Japan!!!	Yeah, I was just going to mention that having a car might be an even bigger liability now. Four-person carpool? Hot damn. __________________ One, two, three, four, fiiiiiiiifth.

12-20-2005, 07:08 AM	#6 (permalink)
barenakedladies Crazy Location: anytown, USA	now you are gonna need 3 mannequins to get in the carpool lane __________________ signature smignature

12-20-2005, 05:22 PM	#14 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	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... __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam Last edited by ubertuber; 12-20-2005 at 05:24 PM..

12-20-2005, 09:08 PM	#17 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	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 just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

12-20-2005, 09:23 PM	#18 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	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. __________________ "I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

12-20-2005, 09:24 PM	#19 (permalink)
analog Banned	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?

12-20-2005, 09:47 PM	#22 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	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.

12-21-2005, 04:25 AM	#23 (permalink)
Janey Junkie Location: Toronto	[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?

12-21-2005, 06:23 AM	#24 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	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!

12-21-2005, 06:33 AM	#26 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	oh boo hoo maybe they should have thought about the fines before they went on strike __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

12-21-2005, 07:24 AM	#28 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	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. __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.

12-21-2005, 08:11 AM	#33 (permalink)
Dragonknight Insane Location: Hawaii	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%. __________________ Freedom is NOT Free.

12-21-2005, 08:25 AM	#34 (permalink)
macmanmike6100 High Honorary Junkie Location: Tri-state.	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.

12-21-2005, 11:11 AM	#38 (permalink)
trickyy ►	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"

12-21-2005, 11:18 AM	#39 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	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. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

12-21-2005, 11:22 AM	#40 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	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. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam