2005 Transit Strike

Urban D Kaye wrote:There will always be those who believe that union workers are getting the short end of the stick, no matter what... whether they make 48k a year, $60k, or $100k...and I guess as a casual spectator, it's not my place to say what's "fair." But it's also true that, in a free society, every topic is open to public opinion and debate. Especially where the immediate needs of the public are concerned.

I'll offer this fact:

"Transport Workers Union Local 100 even defied its own parent union, whose leader urged them to go back to the table amid apparent progress in talks."

The whole article can be read here.

It's almost unheard of for a parent union to deny its support to a local.

See this is the United States, and we practice capitalism, not socialism. Here you are suposed to get paid what you are worth, and what you contribute to society. If you work hard to become what society needs, you will be rewarded with a high salary. You can also take the easy way out, get a job with a union and then hold a city hostage to demand what YOU think you are worth instead of what society thinks you are worth.

Isn't Toussaint doing what the members of his union ELECTED him to do, which is get the members the best deal possible? If the MTA was such a good orginization to work for, wouldn't the people who work there vote to get RID of the union? Reading the comments from those of you who can't understand why this strike is taking place leads me wonder what kind of jobs with what kind of great companies you have? Apparently it's fine for the NY Govenor and Mayor to pontificate on the quality of the people who work for the MTA, while the 2 of them supposedly have NO CONNECTION to the labor negotiations that are going on. They can make inflamitory and derrogitory statements while never once offering any kind of workable salutions. Don't believe for one second that they don't have ulterior motives in harrassing the TWU....any concessions they're able to wrestle away from this contract, will surely be brought up when they're negotiating with the Firemens, Policemans, and Municipal workers unions.

Pataki appoints the board of the MTA, and is the Governor of the state where the strike is taking place, how the strike has nothing to do with him I don't understand.

Bloomberg also is the Mayor of the city that is illegally disrupted by this strike, and he only commented on the leaders of the union, not on the union.

Actually, Pataki was on the news yesterday saying "there will be no nogotiations while the workers are striking", as if he has something to do with the MTA-TWU talks, AND, I watched Bloomberg stand at a podium and say that the TWU workers who were striking were THUGS who were holding the city hostage. Quite honestly, to hear the Gov. and Mayor get on TV and cry about all the revenues being lost, one would think that people as smart as they supposedly are would be able to do the math, and realize that whatever the cost of the settlement between the MTA and TWU, it will be a single digit percentage of all the revenues that are being lost while they puff their chests out and stamp their feet. I can't imagine that the TWU's contract demands would cost $400 million a day.....a perfect example of penny wise and dollar foolish. As usual, the polititions are worrying about the peanuts while the elephants trample them to death.

Looks like the strike is ending while negotiations continue: http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_st ... 54551.html

Ultimately, I think this is a good move for everyone.

DoNotHump wrote: See this is the United States, and we practice capitalism, not socialism. Here you are suposed to get paid what you are worth, and what you contribute to society. If you work hard to become what society needs, you will be rewarded with a high salary. You can also take the easy way out, get a job with a union and then hold a city hostage to demand what YOU think you are worth instead of what society thinks you are worth.

A government business is not a private corporations. There are no stockholders and there are no profits. Your model does not work here, and frankly with all the coporate wellfare in the United States, it doesn't really work in private industry either.

I work extremely hard to become what my employer needs. (Disclosure: I work for UMDNJ) When's the last time I got more than a 2% raise? Never. Most in this room would apparently use that to justify the TWU not getting decent raises either, however that would by hypocritical. It is not fair for me, and it's not fair for anyone else, especially those working dangerous jobs. For state workers, it simply doesn't happen. There are no profits with which to give raises. What these companies see is cuts cuts cuts, to finance other pork and crony appointments and ridiculous illegal wars overseas.

I see everyone here ignored the letter to the editor, probably the most logical/rational thing here, in favor of political "me first, mine mine mine" harping. The man has a point, and most of you have ignored it. They have been working hard, and they want what they're due. Capitalism clearly has not given it to them. You may say that they're striking and inconveniencing people who make even less than they do. What about the flip-side of the coin: upper west-side or Wall Street types who are inconvenienced by the transit workers, yet make 3x their salaries. The argument is inconsistent and selfish.

Again, what is to be gained by saying "you deserve nothing because I get nothing."

trainwayne1 wrote:any concessions they're able to wrestle away from this contract, will surely be brought up when they're negotiating with the Firemens, Policemans, and Municipal workers unions.

This is a very good point, and one I made earlier as well -- once something is gone, it's gone. These workers are one of the last groups holding onto these benefits. With a precedent set, everyone can eventually kiss them goodbye. As it stands now, instead of uniting to fight against unfair labor conditions, we're at each other's throats saying "I don't make that much, neither should you!" It is better for all of this is the TWU wins this fight.

The TWU voted 38 to 5 with 2 abstensions to end the strike. The NYCT president states service will be restored within 12 to 24 hours.

NJTRailfan wrote:The MTA workers esp that dictoator tussaint is gettign really sleazy with these demands esp by pickign Christmas to do so. How dare they put working class Americans at a difficult position where they can't get to work and demand more then resonable of what they got! I' mgettign sick and tired of their costant whinnign sp sicne they make more cash a hell of alot better pensio nand medical befiits then I do i nthe US rmy. as you know branches of the Armed forces are paid no where near or benifits like those guys. Yet here I am Deployed in Iraq and the pay for an E-4(Sepcialist) even though tax free is abotu $40,000-$45,000 and thats with the raise that we are supposed to get alogn with the Hazard Pay. Yet these idiots make over $60,000.

You should be making more than you do. Instead of taking pot shots at other people who are working just as hard as you, why don't you do something about it. The military is another extremely disrespected group. You folks are making huge sacrifices, and getting shafted for it. Is that fair? No. It's not fair when it happens to ANYONE.

NJTRailfan wrote:They are just as greedy as the employees of Eastern Airlines where thsoe damn unions messed up a great airline alot mroe then the bum Frankie Lorenzo did. As a result EAL joined the airlien graveyard with Pan Am and TWA.

You clearly don't understand the purpose of a union. A union is there to fight for its employees, and the officials are elected to do so. Where would America be without them? Stop spouting conservative trash for a few mins and pick up a history book. Check out WHY labor organized -- seriously, you might learn something, rather than just insulting people all the time and calling them greedy and whiny.

1. If you were goign to strike please do your fellow Americans a favor and dson't piss peopel off by striking on a Holdiay like Christmas.

NJTRailfan wrote:2. There are people fighting for our country in Iraq and Afghanistan who don't make anywhere near that and we are loosign 4 or 5 guys a day and we are stationed out in hell holes like Ft Campbell, KY or Ft Polk Louisiana not in NYC where I woudl love to be right now. These sodliers are resposible for more people (Other US soldiers, Afghanistan and Iraqi Nationals) then yo ucan fit on the 7 train and yet somehow YOU are paid alot more then we do even on a tax free and hazard pay salary.

Here again, YOU should be making more, not them making less.

NJTRailfan wrote:But however I do agree that the MTA should fix up and have better workign considtions liek better bathrooms for employees and more of time for a bathroom/lunch break and not force female employees to use their sick leave and not have maternity leave. I also should think they shouldn't have to give 30 days notice jsut to have a day off. Even the retail field I worked in was no where near this ludicrous. Yes I did read the NY Post editiorial from this forum from an MTA employee. I do agree with them on quite a few things but not striking on Christmas and rejecting the city's offer for a pay raise is for the last offer is nuts.

So don't think I'm heartless towards the MTA employees.

People will think what they will think based on what you have said -- and most of it IS heartless. Everything out of your mouth is a dig at someone, and if "only we had Rudolf Giulliani to make things better." Why don't you tell me what the expected response is? I ask for more money -- money I deserve -- the city says no. What is my next move? I'd be walking off the job too. Just because the economy is horrible right now and they probably would not be able to find good jobs does not mean that the MTA can do whatever they want and have no action taken by employees. If the Taylor Law is going to outlaw strikes, where's the complementary ordinance preventing the MTA from attempting to low-ball workers on their next contract? How is that a fair fight? It's akin to a child fighting a huge adult, with one arm tied behind his back all the while. That's why unions came into existence.

It's a constant struggle with you -- your continued disdain for the little guy or the disadvantaged amazes me.

Well, the buses and trains are rolling... so I don't know if this thread will continue with the same verve. But hafta ask... what defines the "little guy"?

Seems to me that the "little guys" these days are in fact more likely to be women (waitresses and housekeepers and such). A busdriver pulling in 48k plus benefits just doesn't seem to qualify as "little" anymore (in my book).

Women were among those involved in the transit dispute, as we read above.

I don't think you have to be below the poverty line to be considered the little guy. I think they're still little compared to the MTA or the government.

Wasn't implying that women were not part of the transit union. Just looking at those occupations (waitress and housecleaner) that tend to be both non-union and primarily women. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

I guess tho that it is all relative. "Little" used to mean the guy on the factory line or down in the mine, before OSHA, before paid overtime, before benefits. The guy who got fired if he was injured and of no use to the company.

"Little" is slightly larger now, and that's as it should be. But now that many union workers have attained the big-screen TV, the SUV, etc., it seems (to me) that their claims of getting no respect are a bit hollow.

It is in this light that I mentioned those workers who remain outside that circle, at or below poverty level. I am not suggesting we lower the union workers back into that quagmire, only that we do not let the gate swing too far in the other direction (which, I think it has).

Hope this clears things up.

I detect some envy, perhaps even some jealousy from some of the posters on this board.

Most civil service jobs (still) have a low starting wage. That is the reason benefit packages are adequate. These "bennies" were not given to workers out of the "goodness of heart" of management, they were fought for through mostly intense negotiating on the part of unions. I for one wouldnt want to lose mine.

Instread of buffing, maybe some posters should go to work for the MTA, and get some first hand experience what these men and woman go through on a daily basis.

The gate has swung to far???????????? Have you looked at the price of real estate anytime lately? Or the prices of rentals in NYC? That someone could think that a person making $50,000 a year is living in the lap of luxury is ludicrious. In the area where I live EVERY new house that goes on the market sells for $600,000 or more.....I haven't met too many NYC transit workers at the mall lately. Can you blame the union workers for trying to maintain their way of life? Wouldn't you? If you do the math you don't need a degree in advanced calculus to figure out what it costs to raise a family and maybe put a kid or two thru college, so they don't HAVE to work for the MTA and fight for every dime they make. AND, since the MTA is trying to get provisions in the contract to pay lower rates, give less health insurance, and a reduced pension plan to new-hires, where do they think the workers are going to come from? I know....it's a step up from Wal-Mart. I fail to see how anyone who would begrudge someone else a living wage can be anything but a selfish self-centered thinking person. Do we really need for the biggest corporation in the country to have the highest percentage of people working who are below the poverty level, and on public assitance, be it Medicaid, or food stamps, or any other taxpayer supported subsidy. Take the time to search out some of the threads on this forum where you can read about what it's like in the REAL WORLD when you're working for NS, CSX or any of the other big railroads. Walk a mile in their shoes before you make judgements.

ryanov: If we truly lived in a capitalistic society, the conditions of this strike would be FAR different.

For one, another union or company or organization of some kind would be allowed to bid on the contract that expired with the TWU.

Think about it a minute - how this would look in the DPS (Dreaded Private Sector). Being a contractor, I can't say "My contract has expired and I demand that you hire nobody else to fill my job until my demands are met".

Now, in my immediate case, I'm on the 15th month of a 2 month contract. I've shown my employer how valuable I am and I've gotten many extensions and there's the possibility of being hired 'full time'. I've been a contractor before and this is nothing new to me. My contract rate right now is *just* about what I was making as a salaried employee in the mutual fund business 3 years ago - but that's only if you DON'T include the 401K plan contributions, health insurance, profit sharing and other benefits.

During this contract, I've gotten 3 raises during the extensions because I've shown my worth.

At any time, if I demanded more money than I was worth, they could replace me with someone else who could do the job. The idea of walking out and preventing the employer who owns the job from hiring a replacement is *ludicrous* in this business.

Now while it's easy to understand how different industries have different situations, where striking may very well be something necessary - doing over the kinds of issues that Toussaint planted his flag on is only angering most of the people.

So many New Yorkers would *love* to be "disrespected" the way the TWU supposedly was (in Toussaint's words).

You can't sit there and say on the one hand that we are in a capitalistic society and that the union should get all they could while SIMULTANEOUSLY locking out any competition.