So, will there be a strike in spite of the Taylor Law...?

Personally, I believe not. Would like to hear the views of others, preferably educated on the matter...

I don't know one way or another but this round of negotiations is a lot different than the last one. Bloomberg has kept his mouth shut this time. I would like the MTA explain how they were at a 1 Billion dollar defecit 3 yrs. ago and now sitting on a 1 Billion dollar surplus. A 2 Billion dollar swing in 3 yrs. is amazing. I don't believe they (MTA) are bargaining in good faith. They are doing there best to lose money with the holiday promotion of discounted fares. The Taylor law has the TWU hamstringed and they have only bargained for a few months. Going on strike now during the Christmas rush will hurt them with the riding public. The MNRR employees represented by the TWU have gone over 3 years without a contract. Heres what the straphangers had to say 3 years ago. http://www.straphangers.org/strike/settlement.htm

I think that this whole talk of a strike is a scare tactic not only for the MTA but to get the riding public on their side. I don't see how it works in their favor, however. This is especially true in a time where the riders are not happy with the way the system is run. I have heard opinions from riders that think that the union workers don't deserve anything until the subways are cleaned up and run better than they do now. Of course, the union says that the MTA is the problem and that their policies are preventing the system from improving.

Not to mention that striking will cost them more money than they will gain problably due to the Taylor Law. They will also lose much support from the public I suspect, especially since this is all happening close to the Holidays.

I don't know who is right but I tend to side with the MTA because these things happen at the end of their contracts no matter what the financial status of the MTA is and no matter what state the system is in. Everytime the contract ends, more money is always demanded.

You know, with all of these workers ready to abandon the whole city of New York in a few days, maybe it's not such a bad idea to put more money into the automatic computer-controlled trains!!

Know where that surplus comes from? A little of it is from the increased productivity of the work force (and newer cars which = less breakdowns which = more on time performance).

However, the BULK of the surplus comes from ONE major item: Faulty Metrocards (and MetroCard readers). You know how often someone will keep swipping and then throw away their card in disgust -- then go and buy another one? Well, mutilply that scenerio thousands of times per day throughout the system and you have some idea where the surplus comes from.

That's pretty far fetched I think, and how does that relate to our discussion of a strike?

I think that MTA management is as much to blame, if not more to blame for the threat of a strike than the Union.....

.......Shady accounting, hiding money - that got lots of big publicly traded companies Execs in very hot water, why not the MTA BOD? The company has the nerve to offer discounts and free rides during the month of December and during the holidays, and then they say that they have no money, and threats of a "deficit in the future"? Come on, give me a break.

Im not surprised by the pictures of the working conditions on the Subways and in their crew-quarters. the company can spend all this money on the free rides for the passengers, where they can't get bathrooms clean for their own employees? They have their priorities screwed up big time, and they really blew it.

Call me cynical because I work for another commuter operation just across the river, but I can't help but think that if the MTA didn't gloat about the surplus, and offer these free rides (are they really going to have free rides on New Years Eve? NJT did that about 15 years ago, adn the damage was horrendous) that they wouldn't have put themselves, AND the residents and visitors of the city in this corner. I hope the Union doesn't give in completely to the company - negotiate in good faith, I heard just a little while ago, they lowered their wage demands, but WON'T budge on Health Care. Nor will the company.....Thats gonna be the stickyness there, the heathcare benefits......

And to top it off with the fact that this morning the MTA board decided how they were gonna spend the surplus money, with nothing going towards workers - thats a kick in the face to those negotiating and the regular workers as well......it shows that the company doesn't care about its employees, OR its passengers, but only concerned with the amount of money taken in on a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly basis....

I don't think the MTA is bargaining in good faith when three or four days
before the strike they tell the TWU that this is our final offer and that is all
that there is, then the talks continue and just a few hours before the
deadline, they put another offer on the table and give the union very little
time to consider whether it is worth while to accept it or not.
The fact that they have a "Taylor Law" or whatever has not helped this
situation one least little bit, it gives the MTA less desire to negotiate a
reasonable contract.
One thing we all can lose sight of and that is that New York City and the
area in general has what is probably the highest cost of living of any place
in the US so workers have to receive higher pay just to maintain a
reasonable life style.
I think the people who criticize the TA workers should follow them around
for a day and see what it is like to work those jobs. I am sure that the
working conditions that those men and women endure leave a lot to be
desired.
Noel Weaver

Nobody here is criticizing the workers. What I am saying, however, is that everytime their contract expires, they want more and more. Don't you think 8% per year for 3 years is a little much? Did they actually expect to get that? I was kind of hoping they would strike so that the union would have all these fines put against them. Not to mention they have even less support from the riders now than the tiny bit they had previously. It's all about money of course.

My feeling is that if the riders weren't so apathetic towards the workers, things would not have come to this. Most of the riders wouldn't care if the trains were glorified automated horizontal elevators like the Airtrains at JFK and EWR—but IMHO, such systems during this age of "homeland security" are inherently unsafe. I'd personally want a train operated by a human being (a computer can't react like a human) and a conductor in each car. If it's "all about money", then that's certainly true on the part of Kalikow and the MTA BOD, who want to raise the retirement age to 62 (this is not work that a 62-year-old ought to be doing, no matter how healthy) and continue to cut health benefits...

arrow wrote: Don't you think 8% per year for 3 years is a little much?

Yes, I do.

Fire 'em all. There's at least 30,000 winos in NYC that can use the work.

Ok, you are presenting only one side of the story..Yes the MTA wants to raise the retirement age. But, the union wants to lower it to 50. Get real!!! These things are about compromise, when neither side wishes to compromise, everyone loses and you see a perfect example of that here.

That said, the retirement age should be somewhere between where the TWU and MTA wants it. The salary increases should be somewhere between as well. Doesn't seem like the union wants to budge on anything. The MTA provides them with a steady paycheck week after week so I think most of the "budging" should come from the union's side.

Urban D Kaye wrote:

arrow wrote: Don't you think 8% per year for 3 years is a little much?

Yes, I do.

Fire 'em all. There's at least 30,000 winos in NYC that can use the work.

Not sure if you are being serious about firing them all haha , but former President Reagan would love to follow that advice!

Ok, you are presenting only one side of the story..Yes the MTA wants to raise the retirement age. But, the union wants to lower it to 50

That was in response to the MTA's demand, in order to induce the MTA's proposed retirement age lower. Kalikow should never have put that proposal on the table. He clearly does not know how to negotiate, and becomes more stiff-necked the more the union throws at him.

Doesn't seem like the union wants to budge on anything

Nor the MTA BOD, otherwise the present mess would not have occurred.

When they are all in line at the employment office they will think differently I think.

Now they argue that they don't get enough respect. Give me a break.

They clearly don't get enough respect. Or help from the riding public.

BTW, the Taylor Law does not stipulate that workers that strike will be terminated—merely a loss of pay of certain degrees (don't recall all the details).

Regarding your stance, are you giving a de-facto thumbs-up to Kalikow and the MTA BOD? Are they utterly faultless regarding this impasse? From my POV, labor will always be more valuable than management, no matter the level of management. The more you look down on labor, the more you ought to expect conditions on the trains and buses to disimprove...because management will smell that attitude from miles away and induce the devolution as a tactic to get what they want.

Give the rail workers a break, next time around.