2005 Transit Strike

[Otto Vondrak]

This thread is to consolidate the two topics regarding the strike into one.

I only ask that we do not speculate as to the intentions of the TWU, only the TWU officials can answer that. Also, don't ask for "inside information" because anything that is posted here is only speculation, official information comes from the union officials and the MTA, or your favorite news source.


-otto-

[djlong]

If they keep talking about "being disrespected" (trying working retail if you want to see REAL disrespect), 8% *annual* raises (when most people are happy to avoid pay CUTS) and pension availability at 55 instead of 62 (when the rest of us are going to have to wait until 70 for social security by the time we retire IF it's there), they are NOT going to win any hearts and minds..

I wonder how a transit union worker explains to their child that it's ok to break the law when they don't get what they want.

[trainwayne1]

After watching the NYC mayor give numbers in the BILLIONS of what the strike is costing, I can't help but wonder if a fair contract offer by the city wouldn't have cost a lot less? I think that when the transit workers, along with the police and firemen who've been working without a contract for quite a while, see the mayor and his cronies waste millions of dollars trying to build a stadium in Manhattan and try to get the money losing olympics to take place in the city because their high powered and campaign donating business type friends can make millions, they (the transit workers) are merely looking for their fair share. Sometimes the squeaky wheel DOES get the oil.

[ryanov]

If they keep talking about "being disrespected" (trying working retail if you want to see REAL disrespect),

Aren't they? They deal with the public every day, sometimes in a sales capacity. They also take the fall for bad equipment, train delays -- you name it -- stemming from money that their company should have been allocated if we held our politicians' feet to the fire properly.

8% *annual* raises (when most people are happy to avoid pay CUTS) and pension availability at 55 instead of 62 (when the rest of us are going to have to wait until 70 for social security by the time we retire IF it's there), they are NOT going to win any hearts and minds..

I wonder how a transit union worker explains to their child that it's ok to break the law when they don't get what they want.

Why don't you tell me why just because you don't have something that no one else should. You sound awfully selfish, as does the rest of NY that keeps getting interviewed. If you are an employee, you should really be with them on this, not calling for them to get screwed as hard as you are. How do you think all of this got this way? Not by walkouts, I'll tell you that much.

Let's stop comparing each other and start looking at where the bar ought to be and notice how close it is to the ground these days.

Hell let's cut their pensions entirely. Then when the time comes for us to lose our social security, I bet they speak up for us.

[ryanov]

Well said, Wayne.

[arrow]

Why don't you tell me why just because you don't have something that no one else should. You sound awfully selfish, as does the rest of NY that keeps getting interviewed. If you are an employee, you should really be with them on this, not calling for them to get screwed as hard as you are. How do you think all of this got this way? Not by walkouts, I'll tell you that much.

You are wrong. I think asking for an 8% raise is pretty selfish. I'm sure what they make is more than fair.

[hsr_fan]

You are wrong. I think asking for an 8% raise is pretty selfish. I'm sure what they make is more than fair.

I'm sure their salaries, like most people's, have not kept place with inflation or the skyrocketing cost of living over the last few years. Therefore, I don't think asking for an 8% raise is unreasonable.

However, I think that calling an illegal strike and hurting millions of people to get what they want is absolutely wrong, and I have no sympathy for the union at this point. It seems foolish for the union to destroy what public sympathy it may have had with this outrageous action.

[Irish Chieftain]

I think asking for an 8% raise is pretty selfish

Got no problem with the pols giving themselves pay raises up on Capitol Hill, by comparison...?

The Taylor Act should be ruled unconstitutional; but I digress slightly.

[arrow]

I think asking for an 8% raise is pretty selfish

Got no problem with the pols giving themselves pay raises up on Capitol Hill, by comparison...?

I never said politicians were any better. Politicians are some of the most corrupt aweful people you'll ever meet.

The Taylor Act should be ruled unconstitutional; but I digress slightly.

You keep saying that but you don't say why. public service jobs are for the public, the workers should not go on strike.

[Jtgshu]

The MTA declares a "Formal Impass" basically meaning that what is on the table (on their end) is it.....how is that "bargining in good faith"?

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?secti ... id=3744460

So the MTA is stomping its feet, just like the union did, now who's to blame? If the MTA cared for its passengers, and the economy and the daily operation of NYC, they wouldn't have declared a formal impass, and been discussing things on teh table and been realistic in its demands - maybe the union wasn't wrong with the MTA not bargining in good faith.....why should they, they have the city, state, and SOME of the public on their side. (the percentage of those in sound bytes who are against the strike and the union is not a realistic number) Who do the workers and TWU have on their side? Just about every ohter Union in the country, and most people who work with any kind of collective bargining agreement. (although many won't admit it, im sure)

Thats not to say that the Union couldn't and shouldn't be more flexible either, BUT, the MTA has the entire city and state on its side, and flexing its muscles, while the Union and its workers have each other, thats it.

If thats not strongarming, i dunno what is........

This is a MAJOR point in the history of Unions in America. This is really going to be a make or break. THE BIGGER PICTURE HERE, affects EVERYONE in this WHOLE country, not just those users who are inconvienced in the NYC area.

the MTA is trying to start a slippery slope of changing work rules for people who aren't hired yet. Thats a VERY dangerous proposition. If successful, companies and unions will now start banging heads about this concept, and it will effect every one here, in one shape or another, either with new careers in the future, or their children's jobs and careers. Just like the health care payments and co-payments and pension reductions that people are experiencing today, when individual contracts are negotiated (one on one) or with Collective Bargining Agreements for tens, hundreds, or thousands of workers.

If that slippery slope of giving away healthcare benefits wasn't started years back, it wouldn't be an issue now, and maybe the runaway healthcare costs by greedy docs and medical facilities and insurance companies would be taken up and solved by the Gov't, but now, why - let them do it, they raise teh rates, and just make the workers pay more, don't matter to the company (what ever company or industry) those who have the influence with the gov't, not the "little people". Its a blanket excuse for ALL the companies (not just mass transit companies) to simply start to pass on some of the costs that were formally part of the employee's pay package, to the employee themself, instead of focusing on the cost, and getting the gov't involved, and finding the root of the problem.

Getting back on topic, don't get me wrong, Mr. Toussant (how ever you spell it or say it) does seem to be slightly out of his mind, and although I think they should have negotiated longer, and I also think his calling of strikes every three years has severely hurt him and his union's standing with many people, and maybe his "relationship" with the MTA - but the MTA's sole job is to get as much as they can out of the worker (legally and illegally) while the Union's sole purpose is to get as much as it can out of the company for its workers......the Companies have been getting the upper hand for way too long, its time for the workers to actually try to stay at the same level they were, and maybe actually better themselves every time a contract expires.

Sorry this is so long, and im sure those who know me, konw im not one to get everything into a few lines. But we all need to look at things in a bigger picture - In my opinion, the fight the TWU is currently fighting has the potential to be as significant as getting a 40 hour workweek and retirement benefits in teh first place, decades ago.

[Jtgshu]

"Selfish Thugs"........

..........that pretty much describes the lack of respect that the Union members and Union leaders were describing that some people didn't "believe or understand" that the workers and the craft are faced with.

No matter how cold hearted you may be, and not care about the workers or their plight, if you agree with it or not, that statement is very HARSH!!!!!!

Mayor Bloomberg just committed political suicide, and alienated ALL the Unions of the city, state and country, and any political type who publically agrees with him and that statement, Im SURE will not get ANY support of ANY union come reelection time. And more importantly, that statement simply put a face on a concept that the union couldn't quantifiy, and give an example of, and strengthened their resolve....

Tomorrow should be very interesting..........

[Otto Vondrak]

Interesting to note that there is dissent within the ranks of the TWU itself. Not many people support Toussaint right now. Maybe some of you heard the little live rant on WCBS where the TWU vice president took the podium and told the reporters he has been locked out of all negotiations, and that Toussaint has been keeping him and everyone else in the dark. Also, note that it has been Toussaint pushing for strike the whole time. Interesting tid bit from the New York Times:

"The transit workers' union, despite taking the extraordinary step of calling its first strike in 25 years, has revealed itself over the last 48 hours to be an organization wrestling with considerable discord - a local union, in fact, that is at complete odds with its larger parent organization.
The union's vote to strike, made at 1:15 a.m. yesterday in a closed-door session of the executive board, was opposed by three of seven vice presidents of the union, Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union. A fourth abstained.
And yesterday, merely hours into the paralyzing job action, Michael T. O'Brien, the international president of the parent union, the Transport Workers Union of America, urged the city's transit workers to abandon the strike and return to work immediately. He said the parent union would provide no money or other assistance to Local 100."

Of course I think these workers should get fair wages and benefits. But striking is not the answer (they are going to lose whatever increases they get from all these fines and other penalties). There are always better options than striking...

http://www.twulocal100.org/index.asp?Ty ... 8D347BA122}

-otto-

[jtr1962]

Lots of rights and wrongs on both sides here. Let me start with the MTA. The MTA is wrong to not treat their workers with some respect. That costs virtually nothing. Workers shouldn't have to ask 30 days in advance to get a day off. Workers shouldn't be brought up on disciplinary charges for violating minor, unsafety-related work rules. The MTA should be more transparent about its finances. The workers shouldn't have to contribute to their health plan because the nature of their job means they are far more likely to get sick or injured than an office worker, for whom asking contributions for health care I wouldn't consider unreasonable. As for wages, there should be regular automatic increases to keep pace with inflation. That shouldn't even have to be negotiated with each contract.

Now the union has done its share of wrongs also. For starters it needs to be realistic about pensions. That means retirement at age 65 to 70 like everyone else, not 55, and the new plan should apply to everyone, not just new workers (multitiered plans are inherently unfair). Fact is that the MTA needs to get its pension costs under control regardless of any supposed surplus. Next, I don't like the talk of "selling out the unborn". It's the MTA's right to assign its workers to whatever duties are needed, and to eliminate certain positions as it deems necessary. Indeed, as a pulbic agency the MTA is obligated to keep costs as low as possible even though the reality is often different. The union seems to think that the MTA is an employment agency not only for present members, but for their children as well. Long term by being inflexible regarding job descriptions the union will only shoot itself in the foot. I have no doubt that the installation of CBTC systemwide will be accelerated. First token clerk positions will be eliminated entirely, followed by conductors. Once the public is comfortable with the idea of unmanned trains, and the idea proves itself, the train operators will go as well. The union will have nobody but itself to blame for this by making labor costs unsustainable. They may yet win this particular battle, but ultimately they'll lose the war. Even longer term, things like station cleaning and car maintenance may be done by robots. Cops may one day be the only humans you see on the system on a regular basis in the future. The union can try to get better conditions for its current workers, but ultimately they can't force the MTA to keep a certain number of workers.

As for public sympathies, had the union postponed the strike until after New Year's they would have had a lot more of it. This was another collosal mistake. I'm hearing calls by some riders for firing the workers as Reagan did with the air traffic controllers. Without the public on their side, the union will ultimately lose. You have to look at it this way-many of the subway riders make $12, $10, some even $1 an hour, and often with no health benefits, no paid holidays, no pension, and much harder working conditions than most MTA workers. They're not likely to be sympathethic to people making 2 or 3 times per hour what they do, and with a benefit package easily worth as much as their salaries.

My predictions-the union will get slapped down hard, the workers will get a lesser package than what the MTA's last offer was, and this will be the beginning of the end for what's left of organized labor in the US. There are a lot of global reasons for this. The US cannot remain competitive on the world stage with workers under traditional union contracts. The continual shedding of jobs by the automakers is a great example of this. Sad to say, but until wages and working conditions come up in the countries the US is competing with, it's going to be all downhill for all workers, not just those in unions. Protectionism, which is essentially what unions are at this point, didn't work in the past and it won't work now. People will have to get used to working harder for less, and retiring later, if at all. Entrepreneurship will remain the one best path to elevating oneself. The idea that you can do so also in a civil service job, or any job, is just about dead. Face it, nobody ever got rich working for someone else.

[flynnt]

Workers shouldn't be brought up on disciplinary charges for violating minor, unsafety-related work rules.

I have to disagree with you here. What is the point of having rules if there are no consequences to not following them? A rule isn't a rule if there are no punishments to enforce compliance.

Should people be disciplined for non-safety violations? Absolutely. Tardiness, absenteeism, unprofessional appearances do not directly cause safety issues, but do they help or hurt the organization? I think we all know the answer.

The workers shouldn't have to contribute to their health plan because the nature of their job means they are far more likely to get sick or injured than an office worker, for whom asking contributions for health care I wouldn't consider unreasonable.

I see a couple of problems with this logic.
(1)If they were injured on the job, they would be eligible for workerman's comp. Health insurance wouldn't come into play. The MTA will be paying for any on the job injuries regardless of who pays for medical insurance.

(2)What about the workers' families who are also on their insurance? Their families are no more or less likely to be sick than the family of an office worker. Even ignoring (1) the worker should still contribute for any family members on the plan.

That is all.

[Edited for clarity.][/b]

[jtr1962]

I have to disagree with you here. What is the point of having rules if there are no consequences to not following them? A rule isn't a rule if there are no punishments to enforce compliance.

I meant some of the more silly, job description related work rules, not the ones you mentioned. For example, if a token clerk changes a light bulb instead of working in the dark waiting 3 weeks for an electrician to do it, or cleans out a filthy booth, they can be disciplined. It's one thing to restrict people from doing jobs requiring a great deal of training, like train operator, but I don't see why someone should be penalized for cleaning a dirty window or changing a light bulb.

(2)What about the workers' families who are also on their insurance? Their families are no more or less likely to be sick than the family of an office worker. Even ignoring (1) the worker should still contribute for any family members on the plan.

I agree wholehearted that a worker should pay 100% of the coverage for their family. That's a separate issue entirely. In effect covering people's families means that those with families are compensated more than those without. That's inherently unfair. I'm also against tax deductions for dependents beyond yourself for the same reason. Having a family is a private decision which shouldn't be bankrolled by the public. If anything, given the world's overpopulation people should be paid not to have kids rather than the reverse.