Railroad Forums
Moderator: GirlOnTheTrain
arrow wrote: I didn't say they should ask for less, but you never hear them agreeing to a new contract with the same terms as their current one do you?Trouble is, the world changes. Things get more expensive, etc. Most of the stuff in the contract WAS old though... just retaining pensions and retirement ages, etc.. The only new parts I believe were raises and some poor working conditions issues.
djlong wrote:Ryanov: You *completely* missed my point.Yeah, but you've called the TWU selfish children. Open books or no open books, that is not an accurate characterization if you ask me. The if is therefore irrelevant.
Did you see the big *if* in there? I was talking about how the MTA should be more forthcoming, using Southwest Airlines as an example. Something that could be used to try and defuse some of the belligerence the two sides have towards each other.
djlong wrote:The MTA's requests don't seem terribly out of line with what the rest of the country has had to do in this era of increased competition.It's a public subway line... there is no competition, which became very clear when the workers went on strike.
djlong wrote:And I think the TWU had a huge PR image problem when word got out as to how much better they have it than cops and firemen.Which is stupid, because what they SHOULD be doing is talking about how disrespectful it is to cops and firemen that they don't have salaries/benefits as good as the MTA, ESPECIALLY after 9/11 when a whole bunch of money was supposed to go to first responders. Sinking the TWU doesn't raise NYPD or FDNY.
djlong wrote:I know you're looking at this in a completely different light than I am. I mean, you made a comment earlier about how unions should be fighting for, among other things, keeping health care "free". The idea that you can even *consider* something so expensive as health care to be "free" shows me a disconnect.A disconnect between what? Free = I don't pay for it. And I shouldn't, either. I don't understand why people think that something as important as health care should be paid for by individuals. Why should only those can afford it be able to be healthy? Why should cancer victims or all sorts of other people who have MAJOR health expenses be bankrupt by these sorts of things. You're going to have fewer people drawing on the system than put into it. Really, what's the issue, unless like the other gentleman, you think that your money shouldn't be going to sick people because you're not the one with the problem.
Health care is a HUGE expense and it's getting worse far faster than inflation. One possible *aid* to this is if the MTA would offer something like "We're going to give you $X towards health care - here's a menu of plans for you to choose from" and people would actually start shopping for plans that suited them better. (Happens a lot in *large* private sector companies - I was fortunate enough to work for one firm where we had our choice of over a half-dozen plans though I don't anymore).
Believe me, when you hear things like the report I saw when I worked at a hospital that said that way over 3/4 of health insurance benefits are paid out to less than 2% of the subscribers, you see a *real* conflict on the horizon. Mark my words - the next labor negotiation is going to be about percentages of health care costs and plan options.
