New York City Transit Strike 12-20-2005

[BBond]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey


I have nothing against working people earning a good salary and having a decent retirement. I however look at the reality of the situation and can see that the MTA's offer is more than fair. How many employers do you know that pay 99 or 100% of your healtcare? How many pay full pensions with less than 5-6% contribution?
Yeah, those poor working people don't get anything. :roll:


BTW, No I am not. I have repeatedly told you that I am not this "Cad" person and that I only post under this nick which was created from my name(look in my profile). But if you wish to continue showing yourself to be a fool and a liar - go ahead

Cad, if you're not against working people earning a good living and a good retirement you wouldn't be complaining about working people earning a good living and a good retirement.

Don't be ridiculous. But that's how I know you're Cad. You're ridiculous.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: BBond
if you're not against working people earning a good living and a good retirement you wouldn't be complaining about working people earning a good living and a good retirement.

at what expense, though? every day they're on strike is a day that they prevent others from earning a good living and working toward a good retirement.

 

[BBond]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: BBond
if you're not against working people earning a good living and a good retirement you wouldn't be complaining about working people earning a good living and a good retirement.

at what expense, though? every day they're on strike is a day that they prevent others from earning a good living and working toward a good retirement.

The TWU was ready to accept the MTA's offer until the MTA came in at the 11th hour with a deal breaker. It's the MTA and Bloomberg who are responsible for the strike, not the TWU.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Zebo
Go brothers and sisters don't take shat from NYC.

What I like even more is how stupid management is, paying union cops 200 million a day in OT while the city is fighting over 20 million. If it lasts a week it will cost NYC 1.6 billion!! idiots.

As far as being illegal well the law needs to be changed - you should be able to terminate and/or strike any time you want to - that's what freedoms all about - forcing you to work amounts slavery. No jury in NY would convict these guys so don't even think they'll be tried.

<< former culniary union member

The Taylor Law had been on the books for decades to address this very possibility. It is impossible that the TWU and their membership were unaware of the conseqences of striking. Also, the MTA is unable to terminate union employees at will.

For New York, mass transit is nearly as essential as water and power. The city would never have grown to it's present size without it and cannot sustain itself in it's absence.

Taylor law is slavery, public tyanny, not signed by those working but some politicans forcing their employees to work.

Non MTA termination is a contractual relationship brought about though the bargianing agreement. I think people should have to abide by thier contracts they sign unless they go bankrupt.

That's the difference - unless they signed they won't stike then the city has the right to terminate them for breach. Which they still very may well do.. and thats fine too. That' what freedoms all about.

 

[Jhhnn]

From BBond-

"The TWU was ready to accept the MTA's offer until the MTA came in at the 11th hour with a deal breaker. It's the MTA and Bloomberg who are responsible for the strike, not the TWU."

That says it all. The situation is intentional, contrived by the City and Management, supported by the Governor. They had a deal, one that they and the people of NYC could have lived with rather easily. Having refused to bargain in good faith, they now seek to spin their way out of accepting responsibility for their own actions.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: K1052
The race card....how original.

A much more plausable explanation than their demands being too high.

When TWU members start kicking in the doors of crack houses or running into burning buildings let me know.

Well I think quite a few of them are doing it as we speak.

Thanks for proving the point of the article I posted.

:roll: Your article is nothing but the typical race card BS. Did you not read my post where I mentioned their outrageous demands? No, it must be because they are black or a minority that they are getting screwed into paying only 1% of their healthcare costs. :roll:

Cry me a fuggin river. :roll: Race has no part in this issue at all.

Did you read the article I posted that mentioned the contract was all but settled until the MTA came in at the last minute with a new demand, CsG?

And for your information, race is a factor in EVERYTHING in America.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that the MTA wanted workers to actually increase the amount they contributed to their pension. From an amazingly low 2% to a whopping 6%! Surely the sky has fallen now. <small violin>
So lets add this all up. Worker pays 1% of health insurance, and a 4% increase in pension, and new employees have to work until they are 62 to retire.
How can people live this way? Surely there is a law to protect workers from this sort of slavery, right? :roll:

BTW, no- race is not a factor for everything - it is everything for the race hustlers and race baiters though. Pretty sickening that people still fall in line behind those types in this day and age.

BTW2, I thought I was "TLC" and "Nosmirk"? "CsG" too? Surely I have such presence that I can be everyone! :laugh:

Actually, NoSmirk, a mod had already outted you.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: K1052
The race card....how original.

A much more plausable explanation than their demands being too high.

When TWU members start kicking in the doors of crack houses or running into burning buildings let me know.

Well I think quite a few of them are doing it as we speak.

Thanks for proving the point of the article I posted.

:roll: Your article is nothing but the typical race card BS. Did you not read my post where I mentioned their outrageous demands? No, it must be because they are black or a minority that they are getting screwed into paying only 1% of their healthcare costs. :roll:

Cry me a fuggin river. :roll: Race has no part in this issue at all.

Did you read the article I posted that mentioned the contract was all but settled until the MTA came in at the last minute with a new demand, CsG?

And for your information, race is a factor in EVERYTHING in America.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that the MTA wanted workers to actually increase the amount they contributed to their pension. From an amazingly low 2% to a whopping 6%! Surely the sky has fallen now. <small violin>
So lets add this all up. Worker pays 1% of health insurance, and a 4% increase in pension, and new employees have to work until they are 62 to retire.
How can people live this way? Surely there is a law to protect workers from this sort of slavery, right? :roll:

BTW, no- race is not a factor for everything - it is everything for the race hustlers and race baiters though. Pretty sickening that people still fall in line behind those types in this day and age.

BTW2, I thought I was "TLC" and "Nosmirk"? "CsG" too? Surely I have such presence that I can be everyone! :laugh:

Why are you worried about what other people make? Salary discussions used to be private for good reason - unhappiness and envy. I learned a long time ago never worry about the other guy because I'm not doing the work to in order to judge. I used to think how hard could it be serving banquets... these dudes are making upwards of $1200 a day - I want some of that - until I actually got the job after a year on the B list - then i felt underpaid. Backbreaking 12-16 hr days running 30-50 miles a day with 500lbs of food treys thoughout LA convention center. About killed me after a single year. Don't judge till you walk a mile (50 or more in my case) in thier shoes.

Not in the public sector it shouldnt be private. The tax payers have a right to know what they are paying these people.

 

[blwest]

I hate to tell you all but $55k is not a lot of money anymore.

 

[blwest]

I think people are jealous of these workers. I get a retirement, health benefits and so on. If my company were to say, "we're taking that away" sure I'd be mad. Just because YOU don't get a retirement, don't complain about those fighting for what is right. Firing people who get paid more to replace th em with lower skilled/lower paid workers is wrong.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: blwest
I think people are jealous of these workers. I get a retirement, health benefits and so on. If my company were to say, "we're taking that away" sure I'd be mad. Just because YOU don't get a retirement, don't complain about those fighting for what is right. Firing people who get paid more to replace th em with lower skilled/lower paid workers is wrong.

Um that isnt what is happening here. They want more than they are currently getting, a lot more.

Show up at your work tomorrow and demand an 8% raise for the next 3 years, no health care costs, and a pension fund that gurantees a retirement at aged 50.

See how fast your boss either fires you or tells you to take a hike.

 

[Jhhnn]

Funny,, genx87, that you seem to forget that all indications were that a deal had been reached, until the management deliberately sabotaged it with new demands at the 11th hour... slice it, dice it, cut it up any way you want, but attempting to ignore it indicates that you're merely forwarding propaganda...

8% was a negotiating position, as was the rest of it. It's like buying a used car off a lot, in case you've never done that... nobody expects you to pay the asking price... it's all about haggling.

Apparently, the management didn't really want to make a deal. Just think of all the money they're making, and saving, by creating a strike- all their state, federal and local subsidies keep rolling in, but they're not paying very much back out... management's paychecks will keep coming, too, unlike the strikers... WTF do you think, that the transit workers walked out just to have empty pockets for Christmas?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: BBond

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: BBond
if you're not against working people earning a good living and a good retirement you wouldn't be complaining about working people earning a good living and a good retirement.

at what expense, though? every day they're on strike is a day that they prevent others from earning a good living and working toward a good retirement.

The TWU was ready to accept the MTA's offer until the MTA came in at the 11th hour with a deal breaker. It's the MTA and Bloomberg who are responsible for the strike, not the TWU.

This is a new one for liberals...blame everyone but the people actually striking for the strike. How can you say it's not the unions fault when they are the ones that made the decision to strike, illegally?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Funny,, genx87, that you seem to forget that all indications were that a deal had been reached, until the management deliberately sabotaged it with new demands at the 11th hour... slice it, dice it, cut it up any way you want, but attempting to ignore it indicates that you're merely forwarding propaganda...

8% was a negotiating position, as was the rest of it. It's like buying a used car off a lot, in case you've never done that... nobody expects you to pay the asking price... it's all about haggling.

Apparently, the management didn't really want to make a deal. Just think of all the money they're making, and saving, by creating a strike- all their state, federal and local subsidies keep rolling in, but they're not paying very much back out... management's paychecks will keep coming, too, unlike the strikers... WTF do you think, that the transit workers walked out just to have empty pockets for Christmas?

Ill be quite honest with you and say that is a bunch of crap. If the management nixed it at the last hour why the huge discreptancies between the two public offers? The union isnt even close on this one and I dont think they ever were.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Funny,, genx87, that you seem to forget that all indications were that a deal had been reached, until the management deliberately sabotaged it with new demands at the 11th hour... slice it, dice it, cut it up any way you want, but attempting to ignore it indicates that you're merely forwarding propaganda...

8% was a negotiating position, as was the rest of it. It's like buying a used car off a lot, in case you've never done that... nobody expects you to pay the asking price... it's all about haggling.

Apparently, the management didn't really want to make a deal. Just think of all the money they're making, and saving, by creating a strike- all their state, federal and local subsidies keep rolling in, but they're not paying very much back out... management's paychecks will keep coming, too, unlike the strikers... WTF do you think, that the transit workers walked out just to have empty pockets for Christmas?

You spin more and faster than a washing machine.

 

[Genx87]

Oh btw the strike is apparently over. Is it true the judge threatened to throw one of the Union Feudal lords into jail on contempt of court charges?

I guess when it was his neck on the line instead of his peasants, it was time to get back to work and follow the rule of law.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Oh btw the strike is apparently over. Is it true the judge threatened to throw one of the Union Feudal lords into jail on contempt of court charges?

I guess when it was his neck on the line instead of his peasants, it was time to get back to work and follow the rule of law.

Does anyone have any info on the union vote for the strike? I'd be interested in seeing how many voted for and voted against, etc.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Vic-

"You spin more and faster than a washing machine. "

Anything of substance to add? probably not....

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Oh btw the strike is apparently over. Is it true the judge threatened to throw one of the Union Feudal lords into jail on contempt of court charges?

I guess when it was his neck on the line instead of his peasants, it was time to get back to work and follow the rule of law.

Does anyone have any info on the union vote for the strike? I'd be interested in seeing how many voted for and voted against, etc.

36-5 to end the strike.

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh, yeh, news as to how the strike ended-

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22cnd-strike.html

"Mr. Toussaint, at his news conference, reiterated the union's argument that the authority had forced the union to strike by illegally insisting on pension changes. Under the state's Taylor Law, one side cannot make pensions a condition of a settlement. But in 1994 and in 1999, both sides agreed on pension changes.

"We are prepared to resume negotiations, right away, right this minute," he said. "If the pension issue were taken off the table, that would form the basis for us to ask our members - to ask our executive board - to ask our members to go back to work."

Which was the issue that the management raised, illegally, at the last minute, provoking the strike....

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Oh, yeh, news as to how the strike ended-

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/nyregion/22cnd-strike.html

"Mr. Toussaint, at his news conference, reiterated the union's argument that the authority had forced the union to strike by illegally insisting on pension changes. Under the state's Taylor Law, one side cannot make pensions a condition of a settlement. But in 1994 and in 1999, both sides agreed on pension changes.

"We are prepared to resume negotiations, right away, right this minute," he said. "If the pension issue were taken off the table, that would form the basis for us to ask our members - to ask our executive board - to ask our members to go back to work."

Which was the issue that the management raised, illegally, at the last minute, provoking the strike....

Well that certainly adds a new wrinkle to all of this.

 

[conjur]

Hmm...the city was acting illegally?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Exactly, and this problem extends much further than unions. We have legalized bribing politicians in this country, and this system has to go. All elections should be funded out of public pocket, with even financing, and no contributions allowed.

I agree.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Oh btw the strike is apparently over. Is it true the judge threatened to throw one of the Union Feudal lords into jail on contempt of court charges?

I guess when it was his neck on the line instead of his peasants, it was time to get back to work and follow the rule of law.

Does anyone have any info on the union vote for the strike? I'd be interested in seeing how many voted for and voted against, etc.

36-5 to end the strike.

I was referring to the union vote FOR the strike. What were those numbers? Surely more than 41 people voted out of a union with thousands of members.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Vic-

"You spin more and faster than a washing machine. "

Anything of substance to add? probably not....

Sure. For one group to break the law is never an excuse for another to do the same. In other words, regardless of what laws the MTA may have broken, the TWU was not justified in striking illegally. *poof* your little argument is gone.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeh, right, Vic. Nice backpedal, though... there's plenty of blame to go around, that's for sure, but the management deliberately provoked the strike by breaking the law and failing to bargain in good faith. The union had said they'd walk out if the management insisted on illegal demands wrt pension, and the management did it anyway... a basic "in your face!" strategy guaranteed to put NYC commuters walking... and they knew it.

I don't know what the membership vote was to authorize a strike, but it was probably overwhelming, they usually are. It's also a negotiating tool- the union leadership won't pursue a tough line in negotiations w/o it. At some point in the past, the membership authorized the executive board to call a strike when and if the board felt it was necessary... The initial board vote to strike was better than 2:1 to strike, so they did...