New York City Transit Strike 12-20-2005

[Vic]

Originally posted by: 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...

The backpedal wasn't mine, it was yours when you sought to argue that 2 wrongs make a right.

Information that I googled showed that the strike vote was indeed nearly unanimous... of those who voted, which was 6,000 out of the union's 34,000 members.

If the union had a strategy here to get the NYC commuting public on their side, it backfired.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: 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...

The pensions have ALWAYS been on the table in transit talks. I know because I have remembered about 4 of them.

 

[Hacp]

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.

LOL. This shows how much you know. Bloomberg has almost no say in how the MTA does its buisiness.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well, the MTA needed to cut pensions somehow. They have a huge defecit in the future. What else are they going to do? They are bargaining in good faith. They need to make rides affordable for everyone, even the poor who rely on them for work every day. How are they going to do that with a looming budget deficit of 1 billion by 2009? The only way is to cut, and the pensions of future workers will save the MTA billions of dollars in the long run.

 

[Hacp]

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?

The MTA has less state subsidies than it had a few years ago. It had to increase subway fares two times in the past two years in order to make ends meet. Unexpectedly, it got a boon off a few real estate deals and low intrest rates. These things aren't going to last forever, and if the MTA keeps giving these huge contract raises to the workers, they will have to raise fares.

 

[Taggart]

They really should have thrown all the union leaders in jail and fired all the workers. If the union gets what they want it will just give an excuse to other unions to do crap like this.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: conjur
Hmm...the city was acting illegally?

According to the head of the union. Hmm that is like asking Bush if wiretapping without a warrant is legal. Oh he says it is, then it must be

 

[Zebo]

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....

Sounds to me like city management should be going to jail too if they put a single union stewart/officer in jail.

 

[mc00]

I don't mine them striking but the thing pissed me off the most why fck did have to do it right on the week christmas day is coming... and they kind of unfair those have to work for there lousy paycheck because of them most them have to walk miles... I like walking, but walking from bronx to 47st is HUGE walk man. so I said it when they get back to work Im going give them my welcome with my middle finger..

but again, MTA greedy son of b1tches too if they did care about there customer they would have come some sort of agreement to get them back to work.. but both side are wrong, the people are one losing..

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: 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.

Happens all the time in fact me and my co-manager are in negotions right now. we work on yearly contracts and still hav'nt come to an agreement and fiscal year expired on the 22nd. They offered us $75 an hour, as an hourly, just to keep us on - which we both took as an insult since no health benefits or retirement comes with being an hourly- and it works out be be less than we were making as exempt with all the benies -and we are staying home.

 

[Jhhnn]

Read the article, genx87. It wasn't Toussaint who made the claim wrt the Taylor law and pensions, it was the NYT...

As far as it goes, Vic, it seems to me that the management has been the party to instigate the strike. Two wrongs don't make a right? You're absolutely correct- otoh, the party who intitiates a course of action that insures that outcome bears the greater responsibility. Which is precisely what management did.

I also find it amusing that those on the Right who've been singing the praises of the stock market as a retirement vehicle somehow manage to overlook the simple fact that it's not delivering at the present time... So they're calling for pension cuts and greater employee contibutions... even as corporate profits and executive salaries soar, institutional investors somehow end up on the short end of it all...

Given the explosion of 401K's, etc, it seems like the more workers put into the market, the less they get out... indicating that some sort of siphon mechanism is at work...

 

[Vic]

Of course, both parties carry a level of fault when negotiations break down. But to pin the majority of the blame on management when it was the union that pulled the strike is simply to be ignorantly biased IMO. The union was getting more than their previous contract no matter what happened. And this is public money we're still talking about, not private. The union had no right to hold the public money and services hostage... regardless.

This "siphon mechanism" theory of yours only works if you believe in a static wealth theory, and that is contrary to basic economics. The markets ran up irrationally in the 90's, with rampant speculation leading to overvaluation of assets nearly across the board. And despite the flattening of the past 5 years, I believe that the markets are still overvalued. This would not be a problem except various agencies came to expect and plan for the impossible, which is that values would continue running up at the same pace forever. We are soon going to see the same problem in the real estate market (which incidentally is where a lot of money has been diverted to these past 5 years that would otherwise have gone into stocks). This also ran up rapidly with the same irrational "can't lose" attitude, and lot of people are going to get burned as values flatten waiting for the actual trend to catch up (which could take a decade giving the exurberence of this run-up).

Anyway, you may now resume your spinning...