this mta strike in NYC

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sniperruff

Lifer
Apr 17, 2002
11,644
2
0
Originally posted by: T2k
Who's spreading this "high salaries' BS here? High salaries in blue collar? Who's saying this nonsense?
High salaries at MTA - yes. VERY HIGH.

Steel workers and electrical unions? What are you talking about? TWU INCLUDES the constractional workers as well (ie track Dept).

i've read that the average starting salary on google news being $47k - $55k. Considering a lot of college graduates get about $35k if not lower... it is a generous salary for a stinky, but not very physical-demanding job.
 

sodcha0s

Golden Member
Jan 7, 2001
1,116
0
0
Originally posted by: oboeguy
Originally posted by: xospec1alk
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: Atomicus
What I don't understand is the TWU's inability to understand the crippling effect of striking for higher wages.

1) loss of revenue because you aren't providing service for the days on strike
2) loss of wages due to fines (illegal striking, dumb@sses)
3) increase the MTA's overall debt and forcing another fare hike to ensure they can scratch even


You know what would be funny? If us New Yorkers boycotted the MTA. Not practical, but ironic and in their face. :|


No, it's you who's missing the point:

1. MTA has a billion in surplus, profit yet they didn't bulge.

2. Loss of revenues easily can be made up from 2x the loss of wages.

3. Loss of wages has nothing to do with MTA - that just precisley shows how determined they are which whows how bad their situation can be.

its a one time surplus from real estate, not from increased ridership or anything..they are still predicting a deficit starting in 2007

Yes. The failure to look at things past face value is disturbing. Oooh eleventy billion suprplus, gimme "my share". First, this is a public entity not a private company so there should be no such thing as profit sharing (which is exactly what the rhetoric is demanding). Furthermore, it IS a one-time surplus so asking for recurring costs to be supported by it is ludicrous.


OK, I've read a lot of you comment on this, so let me fill you in on how this works. Mass transportation is a FEDERALLY funded entity, and therefore is a non-profit government agency. As I stated earlier, I work for just such an agency, so this is first hand knowledge. Since MTA made a huge profit, however they came across it, they MUST spend it. If they don't, they will lose federal funding, and once you lose it, it is gone forever. Now the common sense reaction is "So what? Saves our tax money!" But the fact is it won't save anybody anything, the govermant will just rout the money somewhere else and MTA will eventually have to cut way back and increase fares just to stay in operation. Now, how much of that billion dollars do you think is going to line the pockets of the executives that run MTA? They'll get plenty I'm sure. So don't you think it might be a little fair to use some of it towards employee healthcare too? From what I understand, MTA is wanting to cut healthcare benefits, or at least make employees pay more. They could put some of it in the pension fund as well. Maybe even fund a 5% raise too, I'm sure the union would accept this.

Another thing, the retirement at 50 point. Where I work, you can retire (as of now, our contract expired over a year ago and our agency is crying bankrupt) after 25 years of service with full pension, or stick it out 30 years and get a little bit more. So if you hire in at 21 (min age) you can retire when you're 46 conceiveably, but there is no way you can live on the pension alone, it just isn't enough. So we either have to have other retirement investments, or find another job when we retire. Oh, and we can forget about healthcare after retirement too, the agency will definitely be pulling the plug on that. I don't know how MTA's retirement works, but I'll bet it's pretty similar.
 

PUN

Golden Member
Dec 5, 1999
1,590
16
81
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: Atomicus
What I don't understand is the TWU's inability to understand the crippling effect of striking for higher wages.

1) loss of revenue because you aren't providing service for the days on strike
2) loss of wages due to fines (illegal striking, dumb@sses)
3) increase the MTA's overall debt and forcing another fare hike to ensure they can scratch even


You know what would be funny? If us New Yorkers boycotted the MTA. Not practical, but ironic and in their face. :|


No, it's you who's missing the point:

1. MTA has a billion in surplus, profit yet they didn't bulge.

2. Loss of revenues easily can be made up from 2x the loss of wages.

3. Loss of wages has nothing to do with MTA - that just precisley shows how determined they are which whows how bad their situation can be.

I think you are the one who is missing the point here.
MTA's 1 billion surplus belongs to consumers NOT MTA employees. These uneducated monkeys don't and will never realize that. MTA kept 2 books and raised the fare and they were able to have large sum of surplus. They admitted wrong doing and decided to lower the fare to $1 for the holiday season for us, the consumers. MTA monkeys had to cry and claim that it's their money?!?! that's ridiculous
 

PUN

Golden Member
Dec 5, 1999
1,590
16
81
Originally posted by: virtueixi
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: virtueixi
This is fvckin ridiculous. I hope they will all be broke for xmas with those hefty fines.

No, this is ridiculous. If you see your boss was crying out loud last year that you guys will lose money so he kept your raises back yet it turned out to be a billion surplus, you'd be pissed as hell and walked away if you could do that sort of thing.

Umm..they can't because they are city employees. The last time I checked they have great benefits that come with the job as well as the bad part about not being able to walk off the job. Take that billion dollars and cut fares because as far as I'm concerned we could get monkeys to do their job and what makes them deserving of a raise? Did they contribute more productivity the past year? Fvck those lazy sh!t for brained dirty retarded losers.

100% agreed
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: sodcha0s
Originally posted by: oboeguy
Originally posted by: xospec1alk
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: Atomicus
What I don't understand is the TWU's inability to understand the crippling effect of striking for higher wages.

1) loss of revenue because you aren't providing service for the days on strike
2) loss of wages due to fines (illegal striking, dumb@sses)
3) increase the MTA's overall debt and forcing another fare hike to ensure they can scratch even


You know what would be funny? If us New Yorkers boycotted the MTA. Not practical, but ironic and in their face. :|


No, it's you who's missing the point:

1. MTA has a billion in surplus, profit yet they didn't bulge.

2. Loss of revenues easily can be made up from 2x the loss of wages.

3. Loss of wages has nothing to do with MTA - that just precisley shows how determined they are which whows how bad their situation can be.

its a one time surplus from real estate, not from increased ridership or anything..they are still predicting a deficit starting in 2007

Yes. The failure to look at things past face value is disturbing. Oooh eleventy billion suprplus, gimme "my share". First, this is a public entity not a private company so there should be no such thing as profit sharing (which is exactly what the rhetoric is demanding). Furthermore, it IS a one-time surplus so asking for recurring costs to be supported by it is ludicrous.


OK, I've read a lot of you comment on this, so let me fill you in on how this works. Mass transportation is a FEDERALLY funded entity, and therefore is a non-profit government agency. As I stated earlier, I work for just such an agency, so this is first hand knowledge. Since MTA made a huge profit, however they came across it, they MUST spend it. If they don't, they will lose federal funding, and once you lose it, it is gone forever. Now the common sense reaction is "So what? Saves our tax money!" But the fact is it won't save anybody anything, the govermant will just rout the money somewhere else and MTA will eventually have to cut way back and increase fares just to stay in operation. Now, how much of that billion dollars do you think is going to line the pockets of the executives that run MTA? They'll get plenty I'm sure. So don't you think it might be a little fair to use some of it towards employee healthcare too? From what I understand, MTA is wanting to cut healthcare benefits, or at least make employees pay more. They could put some of it in the pension fund as well. Maybe even fund a 5% raise too, I'm sure the union would accept this.

Another thing, the retirement at 50 point. Where I work, you can retire (as of now, our contract expired over a year ago and our agency is crying bankrupt) after 25 years of service with full pension, or stick it out 30 years and get a little bit more. So if you hire in at 21 (min age) you can retire when you're 46 conceiveably, but there is no way you can live on the pension alone, it just isn't enough. So we either have to have other retirement investments, or find another job when we retire. Oh, and we can forget about healthcare after retirement too, the agency will definitely be pulling the plug on that. I don't know how MTA's retirement works, but I'll bet it's pretty similar.


As mentioned before, the money is going towards pensions payments/security/improvements/ and finally the fare cut for the holidays. In essence, they did spend the cash. And no, the workers do not deserve a raise right now. A huge deficit is projected for the MTA by 2007. Fares WILL increase for riders. They will increase even more if the workers get the raise. People need to tighten their belts and toughen up these next few years. When the MTA gets back on its feet, then think about raises.

As for health care, well, welcome to the 21st century. Health care costs are getting out of hand. Many states are facing billions of dollars in pension costs, because of the sudden rise in the cost of health care. The states NEED to cut costs somehow. They can't cut back on the benefits of retired workers, because they were promised, SO all that is left is to save the money for the future, hence cutting back on health care for FUTURE workers.


Edit: Ummm, the MTA is funded by the city and state. I'm not sure how much the US government funds the MTA, but I'm sure it isn't as much as the $$ the state and city put up to subsidize it.
 

dartworth

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
15,200
10
81
Originally posted by: sodcha0s


OK, I've read a lot of you comment on this, so let me fill you in on how this works. Mass transportation is a FEDERALLY funded entity, and therefore is a non-profit government agency. As I stated earlier, I work for just such an agency, so this is first hand knowledge. Since MTA made a huge profit, however they came across it, they MUST spend it. If they don't, they will lose federal funding, and once you lose it, it is gone forever. Now the common sense reaction is "So what? Saves our tax money!" But the fact is it won't save anybody anything, the govermant will just rout the money somewhere else and MTA will eventually have to cut way back and increase fares just to stay in operation. Now, how much of that billion dollars do you think is going to line the pockets of the executives that run MTA? They'll get plenty I'm sure. So don't you think it might be a little fair to use some of it towards employee healthcare too? From what I understand, MTA is wanting to cut healthcare benefits, or at least make employees pay more. They could put some of it in the pension fund as well. Maybe even fund a 5% raise too, I'm sure the union would accept this.

Another thing, the retirement at 50 point. Where I work, you can retire (as of now, our contract expired over a year ago and our agency is crying bankrupt) after 25 years of service with full pension, or stick it out 30 years and get a little bit more. So if you hire in at 21 (min age) you can retire when you're 46 conceiveably, but there is no way you can live on the pension alone, it just isn't enough. So we either have to have other retirement investments, or find another job when we retire. Oh, and we can forget about healthcare after retirement too, the agency will definitely be pulling the plug on that. I don't know how MTA's retirement works, but I'll bet it's pretty similar.


Thank you for explaining this...:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:TWU
 

PUN

Golden Member
Dec 5, 1999
1,590
16
81
Teachers with College education with Masters make around 30K a year
Pharmacist makes around 45-55K a year
Physical Therapist makes 35-45k a year
Chiropractor makes 45k a year.
MTA employee (high school drop-outs) makes 45-55k: their duties include, opening and closing doors, handing out tokens/metrocards, sweeping the floor and tracks, emptying out the garbage, driving a bus.
 

T2k

Golden Member
Feb 24, 2004
1,665
5
81
Originally posted by: PUN
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: Atomicus
What I don't understand is the TWU's inability to understand the crippling effect of striking for higher wages.

1) loss of revenue because you aren't providing service for the days on strike
2) loss of wages due to fines (illegal striking, dumb@sses)
3) increase the MTA's overall debt and forcing another fare hike to ensure they can scratch even


You know what would be funny? If us New Yorkers boycotted the MTA. Not practical, but ironic and in their face. :|


No, it's you who's missing the point:

1. MTA has a billion in surplus, profit yet they didn't bulge.

2. Loss of revenues easily can be made up from 2x the loss of wages.

3. Loss of wages has nothing to do with MTA - that just precisley shows how determined they are which whows how bad their situation can be.

I think you are the one who is missing the point here.
MTA's 1 billion surplus belongs to consumers NOT MTA employees. These uneducated monkeys don't and will never realize that. MTA kept 2 books and raised the fare and they were able to have large sum of surplus. They admitted wrong doing and decided to lower the fare to $1 for the holiday season for us, the consumers. MTA monkeys had to cry and claim that it's their money?!?! that's ridiculous

You really need to read up a lot on the subject before I can take your comment seriously...
 

T2k

Golden Member
Feb 24, 2004
1,665
5
81
Originally posted by: PUN
Teachers with College education with Masters make around 30K a year
Pharmacist makes around 45-55K a year
Physical Therapist makes 35-45k a year
Chiropractor makes 45k a year.
MTA employee (high school drop-outs) makes 45-55k: their duties include, opening and closing doors, handing out tokens/metrocards, sweeping the floor and tracks, emptying out the garbage, driving a bus.

Please, stop spreading this utter BS. It just makes the topic's life harder when we have to either skip or deal with posts like this, without any factual basis, pulled from thin air.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: PUN
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: Atomicus
What I don't understand is the TWU's inability to understand the crippling effect of striking for higher wages.

1) loss of revenue because you aren't providing service for the days on strike
2) loss of wages due to fines (illegal striking, dumb@sses)
3) increase the MTA's overall debt and forcing another fare hike to ensure they can scratch even


You know what would be funny? If us New Yorkers boycotted the MTA. Not practical, but ironic and in their face. :|


No, it's you who's missing the point:

1. MTA has a billion in surplus, profit yet they didn't bulge.

2. Loss of revenues easily can be made up from 2x the loss of wages.

3. Loss of wages has nothing to do with MTA - that just precisley shows how determined they are which whows how bad their situation can be.

I think you are the one who is missing the point here.
MTA's 1 billion surplus belongs to consumers NOT MTA employees. These uneducated monkeys don't and will never realize that. MTA kept 2 books and raised the fare and they were able to have large sum of surplus. They admitted wrong doing and decided to lower the fare to $1 for the holiday season for us, the consumers. MTA monkeys had to cry and claim that it's their money?!?! that's ridiculous

You really need to read up a lot on the subject before I can take your comment seriously...

Ok answer this. The MTA is facing a projected 1 billion dollar defecit in 2007. How will they pay for the increased salaries in 2007?
 

T2k

Golden Member
Feb 24, 2004
1,665
5
81
Originally posted by: sodcha0s
Originally posted by: oboeguy
Originally posted by: xospec1alk
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: Atomicus
What I don't understand is the TWU's inability to understand the crippling effect of striking for higher wages.

1) loss of revenue because you aren't providing service for the days on strike
2) loss of wages due to fines (illegal striking, dumb@sses)
3) increase the MTA's overall debt and forcing another fare hike to ensure they can scratch even


You know what would be funny? If us New Yorkers boycotted the MTA. Not practical, but ironic and in their face. :|


No, it's you who's missing the point:

1. MTA has a billion in surplus, profit yet they didn't bulge.

2. Loss of revenues easily can be made up from 2x the loss of wages.

3. Loss of wages has nothing to do with MTA - that just precisley shows how determined they are which whows how bad their situation can be.

its a one time surplus from real estate, not from increased ridership or anything..they are still predicting a deficit starting in 2007

Yes. The failure to look at things past face value is disturbing. Oooh eleventy billion suprplus, gimme "my share". First, this is a public entity not a private company so there should be no such thing as profit sharing (which is exactly what the rhetoric is demanding). Furthermore, it IS a one-time surplus so asking for recurring costs to be supported by it is ludicrous.


OK, I've read a lot of you comment on this, so let me fill you in on how this works. Mass transportation is a FEDERALLY funded entity, and therefore is a non-profit government agency. As I stated earlier, I work for just such an agency, so this is first hand knowledge. Since MTA made a huge profit, however they came across it, they MUST spend it. If they don't, they will lose federal funding, and once you lose it, it is gone forever. Now the common sense reaction is "So what? Saves our tax money!" But the fact is it won't save anybody anything, the govermant will just rout the money somewhere else and MTA will eventually have to cut way back and increase fares just to stay in operation. Now, how much of that billion dollars do you think is going to line the pockets of the executives that run MTA? They'll get plenty I'm sure. So don't you think it might be a little fair to use some of it towards employee healthcare too? From what I understand, MTA is wanting to cut healthcare benefits, or at least make employees pay more. They could put some of it in the pension fund as well. Maybe even fund a 5% raise too, I'm sure the union would accept this.

Another thing, the retirement at 50 point. Where I work, you can retire (as of now, our contract expired over a year ago and our agency is crying bankrupt) after 25 years of service with full pension, or stick it out 30 years and get a little bit more. So if you hire in at 21 (min age) you can retire when you're 46 conceiveably, but there is no way you can live on the pension alone, it just isn't enough. So we either have to have other retirement investments, or find another job when we retire. Oh, and we can forget about healthcare after retirement too, the agency will definitely be pulling the plug on that. I don't know how MTA's retirement works, but I'll bet it's pretty similar.

You did an excellent job here, thx.
 

PUN

Golden Member
Dec 5, 1999
1,590
16
81
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: PUN
Teachers with College education with Masters make around 30K a year
Pharmacist makes around 45-55K a year
Physical Therapist makes 35-45k a year
Chiropractor makes 45k a year.
MTA employee (high school drop-outs) makes 45-55k: their duties include, opening and closing doors, handing out tokens/metrocards, sweeping the floor and tracks, emptying out the garbage, driving a bus.

Please, stop spreading this utter BS. It just makes the topic's life harder when we have to either skip or deal with posts like this, without any factual basis, pulled from thin air.


You must work for MTA as you clearly have no idea what the other professions make.
And as for 1B surplus, why do MTA monkeys deserve the money when teachers union was left out without a contract for few years and without a raise???
Please shut your mouth before getting trashed.
 

talyn00

Golden Member
Oct 18, 2003
1,666
0
0
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: talyn00
Originally posted by: T2k
Uh-oh... :roll:

At least, guys, before you pick up something tiny piece of the picture and start carrying as Grail, check the reality, OK? :roll:

She said the surplus comes from several sources, including revenues from tax increases enacted by the state last May; debt service savings because of low interest rates; and increased revenue from the real estate boom and the taxes and fees generated from those transactions.

So much for your "failure to look at things past face value is disturbing"... :roll:

uhh just who are you trying to quote??

MTA Executive Director Katherine Lapp.

Next question?

Does it matter what was the source of the surplus?

Oh I see. So when it turned out to be a pretty normal extra, it's suddenly not so important.

That money should be used for improvements to the subway system and for new projects like the 2nd ave line.

1. TWU did not requested the full money - they only requested things which would cost a fraction of it.
2. "Should be used" - who says this? You? Sorry, that doesn't count, you're outside of the equation. (Me too yet I'd keep the workers healthier and happier to have a happier customer, you know.)
3. IMO 2nd Ave line is completely unnecessary, a big &^%$* wasted money, a classic showcase development - but I do support the LIRR extension.
BUT: these projects were pushed back to be finished by 2012 already in July, so it has nothing to do with the strike: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/331539p-283316c.html

Wait let me get this straight. What you're saying is if the budget surplus is from taxes, the transit workers automatically deserve a cut of this?? To be honest it doesn't matter where the budget surplus came from (be it taxes or fare increase) it still doesn't mean transit workers should get a raise. The MTA's funds are for public benefit, and should only be utilized as such. Whether it is station/track repair and renovation, upgrading subway cars, improving security of the subway system, maintenance and repair.


also, please work on your spelling, its terrible
 

T2k

Golden Member
Feb 24, 2004
1,665
5
81
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: PUN
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: Atomicus
What I don't understand is the TWU's inability to understand the crippling effect of striking for higher wages.

1) loss of revenue because you aren't providing service for the days on strike
2) loss of wages due to fines (illegal striking, dumb@sses)
3) increase the MTA's overall debt and forcing another fare hike to ensure they can scratch even


You know what would be funny? If us New Yorkers boycotted the MTA. Not practical, but ironic and in their face. :|


No, it's you who's missing the point:

1. MTA has a billion in surplus, profit yet they didn't bulge.

2. Loss of revenues easily can be made up from 2x the loss of wages.

3. Loss of wages has nothing to do with MTA - that just precisley shows how determined they are which whows how bad their situation can be.

I think you are the one who is missing the point here.
MTA's 1 billion surplus belongs to consumers NOT MTA employees. These uneducated monkeys don't and will never realize that. MTA kept 2 books and raised the fare and they were able to have large sum of surplus. They admitted wrong doing and decided to lower the fare to $1 for the holiday season for us, the consumers. MTA monkeys had to cry and claim that it's their money?!?! that's ridiculous

You really need to read up a lot on the subject before I can take your comment seriously...

Ok answer this. The MTA is facing a projected 1 billion dollar defecit in 2007. How will they pay for the increased salaries in 2007?

OK, answer this: is this the same type of projection when they projected similar losses for this year, ending up with $1B surplus?
 

T2k

Golden Member
Feb 24, 2004
1,665
5
81
Originally posted by: PUN
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: PUN
Teachers with College education with Masters make around 30K a year
Pharmacist makes around 45-55K a year
Physical Therapist makes 35-45k a year
Chiropractor makes 45k a year.
MTA employee (high school drop-outs) makes 45-55k: their duties include, opening and closing doors, handing out tokens/metrocards, sweeping the floor and tracks, emptying out the garbage, driving a bus.

Please, stop spreading this utter BS. It just makes the topic's life harder when we have to either skip or deal with posts like this, without any factual basis, pulled from thin air.


You must work for MTA as you clearly have no idea what the other professions make.
And as for 1B surplus, why do MTA monkeys deserve the money when teachers union was left out without a contract for few years and without a raise???
Please shut your mouth before getting trashed.

Pay attention to your style, pal.
Being hopelessly ignorant and posting crazy things are considered OK but stupidity and arrogance and namecalling are way different.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: PUN
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: Atomicus
What I don't understand is the TWU's inability to understand the crippling effect of striking for higher wages.

1) loss of revenue because you aren't providing service for the days on strike
2) loss of wages due to fines (illegal striking, dumb@sses)
3) increase the MTA's overall debt and forcing another fare hike to ensure they can scratch even


You know what would be funny? If us New Yorkers boycotted the MTA. Not practical, but ironic and in their face. :|


No, it's you who's missing the point:

1. MTA has a billion in surplus, profit yet they didn't bulge.

2. Loss of revenues easily can be made up from 2x the loss of wages.

3. Loss of wages has nothing to do with MTA - that just precisley shows how determined they are which whows how bad their situation can be.

I think you are the one who is missing the point here.
MTA's 1 billion surplus belongs to consumers NOT MTA employees. These uneducated monkeys don't and will never realize that. MTA kept 2 books and raised the fare and they were able to have large sum of surplus. They admitted wrong doing and decided to lower the fare to $1 for the holiday season for us, the consumers. MTA monkeys had to cry and claim that it's their money?!?! that's ridiculous

You really need to read up a lot on the subject before I can take your comment seriously...

Ok answer this. The MTA is facing a projected 1 billion dollar defecit in 2007. How will they pay for the increased salaries in 2007?

OK, answer this: is this the same type of projection when they projected similar losses for this year, ending up with $1B surplus?


THey did not project 1 billion in losses for this year. They projected a coulpe hundred million. As previously stated, this year the MTA got lucky. The city of new york got lucky also. Intrest rates fell. The MTA has a couple of lucrative real estate deals. They got in the black.

Now, do you expect that this will happen every time for the next 4-5 years? That something unexpected comes in and saves the MTA from defecit? I don't. Intrest rates are already increasing. Next year, what will be the lucky thing the MTA pulls out of their hats? Tell me.

You still haven't answered my question. What will the MTA do to pay for the increased salaries when they have a projected 1 billion+ defecit?
 

PUN

Golden Member
Dec 5, 1999
1,590
16
81
you keep mentioning the 1B surplus but you completely missed the point. MTA employees have no right to claim part of that surplus when deficit is expected for coming years and MTA was found guilty of defrauding the public by keeping two books.
To me, MTA and their employees are the ones running around with shady business practice
 

T2k

Golden Member
Feb 24, 2004
1,665
5
81
Originally posted by: talyn00
also, please work on your spelling, its terrible

No, my spelling is OK. You're probably confusing the word 'spelling' with the word 'grammar' - I thought it's quite obvious I'm not a native English speaking person (even if you're confusing spelling with grammar...)
 

sodcha0s

Golden Member
Jan 7, 2001
1,116
0
0
As mentioned before, the money is going towards pensions payments/security/improvements/ and finally the fare cut for the holidays. In essence, they did spend the cash.

Ahhh, didn't read the whole thread and didn't see this.

As for health care, well, welcome to the 21st century. Health care costs are getting out of hand. Many states are facing billions of dollars in pension costs, because of the sudden rise in the cost of health care. The states NEED to cut costs somehow. They can't cut back on the benefits of retired workers, because they were promised, SO all that is left is to save the money for the future, hence cutting back on health care for FUTURE workers.

Yes, very out of hand. It's a vicious circle.... insurance companies, drug companies, doctors trying to cover their asses, insurance companies playing doctor for them, hospitals, lawsuits.... it's really a fvcking mess. As much as I hate to say it, I think the only way to solve it is have the government come in and slap regulations on the parties involved. It sucks, but it beats having the government take over healthcare. And yes, companies will, and have either cut or eliminated retired workers healthcare benifits already. Look at what Bush did to the retired veterans. It's harder to cut current employee healthcare because it then becomes harder to attract new employees.
 

dartworth

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
15,200
10
81
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: talyn00
also, please work on your spelling, its terrible

No, my spelling is OK. You're probably confusing the word 'spelling' with the word 'grammar' - I thought it's quite obvious I'm not a native English speaking person (even if you're confusing spelling with grammar...)




LOL...:thumbsup:
 

talyn00

Golden Member
Oct 18, 2003
1,666
0
0
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: PUN
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: Atomicus
What I don't understand is the TWU's inability to understand the crippling effect of striking for higher wages.

1) loss of revenue because you aren't providing service for the days on strike
2) loss of wages due to fines (illegal striking, dumb@sses)
3) increase the MTA's overall debt and forcing another fare hike to ensure they can scratch even


You know what would be funny? If us New Yorkers boycotted the MTA. Not practical, but ironic and in their face. :|


No, it's you who's missing the point:

1. MTA has a billion in surplus, profit yet they didn't bulge.

2. Loss of revenues easily can be made up from 2x the loss of wages.

3. Loss of wages has nothing to do with MTA - that just precisley shows how determined they are which whows how bad their situation can be.

I think you are the one who is missing the point here.
MTA's 1 billion surplus belongs to consumers NOT MTA employees. These uneducated monkeys don't and will never realize that. MTA kept 2 books and raised the fare and they were able to have large sum of surplus. They admitted wrong doing and decided to lower the fare to $1 for the holiday season for us, the consumers. MTA monkeys had to cry and claim that it's their money?!?! that's ridiculous

You really need to read up a lot on the subject before I can take your comment seriously...

Ok answer this. The MTA is facing a projected 1 billion dollar defecit in 2007. How will they pay for the increased salaries in 2007?

OK, answer this: is this the same type of projection when they projected similar losses for this year, ending up with $1B surplus?


THey did not project 1 billion in losses for this year. They projected a coulpe hundred million. As previously stated, this year the MTA got lucky. The city of new york got lucky also. Intrest rates fell. The MTA has a couple of lucrative real estate deals. They got in the black.

Now, do you expect that this will happen every time for the next 4-5 years? That something unexpected comes in and saves the MTA from defecit? I don't.

You still haven't answered my question. What will the MTA do to pay for the increased salaries when they have a projected 1 billion+ defecit?

The answer to that is simple, larger deficit, and increased taxes.
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: sodcha0s
As mentioned before, the money is going towards pensions payments/security/improvements/ and finally the fare cut for the holidays. In essence, they did spend the cash.

Ahhh, didn't read the whole thread and didn't see this.

As for health care, well, welcome to the 21st century. Health care costs are getting out of hand. Many states are facing billions of dollars in pension costs, because of the sudden rise in the cost of health care. The states NEED to cut costs somehow. They can't cut back on the benefits of retired workers, because they were promised, SO all that is left is to save the money for the future, hence cutting back on health care for FUTURE workers.

Yes, very out of hand. It's a vicious circle.... insurance companies, drug companies, doctors trying to cover their asses, insurance companies playing doctor for them, hospitals, lawsuits.... it's really a fvcking mess. As much as I hate to say it, I think the only way to solve it is have the government come in and slap regulations on the parties involved. It sucks, but it beats having the government take over healthcare. And yes, companies will, and have either cut or eliminated retired workers healthcare benifits already. Look at what Bush did to the retired veterans. It's harder to cut current employee healthcare because it then becomes harder to attract new employees.

I am a liberal. I genearlly support unions. But you gotta do what you gotta do. Bush screwed us all up with the downturn in the economy. Hes cutting federal funding for Medicare. He has continued to avoid a fix in the current health care system, because he knows that health care companies cheat us out of billions, and will turn a blind eye if they give his party $$$$. In the future, we need to fix the system. Right now, we have to deal with the mistakes of those in charge.
 

PUN

Golden Member
Dec 5, 1999
1,590
16
81
Originally posted by: T2k
BTW this is where I quoted the source of the surplus: http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_300111429.html

This was the most ridiculous and pathetic PR stunt MTA has ever made - lowered fare for days.... ooooooh, my, I feel the love.... $50 out of $1B... and yet they proposed actual cuts for the TWU... as much as I hate the situation I can fully understand the frustration of the Local 100: sitting on this much money it was an insult offering lifted future retirement etc etc.

I spent $70x12months = $840 on Metrocard last year
If they had not increased the fare, it would've been around $610. That's $210 pp/year.
Let's be conservative with the number and say 5million had spent the same, that's 1B.
Lowering the fare by $1 for the holiday season costs MTA MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, so please get your fact straight
 

Hacp

Lifer
Jun 8, 2005
13,923
2
81
Originally posted by: talyn00
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: Hacp
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: PUN
Originally posted by: T2k
Originally posted by: Atomicus
What I don't understand is the TWU's inability to understand the crippling effect of striking for higher wages.

1) loss of revenue because you aren't providing service for the days on strike
2) loss of wages due to fines (illegal striking, dumb@sses)
3) increase the MTA's overall debt and forcing another fare hike to ensure they can scratch even


You know what would be funny? If us New Yorkers boycotted the MTA. Not practical, but ironic and in their face. :|


No, it's you who's missing the point:

1. MTA has a billion in surplus, profit yet they didn't bulge.

2. Loss of revenues easily can be made up from 2x the loss of wages.

3. Loss of wages has nothing to do with MTA - that just precisley shows how determined they are which whows how bad their situation can be.

I think you are the one who is missing the point here.
MTA's 1 billion surplus belongs to consumers NOT MTA employees. These uneducated monkeys don't and will never realize that. MTA kept 2 books and raised the fare and they were able to have large sum of surplus. They admitted wrong doing and decided to lower the fare to $1 for the holiday season for us, the consumers. MTA monkeys had to cry and claim that it's their money?!?! that's ridiculous

You really need to read up a lot on the subject before I can take your comment seriously...

Ok answer this. The MTA is facing a projected 1 billion dollar defecit in 2007. How will they pay for the increased salaries in 2007?

OK, answer this: is this the same type of projection when they projected similar losses for this year, ending up with $1B surplus?


THey did not project 1 billion in losses for this year. They projected a coulpe hundred million. As previously stated, this year the MTA got lucky. The city of new york got lucky also. Intrest rates fell. The MTA has a couple of lucrative real estate deals. They got in the black.

Now, do you expect that this will happen every time for the next 4-5 years? That something unexpected comes in and saves the MTA from defecit? I don't.

You still haven't answered my question. What will the MTA do to pay for the increased salaries when they have a projected 1 billion+ defecit?

The answer to that is simple, larger deficit, and increased taxes.


How does the MTA tax the riders? How does the MTA do that? Also, a larger deficit for the MTA means that it will have more debt to pay off in the future. Does the MTA want to be like the US is today? Paying billions of dollars on INTREST RATE payments for the National Debt? If the MTA goes down that road, it will never fix its problems. The MTA needs to go into the black, period.