this mta strike in NYC

[PUN]

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.

that's what Bush promised to do but we have not seen anything yet.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: PUN
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

TWU did not claim that. All they have asked is a raise, clearly not too much when you have this inflation and better pensions which would cost a mosquito bite-sized minus for the MTA, and unchanged terms for the rest like retirement age etc.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: PUN
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

TWU did not claim that. All they have asked is a raise, clearly not too much when you have this inflation and better pensions which would cost a mosquito bite-sized minus for the MTA, and unchanged terms for the rest like retirement age etc.

Overall, the TWA's original requests would have cost the MTA 200+ million a year. THat is defenetly not a small portion of the MTA. IMO, the Mta should have stayed at 65/3/3/2.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: PUN

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

I suggest you to READ and INTERPRET the article I've linked.

 

[PUN]

inflation is 2-3% a year, so where do you get 8% a year from?

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: PUN
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

TWU did not claim that. All they have asked is a raise, clearly not too much when you have this inflation and better pensions which would cost a mosquito bite-sized minus for the MTA, and unchanged terms for the rest like retirement age etc.

Overall, the TWA's original requests would have cost the MTA 200+ million a year. THat is defenetly not a small portion of the MTA. IMO, the Mta should have stayed at 65/3/3/2.

Well, originally the MTA proposed CUTS.

FYI: I'm talking about the end of the negotiations - that's where you can see who expects what actually.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: PUN
inflation is 2-3% a year, so where do you get 8% a year from?

No, where do YOU get 8% a YEAR from?

 

[PUN]

MTA proposed 3%, 4%, 3.5% increase over 3 years.
TWU wants 8% per year?
so my question is where do you get 8% increase in wage to justify the GREAT Inflation you are talking about?

 

[isasir]

I read your article T2k, and the piece that stuck out to me was the following:

Proposals for that money include spending $450 million to pay down some of a $2.2 billion in underfunded MTA pension plans; spend $100 million on security improvements throughout the system; and $50 million on service enhancements, including increasing cleaning programs, said MTA Executive Director Katherine Lapp.

That $450mil. would directly benefit the workers, the security improvements would benefit workers and riders and increased cleaning programs likely means hiring more workers, another benefit to the union.

While these proposals were just that, proposals, I wonder why the TWU still insisted on asking for more?

 

[PUN]

t2k,
by the way, what do you do?

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Hacp

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.

The basic problem is that disgusting sinister sneaky Pataki pulled the plug years ago, let alone Giuliani's cut. MTA is NOT a profit-oriented corporation yet they act like it should be.
Public ciy transportation is NOWHERE ON THE WORLD can be a profit-oriented corporation. It is the duty of NYS/NYC to ensure the working mass transit system for its population, for affordable price. That's why you pay taxes (particularly high ones in NYC).

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: PUN
MTA proposed 3%, 4%, 3.5% increase over 3 years.
TWU wants 8% per year?
so my question is where do you get 8% increase in wage to justify the GREAT Inflation you are talking about?

I'll repeat: where did you hear/read 8% a YEAR?

 

[PUN]

When MTA employees are clearly overpaid with great benefits, there are plenty of rooms for Cuts. MTA is throwing fair amount of raise and competitive benefits.
Like many others have said, this is a public matter and such ridiculous amount of raise should only goto underpaid city employees, like NYPD, UFT, etc

 

[PUN]

read NY Times, if too literate, go with Daily news or NY post

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: isasir
I read your article T2k, and the piece that stuck out to me was the following:

Proposals for that money include spending $450 million to pay down some of a $2.2 billion in underfunded MTA pension plans; spend $100 million on security improvements throughout the system; and $50 million on service enhancements, including increasing cleaning programs, said MTA Executive Director Katherine Lapp.

That $450mil. would directly benefit the workers,

Well, not exactly: notice the *underfunded* part. it'd simple ease the pain of the MTA.

the security improvements would benefit workers and riders

Bull. It's to prevent another 9/11, nothing else because Bush, after doing the mouthwork, technically took money from here, contrary to his promises about helping this City .

and increased cleaning programs likely means hiring more workers, another benefit to the union.

Ummm how is that logical?

While these proposals were just that, proposals, I wonder why the TWU still insisted on asking for more?

They DID NOT. This article from July and vastly different from MTA's first offer which included CUTS.

 

[PUN]

you still not have answered me
where do you get 8% increase to justify the inflation?

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: PUN
When MTA employees are clearly overpaid with great benefits, there are plenty of rooms for Cuts. MTA is throwing fair amount of raise and competitive benefits.
Like many others have said, this is a public matter and such ridiculous amount of raise should only goto underpaid city employees, like NYPD, UFT, etc

As I said above, I can't take stupid/false/empty phrases seriously, so keep up the lipservice, nobody cares, believe me.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: PUN
read NY Times, if too literate, go with Daily news or NY post

Tsk tsk tsk... you and NYT? Perhaps the Sports section...

 

[PUN]

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: PUN
When MTA employees are clearly overpaid with great benefits, there are plenty of rooms for Cuts. MTA is throwing fair amount of raise and competitive benefits.
Like many others have said, this is a public matter and such ridiculous amount of raise should only goto underpaid city employees, like NYPD, UFT, etc

As I said above, I can't take stupid/false/empty phrases seriously, so keep up the lipservice, nobody cares, believe me.

If you cannot defend your argument, please stay off the subject without bluntly accusing someone. You CLEARLY have NO IDEA of what's going on in this city, nevermind this country. I ask you again, what do you do for living?

 

[talyn00]

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: PUN
read NY Times, if too literate, go with Daily news or NY post

Tsk tsk tsk... you and NYT? Perhaps the Sports section...

it was actually in one of the NYT articles you quoted from.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: PUN
you still not have answered me
where do you get 8% increase to justify the inflation?

OMFG...

Where did YOU GET THAT 8% A YEAR?

PS: if it still doesn't go through, I give up here. (Or I can translate this very simple question to 2-3 other languages.)

 

[talyn00]

Originally posted by: T2k
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/nyreg...14cc9da089fc7&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 

[PUN]

Please do me a favor and spend some quarters on NYT tomorrow. Uneducated person like you have no argumentative support here.

 

[PUN]

Originally posted by: talyn00

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: PUN
read NY Times, if too literate, go with Daily news or NY post

Tsk tsk tsk... you and NYT? Perhaps the Sports section...

it was actually in one of the NYT articles you quoted from.

Obviously, t2k did not even read the article he had suggested.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: talyn00

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: PUN
read NY Times, if too literate, go with Daily news or NY post

Tsk tsk tsk... you and NYT? Perhaps the Sports section...

it was actually in one of the NYT articles you quoted from.

Yep, that's why I'm asking - because it was claimed by an MTA person as the original request (which we all know is always a pretty high start, to be able to lower it) but NY Times clearly states otherwise:

With the transit workers' union demanding raises above inflation, Mr. Kalikow raised his wage offer so that raises would average 3.5 percent a year for three years, up from 3 percent in his previous offer. Responding to the union's demand that he not raise the retirement age, Mr. Kalikow also dropped his proposal that future transit workers not qualify for a full pension until age 62, up from 55 for current workers.
(...)
In the days immediately before the strike deadline, the union kept hammering the point that the authority's pension demands would save little over the life of a three-year contract.

For me it says TWU was fine with that 3 or whatever percent yearly raise, only cared about the pensions. And yesterday night I heard the very same story right after the announcement on WNYC, so I don't believe for an MTA person with no proof. (TBH a yearly 8% would be waaay too high, everybody knows it.)