this mta strike in NYC

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: 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).

MTA is not a profit oriented corporation. But they DO HAVE A BUDGET. What happens when they get in debt? They have three choices. Ones is that they could ask the state for money. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. The state has been cutting its funding to the MTA in recent years. The second is the borrow. That will increase the future debt even more. The final is to increase fairs. That won't stand with riders.

Exactly. That's my point.
There's no way, I repeat, no way to make this profitable from rider's fares yet keep the fares affordable.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Hacp

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...

Please, personal insults will not help your cause.

Interesting timing. Perhaps you missed the original one I've answered...?
And the one before? And the one before?

 

[Zim Hosein]

Easy on the nested quotes please!

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: 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).

MTA is not a profit oriented corporation. But they DO HAVE A BUDGET. What happens when they get in debt? They have three choices. Ones is that they could ask the state for money. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. The state has been cutting its funding to the MTA in recent years. The second is the borrow. That will increase the future debt even more. The final is to increase fairs. That won't stand with riders.

Exactly. That's my point.
There's no way, I repeat, no way to make this profitable from rider's fares yet keep the fares affordable.

Yes there is. Don't give workers the generous pensions. Limit salaries to 30K. Simple as that.

Edit: As for salaries being worth less in NYC, well that depends. 30K is generally 30K if you spend it wisely. If you don't buy anything from price gouging stores like duane reade, and purchase necessities only, you can defenetly get away with 30K and have money left over for savings.

 

[PUN]

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: PUN
LOL looking at payscales for avg salaries? Are you still in school? I love how these newbies come on this board with a simple link from their parents internet claiming higher salary. I have over dozens of colleagues who are pharmacist and physical therapist in NYC and their avg salary is no more than 45k.
Please stop living in your dreams and wake up to your reality.

Pal... I'm around 40. You are one clueless person.

And I don't hold anything against your apparently not too highly praised pharmacist friends and their low salaries. It's very simple: if there are plenty of below-than-average or average pharmacists, then they will end up on the corner Ph and their wages will go down. If he thinks he should get better, then go on! Take a higher paid job if he can. Pure and simple.

Teachers salary don't WIDELY vary among public schools.

I think you have a reading disorder - as usually, I'm asking you to read again the original post.

please get this through your thick headed skull.
Teachers salary in NYC do not vary among public schools. Private schools are separate entities in case you don't know.
Please buy some NYT, learn the tax laws, make better friends, stop making excuses, don't believe 100% of what your parents tell you and please get a gf instead of being the next featured "40 year old version II"

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: PUN

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: 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?

8% was the number that the TWU came up with to start negotiations off.

not even worth reasoning with this 40 y/o virgin

Well apparently it's not me who's STILL too slow to understand why he's talking heavy BS on this 8% and why I did ask about it many times which he couldn't figure out...

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein
Easy on the nested quotes please!

Is that so bad? Pardon then.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: PUN

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: PUN
LOL looking at payscales for avg salaries? Are you still in school? I love how these newbies come on this board with a simple link from their parents internet claiming higher salary. I have over dozens of colleagues who are pharmacist and physical therapist in NYC and their avg salary is no more than 45k.
Please stop living in your dreams and wake up to your reality.

Pal... I'm around 40. You are one clueless person.

And I don't hold anything against your apparently not too highly praised pharmacist friends and their low salaries. It's very simple: if there are plenty of below-than-average or average pharmacists, then they will end up on the corner Ph and their wages will go down. If he thinks he should get better, then go on! Take a higher paid job if he can. Pure and simple.

Teachers salary don't WIDELY vary among public schools.

I think you have a reading disorder - as usually, I'm asking you to read again the original post.

please get this through your thick headed skull.
Teachers salary in NYC do not vary among public schools. Private schools are separate entities in case you don't know.
Please buy some NYT, learn the tax laws, make better friends, stop making excuses, don't believe 100% of what your parents tell you and please get a gf instead of being the next featured "40 year old version II"

Look, pal, save this style for your family, OK?
You were waaaay too simple to understand most of the things here, so believe me, I won't cry if I don't have to answer all of your namecalling and stupid posts like this (FYI: teacher means teacher, in case you really that clueless)

Ignore=ON

PS: I soo hate stupid, clueless folks.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: T2k


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).

MTA is not a profit oriented corporation. But they DO HAVE A BUDGET. What happens when they get in debt? They have three choices. Ones is that they could ask the state for money. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. The state has been cutting its funding to the MTA in recent years. The second is the borrow. That will increase the future debt even more. The final is to increase fairs. That won't stand with riders.

Exactly. That's my point.
There's no way, I repeat, no way to make this profitable from rider's fares yet keep the fares affordable.

Yes there is. Don't give workers the generous pensions. Limit salaries to 30K. Simple as that.

Sure. And you will ride that subway, let alone work there?

Edit: As for salaries being worth less in NYC, well that depends. 30K is generally 30K if you spend it wisely. If you don't buy anything from price gouging stores like duane reade, and purchase necessities only, you can defenetly get away with 30K and have money left over for savings.

$30K is really the minimum. A black market, illegal worker makes easily $80-100 per day on a construction site, not to mention the $700-800/week bartenders, waiters or $500-600/week for busboys (I knew many of them). (PS: these weren't their very first salaries, of course.)

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: T2k


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).

MTA is not a profit oriented corporation. But they DO HAVE A BUDGET. What happens when they get in debt? They have three choices. Ones is that they could ask the state for money. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. The state has been cutting its funding to the MTA in recent years. The second is the borrow. That will increase the future debt even more. The final is to increase fairs. That won't stand with riders.

Exactly. That's my point.
There's no way, I repeat, no way to make this profitable from rider's fares yet keep the fares affordable.

Yes there is. Don't give workers the generous pensions. Limit salaries to 30K. Simple as that.

Sure. And you will travel in that subway, let alone work there?

Edit: As for salaries being worth less in NYC, well that depends. 30K is generally 30K if you spend it wisely. If you don't buy anything from price gouging stores like duane reade, and purchase necessities only, you can defenetly get away with 30K and have money left over for savings.

$30K is really the minimum. A black market, illegal worker makes easily $80-100 per day on a construction site, not to mention the $700-800/week bartenders, waiters or $500-600/week for busboys (I knew many of them).

The MTA can not afford to give that much up for low-skill workers. Take the Auto industry right now. It is facing a huge problem in terms of pensions/health care/ salaries. Right now, the auto industry has to go on cost cutting heaven in order to survive. Unless the MTA cuts right now, the future is in trouble for them. They can not simply borrow from the city and state. They need to actually support themselves to a certain extent. The MTA does not need to make a profit. But they DO need to limit their losses to a reasonable state, and anything above what the MTA origianlly offered, which IIRC was pensions at age 65 for new workers and a 3/3/2 raise cycle is unreasonable fiscally.

As for 30K not being enough, I agree. But IMO, 50K is more than enough. I should know. My sister and I were raised on around 70K. Both my mom and dad worked for around 35K each. The catch is that they spent half their salaries making a downpayment on two houses and paying the 10 year mortgages on the houses. So in essence, we were raised on 50K salary. We lived in a crappy apartment, and pinched pennies like hell. My mom was still able to have funds saved up for college, and provide us with a great parochial middle school education.

 

[isasir]

Buncha stuff snipped to reduce quoting bet. T2k and I.

My point was it's NOT a new benefit - it's an old, missing necessity they have to fix.

The same can be said for social security. Bottom line to me is, will it (soc. security and/or pension) be there when I'm ready to collect. While not a new benefit, it's important to make sure existing benefits don't disappear due to poor management or underfunding. (Enron anyone?)

It still benefits the workers and riders, regardless of what Bush did. It's money that isn't there right now.

No, it's not. It clearly benefits for us, the commuters.

Then why were the workers asking for more training on dealing with terrorism? Why are TWU workers picketing with signs saying that they're the first line of defense against terrorism and thus should get more money? Security funding obviously benefits any human in the subways, whether they're a worker or not.

My question is why would increased cleaning mean more workers?

Huh? Either existing workers make more money in overtime to clean more, or they hire new people. Either way, it's money going to the workers.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: T2k


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).

MTA is not a profit oriented corporation. But they DO HAVE A BUDGET. What happens when they get in debt? They have three choices. Ones is that they could ask the state for money. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. The state has been cutting its funding to the MTA in recent years. The second is the borrow. That will increase the future debt even more. The final is to increase fairs. That won't stand with riders.

Exactly. That's my point.
There's no way, I repeat, no way to make this profitable from rider's fares yet keep the fares affordable.

Yes there is. Don't give workers the generous pensions. Limit salaries to 30K. Simple as that.

Sure. And you will travel in that subway, let alone work there?

Edit: As for salaries being worth less in NYC, well that depends. 30K is generally 30K if you spend it wisely. If you don't buy anything from price gouging stores like duane reade, and purchase necessities only, you can defenetly get away with 30K and have money left over for savings.

$30K is really the minimum. A black market, illegal worker makes easily $80-100 per day on a construction site, not to mention the $700-800/week bartenders, waiters or $500-600/week for busboys (I knew many of them).

The MTA can not afford to give that much up for low-skill workers. Take the Auto industry right now. It is facing a huge problem in terms of pensions/health care/ salaries. Right now, the auto industry has to go on cost cutting heaven in order to survive. Unless the MTA cuts right now, the future is in trouble for them. They can not simply borrow from the city and state. They need to actually support themselves to a certain extent. The MTA does not need to make a profit. But they DO need to limit their losses to a reasonable state, and anything above what the MTA origianlly offered, which IIRC was pensions at age 65 for new workers and a 3/3/2 raise cycle is unreasonable fiscally.

Eh, you start up on good track yet you always detour before you would reach the correct conclusion... it's not the MTA not the GM/FORD/etc! It's the completely, recklessly and ridiculously, outrageously skyrocketed health insurance costs!

I hate Bush for many-many things but this is probably one of his biggest crime against this nation, letting these predators run amok for years now. He's breaking this country apart, totally.
There are corruption and serious, or even unbelievable corruption - and there's the out-of-scale level of this administration.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Hacp

As for 30K not being enough, I agree. But IMO, 50K is more than enough. I should know. My sister and I were raised on around 70K. Both my mom and dad worked for around 35K each. The catch is that they spent half their salaries making a downpayment on two houses and paying the 10 year mortgages on the houses. So in essence, we were raised on 50K salary. We lived in a crappy apartment, and pinched pennies like hell. My mom was still able to have funds saved up for college, and provide us with a great parochial middle school education.

You forgot the point again: she didn't have to deal with $400/month health insurance per person, nor thousands of deductible per year per person.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: T2k


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).

MTA is not a profit oriented corporation. But they DO HAVE A BUDGET. What happens when they get in debt? They have three choices. Ones is that they could ask the state for money. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. The state has been cutting its funding to the MTA in recent years. The second is the borrow. That will increase the future debt even more. The final is to increase fairs. That won't stand with riders.

Exactly. That's my point.
There's no way, I repeat, no way to make this profitable from rider's fares yet keep the fares affordable.

Yes there is. Don't give workers the generous pensions. Limit salaries to 30K. Simple as that.

Sure. And you will travel in that subway, let alone work there?

Edit: As for salaries being worth less in NYC, well that depends. 30K is generally 30K if you spend it wisely. If you don't buy anything from price gouging stores like duane reade, and purchase necessities only, you can defenetly get away with 30K and have money left over for savings.

$30K is really the minimum. A black market, illegal worker makes easily $80-100 per day on a construction site, not to mention the $700-800/week bartenders, waiters or $500-600/week for busboys (I knew many of them).

The MTA can not afford to give that much up for low-skill workers. Take the Auto industry right now. It is facing a huge problem in terms of pensions/health care/ salaries. Right now, the auto industry has to go on cost cutting heaven in order to survive. Unless the MTA cuts right now, the future is in trouble for them. They can not simply borrow from the city and state. They need to actually support themselves to a certain extent. The MTA does not need to make a profit. But they DO need to limit their losses to a reasonable state, and anything above what the MTA origianlly offered, which IIRC was pensions at age 65 for new workers and a 3/3/2 raise cycle is unreasonable fiscally.

Eh, you start up on good track yet you always detour before you would reach the correct conclusion... it's not the MTA not the GM/FORD/etc! It's the completely, recklessly and ridiculously, outrageously skyrocketed health insurance costs!

I hate Bush for many-many things but this is probably one of his biggest crime against this nation, letting these predators run amok for years now. He's breaking this country apart, totally.
There are corruption and serious, or even unbelievable corruption - and there's the out-of-scale level of this administration.

Yes blah blah blah, we all know bush sucks. But the point is that we have to deal with it. Not facing reality and acting like everything was the way it was back in the 90s will not help anyone at all. Budgets still have to be met. Paychecks to be written.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Hacp

As for 30K not being enough, I agree. But IMO, 50K is more than enough. I should know. My sister and I were raised on around 70K. Both my mom and dad worked for around 35K each. The catch is that they spent half their salaries making a downpayment on two houses and paying the 10 year mortgages on the houses. So in essence, we were raised on 50K salary. We lived in a crappy apartment, and pinched pennies like hell. My mom was still able to have funds saved up for college, and provide us with a great parochial middle school education.

You forgot the point again: she didn't have to deal with $400/month health insurance per person, nor thousands of deductible per year per person.

The point was that my family was well off with 50K a year. An average MTA employee defenetly has enough with 50K. Just don't expect to buy a benz anytime soon.

 

[PUN]

On top of learning US tax laws, please do some reading on US healthcare as well.
Current US healthcare is not caused by GWB, it all started with Clinton adm. Bush is trying to rectify this issue but it's not going anywhere.

And it's not the health benefit cost that's causing huge deficit, it's a combination of pension, 401k, health and paid sick/vacation/whatever days.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: isasir
Buncha stuff snipped to reduce quoting bet. T2k and I.

My point was it's NOT a new benefit - it's an old, missing necessity they have to fix.

The same can be said for social security. Bottom line to me is, will it (soc. security and/or pension) be there when I'm ready to collect. While not a new benefit, it's important to make sure existing benefits don't disappear due to poor management or underfunding. (Enron anyone?)

It still benefits the workers and riders, regardless of what Bush did. It's money that isn't there right now.

No, it's not. It clearly benefits for us, the commuters.

Then why were the workers asking for more training on dealing with terrorism? Why are TWU workers picketing with signs saying that they're the first line of defense against terrorism and thus should get more money? Security funding obviously benefits any human in the subways, whether they're a worker or not.

My question is why would increased cleaning mean more workers?

Huh? Either existing workers make more money in overtime to clean more, or they hire new people. Either way, it's money going to the workers.

Actually, I think they hire a sepearate company to clean the subways?

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: isasir
Buncha stuff snipped to reduce quoting bet. T2k and I.

My point was it's NOT a new benefit - it's an old, missing necessity they have to fix.

The same can be said for social security. Bottom line to me is, will it (soc. security and/or pension) be there when I'm ready to collect. While not a new benefit, it's important to make sure existing benefits don't disappear due to poor management or underfunding. (Enron anyone?)

The answer is we have to stop this absolutely crazy, vastly illegal constant 'cashing-on' in the health industry. Drug companies should be very tightly regulated after these fatal reckless years.

If we wait more, we will be more and more broken and the companies richer and richer which never gets redistributed into the system. (Don't believe their false R&D claims - they cook the books for decades now.)

It still benefits the workers and riders, regardless of what Bush did. It's money that isn't there right now.

No, it's not. It clearly benefits for us, the commuters.

Then why were the workers asking for more training on dealing with terrorism? Why are TWU workers picketing with signs saying that they're the first line of defense against terrorism and thus should get more money? Security funding obviously benefits any human in the subways, whether they're a worker or not.

This sentence is OK. But it doesn't mean it should be included in the worker's contract as a benefit for them...

My question is why would increased cleaning mean more workers?

Huh? Either existing workers make more money in overtime to clean more, or they hire new people. Either way, it's money going to the workers.

[/quote]
Why? Can't you just buy better tools? The current way subway is being cleaned is simply laughable - it's not an accident it looks disgusting, like a PoS. Travel to EU and go down to the subway...

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Hacp

As for 30K not being enough, I agree. But IMO, 50K is more than enough. I should know. My sister and I were raised on around 70K. Both my mom and dad worked for around 35K each. The catch is that they spent half their salaries making a downpayment on two houses and paying the 10 year mortgages on the houses. So in essence, we were raised on 50K salary. We lived in a crappy apartment, and pinched pennies like hell. My mom was still able to have funds saved up for college, and provide us with a great parochial middle school education.

You forgot the point again: she didn't have to deal with $400/month health insurance per person, nor thousands of deductible per year per person.

The point was that my family was well off with 50K a year. An average MTA employee defenetly has enough with 50K. Just don't expect to buy a benz anytime soon.

And my point was this is false. You can't compare current $50K to $50K from two decades or more ago.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: T2k


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).

MTA is not a profit oriented corporation. But they DO HAVE A BUDGET. What happens when they get in debt? They have three choices. Ones is that they could ask the state for money. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. The state has been cutting its funding to the MTA in recent years. The second is the borrow. That will increase the future debt even more. The final is to increase fairs. That won't stand with riders.

Exactly. That's my point.
There's no way, I repeat, no way to make this profitable from rider's fares yet keep the fares affordable.

Yes there is. Don't give workers the generous pensions. Limit salaries to 30K. Simple as that.

Sure. And you will travel in that subway, let alone work there?

Edit: As for salaries being worth less in NYC, well that depends. 30K is generally 30K if you spend it wisely. If you don't buy anything from price gouging stores like duane reade, and purchase necessities only, you can defenetly get away with 30K and have money left over for savings.

$30K is really the minimum. A black market, illegal worker makes easily $80-100 per day on a construction site, not to mention the $700-800/week bartenders, waiters or $500-600/week for busboys (I knew many of them).

The MTA can not afford to give that much up for low-skill workers. Take the Auto industry right now. It is facing a huge problem in terms of pensions/health care/ salaries. Right now, the auto industry has to go on cost cutting heaven in order to survive. Unless the MTA cuts right now, the future is in trouble for them. They can not simply borrow from the city and state. They need to actually support themselves to a certain extent. The MTA does not need to make a profit. But they DO need to limit their losses to a reasonable state, and anything above what the MTA origianlly offered, which IIRC was pensions at age 65 for new workers and a 3/3/2 raise cycle is unreasonable fiscally.

Eh, you start up on good track yet you always detour before you would reach the correct conclusion... it's not the MTA not the GM/FORD/etc! It's the completely, recklessly and ridiculously, outrageously skyrocketed health insurance costs!

I hate Bush for many-many things but this is probably one of his biggest crime against this nation, letting these predators run amok for years now. He's breaking this country apart, totally.
There are corruption and serious, or even unbelievable corruption - and there's the out-of-scale level of this administration.

Yes blah blah blah, we all know bush sucks. But the point is that we have to deal with it. Not facing reality and acting like everything was the way it was back in the 90s will not help anyone at all. Budgets still have to be met. Paychecks to be written.

And blahblahblahity-blah, more empty phrases... did you read my post? I gave you the answer.

 

[T2k]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: isasir
Buncha stuff snipped to reduce quoting bet. T2k and I.

My point was it's NOT a new benefit - it's an old, missing necessity they have to fix.

The same can be said for social security. Bottom line to me is, will it (soc. security and/or pension) be there when I'm ready to collect. While not a new benefit, it's important to make sure existing benefits don't disappear due to poor management or underfunding. (Enron anyone?)

It still benefits the workers and riders, regardless of what Bush did. It's money that isn't there right now.

No, it's not. It clearly benefits for us, the commuters.

Then why were the workers asking for more training on dealing with terrorism? Why are TWU workers picketing with signs saying that they're the first line of defense against terrorism and thus should get more money? Security funding obviously benefits any human in the subways, whether they're a worker or not.

My question is why would increased cleaning mean more workers?

Huh? Either existing workers make more money in overtime to clean more, or they hire new people. Either way, it's money going to the workers.

Actually, I think they hire a sepearate company to clean the subways?

Really? Then how is this included in the TWU contract?

 

[halik]

Let me reiterate that 47-50K before overtime is amazing for unskilled labor, even in nyc.

Like i said earlier I'm graduating from top 10 school with two degrees and actually got a job for ~60K in NYC. That's with no paid overtime either (~60+ hour weeks). Also I happen to work for the best paid bank on wall street, all my buddies that got in the same business make about 5-8K less than I do. So that puts them at the same sallary as the MTA workers... except we've invested 100K+ into education. How was 40K in nyc not a good starting sallary?

 

[PUN]

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: T2k

Originally posted by: Hacp

As for 30K not being enough, I agree. But IMO, 50K is more than enough. I should know. My sister and I were raised on around 70K. Both my mom and dad worked for around 35K each. The catch is that they spent half their salaries making a downpayment on two houses and paying the 10 year mortgages on the houses. So in essence, we were raised on 50K salary. We lived in a crappy apartment, and pinched pennies like hell. My mom was still able to have funds saved up for college, and provide us with a great parochial middle school education.

You forgot the point again: she didn't have to deal with $400/month health insurance per person, nor thousands of deductible per year per person.

The point was that my family was well off with 50K a year. An average MTA employee defenetly has enough with 50K. Just don't expect to buy a benz anytime soon.

And my point was this is false. You can't compare current $50K to $50K from two decades or more ago.

Well, if your parents made 70k before tax over two decades ago, they could've afforded a penthouse in manahattan and paid off their 4 br house in NYC in less than 2 years.
Either your parents made $3500/year two decades ago or $35k two years ago. Either way, your post is contradicting once again

 

[PUN]

Originally posted by: halik
Let me reiterate that 47-50K before overtime is amazing for unskilled labor, even in nyc.

Like i said earlier I'm graduating from top 10 school with two degrees and actually got a job for ~60K in NYC. That's with no paid overtime either (~60+ hour weeks). Also I happen to work for the best paid bank on wall street, all my buddies that got in the same business make about 5-8K less than I do. So that puts them at the same sallary as the MTA workers... except we've invested 100K+ into education. How was 40K in nyc not a good starting sallary?

well coming from a guy who reads NY Dailynews and NY post and thinks you only need to pay 20% tax on 40k salary doesnt say much

Also don't forget, it's not just 100k educational debt. It's also 4 years of non-working status, whereas MTA gets ahead start right out of high school

 

[DaWhim]

woohoooooo, an interesting read from wsj. all I can say is I can't agree more.

What Would Reagan Do?
By STEVEN MALANGA
December 21, 2005; Page A19

A radicalized union that twice before has tried and partially succeeded in shutting down America's largest city is once again holding New York hostage. Using such aggressive tactics, or the threat of them, over the last 40 years, the Transport Workers Union (TWU) has won for its members a wage and benefits package that far outshines what most blue-collar workers in the private sector can earn, including retirement at age 55 with half salary and cost-of-living adjustments.

If New York state and city officials are ever to stop the TWU's recurring blackmail, which has burdened taxpayers and riders with enormous costs, they should use this illegal strike to impose the Reagan solution. Faced with a militant public-sector union that violated the law with a walk-out, President Reagan dismissed thousands of air traffic controllers in 1981 and rebuilt the nation's air traffic system with a new work force. New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) could do the same by terminating striking workers and hiring new ones, because its relatively unskilled unionized jobs are highly sought-after, with over 30 applicants for each position.

Founded in 1934 originally to represent workers in the private sector, the TWU was one of the radical unions that formed the Congress of Industrial Organizations. An early president, Mike Quill, was a member of the Communist Party who reveled in his nickname, "Red Mike." Though Quill quit the party when it refused to back an early transit fare increase (on the grounds that it would hurt the working class), he remained a militant power for decades, especially after New York Mayor Robert Wagner misguidedly signed an executive order giving public employees the right to organize and bargain collectively in 1958. Quill began a predictable cycle: Every few years, during the critical Christmas shopping and tourist season, the TWU threatens to shut down New York if officials don't acquiesce to its demands.

The union first struck on New Year's Day, 1966, John Lindsay's first day as mayor, demanding a 30% wage hike, a four-day, 32-hour work week and retirement after 25 years service. Workers stayed out for 13 contentious days, and though public opinion mostly opposed the strike, in the end the union won a rich settlement, estimated at some $70 million (about $400 million in today's dollars), or twice what city negotiators had originally offered. In 1980, with the city still recovering from the fiscal crisis of the late 1970s, the union struck again, this time for 11 days, and when a judge imposed fines on workers, they simply upped their demands to cover the costs, winning 18% wage increases over two years.

Today TWU bus drivers earn, on average, $63,000 annually, while subway motormen make $54,000 and subway cleaners $40,000. Workers get full health benefits, make no contributions to insurance premiums and can retire after 25 years of service or at age 55. The MTA has an unfunded pension liability of $1 billion. Given the strike, one might think the MTA is asking for significant givebacks of these perks. Hardly. It asked to push the retirement age back to 62 for new workers but dropped that demand and is now merely asking that they contribute 6% of their pre-tax salaries toward their pension for their first 10 years on the job, as well as pay 1% of salary for health insurance. By contrast, the TWU demanded that the MTA lower retirement age to 50 for its current workers and grant 8% wage increases over the next three years.

In heavily pro-union New York, these kinds of demands are not only taken seriously but often prevail. Nearly three-quarters of all government workers in the Greater New York area are unionized, the highest level of public-sector unionization of any major metropolitan region. With so much muscle, they typically earn 15% more on average in wages than private sector workers, according to a recent study by New York's Citizens Budget Commission. When porcine benefits packages are added into the mix, total compensation is often 50% greater. The cost of all this has become a huge burden. New York City's pension and benefits costs have soared 60%, or about $4 billion, in just four years. The transit system's pension costs alone have tripled since 2002, while the bill for health benefits is up 40%.

Public unions rarely have to strike to win such benefits. The vast and growing political power they wield in state legislatures and city halls is usually enough to swing contract negotiations in their favor. But the TWU has always been a militant organization, whose leaders, egged on by the membership, seem engaged in a game of one-upmanship even with other unions.

But now New York officials should take a page from President Reagan's playbook: The MTA should start sending out termination letters to striking workers for breaking the law, and hiring a new work force -- including offering jobs to current workers, but on terms set down by the MTA.

While rebuilding the work force, transit officials could unleash the privately owned van services and bus lines, which they currently prohibit from operating along public bus lines, to protect the MTA's and the TWU's monopoly. The MTA should begin handing out long-term contracts for these operators to provide alternate, competitive services on a permanent basis.

New York officials should also privatize big chunks of the transit system, as many other cities in the U.S. and abroad are doing. For the past 50 years New York has unfortunately moved in the opposite direction, preferring to take over private lines and to house transit operations in a gigantic state agency, the MTA, or to offer no-bid franchises to a few politically connected and heavily subsidized private lines -- all in the mistaken belief that having workers on the public payrolls would prohibit strikes and make the system more reliable.

Elsewhere, transit authorities are more like outsourcing contractors than operators, bidding out lines and overseeing routes. Denver and San Diego have contracted 35% of their bus routes. But perhaps the best model is London, where, spurred by Margaret Thatcher, officials began an aggressive transit privatization program nearly 20 years ago. London's bus lines, though designed by the city, are now operated by some 40 private companies. Only on such a model can New York begin to rein in its high costs and stop repeated union blackmail.

Mr. Malanga, contributing editor to the City Journal, is the author of "The New New Left" (Ivan R. Dee, 2005).
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113513530777628211.html