Walking the Picket Line
 

There is a strong union tradition in my family, and my grandfather was a negotiator for the MTA when he was alive. Helped organize the last strike. My parents are strong supporters of the strike.

I don't know what to think. I know little about thier contract. The only thing I read is an NYT editorial that was against the strike. I know from working on GM and Delphi debt deals that excessive union concessions can bankrupt a company. Watched the companies debt go to junk, defaulted on benefits and pension, laid of all the workers anyway.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know from working on GM and Delphi debt deals that excessive union concessions can bankrupt a company. Watched the companies debt go to junk, defaulted on benefits and pension, laid of all the workers anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a government agency that ran a 1 billion dollar surplus last year.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

I think the workers must take a stand and the stand must be on principle if the company goes bankrupt so be it. I have no idea whether the principle is justified in this case or not.

There is a difference being forced to take paycuts or concessions and being forced out because the company goes bankrupt. Like any negotiation if the unions cannot walk away they are screwed.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

They also had a rate hike and part of the money comes from taxes. So you could easily say the surplus money should go towards rate reductions rather then pay increases.

What is comes down to is whether the contract benefits are justified for the work being done. I know from my grandfathers experience it is [censored] work and you should be compensated for that, but I also recognize that being able to retire at 50 or 55 with 3/4 salary and benefits for live is way better then like 90% of the country.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

On a seperate note, I notice most press coverage gives the union/strike a bad rap.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

whether the strike turns out to be "justified" likely will have a lot to do with how replacable the employees are (economically and politically speaking).

I feel bad for the workers, but frankly this is a pretty inefficent machine, and if they clear a large part of their workforce they could likely do away with a lot of the crap, especially the crap that builds up with sucha massive pension plan.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

It is funny how liberal media usually fails to fully report all the details in union strikes. It is not enough to say a corporation or the MTA made this much of a profit last year, but also to show what average wages at different levels are for union members including all their benefits. Only then is there enough informtion to make judgements on wage fairness. But of course the reason such things generally aren't reported is that all the other blue collar workers who make far less would have little sympathy for the union's position.

The key element in this matter though is that public employees are rightly held to a different standard regarding strikes which can imperil people's lives and cause severe economic hardship for all other workers. The union is breaking the law pure and simple and deserves to be harshly treated for that alone.

But they are also forcing workers to walk in freezing tempartures or not get to work and lose pay during the holiday season. Shame on them and their selfishness.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

Should doctors be forced to treat people if they don't want too?

Should a power plant employee be forced to work because people need power?

No. You can't force people to do anything. That's slavery. If someone doesn't want to work you can choose not to pay them. That is all. I suppose the MTA should hire goons with baseball bats to go down and bash in a few heads and force people back to work, like the strikes of old. Oh wait, threatening to harm/kill people if they don't work, SLAVERY.

The unions benefits and pay have been pretty widely covered. I read about them in the NYT. Do they cover the working conditions. There is a reason they get paid more then joe blow in McDonalds. You have to go into the pit, get under some train, breath in all sorts of god awful crap that [censored] up your lungs, lie there welding some [censored] in the most awful conditions. My grandfather used to come home from work covered from head to toe in black soot. He wouldn't let anyone touch him. It was so ingrained it was impossible to get out.

The health conditions are horrible. The work is horrible. THe conditions down in the tunnels are completely unsafe. But I haven't seen any cameras going down into the pit.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

I think the whole concept of whether this is "justified" is a bit silly...

Of course they are justified. Even if they each where given a brand new car when they signed on and decided to stike, it would be "justified". It is about negotiation.

If they union is strike and driving a hard deal as to bankrupt the company, so be it. Thats life. We have unemployment so I bet some people would love a job.

-Gryph

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

Despite what you say are bad working conditions, public employees should be forced to work. That is part of the deal that includes good pay and benefits and a job for life even if they are screwups.

And if their working conditions for that pay is really so bad for those poor stiffs, then give the jobs to those that would be more grateful and would work for far less money.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

Lehighguy,

I used to work for a union in Philadelphia. I am very interested that you grew up in a union household. I am a big supporter of the labor movement and working people in general.

Let's apply the media-political logic to our own lives. If you and I made an agreement that I'd work for you for $10, then I would work if I wanted the $10. What would happen if you told me that we had to renegotiate the terms of the agreement every 2 years and I would have to be paid less every week for the same job? $8, $6, $3. Same job, maybe even more work, but unable to stop working for you.

That's why the union is striking. They want to do a good job, but the government keeps paying them less and less. The government keeps forcing them to renegotiate their contracts at worse conditions. Again, if I were cleaning your yard, what would you do?

How would you describe it? I think you would be the master and I would be the slave.

We're free if we want to be.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

I read an article in todays WSJ that the ratio of applicants to new jobs is something like 30:1 for the NY Transit Workers. I'd recommend reading the piece by STEVEN MALANGA entitled "What Would Reagan Do?" in todays WSJ for a perspective that is anti union.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

But see, the core plank of unionism is that wages, especially those artificially high that were negotiated with their democrat stooge patrons in earlier years, must be exempt from the capitalist equation of supply and demand.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
On a seperate note, I notice most press coverage gives the union/strike a bad rap.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes sense, they are causing 7 million people to have longer commutes.

Also because of this strike, the people that are getting hurt the most are restaurants, shops, and hotels. Most small restaurants and retail stores receive 20% or more of their business during the holiday season. This strike is destroying small businesses. The timing and selfishness of the MTA is amazing.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the workers must take a stand and the stand must be on principle if the company goes bankrupt so be it. I have no idea whether the principle is justified in this case or not.

There is a difference being forced to take paycuts or concessions and being forced out because the company goes bankrupt. Like any negotiation if the unions cannot walk away they are screwed.

[/ QUOTE ]

No pay cuts or concessions for current employees were ever discussed. The company offered a 11.5% raise over 3 years, the union wanted 24%.

Currently, workers pay nothing toward health insurance. The company offered to keep that for current employees, but wanted new hires from now on to pay 1% of their salary toward health insurance. The union said no way.

Currently, workers pay 2% of their salary toward retirement, and can retire at half pay at age 55 with 25 years of service. The company wanted new employees from now on to pay 3% and to have to work until age 62. Union: no way.

I have heard nothing from the union that justifies this strike. The union is not facing the world reality of the impact of health and pension benefits. They have a sweet deal, but they still want more.

I think the union leaders are screwing their members, and will end up screwing themselves. They are being fined $1 million a day, and the union started the strike with about $4 million in the bank. The workers face individual fines of 2 days pay per day of strike under NY state law, and they will probably face special union assessments to replace the funds paid in fines. Little guy gets the shaft again.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

A lot fo jobs are necessary to society. That is why they are jobs. That doesn't mean we need to institute slavery to get it done.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's apply the media-political logic to our own lives. If you and I made an agreement that I'd work for you for $10, then I would work if I wanted the $10. What would happen if you told me that we had to renegotiate the terms of the agreement every 2 years and I would have to be paid less every week for the same job? $8, $6, $3. Same job, maybe even more work, but unable to stop working for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you knew the contract was for a fixed period of time going in, what's the problem? Because a guy paid you $10 a year ago, he has to continue to pay you $10 next year?

If there was no contract, there's still no problem. I hire a guy to mow my yard. After about a year, I decide I want to mow it myself, both to save some money and because I want some exercise (not that my reasons really matter). Should I be compelled to continue paying this guy $40/week for something I no longer want?

[ QUOTE ]
That's why the union is striking. They want to do a good job, but the government keeps paying them less and less.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, great. If you don't like the terms, don't work. Sounds good to me.

The state certainly set themselves up for this sort of thing by relying on a monopoly, but don't act like anyone has some sort of *right* to a job at any desired wage.

[ QUOTE ]
How would you describe it? I think you would be the master and I would be the slave.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you want the state to be the slave of labor, and be compelled to pay whatever wage they demand.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
This makes sense, they are causing 7 million people to have longer commutes.

Also because of this strike, the people that are getting hurt the most are restaurants, shops, and hotels. Most small restaurants and retail stores receive 20% or more of their business during the holiday season. This strike is destroying small businesses. The timing and selfishness of the MTA is amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Seems shrewd to me.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

Most unions vote on proposals and conditions. It isn't renegade union leaders, the workers probably support it as well.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]

That's why the union is striking. They want to do a good job, but the government keeps paying them less and less.

[/ QUOTE ]

The MTA offered 11% in raises over 3 years. The union wants 24%.

[ QUOTE ]
Same job, maybe even more work, but unable to stop working for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unable to stop working because they are averaging $50K in a city where a rookie cop makes $25K.

[ QUOTE ]
I am a big supporter of the labor movement and working people in general.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have worked on both side, labor and management. I used to think that union officials and management were equally unconcerned about the workers. I have changed my position, and now believe that union officials are less concerned about the workers than management in the long run.

In my experience, the primary concern of union leadership is raw power. They want to maximize head count and dues and hourly wages. Most refuse to adjust to changing markets or changing economic reality. They think that if they don't ask for and get raises and increased benefits on every contract, it is an insult to their manhood.

The recent strike of the machinists union against Northwest Airlines is a prime example. Macho posturing by labor that they weren't going to make obviously needed concessions. Now all those workers are gone, the union leaders are out of jobs, and there is no union any more.

I was never given any information when I was in a union. The leadership kept us in the dark and treated us like we were too stupid to understand anything that was going on between the union and the company.

I'm assuming that this Transit Union is doing the same thing. From what I see in the media, the company offer is more than reasonable, and most of the concessions would only affect future new workers. With the fines on the union and on the workers, they are now in a no-win situation. It's the Blazing Saddles School of Negotiation: point gun at your own head and threaten to shoot if you don't get what you want.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think the workers must take a stand and the stand must be on principle if the company goes bankrupt so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the exact stupidity that bankrupts companies and lands their stupid union workers in the street where they belong.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is a government agency that ran a 1 billion dollar surplus last year.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the answer is to charge the customer less, not give tha already-overpaid union jackassses more.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

Forcing the striking workers back to work would be slavery. Firing them and replacing them, however, should be considered.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
Despite what you say are bad working conditions, public employees should be forced to work.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what your definition of forcing them to work is. Being forced to work and not having right to strike are two different things. Giving workers like this right to strike is insane. Anyone that doesn't show up for work should just be immediately replaced. It's that simple.

A few years ago, the firement in the town I lived in had right to strike put on a ballot. They were going door to door in uniform with some sob story asking people to vote to give them the benefits they deserved w/o telling these people that what they really wanted was the right to strike and just not show up for work when the person's house was burning down. It was insane. People are stupid.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
Forcing the striking workers back to work would be slavery. Firing them and replacing them, however, should be automatic.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most unions vote on proposals and conditions. It isn't renegade union leaders, the workers probably support it as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

My experience, including working several union jobs, is that union leaders keep their members in the dark and only ask them to ratify a contract after the fact.

A major issue in this strike appears to be union opposition to a two-tier contract, with future new employees getting different (i.e., lesser) benefits than anyone now working. Why would any rank and file member care if that kind of concession is needed to keep his wages and benefits? The new workers come in knowing what the deal is, and can take it or leave it.

Just like the current workers came in knowing that it was illegal for them to strike, and that they would be fined if they did.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

That's rediculous. Forced to work? Why should they even pay them? If they don't work why not just crucify them in the public square.

If replacing these workers was so easy, the mayor would already have done it.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
A lot fo jobs are necessary to society. That is why they are jobs. That doesn't mean we need to institute slavery to get it done.

[/ QUOTE ]

your "slavery" reason does not fit in what I previously mentioned. You said the media was giving the union/strike a bad rap, I stated reasons why. Not argueing with the right for them to go on strike, but I stated the TIMING for the MTA to do this is a very poor selfish decision.
This has nothing to do with "slavery".

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
the TIMING for the MTA to do this is a very poor selfish decision.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? Seems smart to me. This puts a lot of pressure on the gov't to give in. Why should they not do the smartest thing and use the most leverage available?

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the TIMING for the MTA to do this is a very poor selfish decision.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why? Seems smart to me. This puts a lot of pressure on the gov't to give in. Why should they not do the smartest thing and use the most leverage available?

[/ QUOTE ]

There may be some confusion here. The MTA is the company. The union is the TWU.

The illegality of the strike aside, the timing makes it even more likely that the government will crack down. The union is facing a $1 million a day fine, the union leadership is facing jail time, the workers are facing a fine of 2 days pay for every day on strike, and the workers' families are facing a pretty grim Xmas.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

At issue, is why the government has the right to crack down. What are they cracking down on?

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
At issue, is why the government has the right to crack down. What are they cracking down on?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are cracking down on people who are breaking the law. Are you saying that the government does not have the right to enforce the law?

It is illegal for public workers to strike in New York. Those people knew that when they were hired. In accepting the job, they agreed to not strike. They are breaking that agreement, and they are breaking the law.

There is no evidence that the company (MTA) failed to uphold their end of the agreement. The workers were paid the wages and benefits as agreed to. Now the workers are not upholding their end of the agreement. And they are breaking the law, and screwing over millions of their fellow citizens who have been paying their wages.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

The strikers are costing others 400 MILLION dollars per day in lost wages, lost productivity and lost revenues.

I say fire them as fast as they can be replaced: starting tomorrow with a huge advertisement for new workers.

Additionally, if they signed an agreement to not strike which they are now breaking, perhaps they should be held legally responsible in some fashion.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

The MTA contract has to be renegotiated every few years. At issue now is one of those renogotiations. If the workers aren't allowed to strike, HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSE TO NEGOTIATE THIER CONTRACT. What leverage do they have? If management gives them nothing, what are they suppose to do about it. Yes, they have paid thier wages and benefits under the OLD CONTRACT.

Workers can't just walk away when the vast bulk of thier compensation comes from benefit and retirement packages based on years of service. They need leverage in order to negotiate a new contract. During each contract period if you want to impose a no strike clause that is fine. But what about in between contract periods?

They didn't agree to a no strike clause because they wanted too, or because they got a special concession in exchange. The government IMPOSED the law.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]


Additionally, if they signed an agreement to not strike which they are now breaking, perhaps they should be held legally responsible in some fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

They didn't sign an agreement. It is illegal for public workers to strike in New York state. That is the state law. It has been the state law for a long time.

These people are public workers. They knew when they took the jobs that they could not strike. They are on strike, they are breaking the law, and they are criminals.

I believe that the only punishment for that crime at the moment is a fine. The workers are fined 2 days pay for every day that they strike. I think the short term solution is to get a court order requiring the union leadership to order an end to the strike. If the leadership doesn't comply, they can be held in contempt of court and jailed. I would think that the workers could also be held in contempt if they fail to obey.

There are other potentially more serious problems. Hospitals are already reporting shortages in blood supplies, because donors cannot get in to donate. Other health problems (assistance for invalids, meals for shut-ins, etc.) are sure to follow.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the workers aren't allowed to strike, HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSE TO NEGOTIATE THIER CONTRACT. What leverage do they have?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the individual doesn't like the deal, he can quit and find a better job.

If the union doesn't think that management is negotiating in good faith, they can take it to arbitration. There are other groups that can't strike either: police, fire fighters, etc. That's the price you pay for taking the job.


[ QUOTE ]
They didn't agree to a no strike clause because they wanted too, or because they got a special concession in exchange.

[/ QUOTE ]

They agreed to it in advance because it was a condition of getting the job. And they all agreed to it happily. If you join the military, you give up certain "rights" that civilians have, like wage negotiation.

If you take a civil service job, you give up certain things that people in the private sector have, like the right to strike. And you give up the right to bitch about it when you don't like the rules in the middle of the game. Everyone else is still playing by the rules. The union is not.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

How do you propose that they bargain for pay raises? If they can't strike, WHY SHOULD THE CITY PAY THEM.

The law is a BAD LAW. It doesn't stop labor impasses from happening, as shown by this situation. Facing jailtime, bankruptcy, and unemployment the union is still striking. Don't you think that shows that they have SERIOUS CONCERNS.

Why does this law exist? If union demands were truly unreasonable, the city could fire them all and hire replacement workers. The only reason for the law to exist is so the city can force people into slave labor by MANDATING they have to go to work.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

If they could fire them an replace them, don't you think they would have done that already. MTA work is [censored] [censored] work that usually causes health problems for workers. Most people don't want to do it, and certainly not for bad pay. Even the current employees don't want to work under these conditions.

I've seen how bloomberg runs his company. If he could replace those workers, he already would have done so.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]

How do you propose that they bargain for pay raises? If they can't strike, WHY SHOULD THE CITY PAY THEM.

The law is a BAD LAW. It doesn't stop labor impasses from happening, as shown by this situation. Facing jailtime, bankruptcy, and unemployment the union is still striking. Don't you think that shows that they have SERIOUS CONCERNS.

Why does this law exist? If union demands were truly unreasonable, the city could fire them all and hire replacement workers. The only reason for the law to exist is so the city can force people into slave labor by MANDATING they have to go to work.

[/ QUOTE ]


It seems to me that the key questions are:

A) When did the law come into being?

B) Was the law in place before the current employees signed up for the job?

If the law was in place first, the strikers have no leg to stand on, because they took the job knowing full well the law. If however some of the strikers were hired before that law was in place, they specifically, and only they, might have an argument.

Re: Walking the Picket Line
 

[ QUOTE ]


The law is a BAD LAW.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is irrational. The law also covers fire fighters. Do you think that fire fighters should be allowed to strike? By your reasoning, fire fighters have no power of negotiation if they can't strike. Fair is fair. If the TWU should be allowed to strike, so should fire fighters and police and air traffic controllers. By your reasoning, police are slaves because they can't strike.

This is a GOOD LAW. Just as the MTA has a monopoly on subway service, the TWU has a monopoly on subway labor. The law prohibits them from harming society by abusing that monopoly power.

[ QUOTE ]
Facing jailtime, bankruptcy, and unemployment the union is still striking. Don't you think that shows that they have SERIOUS CONCERNS.

[/ QUOTE ]

It shows that the union has SERIOUS GREED. (Typing random stuff in all caps proves nothing. I have replied in kind to make a point, and will restrain myself from now on.) The union is putting the economic well-being of the city and its citizens in danger in the short run, and the physical health and welfare of its people in danger in the long run. There are other solutions for labor disputes, including binding arbitration. I suspect that the TWU did not take that route because they know that their case is weak.

And regardless of the merits of the law, it is the law. The workers took jobs knowing the law. The leadship called a strike knowing the law. The workers are breaking the law and should be punished, at the least with serious fines. The leadership are criminals and should be jailed for public endangerment.

Think of the public reaction and legal ramifications if the fire fighters union went on strike and people died as a result. If this strike lasts long enough, people will die as a result. Why should the criminal TWU leadership be treated any differently than the leadership of the fire fighters would be?