Walking the Picket Line

[lehighguy]

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.

[adios]

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.

[BluffTHIS!]

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.

[Andrew Fletcher]

As an aside, I think working at McDonalds most likely sucks really hard core. You'd have to pay me a ton of money to do it.

Union worker having their cake and eating it [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[etgryphon]

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

[Andrew Fletcher]

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.

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.

[benfranklin]

[ 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.

[CORed]

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