Walking the Picket Line

[lehighguy]

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

[benfranklin]

[ 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.

[MMMMMM]

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.

[lehighguy]

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.

[benfranklin]

[ 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.

[benfranklin]

[ 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.

[lehighguy]

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.

[lehighguy]

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.

[MMMMMM]

[ 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.

[ 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?