Walking the Picket Line

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Strikes exist for a reason. They aren't done arbitraily. Do you think the TWU, facing bankruptcy by the end of the week, its leaders facing jailtime, did this because they thought it would be fun. Most likely, they think it is important enough to risk thier very existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strikes exist for a reason: greed and power. The major remaining issues in this strike are health and pension benefits for future hires. Why would the current members care about this? They don't. Only the union leadership cares, because it gives them more control over the membership into the future.

To be blunt, this is not an issue that can be discussed, let alone understood, by anyone that has not been a union member. The agenda of many modern labor unions is not rational, and cannot be analysed or understood without experiencing it. I speak from personal experience. I have worked several union jobs and been kept in the dark, if not lied to, by my "representatives".

The leadership of some unions are aware of the current economic environment, and capable of dealing with it rationally. Others, such as the TWU, are ignorant and base their policy on testosterone. They are doomed for extinction.

[lehighguy]

Are a lot of union leaders stupid as [censored], of course. I'd say most today are. My mother and fathers unions are completely incompetent.

Does that mean it should be against the law for them to strike? No. You and I have no way of evaluating the working conditions, compensation, or fairness of the MTA-TWU contract. We aren't equiped, and we should stop pretending we are. Unless you've actually worked for the MTA and truly understand the issues, your opinion is meaningless, as is mine and everyone else's.

If the unions demands are too aggressive the MTA will replace them with scabs. If they aren't they will have a hard time finding replacement workers, and they will have to renogotiate with the union. Some strikes are smart, some are stupid. Either way it is self-corrective, you don't need government intervention.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
Are a lot of union leaders stupid as [censored], of course. I'd say most today are. My mother and fathers unions are completely incompetent.

Does that mean it should be against the law for them to strike? No. You and I have no way of evaluating the working conditions, compensation, or fairness of the MTA-TWU contract. We aren't equiped, and we should stop pretending we are. Unless you've actually worked for the MTA and truly understand the issues, your opinion is meaningless, as is mine and everyone else's.

If the unions demands are too aggressive the MTA will replace them with scabs. If they aren't they will have a hard time finding replacement workers, and they will have to renogotiate with the union. Some strikes are smart, some are stupid. Either way it is self-corrective, you don't need government intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming government intervention here refers to the anti-strike laws, which I find to be helpful - it means that the strike will be short. I believe in most labor negotiations there reaches a point very quickly where either labor or management cannot possibly benefit - where the lost wages or producitivity go beyond the contract demands of either side. In this strike it will come much sooner. The law is a deterrent against strikes but not a law against striking (e.g. jail time).

I'm not quite sure about your position on this one, lehigh. You're trying to take the side of 'Well, we don't know anything about the negotiations, but the workers have dangerous conditions.' Their demands appear unreasonable - but that's the nature of a demand in a collective bargaining situation.

[lehighguy]

Think of it like poker and it all makes sense. If you opponent knows that you can't go all-in he will go all-in every hand. Even with complete crap, even when he is totally out of line. As long as he knows you won't go all the way (which is what the strike legislation says) he will bully you around all day with impunity.

You don't know if thier demands are unreasonable. You don't know thier working conditions. You don't know how long it has been since they got a pay increase. Let's break it down:
If the MTA gives you a 4%/year pay increase, but makes you start paying 6% of your income into pension, you just took a 2% paycut. Not factoring in inflation. If they haven't gotten a raise in awhile, then inflation is like getting a paycut. Maybe they switched to a new health plan that the workers don't like. Maybe they change retirement rules. Do I know the specifics of thier contracts, no. That is the whole point. None of us really know except for random excerpts we read in the paper. And have even less of a clue about working conditions. You don't deserve to have an opinion on the fairness of the contract, your just running your mouth.

Only two people deserve to have an opinion, the union and the MTA. Imposing unfathomable penalties on one side distorts the whole process. And just because you aren't throwing people in jail doesn't mean you aren't destroying thier lives. At $25,000/day, how long until those transit workers are thrown out of thier homes. When I quit my job I wasn't charged $25,000/day, why should they?