Greedy, selfish NYC transit workers threaten strike

[David Floyd]

True, but even in NYC, $50k is in excess of the value of the labor provided by the average transit worker. At least in seems to be. They certainly aren't UNDERPAID.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The Fox site said that they got $50k. 45k-70k came from Cali.

The fox site said they got 50k as a BASe after 3 years. If 50 is the average I would think that claim is questionable.

[Japher]

When you agree to perform a certain job at a certain price that is what you get.

I would totaly agree with the strike movement had the cost of living or inflation suddenlt sky rocket to such an extent that the normal stipulations that generally govern pay increases would not compensate. Yet, the opposite is true.

$50k a year may be a lot, but it is what was offered and it is what they are getting. No one is trying to slash their pay, which should be done, and should be happy that they still have a job that good.

[Ramo]

It's not authoritarian, because not only did the worker agree to work in such conditions, but he can terminate his own employment at any time.

The arrangement can be authoritarian without there being heavy restrictions on terminating it. There usually aren't many problems in leaving authoritarian states, for instance. Besides, unless the janitor has unusual resources, he'll have to accept another authoritarian position to survive.

We've been over this too many times. Maybe we should stop thread-jacking.

The janitor has ultimate control over his own actions - he can decide for himself what he does and doesn't do. Obviously, those decisions come with consequences.

Everyone has ultimate control over his actions in every situation, and there are always consequences. I'm not sure what your point is...

You don't see how letting untrained, unskilled workers without college degrees make business decisions affecting thousands, even millions, of people might not be a good thing?

I think the janitor would be much better on making business decisions than some random person with an MBA on areas pertaining to janitorial management. I think there should be management, but it should be bottom-up, not top-down.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Japher
No one is trying to slash their pay,

Yes they are. The city wants a contract with no raises for the next 2 years and then a 2.3% cut the 3rd year.

[gsmoove23]

DF, stop with this assumption that MTA workers are slackers. In the last few years ridership has increased while the amount of transit workers hasn't.

As for janitors signing on to work for certain wages its not the way it works. The current discussions are happening because union contracts with management have run their course and need to be renegotiated. The janitor signs on with the knowledge that through the leverage of the union his conditions can change.

[David Floyd]

The arrangement can be authoritarian without there being heavy restrictions on terminating it. There usually aren't many problems in leaving authoritarian states, for instance.

Sure there are - one always has to settle in some state, and I think we can both agree that all states in existence are in some way authoritarian.

Besides, unless the janitor has unusual resources, he'll have to accept another authoritarian position to survive.

I don't agree that the situation is authoritarian.

We've been over this too many times. Maybe we should stop thread-jacking.

Good point

Everyone has ultimate control over his actions in every situation, and there are always consequences. I'm not sure what your point is...

Just refuting your point that a janitor does not control his actions.

I think the janitor would be much better on making business decisions than some random person with an MBA on areas pertaining to janitorial management.

That's not necessarily true. Management is much, much more than knowing how to do the job of the people you are managing. I'm in a (very) low level management position, and even at my level, I couldn't do the job unless I had skills above and beyond those necessary to do the jobs of the people I oversee.

[David Floyd]

As for janitors signing on to work for certain wages its not the way it works. The current discussions are happening because union contracts with management have run their course and need to be renegotiated. The janitor signs on with the knowledge that through the leverage of the union his conditions can change.

And I'm saying that's a stupid way to run things.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
True, but even in NYC, $50k is in excess of the value of the labor provided by the average transit worker. At least in seems to be. They certainly aren't UNDERPAID.

We'd have to somehow quantify the value of labor provided compared to the salary. What evidence do you have for the assertion that the "average transit worker" isn't providing such a valuable labor?

It seems to me that, in a capitalist system, the value of one's work can be measured by the cost if one were to stop doing it. Clearly, the MTA workers stopping would be an unmitigated disaster. That tells them that their worth is pretty damn high, and that they should compensated accordingly. If the city has been willing to pay them $50k a year thus far, then by all measures they are indeed worth that.

I would like to see more oversight for job performance and such, but I don't think MTA workers are all lazy incompetent oafs who are somehow leeching a system unfairly. I've met plenty of MTA workers who were pleasant and effective in their jobs, and more often than not the subways and buses do run on time and with minimal disturbances. People just seem to dwell on the negative times. Well, guess what, on any system, **** happens and that's that. We take for granted that all this doesn't magically happen and also that, compared to other systems, NYC transit goers pay a ridiculously low amount for the subway fares.

[gsmoove23]

Why is contractual agreement between two organizations a stupid way to run things?

What if its impossible to do it otherwise? If its illegal to coerce workers not to join unions and the workers gain strength through the union then what is the option? Union busters? Surely you're not in favour of that?

[David Floyd]

It seems to me that, in a capitalist system, the value of one's work can be measured by the cost if one were to stop doing it.

Personally, I think the value of one's labor is defined by what people are willing to pay for what, and, correspondingly, what people are willing to accept, in the absence of coercion by either side.

Thus, if, in the absence of a union, someone would accept under $50,000 to do the job, then they are overpaid if they are making $50,000.

gsmoove,

What if its impossible to do it otherwise? If its illegal to coerce workers not to join unions and the workers gain strength through the union then what is the option? Union busters? Surely you're not in favour of that?

I see nothing wrong with a contract clause prohibiting unions (or, rather, saying "If you join a union, you will be fired"), and I see nothing wrong with refusing to hire someone based upon the fact that they are in a union.

And the current way is stupid because it gives the worker too much of a hold over the company. If they sign a 5 year contract, and provide a service for 5 years that is vital for the city, and then, at the end of the 5 years, can threaten to cut off that service unless a massive wage increase is given in the new contract, that is ridiculous (from the company's perspective).

I would rather have a system where a person signs a contract of indefinite length, but a contract that can be terminated at any time by either party, by either quitting or firing. If, in the middle of the term of the contract, a person wants a pay raise, they can ask for one, but the company is in no way bound to give them one. Sure, they can still quit, and threaten the company or city in that way, but it seems to me that overall, my system would not lend itself to masses of people decided to pull that kind of stunt at the same time.

[Ramo]

Sure there are - one always has to settle in some state, and I think we can both agree that all states in existence are in some way authoritarian.

I could go out to international waters. Then there'll be no states, authoritarian or not. Starving, drowning, etc. might be a problem, though.

I don't agree that the situation is authoritarian.

You don't think the management has a large degree of authority over him?

Just refuting your point that a janitor does not control his actions.

I said he has little control over this actions, not no control...

That's not necessarily true.

You really think that if you find a random person with an MBA, he has more business dealing with janitorial aspects of administration than actual janitors? You don't think the janitor has much more intimacy with the relevant information?

Of course, again I see a need for some management. It's just that I think workers in the relevant fields have more of a business deciding what kind of management it is than stock holders or state bureaucrats.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by David Floyd
And the current way is stupid because it gives the worker too much of a hold over the company. If they sign a 5 year contract, and provide a service for 5 years that is vital for the city, and then, at the end of the 5 years, can threaten to cut off that service unless a massive wage increase is given in the new contract, that is ridiculous (from the company's perspective).

This is not the way the system works. Certainly, if a union demanded an enormous wage increase that couldn't be justified by economic conditions then they would be in danger of creating a situation where the management could decide that replacing staff is the most economically sound decision(Reagan and the Air Controllers strike). There is no reason to believe the unions work outside of market forces. They are made up of workers who live in the city and suffer the economic hardships of the city. It is also in the unions interests that the enterprise prospers or they will be endangering their workers in the future.

Originally posted by David Floyd
I would rather have a system where a person signs a contract of indefinite length, but a contract that can be terminated at any time by either party, by either quitting or firing. If, in the middle of the term of the contract, a person wants a pay raise, they can ask for one, but the company is in no way bound to give them one. Sure, they can still quit, and threaten the company or city in that way, but it seems to me that overall, my system would not lend itself to masses of people decided to pull that kind of stunt at the same time.

This system offers the worker little opportunity to improve his conditions, unless of course unions become well organized, despite anti-union clauses, and are able to starve anti-union clause companies of their workforce(as has happened in the past). Then companies are placed in a position where they may have to negotiate with unions and so we are full circle.

[Imran Siddiqui]

NYC should go Reagan on the transit workers. Fire them all and hire new workers. Break the back of the union. They can't hold a city hostage without some backlash. They have a right to organize, but Bloomberg has a right to fire them all, too.

[gsmoove23]

You just have to figure out whether it would be more costly then negotiating. Wouldn't you also face the danger of widening the conflict, bringing other unions into the fray? Negotiate, bring 24% down to 10% over 5 years or something, it ain't that difficult.