Greedy, selfish NYC transit workers threaten strike

[David Floyd]

Ramo,

I could go out to international waters. Then there'll be no states, authoritarian or not.

But ultimately, you still live under the authority of the world hegemon, in this case the United States. If you do something they really don't like, they can and will come after you.

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

I don't agree that this is an authoritarian condition, because the worker has a reasonable ability to withdraw from any condition he doesn't like and seek employment elsewhere. Further, it isn't authoritarian because the management can't involve itself in areas of the worker's life that are unrelated to the company - ie, it can't tell him where he can and can't go on vacation.

It's authoritarian only in the sense that management possesses a degree of authority over those they manage, but this seems to be an obvious condition of efficient (and for that matter, workable) business.

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

And again, incorrect.

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?

I think that your average janitor would be no better at effectively managing people than his dog. Again, it takes specific skills in order to be able to effectively manage others. It is also important for the manager to have a degree of knowledge about the work of the people he is managing, and it is certainly a good leadership quality to "get down in the dirt" with your people, but I don't know that this is necessarily an inherent requirement in management. Maybe Ming (or another person in a management position) can give us their perspective.

gsmoove,

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

I think a 24% wage increase over three years, what with today's economy and job market, can't be justified by economic conditions.

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).

The worker can improve their condition through both education and the forces of the free market. Educated workers are always more desireable than uneducated ones, as are trained workers as opposed to untrained ones - experience vs. inexperience.

Sure, someone in their first year of work, without a college education and no high school diploma might have it pretty rough, but even this person can eventually improve through the accumulation of experience and, possibly, the presence of natural skills or leadership ability (depending on their particular job - for example, in my job, one does not require a college education to advance in the company, but rather one must demonstrate good work ethics and a leadership ability, and sucking up doesn't hurt either).

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
But ultimately, you still live under the authority of the world hegemon,

A global hegemon doesn't exist and never has.

[David Floyd]

A global hegemon doesn't exist and never has.

With very, very limited exceptions, the US can enforce its will on anyone it wants to, throw either economic or military means. That is, to me, the definition of a global hegemon.

But in his example, living in international waters, the US is certainly the hegemon, because the US Navy is stronger than every other navy in the world combined.

[DanS]

"With very, very limited exceptions, the US can enforce its will on anyone it wants to, throw either economic or military means."

You have a dangerously inflated view of what we can do. We can destroy the world easy. But we can't even overthrow a tinpot dictator without help any more.

[David Floyd]

But we can't even overthrow a tinpot dictator without help any more.

Believe me, it wasn't the UN resolutions that made Saddam let inspectors in - it was the threat of Gulf War II.

[DanS]

Quite so. But the credibility of that threat relied in no small part on allied physical and political assets.

[David Floyd]

So? Just because the US has various basing agreements around the world does not negate the fact that it can do whatever it wants.

Sure, if you took away all of the US's foreign bases and military agreements and such, it wouldn't be as powerful, but we're talking about the situation as it stands today, not the situation as it SHOULD (IMO) stand.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by David Floyd I think a 24% wage increase over three years, what with today's economy and job market, can't be justified by economic conditions.

I think if management accepted a first offer we could all agree they aren't worthy of the position. NEGOTIATION. Its not a bottom line, but thats beside the point. If it was a bottom line the union would still be in the framework of a market economy. The management could choose to replace workers if it was the cheaper option but they could probably talk the unions down to a much more acceptable figure, please read and answer the whole post so I don't have to repeat.

Originally posted by David Floyd The worker can improve their condition through both education and the forces of the free market. Educated workers are always more desireable than uneducated ones, as are trained workers as opposed to untrained ones - experience vs. inexperience.

This doesn't change the fact that the city will always need transit workers, even if the only ones they can get have PHDs. In a world where everyone has PHDs someone with a PHD is just an uneducated schmuck. So, we're back to the worker having little control. Individuals can get education or win the lottery or change jobs but there will always be the worker as again I'm assuming we always need transit workers and without unions their power is severely decreased. But please, this is not the important point. You ignored the important point below...

Originally posted by gsmoove23This 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.

[David Floyd]

The management could choose to replace workers if it was the cheaper option but they could probably talk the unions down to a much more acceptable figure, please read and answer the whole post so I don't have to repeat.

Well, the management should, by definition, act in the best interest of the company. What I am saying is that a union is in the wrong if they threaten a city-crashing strike in order to get an economically unjustified raise.

This doesn't change the fact that the city will always need transit workers, even if the only ones they can get have PHDs. In a world where everyone has PHDs someone with a PHD is just an uneducated schmuck.

That's not a realistic world.

Individuals can get education or win the lottery or change jobs but there will always be the worker as again I'm assuming we always need transit workers

Very true - and the job of transit worker, or other menial job, is often times the only job that a person is capable of doing or willing to do. Those who are capable and willing to do more, in a free market, most likely WILL be able to do more.

But that doesn't mean we should give more money or power to people who don't deserve or earn it.

[DanS]

"Just because the US has various basing agreements around the world does not negate the fact that it can do whatever it wants."

We have to have the agreement of the host governments for any action we take. Really, it's not nearly as easy as you appear to think it is.

[David Floyd]

We have to have the agreement of the host governments for any action we take.

And we can always use the carrot and stick to get that agreement.

At the end of the day, do you REALLY think the Saudis are going to tell the US "No" on the issue of using Saudi territory for strikes against Iraq? I don't, although I wish they would.

[DanS]

"do you REALLY think the Saudis are going to tell the US "No" on the issue of using Saudi territory for strikes against Iraq?"

They are likely to.

[David Floyd]

We'll have to see, I guess, but my bet is we end up using Saudi bases

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
With very, very limited exceptions, the US can enforce its will on anyone it wants to, throw either economic or military means. That is, to me, the definition of a global hegemon.

The United States is the most powerful state on the planet today. But it does not dominate Europe and Northeast Asia to the same extent that it does the Americas and it has no intention of conquering and controling those regions, mainly because of the stopping power of water.

A global hegemony is a virtual impossibility save for the unlikely event that a single state achieves clear cut nuclear superiority.

But in his example, living in international waters, the US is certainly the hegemon, because the US Navy is stronger than every other navy in the world combined.

A navy doesn't grant a state hegemony.

[gsmoove23]

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.

Just curious, do you have a problem with the above statement? Cause I think its an important point. Just saying that unions are here because they succeded in a capitalist system not because of social programs or anything else. They have earned a position in capitalist society.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Well, the management should, by definition, act in the best interest of the company. What I am saying is that a union is in the wrong if they threaten a city-crashing strike in order to get an economically unjustified raise.

Management should act in the best interest of the company but can an organization founded to protect the interests of its members act in the best interest of those members, using strategic advantage to gain an upper hand in the market? Forget economically unjustified, that is just the argument of those who would prefer for whatever reasons that they gain the upperhand. Managers want them paid less so they can spend in other areas, politicians want them paid less because it may mean other union troubles, taxpayers want them paid less so they can pay lower fares. Beauty of a market system.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Very true - and the job of transit worker, or other menial job, is often times the only job that a person is capable of doing or willing to do.

Transit worker does not equal menial job. Your assumptions are ridiculous. There are many skilled workers being represented in this dispute, prob the reason the MTA won't be firing them.

Originally posted by David Floyd
But that doesn't mean we should give more money or power to people who don't deserve or earn it.

By what equation do people earn it? Would you have all earnings the guy who marketed the pet rock received confiscated because his idea was so stupid he obviously didn't earn it. The market isn't necessarily about earning anything through hard work or even intelligence. Its about exploiting advantages, filling niches and plenty of luck. Union members earn this through their solidarity and the cleverness of their leaders.