Greedy, selfish NYC transit workers threaten strike

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Cali, why couldn't they?

I'm not sure if its true or not, but I think the MTA is limited in it's powers to fire people. Otherwise your idea is fine by me.

It might be illegal, I have no idea what the law is, but I think we can both agree that it SHOULDN'T be illegal.

I can agree with that. I was in a union back when I drove buses in NZ, and we really needed the ability to strike. We needed more money, these nyc workers don't know how good they have it. Greedy bastards.

[Ramo]

What should really happen is for the state to give up control of the transit system to the transit workers.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
What should really happen is for the state to give up control of the transit system to the transit workers.

That looks like it has already happened based on what I've read.

[David Floyd]

DF, you seem to be under the illusion that all transit workers are easy to replace, but there are many highly trained individuals within the organization.

Undoubtedly. But if you randomly fire 5% of them, I think the rest will probably believe you that they could be next.

Furthermore, the scare tactics you suggest might work if the strike organization wasn't strong, because if it was the rest of the union would undoubtedly say **** off to the management knowing full well that the management couldn't follow through on the bluff.

I agree. The management shouldn't bluff if they aren't willing to follow through. But I would submit that firing 5% of the transit workers and training workers to replace them would be less of a drain on the economy and system than if 100% of the workers were to strike and shut down the city for a few weeks.

As for the quality of their work they would quickly prove their worth through their inaction which would result in the city hemmorhaging(?) money from all orifices.

Well of course - no work tends to be worse than shoddy work. That doesn't mean we should reward shoddy work, though.

Ramo,

What should really happen is for the state to give up control of the transit system to the transit workers.

I agree, the state should give up control. And that control should then be privitized, which means that some of the workers would run it - in fact, the workers already do manage it. The managers and higher ups are employees, just as much as the janitor is. But they are much better able to run the thing than the janitor is, more than likely, so why should the janitor have an equal say in how the system is run?

[Ramo]

That looks like it has already happened based on what I've read.

But the control is hierarchial, not egalitarian (unless I'm mistaken).

I agree, the state should give up control. And that control should then be privitized, which means that some of the workers would run it - in fact, the workers already do manage it. The managers and higher ups are employees, just as much as the janitor is. But they are much better able to run the thing than the janitor is, more than likely, so why should the janitor have an equal say in how the system is run?

So the janitor isn't shafted. And why do you say the mangerial-types can run the system better than the janitors? Lots of people here don't seem to like the way the system is run.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
But the control is hierarchial, not egalitarian (unless I'm mistaken).

Is $45,000-$70,000 per year and 8 weeks paid vacation not enough control for you?

[Ramo]

A relatively decent wage (presumably, I imagine the costs of living in NYC are quite high) doesn't equate to control.

[David Floyd]

But the control is hierarchial, not egalitarian (unless I'm mistaken).

So?

So the janitor isn't shafted.

He isn't being shafted. He is earning a wage which is, right now, probably far in excess of the value of labor he provides. As in, I'm sure someone could be found to do it for much, much less.

And why do you say the mangerial-types can run the system better than the janitors? Lots of people here don't seem to like the way the system is run.

"Don't like how it's run" doesn't equate to being able to run it better, or even at all. I might not like the way, say, Walmart is run, but that doesn't give me the ability to run Walmart.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I agree, the state should give up control. And that control should then be privitized, which means that some of the workers would run it - in fact, the workers already do manage it. The managers and higher ups are employees, just as much as the janitor is. But they are much better able to run the thing than the janitor is, more than likely, so why should the janitor have an equal say in how the system is run?

The janitor shouldn't have an equal say, all the employees collectively organized in a union should have some say over their wages and benefits, especially if they can exploit an advantage. DF, is your individualistic philosophy averse to collective action?

Thanks for the links, I found this union website which was fun, http://www.twulocal100.org/news/contract/justice.php.

This one is interesting for all those who say transit workers do a horrible job.(biased?)

http://www.twulocal100.org/news/contract/fromdec7/productive.pdf

Their website says the AVERAGE transit worker salary is 50,000. I'd like to see that fox editorial writer's sources.

Why is there such a lack of info on this stuff?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Their website says the AVERAGE transit worker salary is 50,000. I'd like to see that fox editorial writer's sources.

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

[Ramo]

So?

Most workers don't have any say on how their business is run. I consider that to be authoritarian, and I value freedom.

He isn't being shafted. He is earning a wage which is, right now, probably far in excess of the value of labor he provides. As in, I'm sure someone could be found to do it for much, much less.

As I don't know much about the transit industry, I won't comment on that.

The crux is that the janitor has little control over his actions in the status quo.

"Don't like how it's run" doesn't equate to being able to run it better, or even at all. I might not like the way, say, Walmart is run, but that doesn't give me the ability to run Walmart.

The general consensus here seems to be that it's very badly run. If that's true, I don't see how giving janitors more input into management would necessarily be bad.

[David Floyd]

$50k is still above the national average by quite a bit.

It's certainly more than teachers make, for example.

The janitor shouldn't have an equal say, all the employees collectively organized in a union should have some say over their wages and benefits

They already have a say, when they agree to work such and such amount for such and such a wage, with the possibility of a raise if such and such conditions are met.

But, in any case, if it is fair for unions to demand higher wages, then shouldn't the unions accept massive pay cuts for individual employees, when those employees don't perform up to par?

[David Floyd]

Most workers don't have any say on how their business is run. I consider that to be authoritarian, and I value freedom.

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. Further, if he'd bothered to get a college degree, he could be in the position of setting the rules at some point in his life.

The crux is that the janitor has little control over his actions in the status quo.

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.

If that's true, I don't see how giving janitors more input into management would necessarily be bad.

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?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by David Floyd
$50k is still above the national average by quite a bit.

It's certainly more than teachers make, for example.

Adjust for cost of living in NYC, which makes a dramatic difference. And it is not more than most teachers in NYC make.

[Japher]

Salaries are also adjusted for "cost of living" expenses and inflation, generally.

I think that if the "cost of living" and inflation are bad, or turn negative, that reduction in salaries should also be warrented.

In general, these workers have got a lot of nerve fighting for salary increases in such poor economic times. I would tell the union to shove up ther behind, and instead you are getting pay cuts to account for the poor economy.

So shut your pie hole!