NYC Could Face Transit Strike Friday

[Sava]

well some of these things are probably seriously insignificant...

retirement age to 50?

that is just so absurd I can't believe the union is seriously going to strike over that...

I bet the core issues are the pay raises and health care...

maybe the retirement age they will compromise on... keep it the same or maybe raise it slightly... but not lower it...

[Arrian]

They city wants 62 (7 yrs increase), so the union counters with a package including a retirement age of 50 (5 yrs decrease). Translation: we want it to stay right where it is.

I bet the healthcare is a big one. Healthcare and the wage increases.

-Arrian

[Az]

They city wants 62 (7 yrs increase), so the union counters with a package including a retirement age of 50 (5 yrs decrease). Translation: we want it to stay right where it is.

Precisely.

I still haven't got no response on the when was their previous wage increase.

[Arrian]

I hope you're not waiting for that info from me, I have no idea. I live ~100 miles from NYC. And I'm far too lazy to research it.

-Arrian

[Edan]

Originally posted by Az

They city wants 62 (7 yrs increase), so the union counters with a package including a retirement age of 50 (5 yrs decrease). Translation: we want it to stay right where it is.

Precisely.

I still haven't got no response on the when was their previous wage increase.

Behold the power of google!

As in 2002, when the transit union received a 6% total raise spread over three years, plus a $1,000 bonus

link

[Arrian]

Google rocks. So from 2002-2005, they got 2% pay raises per year. That's pretty low (lower than inflation? I dunno, but maybe). The $1000 bonus is tough to evaluate - what that adds to the % depends on one's salary, of course.

-Arrian

[DanS]

A retirement age of 55 is extremely generous in our day and age where life expectancy is about 80 years old. Even 62 is extremely generous for most of the non-manual labor jobs.

The union continues to look like greedy bastards.

[Arrian]

To you, anyway. I agree their demands, viewed out of context, look bad. But you know that's not what they actually expect to get.

-Arrian

[Edan]

Originally posted by Arrian
The $1000 bonus is tough to evaluate - what that adds to the % depends on one's salary, of course.

From the link:

The workers now earn between $45,000 and $68,000 a year on average, including overtime.

So it's about 1.5-2%

Err, though I guess it depends on whether the bonus was one time or annual.

[KrazyHorse]

Almost certainly one-time.

[Colonâ„¢]

You know, and this may be a bigger issue in Europe than in the US, if you want to put a lid on traffic jams by encouraging the use of public transit, it will have to be necessary to provide some sort of guarantee to commuters they'll be able to reach their work-place every single day. Not that I want to forbid transit workers from striking, but this kind of stuff sort of telling commuters: "Please, we really want you to use our services, but do keep a car in handy because we might strike every now and then."

Not an ideal way to build trust.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Rent control is obviously not the only factor, but if you don't think it makes it more expensive for the rest of us you are an economic ignoramus.

I dare you to explain in what convoluted way slowing the rate of rent growth in some apartments all of a sudden spikes the cost of living. Please, go ahead. I am waiting for this tidbit, and the bit where prices would go down in landlords coulod charge market rate everywhere.

[GePap]

Originally posted by JohnT

On holiday discout fares that most riders have found to be a joke.

Did you not even bother to read the article?

45% of that overage is going to the workers!

And... there's also the fact that MTA overcharged New Yorkers by $1 billion... what's wrong with giving it back to the people you overcharged to begin with?

Wow... so, $100 million goes to infrastructure, $450 million goes to the workers, a bunch goes to the people that provided the surplus... and people still complain.

Whiny bints.

1. I live in the ****ing City- like I need to read some piece to know what public reaction is, fool.

2. The MTA did not "overcharge: by a billion dollars, nor do the stupid holiday bonuses equal getting that back. The system needs massive investements in equipment and in capital expansion. Instead of half assed holiday "bonuses" which most people do not take advanatge of, which mostly benefit non-residents whom are in no way more likely to take public transport because of them, they should have spent it wisely, and in ways which don;t look like a political slap at the union.

3. A very l;arge portion of the surplus comes from the share of real estate taxes the MTA gets, and those taxes have been much higher than previously forecast, which is why not only the MTA but NYC as well are seeing large surpluses. According to the City independent budget office the MTA has underestimated its income for the next several years by 200 MIllion a year, by taking an overly pessimistic view.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Colon
You know, and this may be a bigger issue in Europe than in the US, if you want to put a lid on traffic jams by encouraging the use of public transit, it will have to be necessary to provide some sort of guarantee to commuters they'll be able to reach their work-place every single day. Not that I want to forbid transit workers from striking, but this kind of stuff sort of telling commuters: "Please, we really want you to use our services, but do keep a car in handy because we might strike every now and then."

Not an ideal way to build trust.

It's a bigger issue in Europe. If this really gets out of hand in NYC (i.e., the city couldn't function), the president will just temporarily federalize the subway workforce and they would be back to work immediately.

I can't remember any threatened strikes on the Washington Metro. Since this is a federal city, and there are national security issues involved, I doubt a strike would be allowed.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS


It's a bigger issue in Europe. If this really gets out of hand in NYC (i.e., the city couldn't function), the president will just temporarily federalize the subway workforce and they would be back to work immediately.

I can't remember any threatened strikes on the Washington Metro. Since this is a federal city, and there are national security issues involved, I doubt a strike would be allowed.

What are you talking about? I don't see any scenerio in which the president would move to federalize the workers, and even then, I seriously doubt they would go back to work. There have already been two subways strikes in NYC, 1966 and 1980. The feds never did a damn. So I don;t know what you are talking about. These aren't air traffic employees.