NYC Could Face Transit Strike Friday

[snoopy369]

There was a bit of a monetary-raise type issue that they were fairly far apart on

[Az]

Originally posted by Edan
Something unusual about this strike, from what I understand, is that the main unresolved issue is pensions for people who haven't been hired yet. Which means that the strike doesn't benefit anyone who striked.

Imagine that, people caring for other people but themselves

That's the main weapon of management everywhere in these situations - let people who aren't hired yet take the blow. far more often than not, it works.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Az


Imagine that, people caring for other people but themselves

I wonder if the workers were aware that that was why they were going on strike.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


I wonder if the workers were aware that that was why they were going on strike.

Yes, they were aware that fighting for a single pension scheme, as opposed to having a multi-tiered system, is one thing they were fighting for.

The reason many will be angry is because it seems likely the two tier pension system will be off the table, but the workers might have to up their health care contributions. That will disgruntle many.

As for doing a "Reagan" and other such stupid ****, lets learn form history. In 1918 there was a strike at one of the then private subway companies. The workers got fired. A few weeks later a brand new, unexperienced motorman crashed his tarin, killing over 110 people, the worst accident in the NYC system EVER.

Lets figure out what 110 lives lost because the MTA "pulled a Reagan" is worth, over the $20 million in savings the MTA owuld have had over the life of the contract had their offer of Monday night been accepted.....

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Why not? The voted to illegally strike, didn't they?

I'd support the Reagan option of just firing them all and making sure they can't be rehired.

Just because it's illegal for them to strike doesn't mean it's wrong. Why is it that on economic issues, you always side with the rich against the working man? Striking at all by anyone in the old days was illegal. Were those trikers wrong just because they broke the law? The difference is that lawmakers have the ability to exempt themselves as employers from the rules they set for everyone else. Public employees should have the right to strike, just like everyone else. And if they have to break the law to assert their rights, so be it. Or was the civil rights movement wrong too because it broke the law?

As for Slowwmind's suggestion of hiring untrained workers to drive busses and trains . . . upi just have no clue!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
How hard is it to drive a bus?

It's exceedingly difficult to drive a bus in traffic.

[Az]

che: ideally, though, I think that some sort of arbitrage would be better suited for handling worker-government employer relationships. After all, there is a major difference between government workers and private sector workers.

[chequita guevara]

Ideally the people's representatives wouldn't be so stingy towards the people's servants and wouldn't give away the public treasury to their friends instead.

[notyoueither]

Bloomberg is giving away the treasury?

[Flip McWho]

Treasuries are always being given away. It's the current fad.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Why is it that on economic issues, you always side with the rich against the working man?

The average taxpayer of the city is hardly rich yet they're the ones who have to pay for all of this. These are public employees.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap

The reason many will be angry is because it seems likely the two tier pension system will be off the table, but the workers might have to up their health care contributions. That will disgruntle many.

I thought that was what the union was pushing for (or at least, where they were willing to compromise):

Sources said the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Transport Workers Union Local 100 are close to a three-year pact that calls for raises of 3%, 4% and 4% for its 33,700 workers.

The framework of the deal would require all workers to contribute toward health insurance, but would not change the existing pension plan or retirement age, sources said.

While health care costs would rise, retirees would see improved health coverage, sources said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/378014p-321151c.html

As for doing a "Reagan" and other such stupid ****, lets learn form history. In 1918 there was a strike at one of the then private subway companies. The workers got fired. A few weeks later a brand new, unexperienced motorman crashed his tarin, killing over 110 people, the worst accident in the NYC system EVER.

Which, agreed, was a stupid and dangerous thing to do. But Reagan had the ability of replacing the strikers with trained military personel.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It's exceedingly difficult to drive a bus in traffic.

For a newbie perhaps.

I was a city bus driver for a few years, and although it takes time to get used to the size of the vehicle, it eventually becomes like a part of you. Once you get to that stage it becomes a pretty easy job, traffic or no.

[Az]

man, you had the good life. why did you quit?

[GePap]

The deal reached with the MTA needs to be approved by the whgole union but as it stands:

Workers would get a 3% raise the first year, 4% the second, 3.5% the third.

They would begin to pay 1.5% of their income into their health plans

The pension system remains the same.

They will get Martin Luther King day as an official holiday.

There supposedly is to be a curb on what workers feel are excessive and vindictive disciplinary actions by supervisors.

No word yet on the status of the fines that workers and the Union have at this point been handed, which is about 40 Million plus total.