NYC Could Face Transit Strike Friday

[GePap]

And if its not clear, a strike by subway workers is illegal under NYS law. Of course, no one is going to make workers go to work at gun point, but instead they would face stiff fines and possible termination, thought that is unlikely since replacing the workkers would be an even bigger mess.

[DanS]

Both 1966 and 1980 were under democratic administrations. In any event, I did not know that the NYC subway employees were forbidden to strike, which would seem to make federal action unnecessary in the first place.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DanS
Both 1966 and 1980 were under democratic administrations. In any event, I did not know that the NYC subway employees were forbidden to strike, which would seem to make federal action unnecessary in the first place.

God, I never knew you to be so pathetic a sincopant for the Repugs

And yes, it would be good for you to know what the **** you were talking about in the future. Basic research sort of helps, you know?

[DanS]

If I am wrong, I don't think it any shame to admit it.

It's a small detail anyway. Either way, it's illegal for them to strike, which was the answer to Colon's comment.

[Az]

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

Ok, a raise that didn't keep up with inflation. Now if we actually could go even farther back, that would be awesome.

[GePap]

An update:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/nyregion/nyregionspecial3/18cnd-mta.html?hp&ex=1134968400&en=d3344df39ad821b2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Transit Union Tries New Tack on Pensions
By SEWELL CHAN
and STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: December 18, 2005

In a move that could alter the shape of its deadlocked contract negotiations, the transit workers' union intends to file a complaint with a state labor board today, asserting that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority cannot legally insist that the union accept less generous pensions for future subway and bus workers.

Negotiators from both sides are expected to resume talks around 2 p.m. today. There is no indication that either side has moved from the positions staked out on Saturday, when talks recessed at about 11 p.m.

The union, Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union, said on Saturday that it would ask the state's Public Employment Relations Board to seek a court order barring the authority from making pension demands part of its final offer for a new contract. The authority, in response, dismissed the legal action as a public-relations ploy and asserted that both sides had traditionally discussed pensions in their contract talks.

If the state board were to rule in the union's favor on the pension issue - an outcome the authority insisted is doubtful - it could compel the authority to drop its demand for a worse pension plan for future transit workers. That demand, both sides say, is the main obstacle to a settlement.

The dispute added a new wrinkle to the brinkmanship that has characterized the last several days. The authority has said that it has made its final offer. The union has set a new strike deadline of 12:01 a.m. Tuesday for the whole transit system and another for 12:01 a.m. on Monday at two private bus companies in Queens that are being transferred to the authority's control. Union officials said on Saturday that they had asked the authority to put its best and final offer on the table by 9 p.m. Monday so the union's executive board would have time to consider it before the Tuesday deadline.

The union's president, Roger Toussaint, and the authority's chairman, Peter S. Kalikow, did not attend the talks on Saturday, held at the Grand Hyatt hotel. Each side offered competing interpretations of the day's events to the journalists who have transformed hotel meeting rooms into a round-the-clock encampment.

At 3:10 p.m., the authority's chief negotiator, Gary J. Dellaverson, said he was optimistic. "We're negotiating," he said. "The talks have not broken off. At this stage of the game, I would say talking is progress."

Three hours later, Ed Watt, the union's secretary-treasurer, was less sanguine during a brief appearance. "Both sides are in what seem to be intractable positions," he said. "As a result, these negotiations have only been exploratory and, again, there has been no progress."

A lawyer for the union, Walter M. Meginniss Jr., disclosed the union's plan to file a legal action. In an interview, he argued that the state's Taylor Law, which governs relations between government employers and public-sector workers, permits pensions to be discussed in a contract negotiation but bars either side from insisting on pension changes as part of its final offer.

The authority wants to require that new employees not be eligible for a full pension until age 62, compared with age 55 for most current employees. The pension changes would require approval by the Legislature. The authority, which technically may not directly discuss pensions at the bargaining table, is in essence demanding that the union agree to jointly petition the Legislature for those changes.

Such petitions, known as joint-support legislation, are a "permissive" subject of collective bargaining under the law, Mr. Meginniss said, but they are not a mandatory subject like salaries, wages and hours - the basic terms and conditions of employment.

"You can always push and push for a permissive subject, and the other side says no," he said. "What you can't do is go and take the last step - 'We refuse to reach an agreement unless you give in on this permissive subject.' "

Mr. Meginniss said a 1975 decision by the board, in a contract negotiation involving the City of New Rochelle and Local 273 of the International Association of Fire Fighters, supported Local 100's argument. In that decision, the board ruled that both sides "improperly insisted" that nonmandatory terms be included in a new contract.

In an interview, Mr. Dellaverson, said, "Everything that we're doing in the bargaining is totally appropriate and completely consistent with the history of negotiations between the T.W.U., Local 100, and the M.T.A."

Mr. Dellaverson, who is a lawyer, said the union's argument would apply only if either side were asking the state board to refer the dispute to a panel of impartial arbitrators. For transit workers, police officers and firefighters, the Taylor Law requires arbitration if either side files a petition stating that there is an impasse and the board then orders mediation that fails.

Mr. Dellaverson said that neither side had declared an impasse and said of the union's legal complaint, "This is a one-day press tactic, but it's not meaningful."

Mr. Meginniss said he disagreed with Mr. Dellaverson. "His view is that you only reach impasse when you go to an arbitration panel, and that's not true," Mr. Meginniss said. "When you take the position that you will not sign a contract unless it has a permissive subject in it, you are violating the Taylor Law. And that is the position they are taking."

It is not clear how the board will rule, and more important, whether it will rule in time to make a difference. The union has vowed to begin a strike at Jamaica Buses and the Triboro Coach Corporation tomorrow and a general subway and bus strike on Tuesday if no accord is reached.

Shadi Rahimi, Damien Cave and Michael S. Schmidt contributed reporting for this article.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by GePap


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.

One of many reasons (I'll keep it simple for you) is that people in rent-controlled apartments are able to take up more space than they otherwise would if they had to pay the market rate. This reduces the space available to the rest of us. Supply is decreased, so demand and price go up. This is simple economics 101.

[DanS]

Looks like a full strike is on.

[Saras]

They're all greedy cu*ts I wanna shoot them all with a rifle!

http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=1833&CAT=movies&NSFW=3&rtn=search-1833&Keywords=london%20underground

[reismark]

Pardon my French:

The Transport Workers Union are a bunch of ****ing greedy scumbags.

[Ming]

I love how the mayor instructed New Yorkers to just go about their normal day... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[The Mad Monk]

He takes the subway everyday himself -- he knows what he is asking of them.

[Caligastia]

I had no trouble getting in from New Jersey. There was zero traffic in the Lincoln Tunnel. With some of the major avenues shut down, and a bunch of traffic restrictions, Manhattan is like a ghost town right now.

[Dinner]

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.

There are two ways to look at this. The first is to divide it up between people whose rent is controlled and those whose rent is not controlled in which case the nonrent controlled people's rent most certainly is higher. The land lords are losing money on the rent controlled apartments so they try to make up the difference by increasing rent on the non-rent controlled apartments.

The second way to look at this is to take averages; I.E. the average cost of an apartment in NYC costs X number of dollars per month. I doubt this average is effected by rent control so you are both right depending upon how you look at it.

[Caligastia]

Well, we should probably stop the thread hijack right here...if anyone wants to continue the rent control discussion they should make a new thread.