NYC Could Face Transit Strike Friday

[Edan]

The international arm of the Transport Workers Union is stunned and angry that its Local 100, representing New York subway and bus workers, turned down a contract offer from management and ordered its members to walk off their jobs, CBS2 News has learned.

Sources within other large public employee unions tell CBS2 reporter Marcia Kramer that the TWU's international leadership is considering taking over the local and seeking a settlement with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
Those sources say the upper level of the TWU thinks the MTA's latest offer is fair and worthy of further consideration and negotiation. They stand against a militant faction within Local 100 that pressed hard for a strike.

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_354094519.html

[Arrian]

Looks like a foolish move by the local union to strike.

-Arrian

[asleepathewheel]

My folks are spending the week in NYC visiting my sister (who lives in brooklyn) Whoops!

[reismark]

The revelation that the TWU parent organization isn't supporting the strike makes it clear that this is nothing more than a petty, greedy, arrogant for power by Toussaint and the rest of the local's leadership. I hope that they're (the local leadership, that is) all terminated with prejudice when this is over for forcing this upon us at the worst possible time.

BTW: Courts are going to fine the local $1 million for each day of the strike. It's a start, but they seriously need to add fines for the individual workers (say, $1,000 a day) to really drive the point home...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Caligastia


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.

Sorry, but I find that hilarious, sicne it does nothing to actually change the number of units in the system, which is a FAR FAR greater issue in terms of overall prices.

[GePap]

Originally posted by reismark
The revelation that the TWU parent organization isn't supporting the strike makes it clear that this is nothing more than a petty, greedy, arrogant for power by Toussaint and the rest of the local's leadership. I hope that they're (the local leadership, that is) all terminated with prejudice when this is over for forcing this upon us at the worst possible time.

BTW: Courts are going to fine the local $1 million for each day of the strike. It's a start, but they seriously need to add fines for the individual workers (say, $1,000 a day) to really drive the point home...

The international is afraid of the fines it might face- like they give a **** really about the local.

As for the Union demands, they have every right to fight a two tier pension system, which is what the MTA is demanding, since its a two year contract, maybe three, and the pension savings would not be seen within the life of the this contract.

I have been and will be greatly inconvinienced by this, but like hell I am going to say that we should foster this downward spiral for working people.

[Zkribbler]

The international arm of the Transport Workers Union is stunned and angry that its Local 100, representing New York subway and bus workers, turned down a contract offer from management and ordered its members to walk off their jobs, CBS2 News has learned.

The just doesn't sound possible.

(1) I'd be surprised at any local which would hold a strike without first obtaining a strike sanction for its parent organization.

(2) Even if the local did take such a precipitous action, I can't see the parent pulling the rug out from under it by (a) contemplating taking over the local or (b) letting the word leak out it was thinking about taking over the local, (c) doing anything to undercut the authority of a local in the middle of a strike or (d) second guessing the local on what is and what is not a fair offer by management.

(3) I don't know by what authority a parent union could take over the local. The only time when this has happened in my experience is when the local has become insolvent.

In short, to me this sounds like a management-planted story which is completely untrue.

[GePap]

Supposedly the International and Local 100 have a long running dispute. If the TWUI covers only US transit workers, then Local 100 has to be by far the biggest chunkc of it, maybe 25-30% of the whole union. That situation would be ripe for political disputes between the largest and mos influential local, and the main office.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by reismark
they seriously need to add fines for the individual workers (say, $1,000 a day) to really drive the point home...

Wow. It's almost as though you have no clue what the city can legally do and what it can't do.

[GePap]

The City and State have asked a judge to impose $1000 a day penalties on the union leaders, and the judge would have all the power to do so.

Today there was a column in the NY Daily News saying that the Local 100 leadership had taken out a 5 Million dollar loan prior to this as part of the warchest, and if this is true, they could technically strike 4 workdays (and finish the week before Christmas this weekend) without the Local going bankrupt.

The problem for the union, beyond the fines and penalties is that the public, which was generally supportive of their position vs. the MTA, probably has already soured, and every day this goes on as Christmas gets nearer, the Local will lose the public opinion war, specially since most workers like to make everyone else miserable like themselves, so since most workers now have 0 beneifts, they don;t like someone fighting to keep the ones they have.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap

Sorry, but I find that hilarious, sicne it does nothing to actually change the number of units in the system, which is a FAR FAR greater issue in terms of overall prices.

To remain fair I'd like to point out that rent control does indeed depress investment into new housing stocks since fewer developers are willing to invest in building new apartment blocks when their ability to profit from that investment is curtailed.

I'm not saying they should have a free hand and some sort of regulation needs to stay to insure that new constructions are designed to improve the lives of as many people in the community as possible. Instead of just making the high end units developers want to make they should be forced to also make affordable low end units as well. "You want your Luxu-Barge Towers? Then first build econo flats." Such pressure (I.E. the city council agrees to torpedo all of the developer's projects until he agrees to a certain percentage of affordable housing units.) insures balanced development. The old rent control model is asolutely broken though.

Watch any movie about the inner city filmed in the 1970's. Notice how so many run down and abandoned buildings exist? Rent control prices were set so low that land lords couldn't pay taxes, replace broken lights, or even repair normal wear and tear. The result was slum units which were virtually unlivable. If owners were allowed to make a reasonable profit which justified their intial capital expenses then they'd likely pony up the cash to fix things; and indeed as soon as the classic price controls were lifted then the development money came back. The bottom line is no one is going to flush good money after bad in a money losing apartment complex so we have to let owners make money if we want them to invest money.

[GePap]

The City is doing a variety of things to get more affordable apartments built. It will give tax breaks to developers who introduce a ceryain percentage of low and mid-income units into their developments- special zoning districts in which you have to include a certain number of affordable units.

Oh, and on this:

Watch any movie about the inner city filmed in the 1970's. Notice how so many run down and abandoned buildings exist? Rent control prices were set so low that land lords couldn't pay taxes, replace broken lights, or even repair normal wear and tear. The result was slum units which were virtually unlivable. If owners were allowed to make a reasonable profit which justified their intial capital expenses then they'd likely pony up the cash to fix things; and indeed as soon as the classic price controls were lifted then the development money came back. The bottom line is no one is going to flush good money after bad in a money losing apartment complex so we have to let owners make money if we want them to invest money.

I don't buy it for a second. There are plenty of owners who make small profits and yet they keep good buildings (the profits bieng what they make AFTER mandatory repairs), while there are other landlords that will charge someone $900 a month for some ****box and fail to have a super and never fix anything.

[DanS]

I've got no dog in this fight, but it seems like TWU can't win this one politically. Bloomberg looks like he's handling this about as well as possible under the circumstances, although this is just killing the city economically.

His thesaurus is getting dogeared, especially near the page containing the words "greedy" and "scumbags."

[SlowwHand]

I'm wondering, aren't there more unemployed people than there are transit workers? If I'm right, I don't think there's a problem.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by GePap


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?

Down boy! Or I'll get out the newspaper.