NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/20/nyc.transit/index.html They better get this resolved fast. I tried to drive in Manhattan once when I was there on vacation last year and it SUCKED!!! I can only imagine how bad it'd be with all those public transit riders having to drive in to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Word is down here that the NYSE and AMEX may not have enough people to open on time... stay tuned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iWiN4PreP Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Dam . intresting. thx for the post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Go Union! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Interesting stuff I didn't know about this... It is illegal for the NYC transit workers to strike. A walkout would be illegal under state law. Workers could lose two days' pay for every day on strike. The city is asking for additional damages against individual transit workers: $25,000 for the first day of the walkout, doubling each day thereafter. The city is also seeking damages from the union of $1 million for the first day, doubling thereafter in a similar pattern. Police overtime alone would cost $10 million a day, the city says, since officers would have to maintain order in the streets. Also I have read that the economic fallout is estimated to be about a half a billion dollars a day, and would be borne mostly by the working poor who predominantly depend on mass transit as their only possible mode of getting to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 The MTA is also offering a raise that would entirely be eaten up by increased pension contributions. The main sticking points appears to be pensions - and my guess is that the MTA caves by Thursday. The MTA wanted to give 3% pay increases over 2 years, the TWU wanted 24% over 3 years (8% a year). They settled on about 10% over three years. The TWU also had some very specific concerns regarding employee facilities in the Subway system, and concerns regarding security - and was faced with an MTA plan to reduce the number of conductors and move toward one employee operation of subway trains. They also are eliminating conductor booths and cutting station staff - despite specific terrorism concerns which are addressed by having employees milling around the stations. Apparently all of those concerns were met and now the entire deal is hinging on pension contributions. By law, the MTA can not insist on pension agreements to complete a contract (the same law which makes the strike illegal). Since the pension stuff is governed by the state legislature, all the MTA and TWU can do is request the legislature to make these changes to the program. The MTA is apparently asking the TWU to make requests to the legislature regarding future pension payments as a condition for the contract. The TWU is saying no. Apparently, that's the big sticking point. All this while the MTA is trying to decide what to do with a billion dollar surplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 08:21 AM) Go Union! I say fire every last one of them. Reagan did it and we are able to fly today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Join the rest of the world... I haven't seen more than a 3% raise since 2000. At the sametime my insurance costs have tripled. In terms of real dollars, not including inflation even, it took me until this job I just started to be making more than I was in 2000. From what I read the big sticking point with pensions was raising the age that you could collect them from 55 to 62. Also it doesn't sound like that surplus will last very long from what I was reading FWIW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 You have to have 4 people in your car to get to Manhattan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(mreye @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 08:54 AM) You have to have 4 people in your car to get to Manhattan. I just heard about the mandatory car pooling.. are they like not letting them cross the bridge if they don't..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 It's only lower Manhattan below 100th or so I believe and that's just for rush hours. There's an inspection point on the West Side Hwy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 08:57 AM) It's only lower Manhattan below 100th or so I believe and that's just for rush hours. There's an inspection point on the West Side Hwy. Wow.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 09:47 AM) Join the rest of the world... I haven't seen more than a 3% raise since 2000. At the sametime my insurance costs have tripled. In terms of real dollars, not including inflation even, it took me until this job I just started to be making more than I was in 2000. From what I read the big sticking point with pensions was raising the age that you could collect them from 55 to 62. Also it doesn't sound like that surplus will last very long from what I was reading FWIW. The MTA has agreed to leave pension age alone as of their last offer at about midnight last night. The sticking point is regarding pension contributions. The MTA wants that tripled. The TWU doesn't. I understand that a lot of people have it worse with regard to raises, but there are reasons why people unionize, one of which is to increase their bargaining power. If they weren't union, they wouldn't have a contract at all. A conductor starting on the MTA gets approximately 42K a year if I remember correctly. Although that may seem great for a lot of people, keep in mind that its hard to find a studio apartment anywhere in NYC for under 1000 dollars a month. I live in suburban New Jersey, and find it impossible to get by on my own at under 35K a year. My rent is 900 a month for a one bedroom. And that was a great deal and took four full weeks of searching to find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(Rex Kickass @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 10:03 AM) The MTA has agreed to leave pension age alone as of their last offer at about midnight last night. The sticking point is regarding pension contributions. The MTA wants that tripled. The TWU doesn't. I understand that a lot of people have it worse with regard to raises, but there are reasons why people unionize, one of which is to increase their bargaining power. If they weren't union, they wouldn't have a contract at all. A conductor starting on the MTA gets approximately 42K a year if I remember correctly. Although that may seem great for a lot of people, keep in mind that its hard to find a studio apartment anywhere in NYC for under 1000 dollars a month. I live in suburban New Jersey, and find it impossible to get by on my own at under 35K a year. My rent is 900 a month for a one bedroom. And that was a great deal and took four full weeks of searching to find. I don't have any problems with them wanting more money. God knows that why I had been looking for a job for 3 years plus. Them looking for an 8% raise kinda blew me away, but looking at how quickly they came down really said that was just a negotiating ploy to me. What I do have a problem with is them going on strike. It is illegal, flat out. Its not like these guys are working for someone that doesn't really affect anyone else. When the transit workers go on strike it is the working poor who cannot get to work, not the middle class and higher who either have cars or know someone who has a car to get a ride with. There is a reason this is illegal, and it serves as a bad example for a vital group. What if the NYC police or firefighters decided they didn't like the raise they got offered and went out on strike? I know that example is a little more extreme, but the same idea. The transit workers provide a vital function to NYC and its greater metro area. As I said earlier they are estimating a net loss of nearly half a billion dollars a day by this illegal activity. Just for perspectives sake, one day of this strike would cost enough for the bridge to nowhere that everyone is so upset about in Alaska as an example of extreme waste. I don't have a problem with the workers trying to get what is best for them. Capitalism works both ways as far as I am concerned. I have a big problem with an illegal activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 This is 25 years of resentment bubbling up and over, and its not just the conductors and subway/bus workers pissed. 30% of taxi drivers aren't reporting to work today in sympathy because the city is asking them to break the strike by acting like busses. The Metro North Railroad division of the TWU is seriously considering walking off as well because of similar issues they're having. From what I'm reading about this strike, the sticking point that led to it is the MTA insisting that pension negotiating points with the state be a part of the contract. That's illegal under the same law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 I'm not normally a huge union guy, but good for them. Those people should get their money, they work hard and are VERY important to their city. Hopefully it's resolved soon, I have been to NYC and that place without public transportation.....yikes that is bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSouthSider59 Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 Sure glad i don't live there! I'll take my 3 cars and L.A. traffic ANYDAY! Hope they get it resolved soon......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 10:21 AM) I don't have any problems with them wanting more money. God knows that why I had been looking for a job for 3 years plus. Them looking for an 8% raise kinda blew me away, but looking at how quickly they came down really said that was just a negotiating ploy to me. What I do have a problem with is them going on strike. It is illegal, flat out. Its not like these guys are working for someone that doesn't really affect anyone else. When the transit workers go on strike it is the working poor who cannot get to work, not the middle class and higher who either have cars or know someone who has a car to get a ride with. There is a reason this is illegal, and it serves as a bad example for a vital group. What if the NYC police or firefighters decided they didn't like the raise they got offered and went out on strike? I know that example is a little more extreme, but the same idea. The transit workers provide a vital function to NYC and its greater metro area. As I said earlier they are estimating a net loss of nearly half a billion dollars a day by this illegal activity. Just for perspectives sake, one day of this strike would cost enough for the bridge to nowhere that everyone is so upset about in Alaska as an example of extreme waste. I don't have a problem with the workers trying to get what is best for them. Capitalism works both ways as far as I am concerned. I have a big problem with an illegal activity. The police do strike...it's just not called a strike...it's called the Blue Flu. They don't all go out, they have a certain percentage call in sick. As for today's strike, it had to be a pretty horrible situation because you know the TWU knows this is illegal. NObody WANTS to go on strike, but sometimes it's the only way for the workers to be heard. Affect everyone, and you are heard. I have a friend who lives on the Upper East Side and works downtown...he walked to work. Long walk, but he said it was a nice walk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreye Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 They showed a little kid on the news. He said, "We should do this more often." I had to laugh and agree whole heartedly with him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 This isnt' the first time this has happened...in 1980 there was a strike that lasted 11 days. I don't think it was in the dead of winter though. I've got a guy I went to college with who I think will be walking like 10 miles today unless he can get a ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 09:21 AM) I don't have any problems with them wanting more money. God knows that why I had been looking for a job for 3 years plus. Them looking for an 8% raise kinda blew me away, but looking at how quickly they came down really said that was just a negotiating ploy to me. What I do have a problem with is them going on strike. It is illegal, flat out. Its not like these guys are working for someone that doesn't really affect anyone else. When the transit workers go on strike it is the working poor who cannot get to work, not the middle class and higher who either have cars or know someone who has a car to get a ride with. There is a reason this is illegal, and it serves as a bad example for a vital group. What if the NYC police or firefighters decided they didn't like the raise they got offered and went out on strike? I know that example is a little more extreme, but the same idea. The transit workers provide a vital function to NYC and its greater metro area. As I said earlier they are estimating a net loss of nearly half a billion dollars a day by this illegal activity. Just for perspectives sake, one day of this strike would cost enough for the bridge to nowhere that everyone is so upset about in Alaska as an example of extreme waste. I don't have a problem with the workers trying to get what is best for them. Capitalism works both ways as far as I am concerned. I have a big problem with an illegal activity. Just for the sake of discussion, what if a law was passed making all strikes illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 02:31 PM) Just for the sake of discussion, what if a law was passed making all strikes illegal? I don't think that would pass consititutional muster to be honest. It is one thing to declare a vital group unable to strike. Like i said earlier, I really don't think I want to see someone like police officers or firefighters walk off of the job. But it is quite another to say that Wal-Mart greeters couldn't go on strike. I guess my point is there is a reason the strike is illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(YASNY @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 01:31 PM) Just for the sake of discussion, what if a law was passed making all strikes illegal? A provision included in that law should state: Strike at your own risk. You may not have a job to come back to. By the way Bloomberg sounds like he actually is a Republican and has a pair. He just said that no negotiations should take place until the union stops their strike. The city should not reward illegal behavior with negotiations. right on BLOOMY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 01:39 PM) I don't think that would pass consititutional muster to be honest. It is one thing to declare a vital group unable to strike. Like i said earlier, I really don't think I want to see someone like police officers or firefighters walk off of the job. But it is quite another to say that Wal-Mart greeters couldn't go on strike. I guess my point is there is a reason the strike is illegal. Judge just fined the union 1 million dollars a day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted December 20, 2005 Share Posted December 20, 2005 QUOTE(Cknolls @ Dec 20, 2005 -> 03:04 PM) Judge just fined the union 1 million dollars a day. ouch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.