home

New York Transit Workers strike

New York City transit workers went on strike today for the first time since 1980. So far, chaos has been avoided. Many commuters just stayed home.

Bloomberg, who had predicted "gridlock that will tie the record for all gridlocks," put into effect a sweeping emergency plan, including the requirement that cars coming into Manhattan below 96th Street have at least four occupants. As he walked across the bridge, he smiled, admired the view and called the strike "outrageous."

Lots more pictures are here.

If you're affected by the strike, or have any great stories, here's a place to put them.

< Hiding in Darkness | Conyers Calls for Censure of Bush and Cheney >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 10:30:28 AM EST
    I love that they waited until AFTER Howard Stern's farewell show.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#2)
    by roy on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 10:46:54 AM EST
    I'm a fan of private enterprise, but it can't ramp up overnight. So right now, public transportation isn't a luxury in NYC, it's a necessity of life. If the strike goes for more than a couple days, people will start to die because they can't get medicine, ambulance service, maybe even food. All because the union blokes want cheaper health care and earlier retirement than the rest of us. I hope NYC hires scabs. Big crusty scabs.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 10:59:53 AM EST
    My sister is one of the many that is working from home today. I'm on the fence re: this strike. I'm all for workers' rights, but shutting down a major city tips the scale for me a bit against this particular strike.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#4)
    by theologicus on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 11:00:57 AM EST
    I lived in NYC during a transit strike that occurred in 1979 (I think). I had to hitch-hike from the Upper West Side down to Penn Station each day, and back again. What impressed me was how often poor people (or at least people obviously not well off) would pull over and pick me up, even in a car that was already crammed with 5 or 6 passengers. The strike created an unexoected sense of community in a city not always famous for its heart.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 11:36:35 AM EST
    Theoligicus: It was 1980 and it was in the Spring. I walked nearly two miles each way to the Woodside Long Island Railroad (LIRR) station. The LIRR is not affected by the strike and my goal was to take it to Penn Station, get the PATH train to New Jersey a block away and take it to New Jersey wehre I could switch to a train to the World Trade Center station. When I got there the line was about six blocks long. I asked a woman midway in line how long she'd been waiting. She replied that she'd been waiting an hour. I called my boss and he suggested that I work from home. Thank God for Citrix servers! This is a stupid strike. The national union stated in court today that they did not support the strike. It's all about Roger Toussaint throwing his weight around. I hope NYC hires scabs. Big crusty scabs. Yeah, and you can be the first one riding the subway with an untrained motorman and conductor.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#6)
    by BigTex on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 11:45:38 AM EST
    Workers need to have some power to bargain for themselves, otherwise the employers often times would simply treat them as indentured servants. However, the timing of the strike is insidious. Unions tend to strike near major holidays because it inflicts the most harm on the public. UPS pulled the same stunt about 7 years ago. Called a strike right before Christmas. The result was that the public couldn't ourchase what they intended to for last minute Christmas shopping ebcause the goods weren't being delivered, and some colleges didn't have books in tome for the beginning of the spring semester. The abuse of the public is what leads to dislike of unions. Both this strike and the UPS strike could have been postponed until Jan 5. The strike would have still happened, but the public would not have been harmed. The failure to delay the strike 2 weeks shows that the union does not care that it is hurting the public. WFIS, any orginazation that doesn't care if it hurts the public should suffer severly. This is a case where the Mayor should declare an emergency and order the workers back to work. If they refuse they should be imprisoned. They are not only intentionally harming the public, using the public as a pawn in their conflict with the government, but also putting the public health at risk. It's cold in NYC today. People will take ill walking or riding bikes to work. Ultimatly, the union does not care how many people it makes ill. They do not care about how much money other orginazations will lose. They do not care about other workers not being able to make it to work and losing their pay for the day(s) that they cannot make it to work. Ultimatly, the union is looking out for their own interest, and is willing to sacrifice the public as a pawn for their own gain. Why anyone would have sympathy for the union is beyond me. This is a chance for NYC to break the union's back. The strike is illegal, so when scabs are hired, it should be on a perminate basis. The striking members are doing illegal activity, that should be enough to teminate their employment. Forget the fine of 2 days pay for every day on strike, outright sever relations with the employees. Cast it as strikes are illegal, so the strikers quit. No severence package, no assistance of any kind. Then the city could file various legal actions. One to reclaim all the profits lost because of the strike. A second to recapture all the money public clinics will spend treating people who take ill by walking or biking to work. Then other businesses who have suffered losses could follow suit, no pun intended. This is a chance for the public to show how much they dislike being a pawn. That's not to say the union is totally at fault. This was entirely preventable. If the legislature, or Congress, would show an ounce of common sense and pass some sort of binding arbitration law to avert strikes none of this would happen. But the insidious timing tips the sacle against the unions.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 12:12:33 PM EST
    The result was that the public couldn't ourchase what they intended to for last minute Christmas shopping ebcause the goods weren't being delivered, and some colleges didn't have books in tome for the beginning of the spring semester. So no one considered using Fed Ex, DHL or any of the other numerous package delivery services? As for replacements, there are not a number of skilled train motormen hanging around looking for work. There will be no mass firings from this.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 12:17:13 PM EST
    Business here is a little slow today, but not dead. I guess some people just stayed home. The timing Tex? The contract is up, when would you prefer they strike, next year? The MTA has continually lied about their finances and refused to bargain in good faith. The city brought this on themselves. They are trying to break the TWU, so then can break the teachers union, the PBA, and all the rest. And the reason the national TWU isn't supporting the local is because they are afraid of Taylor law fines, nothing more. They need to plant some seeds and grow some balls. Toussaint is a labor leader the likes of which we have not seen in quite some time. He's got balls, is loyal to his members and won't sell out the next generation of transit workers. Every union member ( and most working people) in this city are grateful he took this stand. All of their futures are at stake. Transit workers owe the public nothing. They provide a service for compensation. When that compensation is no longer satisfactory to keep up with the cost of living, and the city refuses to offer a fair raise (which there is a surplus to pay for), they are left with no choice. If you can't get to work today, call the mayor and the MTA leadership, they are the ones at fault. Also, regarding the Taylor law, as Toussaint said yesterday at the rally, "If Rosa Parks had obeyed the law, a lot of us would be sitting in the back of the bus instead of driving them." I have nothing but sympathy and respect for the union.
    All because the union blokes want cheaper health care and earlier retirement than the rest of us.
    Actually roy, they are teaching us all how to get cheaper health care and higher wages. Organize. Workers have more power than they realize. Scabs? The city won't do it if they know what is good for them. Maybe people outside the city aren't in the know, but unions still have power here. If scabs were hired, you'd see sympathy striking in various industries. Then the city would see what a labor crisis really looks like.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#9)
    by Lww on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 12:22:09 PM EST
    Yeah, they look like greedy bastards to me....

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 01:29:22 PM EST
    Kdog, A plague on both of their houses. There's plenty of blame to go around. Local 100 of the TWU is waging this strike in violation of the law and against the wishes of the International TWU. While I have little good to say about the MTA, the TWU members who are MTA employees are public employees. If they are unhappy with the contract, then they should keep negotiating. If they're unhappy with their employer they can do what the rest of us do when we don't like our jobs - get another one. The TWU also doesn't want to agree to binding arbitration. What are they afraid of? Meanwhile, the young Latina who sells newspapers for a living in front of the 74th Street and Roosevelt Avenue station is probably going hungry tonight. I feel a lot sorrier for her than I do for the MTA employees on strike.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 01:48:38 PM EST
    I am very dissapointed with the comments i have found here today. Just because one is slightly inconvieneced the strikers are bad. How sad. How sad that these folks don't seem to understand what the strike is about. Read about what the union has asked for and what the MTA has offered. Would you not strike too? Unions should be suppourted not attacked. shame on you. I recomend Juan Gonzalez in the Daily News today. It gives a great view of what this is all about. The UPS strike was not a stunt either. Media does not cover union actions unless it hurts the business mans pocket. The just avoid the issue other wise. This is the perfect time for a strike. The public should stand up for their fellow workers not the men in suits that give us price hikes and lie about the amount of money that the MTA has in reserve. They have been cought before they seem to be now. Nothing greedy in getting a fare middle class wage to raise ther family in this great city. There is power in a Union!

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 01:55:00 PM EST
    Randy...What contract? There is no contract. That's why they are on strike, the city will not offer a fair contract. Other unions have learned working without a contract shows you are unwilling to sacrifice and strike, which gives the city all the bargaining power. That's why the FDNY got stiffed on their last deal. And I can't blame them for not going to arbitration. Why leave their fate in the hands of a third party? The workers have the power, they make the trains run. They are the ones dodging the third rail and the rats in the tunnels. Yes, other working people will suffer. That is unfortunate. I still say the city left the TWU no choice. The city has the "law" on their side, which is why they haven't negotiated in good faith. I'm with the outlaws on this one, because as I said, the law doesn't pay the rent.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#13)
    by Andreas on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 01:58:33 PM EST
    The WSWS writes:
    The strike, the first to shut down the city’s mass transit system in 25 years, pits transit workers in a direct confrontation not only with the MTA, but with the state and city governments, the Democratic and Republican parties, and New York’s ruling establishment of Wall Street financiers and corporate CEOs. It also pits them against the trade union bureaucracy. Demonstrating the treacherous role of the union hierarchy, the president of Local 100’s parent union intervened after the breakdown of negations to urge that the MTA’s takeaway offer be accepted and warn that the strike would receive no support from the international union. ... The walkout represents the biggest class confrontation in the US in a generation. The issues at stake are not peculiar to transport workers or public employees, but reflect the general drive to destroy wages, working conditions and benefits of workers throughout the economy, from the airlines to the auto industry.
    New York City transit workers defy threats and strike By Bill Van Auken, 20 December 2005

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#14)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:00:33 PM EST
    Yes, other working people will suffer. That is unfortunate.
    kdog, how about the grannies who are already suffering from high oil prices? The strike will surely cause additional hardships of food and health, perhaps even deaths among the elderly.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:01:49 PM EST
    ...should have read "high heating oil prices...

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:10:29 PM EST
    The contract that has been offered to them, Kdog. And I can't blame them for not going to arbitration. Why leave their fate in the hands of a third party? The MTA would also leave their fate in the hands of a third party. Are you familiar with how this works, anyway? It's been my experience that each side picks an arbitrator and the two arbitrators then decide on a third arbitrator. It's usually quite fair. In any event the TWU has also been clamoring for mediation (not the same thing), so apparently they are willing to at least invlve a third party. Stukuls, There's a senior citizen who lives in the apartment above me and who is homebound has a home health care attendant come in every day for her. She had to spend the day by herself, because the woman who works with her has not able to come to her job because of the strike. That's hardly an inconvenience for her.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#17)
    by Lww on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:27:44 PM EST
    If I only had my old Bronx ice cream truck I'd be makin a fortune right now. Some people will have a very,very Merry Christmas...

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:27:46 PM EST
    They're also striking in violation of a Court Innjunction that was issed the other day. Last I knew, it was stillin effect. I think that's the one fact that bothers me the most about the strike--it's in blatant disregard of a court order and thus of our legal processes.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#19)
    by roy on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:34:48 PM EST
    I'm all for workers walking out as a negotiation tool. They have a right to, if for no more subtle reason than not being slaves. I'm also all for firing people who don't want to do a job. If you can't find a capable replacement, maybe you're not paying enough and the guy you fired had a point. Unions screw with that in a big way. Sympathy strikes, for instance. It's just a way to pressure people to stick their noses into others' business. What does the plumbers' union have to do with the proper pay for bus drivers? Ditto hostility to hiring scabs. Unions have turned the simple act of paying somebody to do a job (which others aren't willing to do) into an offense. I'd blame business owners (or, in this case, the MTA) for accepting deals from unions. But unions have special legal protections that undermine business owners' authority. That makes it a lot harder for me to see a strike as the act of a victim class. Spoiled, is more like it. They think they're entitled to artificially high pay, generous benefits, and early retirement. They have the power to extract it. They hide behind protecting new hires, but they're just protecting their gestalt extortion scheme. That doesn't make them right. (I also think that fining strikers is unjust, again simply because they're not slaves)

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sailor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:49:09 PM EST
    Sympathy strikes are how labor shows a collective voice. If you are inconvenienced by a strike, blame the entity that refuses to allow a true living wage and health care. CEOs make millions (about 118 times what a worker makes), rich people get tax cuts, elected officials get health care. What do workers get? Their jobs shipped overseas, their retirement cut and their wages and bennies reduced. If you resent union workers because they make more than you then organize, if you resent union workers because they make less than you but make you late for work, STFU! (BTW, your job is next for 'offshoring'!)

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#21)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:56:43 PM EST
    Sailor, in this case, we have some - the elderly - who are not just "inconvenienced" by the strike, but it could well cause or exacerbate health issues and perhaps even cause deaths. Should they STFU?

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:57:38 PM EST
    ...btw, I'm a member, though no longer active, in two unions.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#23)
    by demohypocrates on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:00:15 PM EST
    Andrea,
    the general drive to destroy wages, working conditions and benefits of workers throughout the economy
    They want an 8% increase EVERY YEAR for three years. They want their retirement age cut by FIVE YEARS to 50 years old. These workers make a fair middle class wage, get a ton of benefits and get full retirement at 55. Puhhhlease, stop trying to turn this into some kind of class struggle. k
    The workers have the power, they make the trains run. They are the ones dodging the third rail and the rats in the tunnels.
    Turn off the violins. Most of them do jobs that a chimp could do and their jobs are far less dangerous than that of a firefighter or cop. And did you really liken these strikers fighting for the cherished right to retire at 50, to Rosa Parks. I'll let the commenters here marinade a while on that one. They break off negotiations, they ignore their own parent union, they refuse binding arbritration, they dont call for a mediator and... they break the law and strike. They use the cold weather and holiday season to extort a favorable contract from the city. Rats

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:07:52 PM EST
    Randy, it's not a contract until it's signed, the MTA made an offer. Please. I think you know what I meant. I can tell you that they won't beat the fines. They didn't in 1980, nor did they in 1966. There are no exemptions for the Taylor law. Arbitration in baseball is radically different than in this case. It worked to settle the 1983 Metro-North strike

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:10:42 PM EST
    read more about pataki and bloomberg and the state of the union: http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/powerplays/archives/002210.php

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:16:39 PM EST
    "sarc..as I said innocents will suffer." Well, since when we say "suffer" we're talking about the possible deaths of elderly folks, at least we know who you're willing to throw under the union bus.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#28)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:18:10 PM EST
    1 billion dollar surplus. The workers seem to be doing something right. A fair deal could have prevented all this.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#29)
    by roy on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:30:01 PM EST
    1 billion dollar surplus.
    Yeah, that keeps coming up. Since this is a government entity, I see the surplus as an indicator that The People are overcharged. Not that workers are underpaid. Some of the same people who saw Exxon's profits as evidence of overcharging customers, see the MTA's as evidence of underpaying employees.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#30)
    by Lww on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:40:25 PM EST
    A brother of mine is a supervisor in the TA(subway) he's non-union but he was union at one time. He's suffering from a lung condition that is directly related to his job. I have a great friend who drives a bus on 8th ave. Murderous job. Demo says chimps can do these jobs? Get off your high horse pencil pusher.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:41:13 PM EST
    Well, I'm not entirely certain (something that should be written a little more often around here), but I remember hearing that a large portion of that surplus came from the sale of some real estate.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:43:19 PM EST
    LWW, Isn't the MTA a closed shop?

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#33)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:45:48 PM EST
    Demhypocrates, These workers make a fair middle class wage, get a ton of benefits and get full retirement at 55. When I turned 50 the AARP started sending me applications. Do you have any links as to what the pension benefits are for the TWU?

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#34)
    by Sailor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:49:01 PM EST
    at least we know who you're willing to throw under the union bus.
    uhh no, it's who bloomberg is willing to throw under a bus.
    They want an 8% increase EVERY YEAR for three years. They want their retirement age cut by FIVE YEARS to 50 years old.
    1) provide links. 2) How many years did they go before an increase? 3) What was the average investor's increase in the past? 4) What pay raises did execs enjoy in the mean time? CEOs bail out of bankrupt companies with millions. Most every poor person in Alabama obeyed the Montgomerey strike. They walked to work, they caught rides with friends, the made it to work ho. The conditions changed.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#35)
    by Lww on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 04:27:48 PM EST
    RP, as far as I know my bro's management not union. Roy, stop with the Exxon analogies...it ain't flyin. Also, you believe in firing strikers but not fining them? Makes sense to me...

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 04:31:04 PM EST
    Allow me to walk you all through this. The MTA has filed a notice of impasse with the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB). The impasse procedures are defined here. Included in this procedure, once an impasse is determined (and I think that we're at an impasse here) is the following:
    for police, fire fighters, some transit, and certain other units, mediation is followed by interest arbitration
    What is "interest arbitration?":
    The final step of the impasse procedure for police, fire fighters, some transit and certain other employees, provides for compulsory interest arbitration. If the dispute is not resolved in mediation, either party may petition the board to refer the dispute to a public arbitration panel. In all cases, the arbitration panel is made up of: * One member appointed by the employer. * One member appointed by the employee organization. * One public member selected jointly by the parties, who serves as chairperson. Should the parties be unable to agree upon the chairperson, PERB will provide a list of qualified persons from which the parties must select the chairperson through an alternate striking process. Parties bear the cost of their designee and share in the costs of the public member. The panel may: * Hold hearings. * Take written and oral testimony and other evidence. * Upon joint request of the panel members representing the parties, refer an issue back to the parties for further negotiation. * By majority vote, make a determination and award which is final and binding on the parties for a period of time up to two years from the expiration date of any previous collective bargaining agreement.
    So whether Toussaint likes it or not, the likelihood of the matter going to binding arbitration once things came to an impasse was very high. Why, then, should he squeeze the public, cost his union millions as well as run the risk of having them lose their automatic payroll deduction for union dues? Just to look tough? Demohypocrates: 8% year was their initial request. I doubt seriously if it went anywhere. Also, they never wanted to lower the retirement age to 50. They wanted to keep it from being raised to 62 for new members.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 04:57:45 PM EST
    Funny how some of the same folks who get all lathered up over possible innocents being killed by the state via the DP cheerfully support possible innocents being killed by labor union strikes.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#38)
    by demohypocrates on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 06:09:29 PM EST
    Twas the night before Christmas and all through the town; Not a train was up running, they’d all been shut down. The turnstiles were locked and the stations were cleared, in hopes that Old Bloomberg would give them their share. The workers were nestled all snug in their booths; Where oft they're found sleeping, to tell you the truth. Toussaint wants their pensions to be like the cops' - you know, 'cause it's stressful announcing each stop. Alas, from the public arose such a clatter, Their leader seems not to have thought out the matter. You dumb, lazy morons! The people did cry. Pensions the same as the FDNY? It'll cost us a fortune, illiterate twits! The people weren't happy. In fact, they threw fits. There's strength in a union, or so they believed but not before Christmas - now everyone's peeved. It's terrible timing for stranding the masses; If Reagan were here he'd have fired your asses.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 06:13:31 PM EST
    It's terrible timing for stranding the masses; If Reagan were here he'd have fired your asses. I'll type this slowly so everyone understands: if you fire the MTA employees, you will have no one to operate the trains. These are jobs that require training. It would make a bad situaion worse. Don't be witless.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#40)
    by demohypocrates on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 06:38:14 PM EST
    if you fire the MTA employees, you will have no one to operate the trains.
    I know you are right but a guy can dream cant he. Che & Sailor, I believe the pension is 1/2 pay with continued full medical at 55. The MTA wanted to raise the age to 62, basically as a bargaining ploy. Their last offer was to continue to leave it at 55 but as far as I understand the union hasnt budged from an age of 50. The greatest source of contention is what the union wants from new hires. These proposals would not effect the workers on strike. They want employee contributions to health care - 2% and 6% for pensions. I looked for a definitive link but didnt find one. What I gave you is what I have gotten from a number of sources. To be honest, even though I joke about it, I have nothing at all against these workers. I know they have difficult jobs and take a lot of guff. I just dont like the fact that the leaders are holding the city hostage to gain bargaining power. I saw an ambulance today that couldnt budge, in traffic due to the strike, on Grand Avenue in Queens. I just wonder what happened to the person in that ambulance.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 06:42:02 PM EST
    I have seen nothing that indicates the union wants to lower the age to 50.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimcee on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 07:12:42 PM EST
    It would be a good idea to fire the greedy and easily misled TWU members. If they refuse to work, break the law, bring NYC to a halt they are only hurting themselves in the long run. The Taylor law is there for a reason and it should be used in this situation. A fine of 2 days' pay for each day they don't report and jailing for the leadership. If the Union doesn't like the law, tough, its a little late for that. The Reagan/PATCO kerfuffle is the perfect template for how to handle this strike. An Air-Traffic Controller's job is more stressful and exacting then a bus driver or motorman and the transition time from PATCO to the new controllers was surprisingly short and uneventful. The short-term inconveinence of the firings would be offset by the long term gains of 1) having people in the workforce that appreciate being paid an above average pay and perks and 2) sending a bunch of spoilt whiners into the private sector to learn how good they had it at thier last job. As far as the training aspect as for motorman, in many large cities: Paris, Cairo and Calcutta use fully automated trains on some of their lines. As far as skill level, in the last couple of years there has been a kid (he was 16 the first time) who stole and drove a subway train, made all the stops and no one noticed the difference. In otherwords, an untrained 16 yr old not once but repeatedly proved that the job of motorman hardly qualifies as skilled labor. Station attendant? And what skill is required exactly for that job? Do you have to prove that you can be more rude and careless than other applicants? Car Cleaners? Now we're in chimp territory. Fire them all and be done with it.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#43)
    by demohypocrates on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 07:21:23 PM EST
    charl, here is a link you hopeless skeptic. I wanted one from the Local 100 site but they are incompetents and dont archive what they want and what they are asking for. Curiously, they'd rather hyperlink to articles that make them look stupid. But, now, I think it is hard to get an article that doesnt make 'em look like fools.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#44)
    by roy on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 07:30:45 PM EST
    I have seen nothing that indicates the union wants to lower the age to 50.
    Fair enough, I for one have been lazy about linking. Here it is from the Christian Science Monitor:
    The city's Metropolitan Transportation Authority opposes a union demand to reduce the retirement age from 55 to 50...
    And here's six more sources, eh. The MTA wants to raise the age to 62, and increase the number of years of service to qualify. I don't know if they've proposed the compromise of leaving it at 55, but 62 is a pretty ordinary retirement age for those of us who don't use extortion in negotions. And we don't usually get pensions anyway.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 07:33:19 PM EST
    At the end of the day, the TWU let down the public. They could have worked without a contract -- they chose to abuse their power. The comparison to UPS is hard to make, in my opinion, as the public has an option to use other carriers. In this case, the public pays in two ways, through fares and through taxes. These workers are all but guaranteed their jobs unless they do something drastic and lose them. How many of us can say we have that? How many of us will have the benefits that these workers have at 55? How many of us pay NOTHING for our health insurance? Surely there is a reasonable wage increase to be made to these workers, but everything else -- they get more than most others, and they want more. The MTA is no angel, but the union just shot themselves in the foot by going on strike. At the end of the day, the question is, "Who at the union thought that the public would rally around them?" Are these the same people who thought the US would be greeted as liberators in Iraq? - James

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#46)
    by jimcee on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 07:39:27 PM EST
    Charlie, Charlie, Charlie, You must be new around these parts but you obviously have no fear of making a fool of yourself. Snarky is fine. If you have an arguement to be snarky about. You seem to just think that if someone doesn't agree with your rhetoric that they are deserving of your oh so ascerbic wit which is quite frankly at a freshman level. Welcome aboard! I look forward to your informed opinions for my reading enjoyment.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimcee on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 07:47:23 PM EST
    By the Bye Charles, What does Bushco have to do with the TWU/MTA strike? Or are you only programmed to play the 'six degrees of seperation' from Bush game? Hit the showers there sport you've run out of boiler-plate. That sloganeering needs a fine tuning. So what makes you admire the TWU so much? (No, you can't mention Bush, Iraq or stolen elections, just the strike.)

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#48)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 07:59:10 PM EST
    If you took a paid vacation, thank the unions. If you took a paid sick day, thank the unions. If you have health benefits, thank the unions. A safe work place, overtime pay, and so on and so on. These things did not exist 100 years ago for labor. How did labor get these things? Strikes. How soon we forget. How can anyone blame the TWU for not wanting to move backwards, like all the non-union labor in this country? Some of their demands sound unrealistic, but these are counter-offers to unrealistic MTA demands. Make a ridiculous offer, get a ridiculous counter-offer. A mere cost-of-living pay increase, coupled with a benefit give back, is a de-facto pay cut. I say again, the union had no choice, they used the only weapon they have.
    How many of us can say we have that? How many of us will have the benefits that these workers have at 55? How many of us pay NOTHING for our health insurance?
    It's there for the taking...unionize.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#49)
    by Sailor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 08:19:10 PM EST
    kdog, you forgot one thing; If you have children that don't have to work in sweatshops, thank the unions! (but, but, I went to college, and my kid went to college ....yep, thank the union ... unless you were born on 3rd base and thought you hit a triple;-)

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimcee on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 08:37:48 PM EST
    kdog, You are correct that unions won workers rights. In the 20's, 30's they were on the side of 'everyman' so to speak. I worked in a union shop for 13yrs as a skilled mechanic and they didn't protect the members much but it did give leverage at contract time. Some but not much. I was well paid for my work but nearly as much as a $41,000+OT+perks for a car cleaner/janitor. I worked many 48hr, 6-day weeks, mandatory OT, once for a full year and paid my dues directly from my check to the union. Those dues always went up after contract agreements and between dues increases and health care increases it was a wash. Did I mention that I used to work in a union mill? The mill closed last year because of costs. I left a few years before to work for myself so I missed that final 'benefit' that the IAM/AFL-CIO bestowed on thier members. Union greed only benefits the Union rarely the worker but I guess you would have to work in an industrial union enviroment to see the whole picture. Unions as they exsist now are like those prehistoric fish that turn up in the nets of the odd fishing vessel, rare. They are the ancestors of our work-life now, but do not resemble the the virtuous past they have dined out on for years. ('They could have been contenders!') Either way, Pataki should enforce the Taylor Law now and mean it. And I'll let Chuckie tell us what the White House thinks.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#51)
    by Sailor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 09:02:06 PM EST
    Ahh, the 'I got mine, now screw you' defense.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 11:15:50 PM EST
    sailor yep...jimcee is to labor rights what Clarence Thomas is to civil rights.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#53)
    by Andreas on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 11:28:01 PM EST
    The WSWS Editorial Board and the Socialist Equality Party have published a statement:
    The World Socialist Web Site salutes the 34,000 transit workers of New York City, whose courage in the face of draconian threats has provided an inspiring example of determination and solidarity to the working class throughout the United States and, indeed, internationally. The strike by transit workers is an event of international significance. Defying massive fines and even the threat of jail, the strike represents a direct challenge to a super-rich Wall Street elite that is accustomed to imposing its economic interests and its will not only on New York City, but on the world.
    The New York transit strike: A new stage in the class struggle 21 December 2005

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#54)
    by demohypocrates on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 03:17:01 AM EST
    a direct challenge to a super-rich Wall Street elite File that in the category.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#55)
    by demohypocrates on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 03:48:58 AM EST
    Andreas, I you go carryin pictures of Chairman Mao, ya aint gonna make it with anyoone anyhow.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 06:05:42 AM EST
    jimcee, a simple question. Why should the transit workers accept a regression?

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 06:10:13 AM EST
    I hope Pataki and Bloomberg fire every one of them and refuse to hire them back. New York is filled with people who would gladly accept the latest deal offered by the MTA. Hire them, train them, and let the strikers continue their whining on their own time.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#58)
    by soccerdad on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 06:41:45 AM EST
    And the reforms came...
    ROTFLMAO

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimcee on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 06:48:39 AM EST
    Kdog, A raise with concesions is not regression except to you and Ernest who are still imagining a Trotskist new order as you spout your dated 'Wobblie' rhetoric. Sailor, What part of the mill closing because of high operating costs don't you understand? The high NYS taxes? The highest in the nation utility costs? And perhaps the high cost of union labor? As far as Charlie Boi is concerned, you make me laugh out loud. I love absurdity and your nonsense is about as absurd as it gets. Please keep coming out from under your bridge as we could always use a good laugh.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#60)
    by Johnny on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 06:57:15 AM EST
    Is Jim the Indignant hinting that the reforms are done? What history shows us is this: the workers, barring any organization, will get the shaft. And the capitalists ride them all the way to the bank. History also shows us that workers striking are almost always universally reviled by wrong-wingers. Part of being conservative is looking at employment as a simple exchange of time for money (see one of the wrong-wingers quotes above). And the less money for more time is always better. So I have a huge problem with gov't telling workers when they can and cannot strike. And I can't believe wrong-wingers believe that is a good power for the gov't tohave, what with their staunch belief in the open market and all that. I mean,shouldn't we let the market decide? Or is gov't regulation of business only necessary when workers get uppity? (And to the a$$holes who say a chimp can do these guys job, what do you do for a living?)

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#61)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 07:04:14 AM EST
    Johnny, Whose history are you quoting? It doesn't sound very much like ours. Also, does your support of "free enterprise" include allowing those who do not wish to join a union that fredom, or are you a closed-shop, forced unionization kind of guy?

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 07:31:15 AM EST
    jpaul...the city tried hiring scabs during the BRT Operator strike of 1918. 97 people died when one of the unqualified scabs crashed a train. How little so many seem to think of the people who make this city run.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#63)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 07:33:08 AM EST
    jimcee...a 3% raise isn't really a raise. Housing is up, gas is up, heat is up. 3% is breaking even. Add a new benefit reduction, that's a pay cut no matter how you spin it.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#64)
    by swingvote on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 07:44:31 AM EST
    Kdog, I didn't say hire scabs and let them run the trains, and you know it (How little some people care about the truth when they have an axe to grind). I said fire the strikers, replace them, train their replacements, and let them run the trains. What part of "train them" are you pretending not to have understood? And here I thought you were one of the more honest commenters here. Oh well, truth is, you probably still are.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#65)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 07:59:51 AM EST
    jpaul...Fair enough. As you may have guessed, this issue has got me heated. Very few things lower than a scab in my book. How long will the training take? I'd imagine at least a few weeks, if not months. It would be faster to just offer a fair deal to the workers. I, for one, would be a little nervous getting on a train on the first day "trained" scabs were on the job. If the city hired scabs, it's quite possible we'd have a general strike on our hands in NYC. As I heard Toussaint said on the radio this morning, this should have been the easiest contract ever due to the massive surplus. But Bloomberg decided to try and politicize their contract in an effort to break or weaken every city workers union. And hasn't it dawned on anyone that if a multimillion (if not billion) dollar city economy is dependent on mass transit workers, maybe mass transit workers deserve a better deal?

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 08:03:00 AM EST
    charlie - We're way off subject, but..
    When's Kenny-boy up for parole? Have they even given up the pretense of prosecuting him and his like
    If you follow the news you would know that he goes to trial in January. The finance guy, who they nailed first, will be the chief witness against. And your comparsion is laughable. To be accurate you would have to say that Hitler punished the Jew haters. Keep insulting Charlie. You demonstrate your lack of knowledge so well. Give us some more sports cliches. I love'em. When I read your comments I am reminded of a cornerback doing a celebration dance after he has just tackled a wide receiver who just caught a 30 yard pass. et al - As an ex-IBEW, I know the value of unions. I also know that power corrupts. You can see the results.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#67)
    by swingvote on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 08:18:22 AM EST
    Kdog, Fair enough, but in my book the MTA has already offered a more than fair deal. It's time for the union to respond in kind instead of demanding it's version of reality be the only one that counts. I suspect we will continue to disagree on what constitutes a "fair deal", but we'll just have to live with that. I think a 3% raise, gold-plated healthcare, and early retirement with full benefits is more than generous myself. As for how long it might take to train new hires to take over this work: It will take as long as it takes, and I would suggest that it should be long enough to ensure that they know what they are doing. If that makes it inconvenient for the people of New York trying to get around, they will have the union members to thank for it. It's also worth noting that the parent union is not supporting this strike, which should make for some interesting infighting in the future. I guess solidarity isn't all it's cracked up to be.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 08:20:24 AM EST
    kdog - Sooner or later the value of the worker's "job" has to be logical and match their contribution to the company. As Iacocca pointed out, $25.00/hour workers can't sell cars to people making $12.00/hour. I think he also said there weren't any $25/hour jobs, but plenty of $16/hour jobs. Or, as TWA employees discovered, if you are in a competitive environment, you must recognize the position of the company. They didn't and TWA went under. The problem with government employee unions is that there is no competition to value their work against, so their worth becomes whatever they can wring from the government. And since government has no competition... Well, you get the idea. If the strike is illegal, the union should be de-certified and replacements hired. It is that simple.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 08:48:47 AM EST
    japul...I think you are right, we won't agree on what's fair. And I think the MTA and Bloomberg are chiefly to blame for the strike. Regarding the international not supporting the local, all that is is the international buckling under the fear of the Taylor law. They sold out their brothers, no argument there.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#70)
    by swingvote on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 09:20:43 AM EST
    Kdog, So you think that the union should operate outside the law? And that the people of NY should blame their elected representatives for the failure of the unelected union to abide by the law? Interesting argument, but I don't think the majority of New Yorkers are going to agree with you anymore than they would agree with the tax and fair hikes required to pay for the union's preferred compensation package. As I said above, I hope Pataki fires them all and the union is dissolved as a result. Then the people who are hired to replace them can negotiate on their own behalf. But that's just my preference. Enjoy the rest of the day folks. I've got to go get some Christmas shopping done.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#71)
    by roy on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 09:34:08 AM EST
    Re: new hires and training. Only some of the jobs require special training. Bus drivers require lots of training, but lots of people outside the MTA already have that training. Train conductors are more scarce, but the striking conductors aren't the only people in the world who have the training. So if the MTA wants to fire the entire union, they could recruit people who already know how to do the jobs. It wouldn't work immediately, but I have an unsubstantiated hunch that some basic service could be restored in a week. Re; this year's billion dollar surplus, let's also consider the massive projected deficits. And debt: "Next year, 17% of the entire MTA budget will go toward debt service, and that will grow to 21% by 2009". More details are easily Googled. The linked article attributes these problems to bad management, which is fair, but doesn't help the MTA fund higher pay raises, more generous pensions, or rising insurance costs. Since when is unprofitability a sign that workers are underpaid? Re: benefits cut as de facto pay cut. I haven't done the math on this, and welcome being corrected. But, since health care costs are rising, it's plausible that making new hires contribute toward health insurance is still a net increase in compensation. If insurance costs (made up numbers alert) go up by $1000 per year, and new hires pay $800 per year more than current employees, then new hires are getting more from the MTA than current employees do now. New hires would, however, get less than current employees will in the future. I wouldn't call that a cut. (Quick aside: does anyone know if the MTA wants new hires to pay 2% of their salary toward insurance, or to pay 2% of the cost of insurance?)

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#72)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 09:42:10 AM EST
    jpaul, the Taylor law is unjust. It takes away the only bargaining chip of the union. The fact that the union is disregarding the Taylor law doesn't bother me in the least. I disregard unjust laws everyday. They knew the risks and went on strike anyway, which leads me to believe they are in the right. "When we negotiated the last contract, the MTA cried poverty and we took a measly $1000 bonus instead of a raise that year. Then they announce a surplus. That was a slap in the face." - Alex Borrero, TWU member "When a company has a billion dollar surplus in the bank, it stands to reason that some of that should go to the people that put it there." - Derek Dorner, TWU member " Every time we strike, the MTA ends up opening a drawer and saying 'Hey, we found some money' Why can't they just open that drawer up front?" - Arthur Cleare, 88 yr. retired TWU member on the line in the cold with his brothers The union went without raises last time to find out the MTA lied about their finances. I say again, the workers had no choice. Look at what they are dealing with, a bunch of lying negotiators with a union-busting agenda.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#73)
    by demohypocrates on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 10:20:02 AM EST
    kdog, The Taylor law was passed because when unions which provide services which are critical to maintain the health and safety of the citizenry, people die. I have seen ambulances caught in the gridlock on some of the side roads here in Queens. People dying because union chimps want to retire at 50 is unjust.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#74)
    by peacrevol on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 10:37:13 AM EST
    mediation sounds like a good way to solve this...However, say an arbitrator comes up w/ a solution that the striking party does not agree with. They may be relatively unimpressed if you get my drift. They were willing to strike when it was illegal in the first place, who's to say that they wouldnt continue the strike illegally? If they decide they're going to fine/arrest/imprison/whatever those who are on strike, cant they just quit and move to Boston to work for their transit system? Also, penalizing someone for participating in a strike is not an easy thing to do b/c there is some degree of discontent between the strikers and scabs that has the potential to become violent...so you cant punish the individual workers fairly. So who do you punish if that is your solution? The big wigs? They too are most likely relatively unimpressed by punishment scenarios b/c they have the resources to fight punishment. From the workers' standpoint, it seems evident to me that these strikes are happenning about every 25 years (1966, 1980, 2005). This gives me the impression that the city is not keeping up with living expenses. They say that middle class wages are earned, but national average middle class wages are below middle class wages in NYC. Does anyone know the standard used to define the "middle class wages" that they claim? It seems to me that the only good solution is mediation that allows for punishment of those in charge of the strike but not the average worker. Though that is imperfect, it is the best solution at a time when a solution is needed...quickly...before we have a bigger mess on our hands than we can clean up.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 10:46:28 AM EST
    I have seen ambulances caught in the gridlock on some of the side roads here in Queens
    Blame Bloomberg and the MTA. The Taylor law was passed to take away the only bargaining chip transit workers have. It is an anti-labor law. If being a transit worker is a life or death job, and I agree that it is, then they should be compensated as such, no? The traffic jams you see are proof that transit workers provide an invaluable service. The TWU is ready to negotiate, it is the MTA hiding behind the Taylor law hoping the union buckles under the outrageous fines. Any deaths are on the MTA's hands. They are ultimately responsible for providing mass transit. If they traet their workers so poorly and with so little respect that they walk off the job, it is their own fault.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#76)
    by Johnny on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 11:05:12 AM EST
    justpaul, the history of america is full of examples of workers uniting and gov't/business forcing them back into submission. Remember the thugs Henry Ford hired to beat up strikers?

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#77)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 11:29:45 AM EST
    Yeah Johnny...Ford had his billy clubs, Bloomberg has his media smear campaign.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#78)
    by demohypocrates on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 11:48:56 AM EST
    If they traet their workers so poorly and with so little respect that they walk off the job, it is their own fault.
    They pay a feller $40k a year, full health, retirement at 55 to scrape gum off a wall or $50k to sleep in a booth and occasionally hand out Metro cards. These workers should be offering to shine the shoes of MTA officials while thanking them for the new contract.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#79)
    by Johnny on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:21:31 PM EST
    They pay a feller $40k a year, full health, retirement at 55 to scrape gum off a wall or $50k to sleep in a booth and occasionally hand out Metro cards. These workers should be offering to shine the shoes of MTA officials while thanking them for the new contract
    And there we have the fundamental difference, in a nutshell. Wrong-wingers believe workers should be grateful to the point of subservience to the bosses. Tell me, demo, do you offer to shine your bosses shoes? Do you follow him around and tell him how pretty he looks with his new tie? Some of us who respect the labor movement and those it reprsents feel that the bosses should be grateful they do not have to do the dirty work. As an aside, anyone know what kind of housing 40k a year grabs ya in NYC? I mean, it is all fine and dandy to toss around numbers like this, but what is the purchasing power of 40K in NYC?

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:21:55 PM EST
    If that's all they did demo, "scrape gum", then they wouldn't be missed. Get real. Think of the men deep in the tunnels dodging the third rail and the rats. The conductors and drivers who move millions safely and efficiently everyday. The highly skilled mechanics, etc, etc, etc. They threaten the train cleaner you think so little of with firing when he calls in sick a few days because he is undergoing chemotherapy. You think it's so easy...you do it.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:25:18 PM EST
    Finally, a group of working people took a stand and said we aren't going to move backwards. They are defending their quality of life with the only weapon at their disposal, their labor.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:32:38 PM EST
    You think it's so easy...you do it.
    See, that's just the point, Demo can't do it, only someone in the union can.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:45:35 PM EST
    I'd bet demo couldn't do it. If he could, he wouldn't be so quick to degrade and criticize.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#84)
    by Sailor on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:51:35 PM EST
    I would ask all to focus on the fact that the workers are now slaves. If they don't go to work the gov't will levy fines and/or put them in jail. Isn't not being paid enough of a penalty!?

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#85)
    by roy on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:53:10 PM EST
    So, for those of you supporting the workers, how should the MTA pay for the raises and benefits? The MTA is a not-for-profit organization, so any increase in expenses must be accompanied by an increase in revenues. And the billion-dollar surplus is not sustainable, as I mentioned above. I figure they can raise fares (taking money from other workers), increase subsidies from taxes and raise taxes (taking money mostly from the rich), mandate cost-cutting somewhere within the organization (taking money from whoever's wasting it), or go further into debt. Or, if you don't agree with me about the surplus going away, you can see these as refusing to reduce fares, refusing to cut taxes, and such. So which do you prefer, or do you have some other idea? And another: how did you calculate the correct compensation for the workers? I haven't seen any math backing up the claim that a 3% annual raise is unfair, or even that a de facto pay cut (after benefits are considered) is unfair. I'll admit I haven't done math to back up my own claims. I just have a gut feel that the salaries and benefits I've seen for specific jobs are artificially high. Plus the hunch that the strike is evidence that other people would be willing to do the jobs for less. (I've tried to all this as a non-snark but I'm not sure I was successful. Something about the Internet makes it hard not to take cheap shots at people.)

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#86)
    by Andreas on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 01:02:34 PM EST
    "demohypocrates" wrote: "I[f] you go carryin pictures of Chairman Mao, ya aint gonna make it with anyoone anyhow." Keep your insults in your brain. Maoism always was a deadend. Mao was a Stalinist and responsible for the repression against the Marxist movement in China.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#87)
    by swingvote on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 01:24:09 PM EST
    Johnny, So you believe that the already pampered TWU Local 100 members are the equivalent of the striking workers Henry Ford hired thugs against? I'm willing to bet Henry's strikers would have accepted a near $50K average salary, gold plated insurance, and early retirement and sang his praises to St. Peter when they died. Got any more examples that actually happened in this country? Kdog, I find it disturbing that you believe that the fact that people knowingly break a law and run the risk of the penalties, they are be default "right" to do so. By that logic, if Bush knowingly violated a law against, say, wiretapping Americans without a warrant, and he was willing to risk the penalty of impeachment for doing so, he would be right to do it and you would support him. Is that how it works? The Taylor law is intended to stop a unionized workforce from holding the rest of the city and its economy for ransom when it can't get its own way. And it's not as if they are being reasonable. 8% annual raises for 3 years and even earlier retirement is pure BS. And they know it. Problem is, then went too high with their highball and then refused to negotiate at all until it was too late. You might note as well that no one in the TWU Local 100 is being forced to work for the MTA. If they truly think they ar ebing treated unfairly, they are free to go elsewhere for work. As I said above, there are plently of people in NYC who would happily take the current deal the MTA is offering.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#88)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 01:30:45 PM EST
    jp, except that these New Yorkers you speak of aren't allowed to join union, so they can't take the current MTA deal. Unions, the classic "I got mine, you get yours."

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#89)
    by Johnny on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 01:35:36 PM EST
    Justpaul, give it up. You are backing anti-labor sentiment whether you like that thought or not.
    So you believe that the already pampered TWU Local 100 members are the equivalent of the striking workers Henry Ford hired thugs against? I'm willing to bet Henry's strikers would have accepted a near $50K average salary, gold plated insurance, and early retirement and sang his praises to St. Peter when they died. Got any more examples that actually happened in this country?
    What the he!! are you babbling about? The fact that Henry ford hired thugs to beat his striking workers or that it took massive labor demonstrations before the benefits we almost all take for granted became commonplace? So... you argue that the TWU workers are pampered? On what grounds? This is America, dingleberry, everyone is entitled to grab as much as they can in as short a time-frame as they can. or is that reserved for the owners? Or are you claiming this is all a myth? What country did this happen in? Just an aside, how much is $50K worth in NYC?

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#90)
    by Johnny on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 01:36:55 PM EST
    As I said above, there are plently of people in NYC who would happily take the current deal the MTA is offering.
    Snicker... So do you support the driving down of the wage base? is that the goal here? What is $50K worth in NYC?

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#92)
    by demohypocrates on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 02:08:20 PM EST
    Andreas, the Beatles line was meant as a joke, not an insult. Is calling Bush a chimp the only thing you guys chuckle at. Why are we limiting these workers to a 40 hour work week? People in the private sector tend to make more because they work more. Wow, what a novel concept. If you dont live well enough on 50k, work overtime, get a part time job, do something to improve yourself. Maybe the 'gimme a handout' sloths will learn that some day. Probably not.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#93)
    by demohypocrates on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 02:23:36 PM EST
    For all my inciting snark, I am really supportive of the workers (NOT UNION) in this mess. In fact my future father in law is a fine man I have great admiration for who drives a bus. This is an email he sent me. I thought I'd share. Honest:
    Good to hear from you. Toussaint is not my local's president. I am not in Local 100. The Queens and Staten Island Division are in the ATU, which also got fined today by the courts. Local 100 is running the show. I can't stand Toussaint, and I don't think our people are much better, but we are stuck with it. I am slowly going out of my mind. Sitting in the house all day is killing me. I am supposed to do picket duty, but I have no way of getting there. I would have to walk to Shea Stadium-picket for 6 or 8 hrs. and then walk home. I can't do that any more. I am very depressed about this whole mess. The politicians should have had this resolved in November. Everyone is getting screwed. All the Mayor is doing is adding fuel to the fire. I hope they resolve this before Christmas.
    He is a bus driver about to retire who makes betw. $75-80 bc of all the overtime he works. He is working so much because his pension is in large part determined by what he makes in the last 2 years of his career. FWIW

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#94)
    by BigTex on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 02:36:37 PM EST
    Kdog - a little thinking outside the box would solve the situation of untrained scabs. How many of the strikers are willingly striking, and how many are too afraid to go back to work? Issue a decree saying all who do not return to work by [insert date and time] are termed. This gives those who do not want to strike a chance to go back to work, and those who do get to fight to the bitter end. Both parties get what they want. Better still, there is less need for scabs, and what scabs are hired have the chance to be trained before taking the position. That way there is limites service, which gets the union back to the table. Had the union waited 2 weeks, and called the strike after New Year's then I'd be supporting them. But as it is now, the union is willingly sacrificing the public. They do not care about those who will take ill and die because of their desires, as such no sympathy for them. Some positions are important enough that you lose the right to strike by taking the position. Regarding the thank a union bit. 50 years ago, the strikes were necessary to get the concessions listed. Back then strikes were necessary. But now we have advanced as a society, and have alternate means of dispute resolution. Arbitration will settle the matter without harming the public. Both sides share blame for what's going on, but, the fact that the union does not go to mediation or arbitration places the balme squarely on their shoulders for the strike. Sounds like the government is doing it right for once. They tried to go the ADR route. The union is the one that is balking. Had the union gone to some ADR this would be over, and the union would have garnered respect from the public for using ADR as opposed top a strike. This could have been a win-win situation, except for the union's refusal to consider anyone else's needs. That's why I'm condemning the union. Not on the merits of their demands, but on their refusal to use ADR and willingness to sacrifice the public. They had different alternatives they could have used... they simply chose to sacrifice the public. As to the UPS comparision... you can't buy what's not in the stores because UPS striked and the other carriers haven't been able to take up the slack. Yet another example of if the strike had been delayed sentiment would have not been harsh, but the willingness to inflict harm on the public to get their goals is what draws the ire.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#95)
    by swingvote on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 02:58:34 PM EST
    Jonny, You can paint me any color you want, but that doesn't mean it will stick. I'm not anti-labor, dip head, I'm anti-union, and I make no bones about that. The unions did some good back in the day, but over the last 50 years their main impact has been the destruction of one industry after another through ridiculous wage and benefit demands. And your rant about Ford is still but one example Johnny. Got anymore, or was that claim just more smoke and mirrors? And the claim that everyone should just grab what they can is hardly good support for an argument about the workers being shafted. Sounds more like the workers are shafting everyone else, which is exactly what we are seeing in NYC right now. Kdog, I suspected as much, and I apologize for being overly tongue in cheek. But the fact that you believe a law is unjust doesn't give you the right to break it.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#96)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 03:24:02 PM EST
    I've been snarking a bit myself, rereading the comments. I know the union leadership aren't saints, and they are not blameless. But how anybody can think these workers are greedy, lazy, etc. is beyond me. "Do you really think I would be out here, with 7 kids, if I didn't believe it was the right thing to do?" - Victor Torres, TWU member I believe him. They had no choice. I think the people we need to fire are MTA management. They seem to be the incompetent ones, and in this day and age their skills (administation) are a dime a dozen. There are fewer and fewer people who can fix a bus or conduct a train. Management plays games with negotiations, thanks in part to the taylor law. "Thats all I can stands, I cant stands no more!" - Ralph Kramden, Gotham Bus Co. With all due respect to those whose opinion's I respect. I guess I'm out of the mainstream...again.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 03:33:46 PM EST
    No apologies necessary jp. You made a good point and forced me to clarify. I agree no one has the right to break the law, but history has proven sometimes it's gotta be done. I'm probably attaching to much importance to this particular labor action, but I truly see it as a turning point in the history of pensions and good blue collar wages. These things are dying in the private sector, if the public sector goes...our country will be worse for it.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimcee on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 04:29:17 PM EST
    A lot has been said here since this morning but I'll respond to some. Johnny, in response to your question about how those a$$holes make a living? Me? I restore oil paintings and thier gilded frames for museums and private individuals. I'm self employed and I have been a janitor amongst other jobs I've had in my life. Either way nice invective there partner it always helps win friends and influence people. Kdog, you have too much invested in the TWU. If this were a union representing an exploited group as they were in the past I would agree with you. Some past heros of the labor movement such as John L. Lewis who presided over the UMW under the Roosevelt administrations halted coal production and effectively closed many mills and depleted coal supplies that heated many homes at the time. Non miners lost thier jobs and couldn't heat thier homes because of the lack of coal. Roosevelt ordered the miners back and with a wink Lewis said sure. Of course the miners didn't go back and they caused widespread suffering and gained next to nothing in the end. Gallant? sure. Effective? Not really, most miners died of black lung before they ever saw improvements in thier lot but it did prolonged a devastating depression. The lesson is a union can be good but a union out of control is a detriment to all. So much for the collectivist ideal of 'in unity there is power'. Someone is always hurt. In the case of the TWU the average New Yorker pays the price of Toussaint's avarice and that is not good for the union movement. Charlie Boy, I've stopped laughing at your comments because I was raised not to make fun of the less fortunate. ;).

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#99)
    by Johnny on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 06:51:59 PM EST
    JP: Railway Strike of 1877 Carnegie Steel 1892 American Railway 1894 Lawrence MA wool mill 1912 Ludlow Colorado 1913 Columbia Coal Strike 1927 Little Steel Strike 1937 (Quiet zone in the middle of the century due to the gov't backing out of the anti-labor business) Las Vegas Casino Strike 1984 Thousands of smaller examples, too numerous to list actually. Demo: Good for you. A real self-starter. Kinda makes you feel special, huh? kdog: Thank you for perspective on the exorbitant sums these workers are demanding.

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#100)
    by Andreas on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 12:09:59 AM EST
    After imposing a daily fine of $1 million against the union, Transport Workers Union Local 100—an amount that will bankrupt the organization within days—New York State Supreme Court Justice Theodore Jones indicated that by Thursday he might impose the astonishing penalty of a $25,000 fine against each striker, with the amount to be doubled for each additional day on the picket line. This is a measure designed to turn workers and their families into homeless paupers. The transit workers already face severe sanctions under the state’s anti-labor Taylor Law, which makes public employee strikes illegal. The law calls for them to be penalized two days’ pay for every day on the picket line. Judge Jones also ordered Local 100’s lawyers to bring the union’s president, Roger Toussaint, and other top officials to his courtroom Thursday, warning that it was a “distinct possibility” that he would throw them in jail. These measures amount to state terror against a significant section of the working class of New York. They are comparable to the tactics employed by police-state regimes to crush opposition.
    New York transit strikers confront escalating attacks By the World Socialist Web Site Editorial Board, 22 December 2005

    Re: New York Transit Workers strike (none / 0) (#101)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 06:04:34 AM EST
    Johnny, So you really think that the TWO Local 100 members are the moral equivalent of the striking coal and steel workers of the 20s and 30s? I think it's safe to say your perspective is totally out of whack. None of them are being taken advantage of or denied a reasonable compensation for their efforts, and their benefits package is beyond generous. This isn't the Columbia Coal strike. It's a bunch of already pampered pin heads demanding more than their job is worth. And while that may fit into your "everybody grabs what they can" model, it looks to me like they tried to grab more than they could get, cried foul when they got called on it, and will now face the consquences of their choices. And I just love the whining about how the fines being levied on them are going to bankrupt them. They don't seem to care to about what their illegal actions are doing to other working class people in NYC who can't get to work now. Why should the average New Yorker care about them? You reap what you sow, and these guys are going to reap themselves right out of their jobs.