I do not understand how a person can be "progressive" and anti-union.

To me this is like being a well-dressed nudist. It makes no sense.

I'd like to be charitable to DUers who are angered by the TWU's action and believe they don't have the facts. That would not be surprising considering how anti-union New York media tend to be.

The key thing to understand about this strike is that the MTA is trying to force a wedge between workers under this contract and any hired after the contract. They would not budge on their demand that future hires have different standards for their pension and health care plans from current workers. Essentially, they told the union they could be in the air but only if they didn't breathe. That's why we're having a strike.

Twice in the last 10 years the bus drivers have gone on strike in the Twin Cities. I have supported both strikes. I do not own a car and I rely on public transportation. I have walked to work IN THE COLD without grumbling because I support the unions. If it wasn't for the hard battles won by the unions, we wouldn't have ANY workers rights in this country.

"If it wasn't for the hard battles won by the unions, we wouldn't have ANY workers rights in this country. "

I've never understood, and never will, how so many people--not just wealthy, but blue-collar people--in the so called "right-to-work states" are so anti-union.

That's why the pay is lower in those states, and "worker's rights" is an oxymoron.

Bumper sticker (available from Northern Sun) which I've always liked.

WIthout unions, there would be no 40-hour work week, no overtime, and no health insurance, sick pay, significant safety regulations, vacation, etc, etc, etc.

Have you ever read the NY Daily News or Newsday? They're VERY labor-friendly, and, last I checked, the Daily News had the largest circulation of the 4 dailys in NY.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/376331p-319574c.html

Stop the strike dead in its tracks


The full weight of the law must swiftly be brought to bear on the Transport Workers Union for having the irresponsible lawlessness to shut down the transportation system that is New York's lifeblood. Gov. Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg must seek severe sanctions against TWU President Roger Toussaint, his treasury and, sadly, the 33,700 workers who were thrown off a cliff by their leaders.
Pataki and Bloomberg must ask a judge to:


Jail Toussaint and his bull-headed lieutenants.

Impose fines on the TWU that double daily and are large enough to bankrupt the union within days.

Hit every transit worker who walks with a penalty of two days' pay for every day out, as the law allows.
Then, Pataki and MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow must hang tough. There can be no amnesty for those who have broken the law, disrupted the lives of millions, jeopardized public safety and dealt a blow to the city's economy. There can be no making nice to extortionists.

;)

...or this thread will get moved to the lounge.

How 'bout some pics, for those of us curious what a well-dressed nudist looks like?
:hi:

their whole career (ie. postal workers, teachers, etc.) have taken advantage of every benefit negotiated on their behalf and claim to be staunch conservative republicans. I see it all the time and tell them they are hypocrites. Go figure

This one individual at work, on the issue of striking, says, "Why would you go up into somebody else's business and try to strike to make it better in your way?" The implication was it's his business, so he should be allowed to do whatever he wants with his employees. Then the thought occurred to me: "If he doesn't believe in collective bargaining or the right of workers to strike, why the hell is he in the damn union unless he is a freeloader?"

The point is an employer is nothing without his employees. Without his employees, he cannot provide a service or manufacture a product without the hands of his employees, and if he decides to abuse and exploit those employees to the fullest advantage, then it is his fault he drove them to strike in the first place. You either treat your workers well and have relatively few problems, or you don't and risk massive problems.

for the TWU to strike. I think they wanted the union to strike so the city would blame the workers and the union could be cracked open and broken. And sure enough, a lot of New Yorkers are angry at Roger Toussaint, while Peter Kalikow, who told a blatant lie last night and pretended that the MTA's plan is in the best interest of the workers, gets off scot free. But if the strike drags on, Kalikow may regret this plot.

and retirement program. . . . if so he should be down on his knees thanking the union and the labor movement as a whole.

But I also don't think it's out of line in this instance to be aware of and sympathetic to the fact that this puts a lot of people, regular working citizens in an extremely progressive and democratic city, in a very bad situation. There are working people who will lose paychecks if they can't get to their jobs or risk firing if they can't get to their jobs on time. I don't think it's wrong to at least aknowledge that this is the case and be sympathetic. There are reasonably a few more shades of gray to this situation than simply working people uniting against a big corporation filled with fat cats who want to screw them. I'm not saying they don't have a right to fight for what they want or that the city is not trying to screw them. And while I've seen a few people on here provide knee jerk anti-union sentiment, the vast majority of posts I've seen simply state that this is a more complicated situation than Union Good-City Bad as far as how this is playing out.

It's supposed to make the point that the bosses need labor, and they're making that point very well indeed.

By the way, the City has nothing to do with it. The MTA is a state agency.

That this is not a black and white situation and a lot of people are impacted adversely by this beyond the 2 parties at the negotiating table and I think that's all that a lot of people on here are pointing out.

In the 1930s, if a strike broke out, a great many workers who weren't involved would've simply said, "Good job, guys!" and would've found some way to adapt to the impact on mass transit, not attack their fellow workers for striking. Of course, back then we had street cars on rails all over the place before the car manufacturers bought them and then junked them.

Is going to be putting their job at risk by being late to work when there is a transit strike going on. From everything I've seen, read and heard, people are aware of what is going on, and aren't going to penalize people for being late because it took them longer to get to work.

And quite frankly, a two hour commute is nothing, at least not out here in the Midwest. We don't have the fine public transport system that NYC does, and in places like St. Louis, two hours is standard fare, and people deal with it everyday, get up earlier, carpool, etc.

Frankly I think this could be made much more effective if this TWU strike evolved into a general strike. Now that would really put a kink into management's plans.

That involves walking. Not always easy for everyone to do depending on one's health.

People have vehicles surely, carpool, bike, motorcycle, cab, etc. etc. I understand that this isn't something that NYers deal with regularly, but it really shouldn't be that big a deal:shrug:

Or people could simply call a general strike in sympathy with the TWU, shut the whole city down, and then you wouldn't have to go anywhere!

because I carpooled in.

Looking to pick up rides due to the four per car rule below 96th. Did you hop on one of those? Sounds like a great deal to me!

We work in Queens, not far from LaGuardia. Once we were on the Triborough Bridge, it was like a normal commute.

n/t

You can a) support the strike and the pressure this puts on management, or b) you can say "I like labor except when its a bother, then, I'm with management."

What good is a strike if someone is not inconvenienced. It is the exact thing a labor action is supposed to do. The prob with this today is that more people are worried about inconvenience than anything else, their personal life rather than that of others.

Now being a Leftist, as most people see it, is a matter of one's opinions on various social issues, cultural tastes, entertainments, preferred foods, place of residence, etc.

All that old stuff about the haves and have-nots is hopelessly old-fashioned and uncool. Welcome to the brave new world of the "Cultural Left."

:eyes:

Who are the "most" people who see "leftist" from that perspective? None of the leftists I know, anyway. No one I've ever met.

Proper liberals all until it requires some sacrifice from them--then they suddenly sound like plutocrats.

Read Richard Rorty's Achieving Our Country for a great discussion of the class vs. cultural left divide. It's a very important one, and seldom addressed.

Liberal and progressive unless it affects and inconveniences them. Just like the Conservatives who don't get it until something affects them directly, like stem cell research. Its when situations like this arise that you know who the true progressives are and who are progressives only to the point it doesn't inconvenience them in any way. Unfortunately we seem to have more than a few of them here. :-(

I believe you. I would simply point out that DU is not a "leftist" site; there are plenty of centrists and those from the right wing of the Democratic Party here. Seeing right wing talking points dressed up as Democratic opinions doesn't make them leftist.

I'll check out your recommended reading.

:toast:

these days. It's not as though capitalism is classless.

strikers, regardless of circumstances, the workers of this country will NEVER get back what they've lost. I live paycheck to paycheck and work in a "right to work" state, and I would love to see this happen...

doesn't mean that they are anti-union. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes"

You have noticed, haven't you, that that is in itself an absolute statement?

;)

and pro-workers rights.

every strike has affected not only the workers but the community around them -- that's not the point.

the point is that workers have the right to organize and to strike when mediation fails.

ALL workers should have this right.

including the workers hired in the future -- which is what this strike is about.

when this strike is over -- plenty of people who are not part of the transport union will benefit from the courage they show now.

to build it's Union Hall in Houston in 2000. The Unions have let America down in it's time of desperate need and I suspect they are dead because of it. I will not support a union anymore since they never supported us against this criminal administration... all we ever hear from them is silence unless they want more money....

anyway, union strength has been diluted for close to 30 years now . . .

Unions (including rank and file) have been consistently pro-Democrat in the Bush era. It's Democrats who have let the unions down.

current evil we are experiencing no.. They could easily stage a nationwide work stoppage until Bush* and Cabal are held accountable but they don't do shit. It is one thing to give a little money to a Candidate but quite another to effect change. They are the only ones in America that can realistically effect change. Look what the Nurses and Teachers did to Ahnold. Why couldn't the AFLCIO do the same? In fact they have done so little that they are disintegrating from disgust at how little is being done....They give little they should expect little in return...

I totally reject your premises.

Just because the Teamsters are RW and not the cleanest guys doesn't mean every single union or union worker is like that! Many, many unions and their workers have helped us.

SOLIDARITY!

Especially since labor has lost so many rights in this country. Hell, even having "right to work" states is disgusting.

If they did, they would demand them. Southern business interests have convinced the poor in the South that unions are bad since the Industrial Revolution, using post-Civil War prejudice and distrust of carpet baggers to demonize the idea with the entire population. What few unions that do exist in the South are relatively weak, ineffective and more of a dirty secret than a rallying force. Until this prejudice can be overcome, anti-union sentiment will continue to come from even those who have the most to benefit from union membership.

i've worked up north and down south, and it is like the difference between 1996 and 1956.

the smaller the town, the worse it gets.

Actively preach against unions. I have heard this myself. Plus, it's also part of Nixon's "Southern Strategy" - divide the workers by race, etc. And, sadly, it's worked.

and more yep.

Judging from some of what is posted here and on other boards.

But yeah, unions never caught on here as much as elsewhere. It has to do with the sort of cranky individualism one finds here, plus the communist ties of the early union organizers and the legacy of race.

The story is not as simple as some would have it, though. Miners organized here early on--my grandfather was a United Mine Worker in Alabama eighty years ago--and textiles and steel also organized.

I will never understand the GM workers I know who voted for **. Their union has provided them with the best wages and bennies of nearly any blue collar workers in this country.

It's the same with progressives bitching about strikes. I guess some folks are only progressive when it's convenient?

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every coloured boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
of the AFL-CIO board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
as long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New Republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the Democratic Party.
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

To me it's simple. Unions were created to help the working people have a decent chance at the American dream. I grew up in a Union household and am now a proud Union member as well. Striking is a last resort, nobody wants to lose paychecks, but without employees, there are no businesses. And if employees don't get paid decently, have vacations, and have health benefits, then they probably won't really be very good employees. Support our brothers and sisters in this strike against the NYC transportation system.

I've had the privilege of living in NYC twice in my life and support and respect the bloody history of organized labor. Those who don't might want to research some history on the way management used to treat employees. Examples that readily come to mind are the Pullman Strike and the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire. Factory towns and factory scrip.

I support unions, and the idea of giving people good wages for their jobs. I don't support the fat cats at the head of the unions who whip their members into a frenzy, into making really, really, bad decisions.

My recent knowledge of union actions include two things: A local teachers union that whipped their members into a frenzy to call a strike the day before school was to begin in our town. The contract did not expire the day before school, but the union honchos felt it was the most effective way to force the other side to capitulate. It really wasn't successful. It caused so much bad will against the teachers and the union, and they did get a contract, but nowhere near what they had demanded. In the latest union episode, I see transit workers walking out a few days before Christmas, and in the middle of brutally cold weather. I see people who have NO other means of transportation, people who make a FRACTION of what the transit people make, and the DISABLED and ELDERLY being endangered by the incredibly cruel timing of this strike. But.. isn't that what the union management specializes in??? In general, I support the unions, I despise the heartless and calculated timing of these strikes.

Anyone who wonders why more and more people in America do not support unions, you can look to strikes like this one, that will endanger lives, and cause those that make a fraction of what the transit workers make to lose their jobs because there is no transportation. If you think that most people will blame the other side for not agreeing to their demands, you're dreaming. Most people are swearing at the transit workers today... because that's human nature, to blame the strikers (even though it's not fair). Most hard working people who are walking 40 blocks in the frigid cold today are thinking that the transit workers are lucky to have a job this season and lucky that THEY don't have to commute. That's human nature.

Why, those corporate and government heads have done everything they could to help the workers! Including 40-hour weeks, vacations, breaks, banning child labor.... oh, wait a minute...

blame the workers for the mess we're in (on the news, I mean). No one likes to be inconvenienced--that's the point of a strike, isn't it? To show how much we rely on these people doing these jobs? But the strikers have made very clear that they really did not want to strike. They want to work. What they don't accept is the MTA's insistence on treating them differently from anyone the MTA hires after the contract is signed. If the MTA didn't insist on discriminating this way, there wouldn't be a strike. The MTA is trying to kill the union. The union is defending itself.

Union-busting is intrinsically reactionary, as is anyone who supports it.

Some unions have sold their members down the river. Some unions have leadership that is "in bed" with management. Some unions are very corrupt and have mob ties.

And, some unions are good.