Real simple: Do you support the transportation workers strike in NYC?

Simple yes or no. Discuss if you wish. I am admittedly not there in NYC, so I have no first hand knowledge of the major issues or the disruption of business and services. But I have been to a few large Midwestern cities and can imagine the chaos if those workers struck for the right to a better life.

union. It is entirely the MTA's fault that there's no public transportation in NYC now.

This is what democracy looks like.

Thanks for this.

When they are not helping New Yorkers get to work every day, they are working to help our troops get home.

if they have a reasonable cause and the city refused to deal fairly. i support them.

that made one of its conditions that future hires be treated differently with respect to pensions and health care (they have to pay in). That's why the union is striking--because they don't want to break solidarity with future hires.

Solidarity!

fuzzy dice on every bus. I would still support it. Go Union.

That sounds like a terrible abuse of power.

I think the poster was speaking in hyperbole.
:toast:

I just strongly feel that workers have so little power as it is - they (we) should use what we have to the fullest. Workers need to be recognized and valued. So, yes, fuzzy dice was a joke - but the point was that I don't like hearing people place conditions on the right to strike, such as "Well, they already make $X, so why are they complaining?" Or, that workers (for example in the supermarket strike last year) shouldn't complain about having to pay for health insurance, when so many other people have to anyway.

The workers have a demand. They believe the company can meet the demand without hurting the company. The strike is justified.

& I live in New York.
Don't get me started. :)
Bloomberg spent more on his re-election campaign (despite being ahead by 20% the entire time) than the workers are asking for annually.

...I was a white collar worker and, on occasion, management.

That being said, I come from a Union family and I support Unions. I've never crossed a union picket line in my life and don't intend to ever start. GO transit workers!

Workers Of The World Unite!

it was a bad decision. The final offer last night before the strike was for a 3% annual raise, keeping the current pension plan but increasing the number of required working years by five years and a 2% increase in worker healthcare costs. I would not vote to strike when presented with such an offer, I would probably take it, but even if I wanted to hold out for more, I would not strike over it.

I think it is insane to make such a strike illegal since a strike is at the heart of the power of organized labor. Anyone who thinks a strike should be illegal because it inconveniences them does not understand the value of these workers and organized labor. Strikes are necessary when dealing with an unreasonable employer.

That said, the MTA offer is fairly standard to the payment increases, increased benefit costs and pension plans offered to other NYC civil employees. I believe the contracts agreed to by the cops, firefighters, NYC teachers, sanitation workers and plumbers in the past five years have been reasonable. The NYC teacher's union got a similar pay increase and a similar increased cost of healthcare. So did the cops and firemen. The first offer, a 5% raise over three years and 5% increase in healthcare with the elimination of the pension protection was a slap in the face and deserved a strike. But the current offer is not unreasonable.

Striking in the face of a reasonable offer dilutes the effectiveness of a strike and turns public opinion against you. I come from an old union family. We have ridden out a few strikes in my family, and its tough each time. Everytime my dad's or brother's union have struck, I supported it. The last time the plumber's union struck, it was to protect a 50-50 medical contribution when the city wanted to cut it to 80-20. That would effectively result in a $200 per week reduction in pay.

This MTA offer will still result in a net increase in salary, albeit small, after adjusting for inflation, cost of living and the increased medical costs. I'm all for fighting for more, but not with a strike. The first offer the MTA made justified a strike, the final offer does not. Thats why I am against this strike, not because it is an inconvenience or because it may be illegal, but because I think it will hurt organized labor in the long run. If I were on the unions board, I would have joined with the 25% of the union board that voted against a strike.

As I stated, I'm not in NYC and not real privy as to whats going on out there. Seems like a fair offer to me, but the stuff I have heard is that there is more to it than the raise, etc. Story is that the Transit Union members want discplinary procedures changed. But that being said, I'm still standing behind my fellow Union members.

But not every use of that right. I never agree with backing union brothers and sisters when they are wrong just because they are union. In fact, a union who strikes for a bad reason is no friend of unions as they weaken our cause. We are only as strong as our weakest link, and when a union abuses its power, it creates a very weak link. I will never cross a picket line when I beleive in what the union is fighting for. But I won't support a union who is going to hurt the cause in the long run.

In this case it is a tough call. PArt of why this strike was necessary was to challange the law making a strike illegal. The union needs to gain back their only real power, which is to strike. Otherwise, what good is a union. So I understand the benefit of this strike. But, if the MTA offer was fair, striking is not a good idea.

I have heard a little about the discipline issues, but it has not been widely reproted, so I can not speak to it. I also will agree that I do not know all the MTA proposal as no full text has been made public, just summaries of the offers and demands. BAsed on what I know, the strike was a bad call. I'm not alone either. 26% of the board, which is made up of the most die-hard pro union citizens that you can imagine, felt the strike was not a good idea.

it was a bad decision. The final offer last night before the strike was for a 3% annual raise, keeping the current pension plan but increasing the number of required working years by five years and a 2% increase in worker healthcare costs. I would not vote to strike when presented with such an offer, I would probably take it, but even if I wanted to hold out for more, I would not strike over it.

from
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/NY1ToGo/Story/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=55749

The union said the latest MTA offer included annual raises of 3 percent, 4 percent and 3.5 percent; the previous proposal included 3 percent raises each year. MTA workers earn between $47,000 and $55,000 annually.

Pension issues have been a major sticking point. The MTA wants to raise the age at which new employees become eligible for full pension from 55 to 62, which the union says is unfair.

That new wage offer just happened overnight. Up until then it had been 3% each year.
The required working years would be increased 7 years, not 5 years.And it is also significant that it goes from 55 to 62 given the conditions the transit workers work under underground. That is one of the points the union makes. Raising the retirement age that much for someone who is working in not so healthy conditions is a major sticking point. Hey, if you've got a cushy desk job like I do it would be one thing, but this is not a cushy desk job these transit workers have.

Also, do the math -- 34,000 workers asking for a 6% pay raise who make an average of $50,000 means an annual cost of $100 million -- or $50 million more than the MTA offer. Given the cost of the strike, $50 million doesn't seem like that much to me & I'm sure that's the way the union looks at it also.

I don't cross picket lines.

I'm going to abstain.

In theory, I support the union. I can't stand the MTA and support much of the union's stance.

In practice, I'm really pissed off that it took me 4 hours to walk to work in the cold, and that it's going to take just as long to get home.

I don't think those of you who aren't here in the city have any idea just how awful the reality of this situation is.

I live in DC and if the transit workers went on strike here I'd totally screwed- I'd be walking three hours at least to get to my classes at the university. It's a hard decision to make, but four hours in the cold is a long time.

We couldn't buy groceries for 3 months during the supermarket strike. My mom actually mailed us food. It must really suck not to have transportation that you absolutely rely on - try to stick it out for the workers though. Actually, the more you complain, the more it helps them, I think. People then notice how valuable they really are, rather than just "bus drivers".

.... because I had to go over to catch the Metro North train -- so instead of 5 minutes to the subway, it was about 40 minutes to the train and then standing for another 20 minutes.
If I had walked, yeah, it would have been 4 hours.

Where are you that you had to walk 4 hours? The LIRR is running (although I did hear there are really long lines -- why is that anyway? Some contingency plan! -- I suspect MTA of playing games with that), Metro North is running. Manhattan is only 15 miles from tip to tip.

I've got a some idea of the reality of the situation.

And I'm on the west, and it's on the east. So I had to walk all the way down, and then all the way over. And I stopped once to warm up and get some coffee. So that did, to be fair, add 20 minutes or so on. Plus I wasn't walking really, really quickly because my knee is bothering me. Under normal circumstances, I'd say it'd take me closer to 3 hours.

or up to Marble Hill and take the Metro North line down along the East River & then down to Grand Central. Even if you'r clear down around 175th, I think it would be quicker than walking straight south.
I live near the Cloisters myself & usually take the "A" from Dyckman. It only took me about half an hour longer than usual this morning.

I'll give that a shot tomorrow.

In any case, time to start heading home.

I don't believe they should be going on strike this time (I did support the last time which was about 15+ years ago I beleive in NYC). I personally do not know anyone that can retire at 55 with full a full pension and pay $0 for their health insurance.

On a separate question - what does it mean that its 'illegal to go on strike'. Is a fine the worst thing that could happen for the innocent workers? As long as they can't be fired by the MTA, I can see why they would go on stike for a day or so in order to get a deal. Good luck to them & hope it ends here soon!!!

I'm sick of people calling out pro-union DUers who think this was a bad use of strike power. The deal offered was fair. I would negotiate for more and utilize a partial sick out or a partial slow down to drive home the point if we were set on an increase in net take home pay, but I disagree with this strike. That does not make me anti-union. Also, the illegal strike is bullshit. They can and will fine the union and the employees. That law needs to go. It flies in the face of 80 years of union protection.

Or maybe they clicked "no" just because their Inner Trickster told 'em too.

I discussed with the original poster my problem with his choice of words. I clicked no not because of inconvenience or legality, but because this is a poor use of strike power. Still I clicked no because I want to be clear that not every union member supports this strike. I'm not a dickhead. I'm from a three generation union family. I've been on my brother's union board, I'm a lawyer for a small teacher's group that did not qualify for federal union status but still contracts as a group and I was a union worker until I graduated from law school. Now I do free legal aid work for low wage workers. I am happy to put my union credentials and lifetime support of unions on the line at any time. Just because someone disagrees with a union's choice to strike does not make me a dickhead. It makes me an intelligent pro-union citizen who hopes this union comes to agree with my position and ends this strike.

That's the only excuse I've been seeing against this strike, "I had to WALK! and it's COLD!"

Not like this action will undermine public support of unions and reduce any chance to overturn the anti-strike law, which was a goal for supporting this strike. You only strike when your demands are not being responded to with reasonable offers. Every demand has been discussed and increases have been made in the offer every step of the way. This is not a sprint but a marathon. The MTA keeps raising its offer, even after the last two were "final offers". Obviously there is more in there, but a strike wen other means have not been run is not the way to go. Also, this union has hung other unions out to dry several times in the past. I'm not ready to forgive and forget as easily as other. Though I suspect many who are engaged in support for the strike have no idea of the history behind the TWU and other organized transit workers.

Anyway, before a strike I always advise employing less extreme tools. That was not done here.

The subway is what makes this city liveable. If I spend 9 hours working, and 8 hours walking to and from work, that leaves me a grand total of 7 hours to get groceries, cook dinner for my family, and oh yeah, sleep. As I said in my earlier post, I support unions and theoretically support this one.

If you can't understand how bad this is for millions of working people here, particularly in the winter, then I have trouble seeing how you can call yourself a liberal, progressive person.

Check out my other posts in this thread. But to summarize, I believe the deal offered is fair and further negotiation using other union tools, such as a sick out or slow down, would have been the proper strategy. Strikes should be reserved for cases where management is not being reasonable. When this started, management offered a 5% raise over three years. They are up to 10.5% over three years, which shows management is negotiating in good faith. Even after they claimed their final offer was 9% over three years, they came up with another 1.5%. I know there is another increase on the MTA side, we just need to convince them to go for it. As for the demands on the healthcare costs and the pension, I do not think an increase of 4% costs of pension or 2% cost of healthcare is worth fighting over. The union has never challenged the 2% healthcare increase, probably because that is less than the national average and is the actual increase in cost for the benefit, the MTA is not making anything on that issue, so it is off the table and both sides agree. Also, the pension increase has seen movement. The MTA started with an increase in 5% for pension contribution and an increase in the age of pension from 55 to 62. They have dropped the increase in age and reduced the contribution from 5% to 4%. Again, this is a good sign that the union is working toward an acceptable deal.

So we are stuck on 18% over 3 years v. 10.5% over three years for pay increases and an increase in the pension contribution of 4% a year for 10 years. I do not see these as strike worthy numbers. The MTA offer is reasonable and I believe further union actions can bump it up. Strikes when presented with a employer who is negotiating in good faith are a bad idea and they hurt the public perception of unions overall. I'm not saying I would take this deal, but I would not use a strike here. There are other union tools to employ when management needs a nudge. They have worked so far. Strikes are the last report not the first resort.

They're not budging on their demand that present workers break solidarity with future workers. That is a totally unreasonable position.

What exactly is the demand that present workers break solidarity with future workers. Solidarity means that the best possible deal be struck for all employees. Obviously it would be unfair to ask someone with 2 years left to go to retirement to bear the same increased pension costs as someone who has not yet started working. This is not a demand to break solidarity, it is an offer that allows people near the retirement age to retire as expected and forces all employees with under 10 years to increase their contribution to one of the few "full pension" plans left. I fail to see how this is a demand ot break solidarity. To be honest, I think the 6% contribution to pension demand is a bit high. I think we can get that down to 4.5%, which is a great deal considering the retirement with pension age is still 25 service/age 55. I just would not use a strike to get that 1.5% yet.

You must be a lawyer. ;)

I still think the MTA is gunning to weaken the union every way it knows how--giving meaningless freebies to riders to get rid of an "unexpected surplus" just as contract talks were approaching was sheer coincidence, right? I have also heard that the TWU is the only public employees union being asked to make these concessions on post-contract hires. And furthermore that the amount of moneys being fought over amounts to $5 million a year, which everyone agrees is a pittance. If it really is a pittance, why can't the MTA fork it over until the next contract negotiation? Why should the union?

I'm a lawyer.

The free ride package was a brilliant PR move. I am sure the contract issue was on their minds, but the MTA needs to get more public support and a one-time surplus really has nothing to do with long term budgeting.

The TWU is NOT the only public employees union being asked to make these concessions on post-contract hires, assuming you are referring to the increased pension contribution. I've heard vastly different numbers than you. The difference on the 24% salary increase the TWU demands and the 10.5% offered is over $5 million alone, not to mention the pension costs. If it was only $5 million, let them split it, but I think you are mistaken on the figures.

two panelists on a NY1 roundtable on different sides of the issue agreed it was a surprisingly small amount, considering the acrimony over it.

We can agree to disagree.

But tell me, just what exactly constitutes IN YOUR MIND a "GOOD" use of strike power?

Maybe you can win me over with reason even though my emotions say you won't.

How about refusal to provide healthcare benefits when a company has enjoyed increased profits. A strike is a great tool. I have been involved in several in my career, both as a laborer and as a lawyer working with unions. I would love to get into Walmart, there is an area where a strike would help, but we can't convince Walmart employees to unionize (I have been involved in attempts in three stores so far).

If the MTA had not budged from its initial offer of 5% over three years, with an increased age of retirement from 55 to 62 and increase pension contribution from 2% to 7% and increase healthcare costs so that the new deal was a net loss of take home pay to the average transit worker, that would be a good use of a strike. But that was not what happened here. The union fought hard an got a reasonable offer, 9% increase over three years, eliminating the increased retirement age and reducing the increased pension contribution from 2% to 6%. After the threat of a strike that final offer was increased to 10.5% and the sanctions and availability of disciplinary actions were open for discussion. This is not the sign of unreasonable management. If you disagree that this is not reasonable, then we just have to disagree, but I think the MTA was clearly showing they wanted to negotiate. The union has yet to reduce their demand for 24% over three years.

A strike is used to fight unreasonable behavior, not to negotiate. You strike when negotiation is not possible. The MTA has displayed goodwill in continuing to offer more net take home pay and benefits. I do not believe a strike is the response.

I see your point. I might disagree about 9% over three years being a good thing, what with the annual inflation rate running at almost or more than 3% (sure makes MY "generous" 2% go far) But I can't fault anything else you've stated. More negotiation might have worked.

What's the main objection you're getting from the Wally World workers? do they think Sam's Kids really give a shit about them, or are they afraid the Union will rob them?

It is hard to predict inflation over a multi-year deal. We have a program that uses the past five years inflation and creates a trend, but so many factors can limit the succes of any model, thats its not worth trying. As inflation goes up, return rates at banks and other investments also go up, so the net cost to the individual is often less than the inflation number the MSM prints. True inflation takes in these and other factors, and is indeed getting close to 3%, but it drops whenever the fed raises the key rate, which I think they plan to do a few more times, so I hope we won't see true inflation go up much over 2% next year, but who knows.

I agree that 9% is not great but you speak the truth about your 2%. I doubt my take home increased 1.5% this year. With the inflation rate, I probably lost money. But the deal from the MTA is 10.5% and I think the break point is probably around 11.25%. Given the raises other similar employees get, that seems to be the going deal. I'm sure the union would take 12%, but they need to make a move, not strike in response to that offer.

Anyway, the Walmart PR machine is amazing. Do a google search and you will find more examples of Walmart destroying attempts to unionize. The usual PR about the cost to the employee being more than the weekly union fee is nothing, they actually send in union busters to meetings who are schooled at attacking unions. The union organizers are usually not prepared and even when they are, it sufficiently scares adn distracts the employees. Walmart could write the book (and sell it) on how to prevent unions.

a strike. Every state, city, business, etc. is struggling with paying for health care and the retirement of their workers. These issues are creating a major strain on our economy, and it is the fuel for outsourcing.


A national health care and pension plan would actually create a huge economic boom in this country as businesses would be alleviated of the burden and new businesses would form with far, far, far less costs.

How many of the giant middle class going into NYC today would trade their current jobs & salary for the offer made to the transit union???

Not every strike by a union is justified. Most I have supported....but not this one. I refuse to be a lemming & to just follow. Would a slowdown or a large sick-day be so bad to show that the union cares about us commuters at all?

The latest MTA offer included annual raises of 3 percent, 4 percent and 3.5 percent. I'm not sure how this is considered unreasonable.

The other two issues were pension and healthcare. The MTA wants a 2% increase in the worker contribution to healthcare and to raise the age at which new employees become eligible for a full pension from 55 to 62. The MTA also offered to allow pension eligibility at 55 for new employees if they contribute 6 percent of their salaries for their first 10 years of employment, up from the 2 percent that current workers pay. I'm okay with both of these. I would probably negotiate down the contribution to 4% of salary, since this money is not taxed it results in an annual reduction of take home between 2-3%, but preserves retirement at age 55, which is better than the vast majority of this country gets. It is a huge benefit that has a cost.

The union has reduced its wage demands to 6 percent a year, if the authority promised to reduce the number of disciplinary actions brought against transit workers. I don't like this. Change the disciplinary system or the structure of sanctions, but not the number of actions.

Anyway, given the status of the offers and demands, a sick out or slow down would be my choice.

how many of the giant middle class would be better off today if workers didn't cave to deals that were less than they wanted? I agree that no one should be a lemming and just follow - but I don't like the argument that since some people are worse off, no one should demand better conditions. If the transit workers could get a million bucks a year for driving buses, good for them. Why shouldn't they, as long as the business can support it?

Then there wouldn't be good salary and benefits to save, and then people would be saying they could get a crappy job anywhere so why have a union. You are a lemming, you're just following the same cheap labor conservative line that has destroyed the working class since Ronald Reagan.

I wish I could 'cave in' and retire at 55 & get free health care.

And the dying of the 'working class' has more to do with oursourcing using unfair & un-FREE TRADE than anything else by the trators in WashDC. Why build a factory filled with high-quality union workers when they can go overseas any pay someone 50 cents an hour and export into the USA for free???

And maybe you could. Unions are the ones fighting for better wages and working conditions overseas too. 50 cents an hour and government health care in a foreign country is always going to beat the labor standards here, union or not. We've been losing jobs overseas for 30 years, long before NAFTA or any other trade agreement. I was outsourced in 1980. You either stand for worker's rights, or you grovel for the crumbs.

Workers rights are one thing, greed is another.

Union jobs pay well, that's the whole point of a union and what they've gained over the course of 50+ years. So whenever they negotiate, it's almost always going to be from the position of having more than the general population. I don't know why the general population doesn't say to themselves, oh I could support my family with a union behind me too, but they don't. They buy into the cheap labor line and keep themselves in poverty. What's more, after they've allowed themselves to be thrown into one of these cheap labor jobs that requires them to use public assistance, they vote against the people that are fighting for the public assistance benefits too. We have a country full of brainwashed Reaganomic dumbasses.

Work slowdowns, temporary stoppages, pesky random flu viruses infecting half the workforce...I speak from experience when I say that unions have a LOT of options available to them that didn't require shutting the system down for days and disrupting the lives of millions of people. This type of behavior may get the city to cave over the short term, but only fosters resentment and anti-union feelings among the population over the longer term. It also makes people less likely to rely on public transportation (it loses its aura of depandability), decreasing ridership and making EVERYONES lives worse for the longer term.

IMO, a series of pre-announced temporary work stoppages would have been a FAR better route for the union to take. Strikes should be seen as the "nuclear option", and should only be used when all other bargaining tools have failed.

The employer knows that if a contract agreement isn't reached within a certain amount of time and negotiation, that workers will strike. So the company is as much responsible for not reaching an agreement as the union is.

Look, I'm not anti-union. I belong to a union, pay my dues every month, participate in chapter meetings, vote for our leadership, and regularly poke and prod co-workers into being more proactive within our union. Still, anyone with eyes can see that most unions really don't care much about public perception. They tend to view labor negotiations rather myopically...it's entirely employer vs. labor to them. Many unions seem to ignore the impact that their decisions have on the public, when that very same public is who they should be making their arguments TO.

The perception that many people take from these types of strikes is that union workers simply walk off the job whenever they're unhappy, and that they don't care about who they hurt in the process. No attempt is made to appeal to the publics sensibilities, and no attempt is made to soften the blow on them.

What the union SHOULD have done was engage in a series of escalating work stoppages. They should have done everything in their power to paint the MTA proposals as unreasonable to the public, and shown that the MTA was unresponsive to other types of coercion. Instead, we get to see images on TV of pissed off commuters complaining about union members walking off their jobs because their raises aren't high enough. The union involved here FAILED to properly frame their arguments to the public, and allowed the media and their employer to frame it for them.

I'm not saying that the union doesn't deserve their raise, or their benefits, or any other benefit that can be negotiated from the employer. I'm simply saying that their planning and tactics were extremely poor and that their entire approach to this strike has been flawed. A strike should never be the first form of labor action used when negotiations fail.

I agree. I think the problem is that those planning the strike as SO pro-union that they can't imagine anyone but corporations not being on their side. I think that a series of less severe tactics might just prolong the suffering for commuters though, don't you? I mean, would you rather have a month of no public transportation, or 6 months of really crappy public transportation? Wouldn't people get sick of the whole issue the longer it went on?

I would really like it if there were better PR. There should be more public awareness campaigns - at the very least they should make sure people understand what the issues are, so they don't think it's all about getting more money.

Inconvient?! Doesn't anyone take a fucking WALK anymore?!!?!?!

Illegal?! YEAH WELL SO WAS THE BOSTON TEA PARTY!!!!!!!!

Lu

Washington DC - 09/24/05

The MTA are a bunch of lying, crooked motherfuckers and anyone that lives here knows it. They don't deal with the PUBLIC in good faith much less their own workers. They can afford multi-million dollar renovations of MTA headquarters while raising fares and cutting service. WTF, man?

Sure it's inconvenient, sure walking to work in this kind of cold sucks (I stayed home today, just couldn't do it), but you know what? People have to start taking a stand. This is about more than the transit workers. It's about how under President Shinra Mayor Bloomberg the corporations are running amok in this town, and working people are getting more and more screwed by the day. I said it in the LBN thread and I'll say it again, it's getting to the point where only millionaires will be able to live here.

Of course, I walk to work so I am not that inconvenienced, but even if I was I would still support them because I belive in the rights of workers and I love to see Bloomberg sweat.

I do support the strike as I did in 1980 (in 1964 too young to be concerned). I carpooled and had little trouble getting into the city except for needing to start out earlier than usual.

The Taylor Law has left the union practically toothless. A very important point was made this morning on a radio show by a union rep. Most of those that work for the union cannot even afford to live in the city with the cost of living being what it is.

without fear of retribution. Given the venue and circumstances, a strike should be used in extreme cases. From what I have read, the offers weren't horrible.

Here in NYC its being reported that the national level of the Transport Workers Union Local 100 is trying to take over since they believe the MTA gave the workers a fair offer. Its nice that there's some smart people outside of the local leadership.