If this surplus exists, how about from that?
Actually, one of the great things about the City is that the millionaires and billionaires do ride the subway and the trains. Lots of them do, at least.
You mean the $1B surplus from a one time Real Estate tax windfall that will be a $1B deficit in a couple of years? THAT surplus? The one where half the money is already going to fund pension benefits? How about some of that money going back to the riders who have had their fares go up every couple of years? How about spending some of that on service improvements and system upgrades? Some of the electrical shit down there is near 100 years old. Instead the TWU wants us to spend all of it on them.
I think the TWU looked at that surplus, and did that cartoon ka-ching where their eyes turn into dollar signs. Their jobs do not deserve 24% wage increases over 3 years, they do not deserve lowering an already early retirement age of 55. They are fairly paid already, and 3% guaranteed increases per year is nothing to sneeze at. They also get job security, cite the failed attempts of the MTA to remove conductors from some trains.
While millionaires do ride the trains, they will certainly have more options during a strike than your average joe.
D_odds You’re not too late, I’m a week early 
we don’t leave for NY until this Friday, 12/23. We’re visiting my in-laws over the holidays. My husband hasn’t been home over Christmas for something like 10 years.
Anyway, we kinda thought the Airtrain would still be running but thought the LIRR would be part of the strike if there is one. I’ll be way happy if it’s not.
The trip from JFK to the family home in LI is a breeze on the train. That’s what I’m hoping for.
I hope the MTA and the Union can come to an understanding. Can’t we just all get along?
The whole thing gives me a headache.
And this morning, MetroNorth, which has been promising it won’t go on strike, insinuated that it might. I imagine LIRR won’t be far behind. :rolleyes:
This is worth reading again. Why is it “just business” when companies do brutal things to get the most money that they can, but when labor organizes and tries to do they same we suddenly are singing a different tune?
Count me in. My husband and I are barely making $50,000 together, and we’re getting screwed tomorrow. We can’t get the time off (he can, I suppose, but he won’t get paid), and getting to work will mean an expensive cab. We’re both way too far from work to walk. Grrrr.
To the OP, keep in mind that only about 4% of Americans live in the Greater NYC area and that is being generous with the numbers. Lots of people tend to forget that. Most people are not focused on New York issues. It is just a fictional place where they set a lot of TV shows.
12,000,000 / 290,000,000 = 4%.
My son is with Metro North. At noon, this day, his Union rep told him to put on his ‘walking shoes’. LIRR also in the mix.
Well, most of you know my broadbush I like to use when it comes to unions. Some are decent, but the ones like MTU are what shapes my opinion. Age 50 retirement? If I could get retirement at age 50 I’d forego half my raises every year from now till then. Retired at age 50??? That’s most worker’s dream. Sign me up.
Now, based on the dependence of public transit in the metro NY area, do the Mayor or Governor have any authority in this? Remember when Reagan stamped out the air traffic controller’s strike due to the public good? Seems to me New York would be seriously hurting if the public trans system shut down. And I mean seriously hurting.
And they know it, so they think they can demand whatever they pull out of their asses knowing people are so afraid of losing the service they’ll give into any and every demand. Talk about an abuse of power. So are there any safeguards in keeping one of the most vital services to the citizens from being willfully interupted?
And just because I haven’t said it yet today, Fuck Unions!
Last I heard that asswipe Pataki was up in NH testing the waters for a pres run. He shouldn’t waste his time, he’s such a fucking loser.
That is a good point. If they have such a winning hand, then why don’t they ask for $100,000 a year and two months vacation a year.
If those demands would be blocked then how come the same mechanisms aren’t being used to crush this one.
I wouldn’t be a good public servant in a lot of ways but I would be good at busting unions. I don’t ever lose at games of chicken. I don’t really understand why governments don’t take a hard line stance on this type of thing. After you just fire everyone the try a strike like that, it starts to lose its appeal.
Fuck unions like a dirty whore begging to be smacked around and brutalized in ways till now unknown.
I will echo this sentiment. It’s not fair of anyone to fuck a lot of people over to get what they want/make more money. And yet there isn’t much of a fuss about businesses doing the same thing. Look, I’m not a New Yorker. I don’t have a dog in this fight. Yeah, it’s a shitty thing to do, but again, why is labor not allowed to organize and do shitty things when business is? And it also sucks that the most negatively affected people will be the working class of NYC, but again, I can point out the same thing - it is the working class who get the short end of the stick when businesses resort to shitty tactics and games.
It may be that the transit workers don’t deserve what they are demanding. In fact, they probably don’t. And I bet that they know it, too. Demanding way more than you actually need/want is a good negotiating tactic. Negotiations are about compromise, after all.
Eh, as I said, I’m no New Yorker, but this sounds like it pretty much sucks all around. Good luck, NYC dopers. I hope that this all gets resolved very quickly.
Has he made any statements on it? I admit I’m not following this very closely as it doesn’t affect me. And really, unless the worker’s involved are farmers or manufacturers my daily life will probably notice very little impact from a strike. I’ll still be able to eat between spurts of buying stuff. But I can understand the impact on Joe Schmoe not being able to catch a train to affordably avoid walking 10 miles to work.
I suppose I should have taken into account the Pres campaign. I can see Pataki wanting to distance himself a bit based on the heavy base of union workers in NYC. Politics do swing both ways in that a Republican has to be very careful about what he says when it comes to an issue like this. Much like a Democrat has to be careful in criticizing it. With no partisan angle, I’m also wondering what Clinton and Schumer are saying on the issue. They don’t directly represent the city, but the city is a big reason they have so much power. Again, I’m not following closely, so I’m genuinely curious what “The Other Side” is saying.
It seems to me that Bloomberg would be the one with the most weight in any government involvement in the issue. Has he made any substantive statements? (I’m sure he has, it’s just easier asking for the condensed version than wading through all the updates given every 2 minutes.)
Finally, any legal eagles care to offer what you know of the limit on the city or state government in blocking/circumventing a strike?
Seriously though, retirement at age 50? I’m on my 4th pair of drawers just dreaming of the possibility. Who’s willing to put us up for a month when I join that MTU and move out there?
I just want to know how firing the striking workers is a solution. One of the major reasons that a strike ican work is that, if the company DOES simply fire the workers, they are just as screwed when their workers were striking, except now they need to go through the process of re-hiring and training an entirely new workforce. So there’s one reason you don’t bust-up unions. For the record, by the way, I would regard you as a horrible public servant if you went about trying to take down unions.
I just don’t get it - corporations and unions are both organizations of people. There is a give-and-take between the employers (corporate managers) and the employees (unions), and it must be possible for BOTH sides to have the power to associate and negotiate. Otherwise, someone’s going to completely get the shaft; this is how it often was, in the past. So my question is, once again, why is it accepted as the cost of business that corporations may have corrupt dealings and leadership, and will fuck their workers over, and yet when unions resort to similarly brutal, cutthroat tactics to get what the workers want, the entire institution of unionization is suddenly open to attack and discreditation. When corporations do bad things, no one questions the system. Not so with unions - when unions do bad things it’s because unions are bad! It’s absurd, it’s ignorant, it’s unfair. No organization should be held to that standard - it’s impossible to reach.
Grelby, we get it. You hate Corporate America. (They’re workers too in many cases, but let’s just gloss over that.)
The reason people support unions is so the company can’t screw them. The reason people don’t like unions is because of what the MTU is doing. (Or the big UPS strike or the Northwest strike that fucked up my vacation.)
Maybe they’re both as bad? Either way, the average schlub is paying for it.
Where the fuck did you get the idea that I hate “Corporate America”? I am trying to make it as clear as possible that I have no (major) philosophical problem with capitalism, corporations or the free market. I was simply saying that I perceive a double standard with regard to corporations versus unions: corporations are allowed to misbehave without it reflecting poorly upon the system, while if unions misbehave, it is seen as indicative as a systemic problem. It is abundantly clear that this situation sucks, and that, on TOP of choosing to screw the people of New York City by going on strike at all, the MTU chose a particularly shitty time of year to do it in. Go ahead and condemn the MTU for this - there’s plenty of reason to do so. My point is that saying that this (and other examples of union action) demonstrate that unions are bad and evil and should not exist is roughly equivalent to deciding that, because Enron or Walmart (just giving a popular example, here) have done bad things, then corporations in general are bad and evil and should not exist.
Heck, you said it right there - people support unions so the company can’t screw them. But apparently most people would rather get screwed by the company than get screwed by the union. Why? I dunno. But it strikes me as absurd. It sucks on either side.
I thought that this was coming through, but apparently I hate Corporate America :rolleyes:.
I’m sorry for hijacking this topic into a discussion (read: fight) about unions.
Let me come out and be the first to say that I don’t necessarily want Bloomberg or Pataki right in the middle meddling away. Pataki however, has been a bit aloof with a lot of things, lately (9/11 rebuilding) and just seems to have his head in the clouds.
Well, the only good thing about having the gig that was supposed to start today fall through was that I don’t have to worry about getting to Manhattan tomorrow. If Metro-North goes out, I really have no way to get there–the express bus was taken over by the MTA last year, and its twelve miles to anywhere from here.
Took the subway today to do some banking and stuff downtown while I still could, and the stations were filled with knots of transit workers of all types looking nervously and talking. We’ll see what happens.
Grelby, it wasn’t a personal attack on you. More a comment to those that see Corporate America as the greatest evil to plague the Earth. It was just a bit more convenient to quote you in saying it. My point was for every evil that seems to show a need for unions, the unions come right back with a reason of their own to shoot themselves in the foot.