I don’t know if the TWU’s demands are being unreasonable or the MTA’s last offer was reasonable. There must be some level of mistrust on part of the TWU towards the MTA with respect to escalating pension costs. Why, if pension costs are becoming increasingly problematic, hasn’t the MTA worked closely with the union leadership in the past to forestall this type of scenario?
Instead of dropping the 6% contribution into the negotatiations at the last minute, why couldn’t the MTA work out an agreement with the TWU that escalating pensions costs need to be an ongoing issue to be closely monitored and worked on by both parties until the next round of negotiations for the next contract? If it’s such a huge issue, then it’s imperative that the MTA build strong working trust with the TWU in dealing with the problem. That way, when the next contrat comes up for negotiations, then the MTA is in much stronger position for asking the union for concessions (if need be). Both the MTA and the union will be working from the same page, so to speak. If necessary, bring in third and forth parties to assist in coming to some agreement on evaluating the pension issue.
Here’s something I don’t get - didn’t it occur to the MTA and the powers that be that there was the possibility that the TWU would elect to go on strike? Even though it is a clear violation of the law?
I agree that what the TWU is doing is illegal, but it baffles me that the MTA would risk such a possibility given the enormous consequences. Again, I suspect that there is a level of mistrust and/or bad blood between the two - otherwise, this scenario could have been avoided. Or am I missing something?
Okay - Now I’m pissed. My Verizon Project Managers are not going to able to come into work until after the strike ends. That leaves my regulatory projects (that had to be completed this calendar year - or we face huge fines) in the shitter. If I’m lucky, I won’t have to work Christmas Eve.
There is a lot of mistrust. The MTA leadership is, on a good day, incompetent. Usually you can add petty and vindictive to the rank and file. NYC’s mayor (the political figure with the most to lose from the strike, yet no authority over the MTA) can take the subway daily to work. Not so the heads of the MTA (including Pataki). Most would have problems even finding a subway station or a place to buy a metrocard.
That said, the TWU has a sweet deal, was offered a pretty good deal, but wants too much more. They might be able to win a war long on rhetoric and short on facts, but the facts portray TWU in a poor light.
Striking is the only effective weapon that labor has in it’s arsenal as part of its collective bargaining power. A union without the ability and/or power to strike is nothing but a shell. I’m of the opinion that government employess should be part of some civil servant system where they don’t have to part of a union and thus prohibit their ability to strike.
If unions are allowed to exist, then there will always be the possibility that they will take it upon themselves to use the most effective weapon in their arsenal to achieve their goals - deny their own labor power. To ignore this possibility is to ignore history.
[credentials] NYC is my hometown… I was born and raised there, and lived there 48 years. Over 25 years of that was spent in public service. [/credentials]
Here is my humble recommendation:
Immediately LOCK UP the union leadership. The Taylor Law and the contempt finding of the court allows this. Mike Quill (TWU President at the time) was jailed for taking the union out on strike in 1980. It got his attention.
Immediately FIRE all of the striking workers - and immediately grant amnesty and rehire any worker who reports to work at (Pick a time). While I am not sure of the legality of this, I am pretty sure that it could be done under the contempt citation (which is already fining them $1 million a day).
Anyone rehired is immediately rehired under the old contract. All benefits, assignments and seniority would accrue.
Gaps left by workers not returning would be filled by managers, supervisors, and anyone waiting to be hired on the waiting lists. I am not sure of the length of the waiting lists…but ALL public jobs in NYC have long lists of qualified applicants (by civil service test) waiting for years for these jobs.
If not enough workers come back (under #2) extend the Amnesty deadline.
Let the leadership out of jail after 30 or 40 years or so (I am in a generous mood, it’s the holidays).
"Mr. Toussaint has repeatedly ruled out arbitration as an option. Arbitration was used to end the city’s last transit strike, an 11-day walkout in April 1980.
“We will go to binding arbitration only over the dead bodies of our leadership,” Mr. Toussaint said at a rally Monday outside Gov. George E. Pataki’s midtown Manhattan office. “Nobody decides the contract for transit workers except transit workers, regardless of what the law says.”**
After the 1980 strike, the transit union supported the state’s binding-arbitration clause, but Mr. Toussaint, who was elected in 2000, has said he does not believe arbitration would give his members the best deal. The state’s binding arbitration clause applies to only three categories of workers: police officers, firefighters and M.T.A. employees."
What the fuck is the point of these laws and clauses if the Union can blithely disregard them at will???
The point of these laws, like most laws, is twofold:
Deterrence - obviously, this didn’t work very well this time. On the other hand, it has worked for many years (25 since the last transit strike in NYC) and with the other civil service unions over long periods of time.
A venue for punishment - it gives the government ways to punish those who break the law. See my post above demanding that the leadership be LOCKED UP.
When some are punished, others are deterred. Without punishment, deterrence is lost. Lock them up NOW.
This strike is fucking me over because I’m supposed to get on a plane Friday morning. And since I’ve got an 8-month-old baby, I want to guarantee that I’ll be able to get there by hiring a livery cab – unless I know I’m travelling at a time of day when I can easily flag down a cab.
That ain’t gonna happen this Friday, even if the strike ends right this fucking instant, so I’ve tried to hire a car. You want to know what’s available?
A STRETCH LIMO THAT SEATS 12.
Me and my baby are gonna start our Christmas holidays in style
If the TWU doesn’t think that pension costs are in the process of skyrocketing, then they . . . no, there’s no chance they’re not aware of the problem. If they claim otherwise, they’re lying. It’s not just the MTA, it’s every city agency, as the number of retirees is swelling across the country.
Isn’t that what they’re doing now? Do you have any reason to believe that the TWU’s response would have been different had the MTA tried to make these demands when the pension costs were escalating less quickly?
Now you’re cooking with gas. Boy, I can virtually see the problem being solved before my eyes. The bloated, corrupt city agency and the bloated, corrupt union leadership will agree to closely monitor the issue. In the meantime, we’ll do nothing about the (blatantly obvious) issue of pension costs, but that’s ok, because I’m sure both sides will see eye-to-eye the next time this comes up.
Yes, that’s true, but being taken for granted by the MTA is not grounds for stranding millions of citizens in an illegal strike.
I have no earthy idea what you’re driving at. Because the TWU was willing to break the law and hold the economy of the nation’s largest city hostage, the MTA should’ve bent over backwards to give them everything they want? My guess is that they’re already bending over backwards with the offer on the table: essentially an 11% raise for current members and a 7% raise for new members in a time of when costs are rising faster than income.
From the little I’ve read about Quill - he played his imprisonment like a fiddle. He used his martyr status as a public relations tool and cashed in his sympathy points with NY’ers to bash the MTA, Lindsay, city and state officials over the head. Lucky for the MTA, Toussaint doesn’t appear to be nearly as savvy - quite the opposite in fact.
In my neighborhood everybody is parking in the many bus stop spaces. Why the hell not? (Sure it’s still illegal, but…)
So glad I don’t HAVE to go to Manhattan; trouble is, I WANT to to take my Mom to a play for Christmas on Friday night. Maybe we can take MetroNorth but she hates the cold and I don’t want her to be standing outside too long. Dang.
I know, I know, compared to most people I have it easy.
As I understand it, the MTA, during last minute negotiations, put forth a proposal whereby new members were to contribute 6% towards retirement - in essence creating a two-tier system.
I don’t know - do you? It seems to me that the MTA would be on stronger footing regarding the pension funding crisis if they we’re more willing to work closer with the union on this issue. Say, allowing the MTA’s accounts be open for review. Bring in outside auditing agencies to get a clear account of the financial situation facing the pension. Or would than open a pandora’s box in revealing just how corrupt, venal, and poorly mismanaged the MTA really is?
This is bullshit - you mean to tell me that’s it out of the realm of possiblity that the two sides can’t come to an agreement to examine the pension issue in an ongoing manner (and bring in outside agencies if need be) to forestall a potential strike? Contracts can have provisions whereby two parties disagree on a particular matter to be addressed in an ongoing fashion (with outside parties involved) and to be resolved at a later date.
The MTA had it in it’s authority to continue past practices regarding it’s pension plan and to have it stipulated in the current contract that the issue was serious and needs to be examined by the MTA, TWU, and outside agencies in an ongoing fashion. I don’t see why the TWU would not be amenable in working with the MTA on this if it’s as serious an issue as everyone is making it out to be.
Well, then, does not the MTA share some of the blame in this issue? If not, why not?
IMHO, it is not about sharing blame. There are almost always “two sides to every story” and similar cliches. This is a labor/management issue which is supposedly to be resolved by collective BARGAINING.
TWU Local 100 crossed the line. They said in effect - we don’t give a rat’s ass about bargaining. we don’t give a rat’s ass about rule of law. we don’t care about the effects on our membership, or on 7 milllion NYers, or on the national economy. We are going to strike so we can show the world what big cahones we have.
Even their own parent union saying GO BACK TO WORK. Toussaint and company have NO legitimacy to stay out any longer. Either they go back to work, or they go to Rikers for a nice long rest. Its amazing how that waterfront view can raise their consciousness. Especially if they are put into the General Population.
Actually, the TWU has plenty of options other than a strike. They could refuse to collect fares, which would probably get the public on their side. They could put pressure on elected officials , who are the ones who will ultimately decide the pension issue. They could continue to work while negotiating after determining what they are willing to give up in return for having their most important demands met. Or they can strike, apparently all the while believing any fines will be waived once they go back to work, that they will not end up in binding arbitration, that if they do, the conditions imposed by the arbitrator will be at least as generous as the offers they turned down and that the MTA will not bring out its big gun and fire at least some people for striking. Before the strike the MTA’s goal was to negotiate a contract and keep the system running. Now there’s another goal- to punish the illegal strike enough to prevent another one.
Here, I’ll have to agree with you. It’s true that the TWU had other options available to them. I think by tabling the pension issue to be resolved at a later date with outside assistance working with the MTA would have been a good solution.
But I’d like to know why Toussaint felt he needed to push for a strike.
