I thought it was illegal for some public workers in critical jobs like transportation to strike in NY state. Can Bloomberg start firing them like Reagan did the Air Traffic Controllers? Will there be any punishment after the fact? Why do they (the union leadership) think they can get away with this?
Well, they may have to sell their Union Hall to pay the judge-imposed fines, and the City may file a civil lawsuit. They can’t fire them wholesale without severely screwing up public transit for a good long time, something no politician is going to risk. I think the mayor has said he’s not going to jail anyone for fear of making martyrs of them. The unions have a fair amount political clought, which will probably prevent the more dire consequences they could face. Basically they’ve got us over a barrel.
The MTA (not controlled by Mayor Bloomberg) could legally fire them, but practically, it would be very difficult to replace them all, and union pickets could continue to disrupt transportation regardless.
The union leadership thinks they can get away with it by expecting that they can get immunity from firing and amnesty from court-imposed penalties (and probably even back-pay for the strikers) included as part of the settlement once the MTA caves in (they hope).
It is illegal.
Funny the Union should call that excessive when estimate put the economic loss to the City of New york in the $100 million/day range.
Can the MTA really negotiate a court amnesty? I thought the state brings criminal charges. If the state says union leaders are guilty of violating the law then what can the MTA really say about it?
Whack-A-Mole:
IANAL, but wouldn’t the state only bring charges if there’s an official complaint? If the complainant (who I assume in this case is the MTA) declines to file a complaint or withdraws one already filed (as per a presumed settlement), what would the state do?
IANAL either but it was my understanding that the State brings criminal charges. A complaint is just that…a complaint. With the complaint in hand the State may then press charges but it does not need the complaint to do so. In many cases the complaint is needed to detail the supposed crime. If a man hits his wife in their house the State cannot do much without her written complaint against him. Without the State has no case to start from (as she essentially is refusing to press the matter and without her testimony the State would be hard pressed to prove its case).
However, in something like the transit workers strike everyone in the country is witness to what is going on. There is no “he said, she said” here. The State itself can be the complainant as it knows full well the details of the crime. As an example say a video camera at a bank records someone shooting someone and the person in the video is clearly identifiable. I am reasonably certain the State could prosecute the case in the absence of someone filing a complaint (the person who would do so being the dead person obviously cannot swear out a statement). So too, I think, it is with the transit strike. The State knows the crime is committed and everyone who is involved. It could hardly be more obvious.
That said I suppose back room negotiations could occur where the Mayor throws his weight around and convinces the State Attorney General to let it drop in the interests of restoring services. Personally I think that would be a tragic miscarriage of justice but it would not surprise me that such things happen.
Irony or prescience in Google Ads:
NYC Movers-Low Rates
Call for free estimate 800-440-0342 great rates for local & interstate
Personally I think they should take some of the $1M/day fine and reimburse me for what I’ve had to spend on cab fare, car services, not the mention my time for what has now become a 3 1/2 hour commute to work by way of the LIRR.
:wally
BOO HOO TWU
Probably a lonely European contribution to this thread…I’m amazed by the hostility and cynicism surrounding the strike. Nobody has yet mentioned the reasons for it, only the repercussions, which in itself demonstrates the necessity of industrial action.
Well, when even the International Parent union says go back to work…repercussions are all that matter.
See the pit thread for the reasons the TWU garners no sympathy.
GorillaMan, I was sticking only to the substance of the OP’s question. I fully support the right of the union to bargain collectively with the MTA, and they have every right to want more than what the MTA is offering. The strike happens to be illegal, and the OP wanted to know how the workers expect a (hopefully) favorable settlement to outweigh the consequences of their lawbreaking. That’s what myself and the others were responding to, not taking sides in the dispute.
Part of is also how seriously Americans take contracts. If you explicitly agree to not strike as part of getting a fairly well compensated, mission critical, public sector job, then turn around and say “Fuck that! I’m striking!” most Americans are not going to be particularly sympathetic, because you broke your word and you broke your contract and the promises you made to get the job.
Wouldn’t a union picketer interfering with the public or the public transportation be subject to arrest? And I have no idea what law they’d be breaking; although, the idea of freedom of movement come to mind.
GorillaMan, here’s a couple of interesting stories from the NY Times:
In Final Hours, M.T.A. Took Big Pension Risk
Union Leader Says Pension Issue Is Key to Ending Strike