Transit Strike

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]
vroom wrote:
Hey, maybe I can slip in the middle here and stir things up?

First, why can’t the workers demand whatever the hell they want? It’s not like anyone is forced to give it to them. Do we all have the “right” not to be inconvenienced while contract negotiations are taking place? Do we all have the “right” to public transportation?

Second, these workers are taking a risk. They might be fired. They might be replaced – similar to being fired depending on if they can return. The public may end up hating them and backing the city when it denies them anything for decades to come.

Third, is it the workers fault if they are able to ass-rape the city and get unreasonable wage or pension benefits? I mean, who is going to turn down getting plenty of wages and pension benefits? You’d have to be crazy not to ask for that, wouldn’t you?

Haven’t we heard people arguing that anything legal, within the law, is a perfectly valid activity until and unless there is PROOF of wrongdoing? How come it is different in this case because a union is involved instead of some politician?

Isn’t your hatred of unions forcing you to be hypocritical in this respect?

Finally, yes, I understand that unwise capitulations on behalf of company management can lead to failure of the entire company in the years down the road, or bankrupt the city. Why is the fault of the union if the city or company is stupid enough to go for that, or unable to convince people of the reality of the situation?

So, I’m just stirring the pot, don’t be trying to assume I’m particularly pro-union. I just see people arguing against what their normal stance is because unions are involved here.

I mean, it’s a tough world right? If somebody comes along and takes advantage of your poor management skills, that’s just th way it works right?

Professor X wrote:

Good point. I would expect everyone cheering on gas companies for gouging the hell out of prices to be for union workers getting paid more. Why the love of money only for the already rich?[/quote]

Depends. Can the gas companies have a nice statutory exemption from the anti-trust laws like the unions get? How about some nice closed-shop laws to protect them from competition on top of that?

And if it’s a nice free market position, can the government adopt my solution and fire them all - or even take it a step further than I had suggested, and immediately hire non-union replacement workers and not be required to negotiate with the union anymore?

22

[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Good point. I would expect everyone cheering on gas companies for gouging the hell out of prices to be for union workers getting paid more. Why the love of money only for the already rich?

Not as good a point as you want it to be. Were you begging oil companies to raise gas prices when they were losing their ass a few years ago? Did you ever beg the attendant at the Stop-n-Go to take an extra 50 cents a gallon for the gas you just purchased? Somehow I doubt it.

Why would I? You are acting as if I am for gas prices doubling. I’m not. I think they were taking advantage of the situation. These union workers are taking advantage of the situation. I understand that many are saying it is illegal for them to do so. Why aren’t they being arrested for it? How “illegal” is something that no legal ramifications are brought forward if the act is committed?

Clearly this is technical jargon when the only real difference between this act and Gas companies causing people to pay twice the price is what? It isn’t like Shell had huge prices and everyone else was staying the same. They all increased prices. So, tell me, what was the choice involved? Any gas station I went to was charging an increase.

The token collectors have zero risk, and if left to market forces would be making minimum wage.

I thought the risk was being fired?[/quote]

The risk is not just being fired, but, as someone posted above, the city has made it clear that members will be fined two days pay for every day they are on strike.

New York State passed a law after the 17-day transit strike of 1980 (which took place in the spring, not the week before fucking Christmas) making it illegal for municpal employees to strike. This means police, firefighters, etc. So, technically, I suppose these workers COULD be arrested. Don’t think it’s going to happen.

There are ways around the “no striking” law. Police officers, during contract negotiations, have occasionally fallen victim to the “blue flu,” a mass sick-out.

23

Fire every tenth one.

Good example of the problems modern unions cause. They are as big a bunch of crooks as the crooked CEO’s we always read about.

24

[quote]Professor X wrote:
The token collectors have zero risk, and if left to market forces would be making minimum wage.

I thought the risk was being fired?[/quote]

The ‘risk’ that you are assuming they take is not job related. If they go to their job every day and sit behind ther little plexi-glass cubicle, they have no risk. Walking off the job and demanding a pay increase and benefit increases is just stupidity.

25

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Fire every tenth one.

Good example of the problems modern unions cause. They are as big a bunch of crooks as the crooked CEO’s we always read about.[/quote]

Good Roman discipline technique, but not quite as harsh as in the old days…

26

Hmm, okay, I see the state may have declared striking by public service workers illegal.

Is this illegal, like crossing an intersection (on foot) against a traffic light is illegal, or is it illegal like robbing a liquor store?

Are these people deplorable or perhaps even infamously reprehensible for their vile treachery? I mean, it is a time of war and what if everyone had to evacuate in a hurry or something, right?

Yes, I missed the fact it was “illegal” the first time around. Sue me, I was too busy stirring the pot to stop and taste the stew.

Maybe these people are upset and demand all these heavy duty benefits because it is apparent they are first in line to die by terrostic attacks? Haven’t terrorists traditionally went after these types of targets. Do they get danger pay based on the alert level?

Yes, that is purely pot stirring, take me too seriously and I’ll laught at you.

Okay, on a more serious note, I’m detecting a decided lack of respect for the lowly plexiglas cube occupant here.

Maybe they are on strike because sitting on their ass in a cage while being ignored and sneered at for decades is very unhealthy and means they are basically infirm by the time they are 55 and have to live their lives strapped to their couch from then on?

Where has all the respect for the common man doing what it takes to put bread on the table gone. No, these lowlife scumbags should be earning minimum wage while they sit on their lazy asses behind plexiglas counting tokens.

They certainly shouldn’t be able to band together in a union and demand better than minimum wage so they can live a decent life in one of the most expensive cities on the planet. Surely minimum wage is more than enough for these lowlife reprehensible scum.

Where is this coming from? Is this compassionate conservatism at work once again?

And, no, Rainjack, that isn’t all targeted at you, but various people have made various posts to this effect above. I’m seeing a whole lot of outrage and attitude because people are trying to make a living.

It’s strange.

There are alternatives to public transportation. Buy a car. Rent a car. Walk. Take a taxi. Don’t travel anywhere for a while. Take a few unpaid days off of your job. Move closer to your job so you don’t rely on public transportation. It isn’t the fault of the public transportation worker that you were dumb enough to rely on cheaply available government services, is it?

I thought people were supposed to be RESPONSIBLE for their own lives… and not suck the teat of the government in order to get things done. All those people depending on this for their business livelihood were simply bad planners and deserve what they get right?

No?

Is the entire difference between the poor suffering citizens who can’t use their pockets full of tokens and people in disaster areas simply that the metro workers are greedy overpaid so-and-so’s who are breaking a “law”.

Where oh where did all the “life is tough” and “if shit happens, you must not have planned well enough” hardheads get to now? Have they all turned into bleeding hearts at the suffering of their fellow man in New York. Oh, the hardship being faced. Oh, the horror.

So, really, nobody sees an about face on the plight of the “downtrodden” in this situation? Strange.

27

[quote]vroom wrote:
So, really, nobody sees an about face on the plight of the “downtrodden” in this situation? Strange.[/quote]

They aren’t rich enough. If they were millionaires, every conservative would be buying pom poms while doing handstands and cartwheels over their desire for higher pay.

28

Funny things happen when a union thinks it has the power to pull a move like this. Something similar happened here in Pittsburgh back when they used to make about 90% of the steel used in the world.

They don’t anymore.
Once people find ways around the city by different modes of transportation, or some other transportation companies from out of town start making offers to fill the void, that union is going to regret this move very much.
Call it confidence in human nature, but I am pretty sure some innovative and opportunistic folks are coming up with a solution as we discuss the problem.

29

[quote]Professor X wrote:
vroom wrote:
So, really, nobody sees an about face on the plight of the “downtrodden” in this situation? Strange.

They aren’t rich enough. If they were millionaires, every conservative would be buying pom poms while doing handstands and cartwheels over their desire for higher pay.[/quote]

I don’t think they are downtrodden. They took the jobs they have of their own free will. And for 40K - I don’t think they are underpaid - especially for what they do.

Is it a shitty job? Probably so. But having a high paying shitty job is hardly the definition of downtrodden.

30

[quote]vroom wrote:

There are alternatives to public transportation. Buy a car. Rent a car. Walk. Take a taxi. Don’t travel anywhere for a while. Take a few unpaid days off of your job. Move closer to your job so you don’t rely on public transportation. It isn’t the fault of the public transportation worker that you were dumb enough to rely on cheaply available government services, is it?

I thought people were supposed to be RESPONSIBLE for their own lives… and not suck the teat of the government in order to get things done. All those people depending on this for their business livelihood were simply bad planners and deserve what they get right?

No?[/quote]

I think you keep missing an important point - public transportation is paid for by the people. The services in question here are what responsible citizens have opted for and paid for via their taxes.

So, no - the public transit workers are the employees of the city of New York and its inhabitants. They are answerable to these same people in the same sense that a private cabbie is answerable to his customers.

And regardless of anyone’s opinion of whether or not public transport is a good idea, worth the cost, etc., relying on it is not a mistake any more than relying on the fire department to put out your housefire.

Are people that rely on firefighters to come put out a housefire “simply bad planners and deserve what they get right?” I don’t think anyone is making that argument.

[quote]Is the entire difference between the poor suffering citizens who can’t use their pockets full of tokens and people in disaster areas simply that the metro workers are greedy overpaid so-and-so’s who are breaking a “law”.

Where oh where did all the “life is tough” and “if shit happens, you must not have planned well enough” hardheads get to now? Have they all turned into bleeding hearts at the suffering of their fellow man in New York. Oh, the hardship being faced. Oh, the horror.

So, really, nobody sees an about face on the plight of the “downtrodden” in this situation? Strange.[/quote]

I realize you are just “stirring the pot”, but this tangent of abstraction is beginning to make little sense. I understand what you are attempting to say - that those that advocate personal responsibility, etc. should be doing the same here and telling the thousands who can’t use public transport to ‘suck it up’.

But even the most ardent libertarian wouldn’t be that broad in application, if for no other reason that a New Yorker who pays taxes to help fund public transportation is entitled to enjoy the service in accordance with the law. In other words, all these thousands of people have already paid for the service, either through taxes or the fares, and they have a right to it.

Public transportation is not a ‘handout’ - it is a pooling of public resources to do something that a privatized system could not achieve (and that might be up for debate) and it is a service paid for by the working men and women of NYC.

31

Well, the union is certainly paying for it now to the tune of $1M a day in fines:

32

[quote]And regardless of anyone’s opinion of whether or not public transport is a good idea, worth the cost, etc., relying on it is not a mistake any more than relying on the fire department to put out your housefire.

Are people that rely on firefighters to come put out a housefire “simply bad planners and deserve what they get right?” I don’t think anyone is making that argument.[/quote]

I think you are arguing for the victims of Katrina and their right to expect relief from the government… I mean, surely that is not a mistake, for them to have expected their services to be provided to them?

Anyway, I know people expect good service for their tax money, but really, how often do governments represent a good way to spend your money. Are you suggesting in the case of public transit people can expect good service from a government program?

Do my ears deceive me? What other government programs do you suggest are good value for taxpayer money… better than the alternatives available to the public. I’m all ears.

:wink:

33

[quote]vroom wrote:
Where has all the respect for the common man doing what it takes to put bread on the table gone. No, these lowlife scumbags should be earning minimum wage while they sit on their lazy asses behind plexiglas counting tokens.

They certainly shouldn’t be able to band together in a union and demand better than minimum wage so they can live a decent life in one of the most expensive cities on the planet. Surely minimum wage is more than enough for these lowlife reprehensible scum.

Where is this coming from? Is this compassionate conservatism at work once again?
[/quote]

If you have not done so before, you should try working at a company with a large union workforce and the inherent problems really come to the surface in an incredibly ugly manner.

Here’s the essential problem: unions are basically outdated vehicles which were essential at one time and are incredible drags on the economy now.

We have such a wide range of labor and employment laws in place that protect workers from discrimination, harassment, unsafe working conditions and so on.

Unions essentially allow a percentage of the working population (since not just any group within a company or workforce can form a union) to bargain themselves into higher pay and benefits than your typical “free” market would allow.

In addition, it creates a situation where it becomes increasingly difficult to get rid of unproductive workers because unions build in an incredible amount of artificial job security.

Last time I checked, if I was that unproductive, I would be out the door without the blink of an eye.

The frustration people are venting has to do with the fact that unions are causing incredibly uncompetitive working environments. Labor is so much cheaper in so many other parts of the world where unions do not have a stranglehold.

And I am not talking about some kind of sweatshop environment at all because those kinds of places are purely reprehensible. Unions will complain about work being shipped overseas, but will never stop to think that they have so elevated the cost of doing business for so many manufacturing companies that it’s become a necessity to seek out cheaper labor.

It’s just a reality of the business world.

So please explain to me why that part of the workforce should be allowed to exact out more than any other worker. They are not some kind of scum for having a job as a fare collector, but I am failing to see why it has somehow become their “right” to demand a wage that simply does not match the skills, education, etc. their jobs require.

It’s not a question of compassion since I cannot see how allowing unions to continue to enjoy the kind of power they enjoy is really all that fair to everyone else who cannot.

34

Kuz, you might be mistaking me for someone that likes unions.

The problem I have with unions is not that some people seem to get paid too much. I don’t consider that much of an issue at all.

The problem I personally have with unions is that they generally hold back competent, skilled and motivated employees. Instead, they reward age and longevity which are not necessarily related to value. However, at the same time, we can’t just fire everyone over the age of 50 because they aren’t young anymore.

Also, I do agree, at one point they were a vital necessity. I think what they need is a slight curtailing of their power – instead of some huge knee-jerk reaction to issues such as this one.

35

To borrow a phrase from the compassionate conservatives… since when is life supposed to be fair?

You could have chosen to work in a unionized trade if you had wanted to. Don’t cry to us for your poor life choices that leave you having to actually work for a living.

36

[quote]vroom wrote:
And regardless of anyone’s opinion of whether or not public transport is a good idea, worth the cost, etc., relying on it is not a mistake any more than relying on the fire department to put out your housefire.

Are people that rely on firefighters to come put out a housefire “simply bad planners and deserve what they get right?” I don’t think anyone is making that argument.

I think you are arguing for the victims of Katrina and their right to expect relief from the government… I mean, surely that is not a mistake, for them to have expected their services to be provided to them?

Anyway, I know people expect good service for their tax money, but really, how often do governments represent a good way to spend your money. Are you suggesting in the case of public transit people can expect good service from a government program?

Do my ears deceive me? What other government programs do you suggest are good value for taxpayer money… better than the alternatives available to the public. I’m all ears.

;)[/quote]

Obviously, the Katrina Victims are the exception as long as you read Ayn Rand.

37

[quote]vroom wrote:
It’s not a question of compassion since I cannot see how allowing unions to continue to enjoy the kind of power they enjoy is really all that fair to everyone else who cannot.

To borrow a phrase from the compassionate conservatives… since when is life supposed to be fair?

You could have chosen to work in a unionized trade if you had wanted to. Don’t cry to us for your poor life choices that leave you having to actually work for a living.[/quote]

That made absolutely no sense and you basically just made my argument for me. The point is yeah, I do actually have to work for a living and don’t mind it - unions shouldn’t hide behind antiquated laws to do the same for them and allow them to be protected from actually having to work for a living. How is that supposed to improve the economy or make companies competitive?

The issue is not my life choice - the issue are laws that continue to allow unions to function as they do and be a complete economic drain.

But nice try in trying to make my argument sound like I am “crying” for having to work for a living.

38

Sorry Kuz, that really wasn’t the point I was making.

I was using an argument used elsehere, but in this case on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

While I don’t suggest that a concentration of power in the hands of the union is a great idea, why is having the power concentrated in someone elses hands a good idea instead?

A balance of power forces both sides to respect the other…

39

[quote]vroom wrote:
But nice try in trying to make my argument sound like I am “crying” for having to work for a living.

Sorry Kuz, that really wasn’t the point I was making.

I was using an argument used elsehere, but in this case on the opposite side of the political spectrum.

While I don’t suggest that a concentration of power in the hands of the union is a great idea, why is having the power concentrated in someone elses hands a good idea instead?

A balance of power forces both sides to respect the other…[/quote]

Ok, fair enough.

I take it your view is that it would be concentrated in the hands of the companies? My thought is that I’m not sure that is really the case. I think labor and employment laws have added a lot of layers of protections to all workers and the “at will” employment relationship cuts both ways.

Anyhoo, I would love to debate this entire topic more, but it’s probably not in my best interests working for a company with a very big, vocal union… LOL

40

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I am absolutely anti-union. They have not really had a purpose for existing since the 40’s other than legalized extortion.

[/quote]

RJ,

You’re normally one of my favorite posters on here and we don’t disagree on much but you are absolutely wrong here. I’ll tell you why, current MTA strike aside.

Im in a police union. Currently we are involved in a very nasty battle with the
municipality’s council. Part of it is our contract…they don’t want to give a raise that is the state average for police officers(which we would settle for). The other bigger part is our working conditions are unsafe. We are very short-staffed. We dont have the equipment we need to get the job done. We actually have listed these safety and performance issues it is 12 pages long.

For some reason, and I can’t explain it other than arrogant ignorance, they dont want to hear any of these problems. They pretend they dont exist when a collect group of law enforcement officers representing hundreds or even thousands of years of law enforcement experience keeps telling them they do.

However, some minor headway has been made and we are not done yet. There was only one possible way we could have done
this…an organized union.

Ill admit many unions have turned into
protectors of lazy people or ways to make insane demands(I cant believe a subway booth clerk starts at almost 50k), but they also do good. In some instances, unions stand as a bulwark against uncaring fat cats who would throw people to the wolves or make them slaves if they could.