Court Fines NYC Transit Union $1M a Day

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop perhaps you are the one who isn't familiar with what the union wants.. it's all about the pension.. the pension that's currently unfunded by $2 billion, that the union thinks will just pay for itself with money made out of thin air.

:-)))
I have to admit I do not know details, but (I) have a sufficient information on that subject.

The Pension Plan, is one of the main points. MTA was lowering Pension Plan for decades, gradually and that is not about the Pension Plan, only.

What the NYC Mayoral Office has done so far in that matter ?

[shield772]

I am a big supporter of unions, if I were in NY at this time I would not cross picket lines I would not use MTA, but that said it is illegal for them to be on strike and they should be fired.

[bishop]

Quote by: Rainbow :-))) I have to admit I do not know details, but (I) have a sufficient information on that subject. The Pension Plan, is one of the main points. MTA was lowering Pension Plan for decades, gradually and that is not about the Pension Plan, only. What the NYC Mayoral Office has done so far in that matter ?

just go to the union's website and you can find the details out for yourself. there is no need for the "major media" when you have google - and when every tom, dick and harry has a website. the pension plan is THE main point.. it's much bigger than pay raises - these people already make more than teachers, firemen and policemen...

[shield772]

these people already make more than teachers, firemen and policemen...

combined

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop just go to the union's website and you can find the details out for yourself. there is no need for the "major media" when you have google - and when every tom, dick and harry has a website. the pension plan is THE main point.. it's much bigger than pay raises - these people already make more than teachers, firemen and policemen...

:-)))

The Labor Department's law states clearly, that an employer must Not deduct salary already into effect. That covers any agreement made between both parties : employer and employee, respectively. It applies to benefits, as well.
Union wants MTA to comply with its obligations.

[bishop]

of course, they agreed to give pay raises of roughly 6% and the unions didn't accept it - because they maintained their position on the pensions.

basically, tax revenues have gone way up recently, so the union thinks that it can tap into these revenues (which are nothing more than a temporary spike) and pad its pension program - which i'll repeat is UNFUNDED BY $2 BILLION..

given all the news about ford and gm, and social security, i think people should be aware that there are very real problems in pension funds - and tacking on even more liabilities will make them that much more insolvent.

[brien]

Quote by: Rainbow All the businesses in NYC are fully aware of extreme limitations with concern to functionality of public transportation. It takes much longer to reach Manhattan, but it does not mean it is impossible. Either your nephew is a handicapped person, or he/she worked for unusual employer. It could be, he/she did not tell you the whole story.

A) Nephew is in no way handicapped.

B) TGIF is a retaurant chain that flatly stated to its employees thatif they didn't show up for work, they would be fired.

C) He lives several miles from work. Can't walk. Not enough time. He is not a marathon runner or a jogger Can't afford cab fare because the round trip would end up costing more than he earns during his shift wwhich would probably be affected by the strike as well resulting in less tips.

D) What is your suggestion for a waiter who lives way out in Brooklyn? I would gladly pass it on to him so he could maybe beg his job back.

Bottom line. He is a non union worker who is a casuality of an uncaring bueacracy on both the Union and the City side. Collateral damage.

Since this is a fight basically between government agencies, ie the Mayor's Office and the Union, I see no reason why the Mayor's office shouldn't take a page from the Reagan strategy and fire the whole lot, decertify the Union for illegal stike activity, and decalre that the buses and subway will run in 24 hours. Those who return to work will have a job, and those who don't will be replaced by those who do want to work.

After the city returns to normal, Union establishment could once again be considered but until then, let the Union pay the price for its illegal activity.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop basically, tax revenues have gone way up recently, so the union thinks that it can tap into these revenues (which are nothing more than a temporary spike) and pad its pension program - which i'll repeat is UNFUNDED BY $2 BILLION.. given all the news about ford and gm, and social security, i think people should be aware that there are very real problems in pension funds - and tacking on even more liabilities will make them that much more insolvent.

I agree with you on that point.
That is the reason I pointed out the proportion of profits made out of every dollar earned.
I think U.S. should go for some modifications within economical and/or financial system. Otherwise, similar to MTA dillemas would continue to emerge with a greater frequency, that reach the point of non-solution, finally.
By repeating these stages, unrests may surface on the American soil, which will make the whole situation even worse.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: brien After the city returns to normal...

What is your idea of normal? A defanged union?

$3.00 an hour?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: brien B) TGIF is a retaurant chain that flatly stated to its employees thatif they didn't show up for work, they would be fired. D) What is your suggestion for a waiter who lives way out in Brooklyn? I would gladly pass it on to him so he could maybe beg his job back. Bottom line. He is a non union worker who is a casuality of an uncaring bueacracy on both the Union and the City side. Collateral damage. Since this is a fight basically between government agencies, ie the Mayor's Office and the Union, I see no reason why the Mayor's office shouldn't take a page from the Reagan strategy and fire the whole lot, decertify the Union for illegal stike activity, and decalre that the buses and subway will run in 24 hours. Those who return to work will have a job, and those who don't will be replaced by those who do want to work. After the city returns to normal, Union establishment could once again be considered but until then, let the Union pay the price for its illegal activity.

#B
NC on that employer.

#D
I think your nephew should get in touch with the Department of Labor in order to find out whether he/she has the rights to recover some wages lost, due to employer's activity.

Whether you represent a business or a labor (respectively), you need to understand that labor men is a driving force that makes a business running, and Not any other way around. Otherwise, a state does not function.

According to the Department of Labor regulations, an agreement made by both sides (read : employer vs. employee) must be followed, respected, honored, ect.
That is the reason I put a blame on politicians, lawmakers, ect. instead.

[brien]

Quote by: Rainbow #B NC on that employer. #D I think your nephew should get in touch with the Department of Labor in order to find out whether he/she has the rights to recover some wages lost, due to employer's activity. Whether you represent a business or a labor (respectively), you need to understand that labor men is a driving force that makes a business running, and Not any other way around. Otherwise, a state does not function. According to the Department of Labor regulations, an agreement made by both sides (read : employer vs. employee) must be followed, respected, honored, ect. That is the reason I put a blame on politicians, lawmakers, ect. instead.

Thank you for telling me what I "need to understand." A true elitist statement.

I guess we also "need understand" that this strike is "illegal" and in violation of the "Taylor" law. So those who are participating in it are breaking the law. Thus, I see no problem with firing the lot and replacing them with law abiding citizens who want to work and are not bullied around by labor bosses.

Then, as I have written before, let the politicians answer to the electorate for their actions. If decertifying the Union, and firing all those who don't return to work, pisses off the electorate, then the politicans will be fired by the electorate and not returned to office. After that, the new Administration can direct the MTA to rehire back all those who lost their jobs by not obeying the the Taylor law. Hell, give them back pay as well. But somehow, I doubt this will happen.

[brien]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel What is your idea of normal? A defanged union? $3.00 an hour?

Your ridiculous wage example is only exceeded by you blurred vision of a "defanged" union.

[shield772]

NYC Transit Union Moves to Return to Work

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051222/...transit_strike

NEW YORK - Transit union leaders agreed that the city's subway and bus strike should end while talks resume, a mediator said Thursday in an announcement that brought hope to a city paralyzed by the three-day walkout.

[bishop]

Quote by: Rainbow I agree with you on that point. That is the reason I pointed out the proportion of profits made out of every dollar earned. I think U.S. should go for some modifications within economical and/or financial system. Otherwise, similar to MTA dillemas would continue to emerge with a greater frequency, that reach the point of non-solution, finally. By repeating these stages, unrests may surface on the American soil, which will make the whole situation even worse.

yeah, but the profits earned as of late are atypical.. there's been a spike in tax revenues.. the union wants to pretend as if these sorts of revenues are here to stay, and use that argument to push for more expensive pension benefits.. the fact of the matter is that these revenues are not going to last forever, and when you plan for pension funds, you need to look at long-run averages.

you simply cannot see revenues spike up in a 3-6 month period of time and just assume that they're going to last forever. if you did, and the economy went south (lowering their revenues), then the pension fund would be even more insolvent than it already is.

and on a side note, it is interesting that for those defending the union, there's no mention of the fact that they're paid a lot more than other new yorkers - and that their pension is unfunded by $2 billion. ignoring those points seems a bit disingenuous to me.

[RickSp]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel I will admit I dont have any personal experience with unions. But I dont have to

Experience just messes up the dogma. Reality often interferes with ideology.

If you knew anything about New York unions you would know that city school custodians are paid lots of money for not cleaning schools, or that the carpenters, laborers, concrete workers and longshoreman's unions have all been controlled to one extent or another by organized crime for decades. You might know that the custodial and maintenance union boss lives in a multimillion dollar penthouse with a CEO's salary paid for by the union while the rank and file are among the lowest paid unionized labor in the city.

I have no problem with unions in theory and in most cases, in practice. That being said, unions can be as corrupt greedy and brutal as any corporation and in many cases more so.

And it now looks like local union President Roger Toussaint, while happy to waste the local's money in fines, is ready to back down when faced by jail time himself. He doesn't care who he hurts as long as he doesn't have to pay the price.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Experience just messes up the dogma. Reality often interferes with ideology.

I have never killed anyone either, but I KNOW that it is wrong, from an observers perspective.

As for the rest of your post, Thank You for enlightening me.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: brien Thank you for telling me what I "need to understand." A true elitist statement. I guess we also "need understand" that this strike is "illegal" and in violation of the "Taylor" law. So those who are participating in it are breaking the law. Thus, I see no problem with firing the lot and replacing them with law abiding citizens who want to work and are not bullied around by labor bosses. Then, as I have written before, let the politicians answer to the electorate for their actions. If decertifying the Union, and firing all those who don't return to work, pisses off the electorate, then the politicans will be fired by the electorate and not returned to office. After that, the new Administration can direct the MTA to rehire back all those who lost their jobs by not obeying the the Taylor law. Hell, give them back pay as well. But somehow, I doubt this will happen.

#1
Are you sure you have understood my post correctly ?
Can you specify "a true elitist statement" term, please ?

#2
The U.S. Constitution and the Law grant all the rights to workers to go on strike.
"Taylor Law" is a result of mess created within U.S. political, judicial, social, systems.
There are several Bills, Acts, Rights, Laws, ect. contradicting each other, including "Taylor Law".

You do not see a problem with laying people off ?
Why do not you lay off yourself, as the one to start with, then ? :-)))

Here, it is what we have :
- your nephew is not cap-able to reach Manhattan (for some reasons known to him/her-self), and as the result (he/she) is fired.
- you would fire other people who do not share your concepts for work.
What is the difference between your nephew's boss and yourself, then ?
Appearance ? :-)))

#3
Can you write, how you come up to the conclusions you present, please ?

P.S.

I guess we also "need understand" that this strike is "illegal" and in violation of the "Taylor" law. So those who are participating in it are breaking the law. Thus, I see no problem with firing the lot and replacing them with law abiding citizens who want to work and are not bullied around by labor bosses.

That stinks like Communism-based behaviour and/or stance, for miles.
Where are you from ?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop yeah, but the profits earned as of late are atypical.. there's been a spike in tax revenues.. the union wants to pretend as if these sorts of revenues are here to stay, and use that argument to push for more expensive pension benefits.. the fact of the matter is that these revenues are not going to last forever, and when you plan for pension funds, you need to look at long-run averages. you simply cannot see revenues spike up in a 3-6 month period of time and just assume that they're going to last forever. if you did, and the economy went south (lowering their revenues), then the pension fund would be even more insolvent than it already is. and on a side note, it is interesting that for those defending the union, there's no mention of the fact that they're paid a lot more than other new yorkers - and that their pension is unfunded by $2 billion. ignoring those points seems a bit disingenuous to me.

What do you think :
- 20% of every dollar made, instead of 10%

[bishop]

no, 10% or lower.. how the hell are you going to increase pension benefits when it's currently unfunded by $2 billion???

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop no, 10% or lower.. how the hell are you going to increase pension benefits when it's currently unfunded by $2 billion???

By regulating profits made out of that dollar.
Actually, we have the following :
- 10% workers
- 90% business

An additonal 10% (from 10% to 20%) can be used for that purpose. It would cover most of the benefits.