Court Fines NYC Transit Union $1M a Day

[bishop]

this should be funny... how do you expect to achieve such a massive shift?

i definitely don't know much of anything about the mta's cost structure, but something tells me you don't either.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop this should be funny... how do you expect to achieve such a massive shift? i definitely don't know much of anything about the mta's cost structure, but something tells me you don't either.

That is not about MTA only. (Read my previous post in that matter).
It would require to set some limits along with regulations for all the business enterprise.

[bishop]

well, get specific rainbow or else you'll just read like you're talking out of your ass.

[brien]

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

Maybe I have misunderstood your post. But that said.

Your elitist statement is telling me "What I need to understand." It implies you know better than others, and that I "need" to understand your statement in order to be fully enlightened. Who says I don't understand what you are writing?


You wrote:The U.S. Constitution and the Law grant all the rights to workers to go on strike.

Can you cite me a specfic article in the Constitution for your statement above? I "need to understand" this one. BIG TIME. I will save you the Constitutional research if you like, it is a waste of your time. There is no where in the US Constitution that I know of, that "grants all the rights of workers the right to strike". However, you have the benefit of the doubt so please, I am at your instruction. Maybe you are confusing the Communist Manefesto with the US Constitution. Don't know, so please enlighten me. I "need" to see the Article and Section, or the Amendment in the B.O.R And please, be specfic by writing the exact words from the Constitution.

You wrote:There are several Bills, Acts, Rights, Laws, ect. contradicting each other, including "Taylor Law".

Please, cite several of them for us. And explain how they "contradict" each other. If this is your basis for the Union's disregard to the Taylor Law, it seems a weak one.

I would not fire my nephew, or anyone else for not making it into work due to circumstances beyond their control.

As far as firing workers who illegally strike and break the Taylor Law, it is certainly within the rights of the Mayor's office to give them all 24 hrs to return to work. Those not returning to work could be replaced by new hires. Furthermore, the Mayor could have taken a page from Ronald Reagan's handling of the PATCO situation. He could have decertified the Union and replaced everyone who didn't return to work with replacements. So there is precedent for this in law. Therefore by your reasoning, Reagan was a Communist?

You wrote: That stinks like Communism-based behaviour and/or stance, for miles

Communist? I beg your pardon? Please explain this statement. And, I may "need to understand" your definition of Communism as well.

Thank you.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: brien Maybe I have misunderstood your post. But that said. Your elitist statement is telling me "What I need to understand." It implies you know better than others, and that I "need" to understand your statement in order to be fully enlightened. Who says I don't understand what you are writing? Can you cite me a specfic article in the Constitution for your statement above? I "need to understand" this one. BIG TIME. I will save you the Constitutional research if you like, it is a waste of your time. There is no where in the US Constitution that I know of, that "grants all the rights of workers the right to strike". However, you have the benefit of the doubt so please, I am at your instruction. Maybe you are confusing the Communist Manefesto with the US Constitution. Don't know, so please enlighten me. I "need" to see the Article and Section, or the Amendment in the B.O.R And please, be specfic by writing the exact words from the Constitution. Please, cite several of them for us. And explain how they "contradict" each other. If this is your basis for the Union's disregard to the Taylor Law, it seems a weak one. I would not fire my nephew, or anyone else for not making it into work due to circumstances beyond their control. As far as firing workers who illegally strike and break the Taylor Law, it is certainly within the rights of the Mayor's office to give them all 24 hrs to return to work. Those not returning to work could be replaced by new hires. Furthermore, the Mayor could have taken a page from Ronald Reagan's handling of the PATCO situation. He could have decertified the Union and replaced everyone who didn't return to work with replacements. So there is precedent for this in law. Therefore by your reasoning, Reagan was a Communist? Communist? I beg your pardon? Please explain this statement. And, I may "need to understand" your definition of Communism as well.

#1
NC

#2
The link to U.S. Constitution :
- http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

The link to Law, Unions :
- http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/90016

#3

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.

See #2 (link to U.S. Constitution).

[Rainbow]

Quote by: bishop well, get specific rainbow or else you'll just read like you're talking out of your ass.

Off Topic
I think that your unique way for a dialog and/or debate, releases me from upkeeping this issue alive.

[brien]

Quote by: Rainbow #1 NC #2 The link to U.S. Constitution : - http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html The link to Law, Unions : - http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/90016 #3 See #2 (link to U.S. Constitution).

I didn't ask you for links to Constitutional spin, I asked for YOU to write WHERE in the Constitution you find the statements you made. Show me. I am not asking for anyone's spin, interpretation or review. I am asking for the words right out of the Constitution. I believe I requested the Article and Section or the Amendment in the BOR. Afterall it was you who said it was right in the Constitution. I will ask again, please show me where. Otherwise, your credibility is suspect with regard to your statements.

Your first link is an "On line copy of the US Constitution. I don't need it. I have my copy.

You second link is an "encyclopedia"? citing sources such as the AFL.

Can't you explain your position in your own words? Your own ideas?

I am looking for YOUR ideas. YOUR proof. And once again, the exact words in the Cosntitution to back up your statements. Afterall, you wrote: it was right in the CONSTITUTION. ARTCILE ? SECTION# ? AMENDMENT # ?

Please.

Leaving now for Christmas... I will check your response on Monday. Now remember. ARTICLE, SECTION # or AMENDMENT #.

And btw, you haven't cited the Laws Rights, etc, or explained them to us.

And from your own source:NEW YORK: Statute permits bargaining by all public employees. The statute limits the scope of negotiations to matters related to wages, employment hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Arbitration is required by statute when an impasse is declared. Strikes by public employees are prohibited.

Merry Christmas. :) If it doesn't offend you.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: brien I didn't ask you for links to Constitutional spin, I asked for YOU to write WHERE in the Constitution you find the statements you made. And from your own source:NEW YORK: Statute permits bargaining by all public employees. The statute limits the scope of negotiations to matters related to wages, employment hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Arbitration is required by statute when an impasse is declared. Strikes by public employees are prohibited. Merry Christmas. :)

#1
I provide you with the links to the U.S. Constitution, Law, Labor ect. respectively.
That is your task to find the answers, especially since you educated enough to proceed with that.
Additionally, you can get in touch with the nearest Union (local), and they will supply you with all the informations you look for.

(Do you want me to do it ? :) )

#2
That is the answer to my previous statement, that there are variety of Bills, Acts, Rights, ect. that contradict each other.

#3
Merry Christmas :)

[bishop]

Quote by: Rainbow Off Topic I think that your unique way for a dialog and/or debate, releases me from upkeeping this issue alive.

just prodding you to clarify your statements.. if you make broad statements about how things should be changed, you have to expect that someone would ask for a more detailed explanation... it's only natural.

[brien]

Quote by: Rainbow #1 I provide you with the links to the U.S. Constitution, Law, Labor ect. respectively. That is your task to find the answers, especially since you educated enough to proceed with that. Additionally, you can get in touch with the nearest Union (local), and they will supply you with all the informations you look for. (Do you want me to do it ? :) ) #2 That is the answer to my previous statement, that there are variety of Bills, Acts, Rights, ect. that contradict each other. #3 Merry Christmas :)

Rainbow: All you did was provide links to a COPY of the US Consititution. And also to labor information. And I showed you where your link contradicted your own argument.

It is up to YOU to support your argument. I know the Constitution, and its provisions.

You wrote your argument was stated in the Constitution. I simply asked you to show me. Obviously you can't. I knew you couldn't because IT IS NOT THERE.

My task is not to find your answers. YOUR TASK is to PROVIDE them to support your argument.

You can't so we will leave it at that now. When you can't supply specific evidence to suppport your argument, then please have the character to admit it. We all can't be correct 100% of the time. No big deal.

Otherwise, show me in the Constitution: the Article, the Section, or the Amenedment. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke by saying "oh, it is in the Constitution and you find it."

[Rainbow]

Quote by: brien My task is not to find your answers. YOUR TASK is to PROVIDE them to support your argument.

I have never taken your requests seriously, since "academic debates" is not my field of interests.

[brien]

Quote by: Rainbow I have never taken your requests seriously, since "academic debates" is not my field of interests.

Obviously. And it seems, neither is English grammar.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: brien Obviously. And it seems, neither is English grammar.

Off Topic
Do you mean I should pay more attention to error checking ?
If "yes", than I do it very rarely. No time for such task.
Sorry :-)