NY MTA Strike
I am very glad that I am not in NYC today for the start of the transit stike, but I am worried about how I'm going to get home from the airport this evening. In the meantime, you can watch coverage at WNBC or NY1. It is an interesting issue, because it is illegal to strike. I support the workers demands (a 3% raise is crazy), but I don't support the workers breaking the law. However, I don't think that the law is legal. Good luck to all my fellow NYers in getting around.
posted by Lee S. Kowarski @ 8:42 AM
3 Comments:
At 12/20/2005 10:43 AM,
Anonymous said…
First of all it would be no big deal for you because you could have walked. But second I disagree with you on supporting the Union.
The MTA was now offering 3% raise increase for year 1 of a 3 year contract, then 4%, and 3.5% for the final year, up 1.5% from last week's offer - which is still much less than what the Transport Workers Union wanted (8% for each of the 3 years), but the TWU had signaled they might agree to it. However, the pensions and benefits were the sticking point, and this was what the MTA was asking for:
The authority dropped its demand to raise the retirement age for a full pension to 62 for new employees, up from 55 for current employees. But the authority proposed that all future transit workers pay 6 percent of their wages toward their pensions, up from the 2 percent that current workers pay. [Via the NY Times]
Who do you know who makes over 60K with limited training and education who can retire at 55 and gets a full pension. 24% increase over 3 years is crazy.
Steven
At 12/20/2005 12:40 PM,
Anonymous said…
Which law is 'illegal'? That workers in certain sectors cannot strike beacuse of public safety factors, i must presume? Your spare choice of words impicitly undertake dual burdens of proof: first, laws ensuring the public good limiting presumed absolute freedoms - speech, assembly - are unjust for that very reason, and second, protesting or defying an unjust or 'illegal' law is not a good thing. I applaud your sophistry and ambition.
It is difficult to agree with a union demanding more in times of plenty ($1B surplus). its workers earn a competitive wage and stand to receive a good pension. Such demands mar already tranished images of organized labor and its business practices. As the MTA's workforce will inevitably age, medical costs will rise, infrastructure will require more capital, technology will render some employees redundant, and the pension fund will require greater funding, the surplus ought to finance these future costs. The TWU leadership seems outwardly ignorant of how such factors will affect the TWU membership. Labor leaders cannot employ the archane tactic of shaking down management for the maximum amount whenever there is opportunity to do so. Because the status quo structure fairly compensates MTA workers by market and industry standards, the TWU acts disingenuously on the behalf of the memebership.
At 12/20/2005 6:57 PM,
Lee S. Kowarski said…
In response to Steven's comment - I agree that their demands are unreasonable, but I support their right to strike for what they want....that said, I don't feel that they are going about it the right way since it is illegal for them to strike. They should have been fighting that battle in court since the day that law was passed and not simply choosing to ignore it and break the law
Post a Comment
<< Home