MyDD :: On The NYC Transit Strike

On The NYC Transit Strike

by Scott Shields, Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 12:44:36 PM EST

Here in the New York City media market, you'd be hard-pressed to find much real explanation of why the Transport Workers Union is on strike. The coverage is understandably focused on issues like the city's contingency planning, the response from other area transit providers, and the cold weather that commuters also have to contend with.

However, when the coverage does move to the issues behind the strike, the widely accessible news media is doing a horrible job of reporting the real story. Steve Gilliard does a great job of cutting through the local media's garbage coverage to get to the heart of the matter.

Yes, the strike is illegal, but the MTA should have realized that as well and lived up to their responsibility to the city, a responsibility that both Bloomberg and Pataki have failed to live up to. But they wanted to shove an unfair deal down the union's throat, using the support of the media and the mayor to force them to accept this.
. . .
Anyone who thinks these people make too much ought to consider why much of New York is thriving and not a ghetto wasteland. Those salaries build homes, pay taxes, buy cars. In short, while you tour Harlem and live in Billysburg ii is because people with stable jobs and good salaries buy homes and live there. The dollars paid by the MTA to the TWU's members go to the city, support the city, unlike the suburban based police and firefighters.

Yet, Bloomberg and Pataki disregarded that and the effect on business and backed the union into a corner. And they deserve the blame as much as the union or MTA for this. They tried to bully these people like Giuliani did, but that leadership lost their jobs because they buckled.

He's right to point out that complaining about the pay of the transportation workers is silly. We're seeing first hand right now just how vital to the city those workers are. Just listen to the complaints thrown about by Pataki and Bloomberg. The city's economy is losing $400 million a day with the union on strike. The city is losing $22 million a day in tax revenue with the union on strike. Bloomberg cites those numbers as proof that the strike is "morally reprehensible" on the part of the union. Another way of looking at it is that the MTA's unwillingness to share part of its $1 billion surplus with its workers, knowing that it would likely lead to a strike, is "morally reprehensible" on their part.

But from watching the debate between the union and the MTA, it seems that the issue isn't merely pay raises or pensions for new hires. The issue is fundamentally one of respect.

Nowhere in any of the reporting that I've seen or heard have some of the union's most important demands been addressed. The union publicly made it clear that they would have been willing to accept lower wage increases if the MTA would agree to scale back disciplinary actions against transit workers. I'm not sure if the media is just ignoring it, but I saw nothing about fewer disciplinary actions in any of the reporting on the MTA's final offer. The issue is being ignored, either by the MTA, the media, or both.

The TWU is a largely minority union and many of its members feel that the high number of disciplinary actions against workers is a result of racial bias coming from management. Even if that's the perception but not the reality, it's clear that transit workers have a tough enough job as it is without oppressive management bearing down on them. A New York Times article highlights this issue.

In a survey of 792 bus drivers, station agents, subway conductors and train operators released last week, Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations provided considerable evidence that many workers feel mistreated and undervalued - which could push them toward greater militancy.

The survey, which was conducted in the spring and summer, found that 24 percent of bus and subway workers said they faced serious hazards more than once a month, including smoke, dangerous chemicals and extreme temperatures. It also found that 70 percent felt that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's policies and procedures were unfair.

Many workers said their jobs failed to provide for essential needs. For example, 78 percent said they lacked access to bathroom facilities at least once a month; 51 percent of bus drivers said they had problems finding a bathroom one or more times a day.

New York City Transit, the authority subsidiary that runs subways and buses, issued 15,200 disciplinary violations last year, but workers said they felt they were often blamed while supervisors and passengers were not held accountable. In the survey, 13 percent said they faced abuse from supervisors regularly, while 74 percent said they faced a verbal or physical threat from passengers at least once a year.

Now, I can understand that many city commuters can't bring themselves to support this strike. Taking away public transportation from a city that relies on it, especially at the holidays, is incredibly hard to swallow. I'm sure the commuters feel that everything can be negotiated to a compromise settlement that works out in everyone's best interests and that a full strike wasn't necessary. But I'd challenge each and every one of them to find a job that's as dirty, tough, and dangerous as one being done by a city transit worker.

We'd all do well to keep in mind that, at the end of the day, this strike is about nothing short of the dignity of workers.

Tags: Labor (all tags)

Permalink :: 65 Comments :: Post a Comment

Strike illegal? (3.00 / 1)

Doesn't anyone find it strange that there is a law on the books (Taylor Law in NY State) that makes it illegal for certain public employees to strike?

The ability to withhold one's labor is one of a free person's fundamental rights. Without this right one is little more than a slave. I don't even understand how this law withstands legal challenge.

What public safety issue is involved in preventing school teachers or transit workers from going on strike? Getting to work is a matter of commerce, not public safety and missing education is not an immediate threat to anyone.

Even police and firemen can have their functions covered by the national guard, if necessary.

---Policies not Politics
Daily Quiet Image

by rdf on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 12:59:01 PM EST

Re: Strike illegal? (none / 0)

I think it's understandable that public employees unions should have some restriction on when they can strike. That said, the Taylor Law goes way too far and gives no guidelines in terms of how long a public agency like the MTA can let their workers go without a contract before they should be allowed to take action. Under Taylor, they're never allowed to strike.

David Sirota wrote a really solid takedown of the Taylor Law in response to the strike.

by Scott Shields on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 01:20:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strike illegal? (none / 0)

The argument is that binding arbitration is the solution to the process concerns you raise. However, my issue with it is that I have a problem with whether the MTA is acting in good faith not only with the union but with the public. I keep saying that a few years from now we are going to hear about some huge scandal involving the MTA. I don't have a shred of proof, but all that money is going somewhere- and I would like to know where it is going.

by bruh21 on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:26:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strike illegal? (3.00 / 1)

Quotes from The superlaws that undermine working Americans

Today in New York City, we are seeing another one of those superlaws in action - a superlaw that undermines all of the laws that we are led to believe protect the right of workers to organize, form unions, and more generally fight for their economic rights. Appropriately, it is Bloomberg News that tells us "New York City plans to use a 1967 law that bans public employee strikes to force bus and subway workers back to work" after the city's transit workers' union voted to go on strike.

But whether the unions demands are "fair" or not is not the real point here - the point is that superlaws like the 1967 statute being used to break the workers' strike undermine the entire concept of unions and workers' rights. Ask yourself a question: what is the one tool that ordinary, blue-collar workers have that can really help them assert economic power in a way that can minimally compete with the massive economic institutions (corporate/government) that run our society? The answer is ultimately through the threat of a strike - whether a strike happens or not. Without a union having the power to strike, they cannot threaten to strike and that means there is no real reason an employer should listen to any union requests, because the employer knows the union can't back up its requests with any consequences.

Remember - employers have all sorts of commodities at their disposal, and certainly many more than workers have. For instance, they have cash to pay wages/benefits and that can be given or withheld. They also have bought-off politicians who can deploy legal weapons. We see that now in New York and we saw it back in 2002, when the Bush administration consulted with corporate lobbyists and then invoked the anti-worker Taft-Hartley Act to bar dock workers from striking. These superlaws deliberately prevent workers from commodifying the only economic assets they have (ie. their work) while allowing employers to do whatever they want. That means workers are put at an impossible disadvantage, totally stripped of their leverage to bargain not just for wages, but for everything.

For proof that this is the case, just look at New York City's own firefighters - the guys who politicians love to have photo-ops with after they went into the burning buildings on 9/11 to save people. But because these same politicians bar firefighters from any form of striking - even limited - the firefighters have been forced to go three years without a contract. That's three years where New York City's firefighters have been precluded from having any leverage to bargain for their basic economic rights.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 04:42:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I support the transit workers (none / 0)

Somehow we have disconnected ourselves from what happens to workers, and the consequences when our brothers and sisters are not able to assert strength in the workplace.

Screw the transit workers? Guess who is next.

Transit workers are us. Regular folk, providing a vital service, and struggling to pay the bills on what our employer decides to pay us.

More power to the transit workers for uniting. It empowers all of us.

by Steve Hill on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 07:57:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

news coverage (none / 0)

The news coverage on the strike is pretty one-sided against the workers. They need to do a better job getting their side of the story out.

by alhill on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 01:22:14 PM EST

Re: news coverage (none / 0)

I have notice that too. It's making this out to be about one thing or another when it seems from following this that this strike is really a decade or so in the making when it comes to how the MTA has negotiated in bad faith in the past, ie, by cooking the books among other things. And, as someone stuck at home today due to the strike, I want to know exactly where the surpluses are going. As I understand it, the upgrades in the system are being covered by new bonds. I want to know also why the MTA is talking about hiking the cost of fares yet again next year even with this surplus. And, why are they giving out holiday gift fares essentially to help out tourists? I would also like to know why this union is being singled out- why aren't all the unions being asked to do the same sorts of thing- are they experimenting with the most needed public workers to try and break them? I have a lot of question that the press seems to be ignoring in the simplistic way that the press often ignores things like this.

by bruh21 on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:19:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: news coverage (3.00 / 1)

The M$M is always anti-union. They don't want to encourage unions, because they are against the unions running their own printing presses. The best proof is that every newspaper has a Business section and zero newspapers have a Labor section.

Labor unions are probably the worst covered group of workers in America. The press coverage they do get is biased towards advertisers and vital issues unions promote are almost always ignored.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:37:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: news coverage (none / 0)

Even the two international arms of the TWU didn't approve of the strike. How is it biased when common sense tells most New Yorkers that this strike is bad anyway you cut it.

by NJDEM1 on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:09:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: news coverage (none / 0)

Common sense? Since when did New Yorkers have any common sense? Look who they elected Governor.

How is it biased when common sense tells most New Yorkers that this strike is bad anyway you cut it.

That says nothing about whose responsibility the strike is or which side is being unreasonable.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 04:20:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: news coverage (none / 0)

In fairness George Pataki has not won a majority in NYC in any of his races so you could say he is not OUR Governor.

And something is up when the international is not supporting the local. This almost never happens. The MTA is a duplicitous entity but there is also a lot of internal union politics driving this strike.

by John Mills on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:13:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I thought part of the $1 billion was going... (none / 0)

...to pensions?

In any case, this is a classic case of bad management causing a union to become militant and strike when they probably shouldn't have. The MTA's actual proposal seems fair, IMHO. It includes a 11.5% raise over three years and an added holiday (MLK day). The bad things were taking 1% of that raise and putting it to medical costs (so lets call it a 10.5% raise), and requiring new hires to contribute 6% of thier salary for ten years to fund thier pension. Considering they get to retire at 55 (the MTA backed down on raising that to 62), I'd say that's fair. The union also wanted to reduce several disclipine and penalties rules-I'm not sure the details here, but that's not good-it sounds like removing penalties for doing things like being late to work-this helps perpetuate the "lazy union worker" stereotype.

I think the union is in the wrong here, personally.

by Geotpf on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 01:38:28 PM EST

Re: I thought part of the $1 billion was going... (none / 0)

This is why I say that the media's doing a terrible job communicating the actual issues. The financial details do seem pretty good. Hell, I'd take them. But my whole post was about the fact that the workers seem less interested in the figures and more interested in the attitude of the MTA, which you seem to have largely ignored.

The MTA didn't add MLK's birthday as a holiday to sweeten the deal. That was a huge issue for the largely minority TWU, who felt as if the fact that the holiday was ignored was one more racist slap in the face from the MTA. And there have been some serious problems with MTA's management policies -- this wasn't about "removing penalties for doing things like being late to work."

by Scott Shields on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 01:57:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That's what I meant by... (none / 0)

..."bad management causing a union become militant when they shouldn't be". If management treats thier employees with respect, then they get the respect back from thier employees. If not, then little things blow up into big things.

The thing is, this is more than just a strike against a company. This has the effect of all but shutting down the largest city on the planet. The union needs to suck up thier pride and take the deal, which is probably mostly fair.

by Geotpf on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:30:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That's what I meant by... (none / 0)

The union needs to suck up thier pride and take the deal, which is probably mostly fair.

What do you know about the terms of the deal or the working conditions of the transit workers?

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 04:21:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know the details, of course (none / 0)

However, from the press reports, they seem fair, or least not worthy of a strike. I certainly could be wrong, but there definitely was movement during the negotiations on the MTA's part.

by Geotpf on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 05:02:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know the details, of course (none / 0)

The only hard fact I've heard is that they were offered 5% over two years. That's 2.5% a year and no union worth its salt would accept those terms.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 07:40:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The offer was 10.5% over three years (none / 0)

...minus 1% for medical benefits, so 9.5%. And another holiday (MLK). Retirement stayed at 55, but new hires would have to pay 6% for ten years to fund the pensions.

All and all, seems fair, IMHO. Even if it wasn't, it wasn't so unconsciousable to strike over. This is a much different situation than, say, Delphi.

by Geotpf on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 07:44:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I thought part of the $1 billion was going... (none / 0)

Some history is necessary here. Many of the work rules today were instituted in the 1980s when a combination of financial neglect and collective bargaining agreements with loose work rules were causing huge service problems for NYC Transit. As a native NYer who is old enough to remember the last strike and the bad service of the 1980s I don't want to return to those days.

However, both of these trends have been reversed and the work rules probably need to reviewed. It does not seem fair that bus schedules are so tight that drivers don't have time for bathroom breaks. Times change and what was good in the 1980s and 1990s may not be good today.

by John Mills on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:35:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If that's the issue... (none / 0)

...bathroom breaks, then that's different. Right now it sounds like "don't punish the lazy".

Is there an insider here who knows these details?

by Geotpf on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 05:03:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If that's the issue... (none / 0)

Here's an analogy for you...

Well, if they're really torturing people in Abu Ghraib, then I don't support that. But as far as I can tell from the media reports, they're just messing with people. Big deal. Can we get an actual prisoner here to tell us what's really going on? Until then, I don't buy it.

Transit workers say they don't have it good. I've ridden transit in NYC and I, for one, believe them.

by Scott Shields on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 05:26:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That doesn't answer the question (none / 0)

by Geotpf on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 06:32:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Question asked and answered (1.00 / 1)

Your "don't punish the lazy" query was stupid and your question got as good an answer as it deserved. I'm not even from NY, but I can imagine how difficult it would be on many routes to take a restroom break.

If the bus schedule is drawn too tightly, it may very well be impossible to take care of business and stay on schedule.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 07:46:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I saw elsewhere where... (none / 0)

...the rule change would make it so somebody could show up two hours late and not get docked or otherwise punished. I believe it was from a right wing source, however. I can't remember exactly where it was.

So, the question still stands: "What do the work rule changes mean?"

by Geotpf on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 03:26:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I thought part of the $1 billion was going... (none / 0)

The Unions concern is as I understand that they don't feel they can trust the MTA to negotiate in good faith. The MTA has been known in recent years to use a double set of books. Indeed, the billion dollar surplus all of a suddent vanished off the books when this round of negotiation began. Also, they tend to wait until the last minute to negotiate the contract to place pressure on the situation. In this particular round, they sprung new terms into the process that had not even been studied much less discussed in prior rounds. When the head of union talked yesterday- you could hear his exhaustion with the MTA leadership. Frankly, as a rider on the trains, I am also wondering where the hell all the money is going- why are rates being hiked yet again next year, etc. No one seems to be asking these questions- but instead are making this all about the union.

by bruh21 on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I thought part of the $1 billion was going... (none / 0)

removing penalties for doing things like being late to work-this helps perpetuate the "lazy union worker" stereotype.

Try walking a mile in their shoes Geotpf. I'll bet a dime to a dollar you wouldn't last a week in most union jobs. That's if you even had the skills to perform them in the first place. Today's Union laborers are some of the highest skilled and hardest working Americans in the country.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:40:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I thought part of the $1 billion was going... (3.00 / 1)

That's a hard line you take there. In reality there are good unions and bad unions. The Oakland dock workers went on strike to prevent the port from installing modern tracking equipment, even though the port offered to hold the staff level constant. This, I would propose, is an example of a "bad" union in the eyes of most people (me included). Then if you look at the San Francisco Muni, they have provisions in their contract that allow a worker to just not show up for work 6 days a year, no notice, no penalty, and these are not counted as sick days. To the average rider waiting for that bus that never comes, this kind of bargaining is another example of "bad".

Now how do you think the average MTA rider looks upon the retirement at age 55? No penalties for tardiness? They see that as an example of "bad" union getting a sweet deal. At least it's a lot better than some Haitian janitor is getting.

I'll tell you one thing, this negotiation would have gone a whole lot better if we had socialized health care. That would have removed a large conflict from the bargaining.

by jwb on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 05:12:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A lot of things in this country... (3.00 / 0)

...would be better if we had socialized medicine.

by Geotpf on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 05:57:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

cut your nose (3.00 / 1)

This strike is nuts. Let's see, let's divide the union against each other and in the process do away with the salaries; get everyone ticked off at you; adversely affect the city and your employer- for what? I mean- what about using other strategies? Workers at Delphi have real problem, workers at the transit authority have a nuisance that they do not know how to deal with-striking for respect is an inane idea.

by RAULC on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:04:25 PM EST

Re: cut your nose (none / 0)

Since when is institutionalized mistreatment in the workplace "a nuisance?"

by Scott Shields on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 05:28:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Taylor Law and Public Employees (3.00 / 1)

The Taylor law, making it illegal for NY public employees to strike is an example of how this country treats public employees like second-class citizens. Unlike private sector employees, public employees have no federal right to even form unions, much less strike, unless the state gives them that "privilege." To this day, only about half the states in this country provide public employees with the right to form unions and bargain collectively.

To make matters worse, public employees are not covered by OSHA unless the state chooses to cover them. Only 24 states provide their public employees with the right to a safe workplace (NY is one of those, although the law has suffered under Pataki.)

The rights that public employees do enjoy were earned through strikes and militant actions in the 1960's and 1970's, and political action after that time. Now, Republican governors are starting to take some of those rights back and we just saw CA Gov. Schwarzenegger attempt (unsuccessfully) to eviscerate the political power of public employee unions.

So what we're seeing in NY is just more of the same discrimination of those who make life in this country livable.

by jbarab on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:09:04 PM EST

Can't Support the TWU (none / 0)

This strike is paralyzing the city and will hurt the poor most of all. Its clearly illegal, the TWU leadership is overly aggressive. These are not underpaid employees. MTA employees start at 33000 a year, an avg employee makes more that 40 grand plus benefits. That said, I'm clearly no fan of the MTA either, there is really no oversight into the inner financial working of that agency. Trust me, the TWU is not winning any friends or support doing this around the holiday season. New Yorkers are generally labor supporters, but the negative reaction to this strike is overwhelming because it will harm far more people than it will help.

by NJDEM1 on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 02:46:02 PM EST

MTA and its unions (none / 0)

The glaring fact, is that the very same MTA pays its mostly white suburban work force on commuter railroads about 50% more than the mostly black workforce on the subways and busses. And yes, those workers have gone on strike more recently than the subway workers.

And yes, the Metero North and LIRR have cleaner and newer cars to boot.

by David Kowalski on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:28:36 PM EST

Workers Felt Burned by TWU in the Last Contract (none / 0)

One of the issues being missed here and in the MSM is that TWU membership was unhappy with Roger Touissant during the last negotiations 3 years ago. He came in as a reformer and promised he would get his workers the world. Instead, he came back with a 2% bonus in the first year which didn't apply to the base salary followed by 3% raises in 2004 and 2005. There is a lot of dissension on the Executive Board of TWU Local 100 - a fist fight almost broke out at a meeting Saturday.

I think Touissant had to call a strike to save his job. His membership needed to see that he was willing to go all the way for them. The outcome of this strike will interesting.

by John Mills on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 03:48:01 PM EST

well at least... (none / 0)

david andelman of forbes had the dignity to see the conflict objectively. hence the name of his opinion piece: 'transit pigs from outer space.' classy. my fave quote regarding the striking workers' salaries:

"Compare that with the average New York worker. Take out Wall Street, where mega-bonuses skew the average unfairly..."

i can't wait for his op-ed piece on missing a meal, if that should ever happen.

by big in japan on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 04:05:26 PM EST

News 12 Long Island (3.00 / 1)

I am sitting on the east end of Long Island right now and was able to see News 12's coverage. They didn't have a single reporter covering picket lines, not a single protesting worker was shown. What did they show? Bllomberg's veiled threats at a press conference, then they repeated his words constantly without allowing a single rebuttal.

I tried to log on to their site to voice my complaint and they wanted to know my account number?!

Talk about controlling your friggin audience.

All of the talk was about "stranded" commuters, who had been given ample time to make contingency plans and failed to do so. The other talk was about how this will hurt business. Well, I think business has been doing a good enough job hurting itself here in NYC.

If a few more businesses were progressive and had provided transportation for their workers there would be no problems for them what so ever.

Thank you very much for picking up this story!

DAGGER

by goplies on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 04:06:16 PM EST

Outrage in New York (2.00 / 0)

Cross post from Blue Mass Group

The transit strike against the people of New York City is illegal, immoral and outrageous. The MTA should start hiring new workers immediately. The state and city should consider privatizing the transit system and allowing multiple providers access to the rails and bus lines.

The City of Boston and the Commonwealth should learn from New York and examine mass transit privatization here as well. Private firms built the New York and Boston mass transit systems. It is time to see how they might improve it.

I am a supporter of unions in general. They bring balance to an economy that is all too often stacked in favor of employers. But they can be just as counter-productive as any other self-interested group. That is what is happening in New York.

The strike is illegal, because under the New York Public Employees Fair Employment Act public employees are not allowed to strike. The union is breaking the law just as surely as, for example, an employer who does not follow labor law. They deserve equal opprobrium.

The strike is immoral, because a small group of well-off people, in the process of breaking the law, is hurting the poorest, weakest, and most vulnerable residents of New York. The average salary for bus operators is more than $56,000 annually; and more than $54,000 for train operators, CNN reports. The union has requested a 27 percent increase over three years.

The starting salaries for transit workers, for reference, are more than double those paid to police officers, fire fighters, and trash collectors, according to the New York Sun.

The median salary for an entry-level clerk in New York City -- precisely the type of person most dependent on public transportaion -- is $33,699 according to salary.com. Many other straphangers make far less.

Finally, the strike is outrageous because the union has rejected arbitration -- a strong indicator of bad faith on its part. Transport Workers Union of America, the New York union's AFL-CIO-affiliated parent, does not even support the strike. "Michael T. O'Brien, the president of the Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100's parent union, warned the board that he could not support a strike because he believed the authority's most recent offer represented real progress," the New York Times reported.

The President of Local 100 claims to be fighting for all New Yorkers. In fact, he is fighting for special priviliges for a few at the expense of millions of the less well off. Sound familiar?

by bobneer on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 04:20:29 PM EST

Cool beans! (3.00 / 1)

This is Bob's first comment. Let's see if he can back up his conclusions:

I am a supporter of unions in general. They bring balance to an economy that is all too often stacked in favor of employers.

Which specific unions do you support and how Bob?

Did you support the grocery worker's strike? Ralph's has been indicted for illegally re-hiring locked out workers. Since you want transit workers to lose their jobs, should Ralph's be put out of business?

The average salary for bus operators is more than $56,000 annually; and more than $54,000 for train operators, CNN reports.

That's not real big money in California Bob. Is $54K big bucks in New York?

The starting salaries for transit workers, for reference, are more than double those paid to police officers, fire fighters, and trash collectors, according to the New York Sun.

I'm Calling Bullshit! on the New York Sun. Are they trying to tell me that cops, fire firghters and trash collectors start at $26,000 a year?

The President of Local 100 claims to be fighting for all New Yorkers. In fact, he is fighting for special priviliges for a few at the expense of millions of the less well off.

What "special privileges" are transit workers asking for Bob? Name two.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 04:36:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cool beans! (none / 0)

The Sun is right. The NYPD starts rookies at $25,100. It is a disgrace and it is causing serious recruitment problems. The salary ramps up pretty quickly and by 5 years on the job pay is comparable to what transit workers make.

Not to minimize the importance of transit workers as NYC is paralyzed today but I think police officers and firefighters should make at least as much as they do.

by John Mills on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 04:49:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There you go (none / 0)

The fact that a starting transit worker makes more than a starting cop does not seem fair, does it?

by Geotpf on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 05:05:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There you go (none / 0)

"The average salary for bus operators is more than $56,000 annually; and more than $54,000 for train operators, CNN reports."

that's the average salary, not the starting salary.

by big in japan on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 05:13:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There you go (none / 0)

So because the cops are underpaid, the transit workers should be, too? Am I wrong, or is that the argument you just made?

Or are you simply saying that this is proof the cops should be paid better? Because that makes sense...

by Scott Shields on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 05:32:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If the same city is paying both... (none / 0)

...I would pay the cops more than the tranist workers.

In any case, that figure quoted (cops) is false.

The actual starting salary is $34,970.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/misc/pdfaq2.html

Right now, after further research (and people's comments here), I'm leaning a bit more towards the union. I still don't think a strike was justified at this time-the two parties were still talking. I think the strike was more due to the union being pissed off about management's stupidity (the billion dollars that suddenly appeared, etc.) than there being an actual impass in salary/benefit discussions.

by Geotpf on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 05:55:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I knew it! (none / 0)

No way you can have a police force as large as NY city has at a starting wage of $12/hour. There are too many easier ways to make a living.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 06:19:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If the same city is paying both... (none / 0)

The new contract signed earlier this year has first year pay for a cop at $25,100. It ramps up in year two after you have completed training.

This is quote is straight from the NYPD careers website -
"Start receiving full pay and benefits from your first day of recruit training ($25,100 per annum)."

by John Mills on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:48:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If the same city is paying both... (none / 0)

Hi Geotpf. The figure you cite WAS the starting salary for cops (and it is indeed on the NYC website) but the true figure is $25,100. I refer you to this Daily News article:

The previous starting pay for NYPD rookies was about $36,000 plus an annual uniform allowance, holiday pay and health insurance.

Under the new pact, recruits will earn $25,100 a year while they are in the Police Academy - more than $7,000 less than rookies in Suffolk County and the MTA, Port Authority and state police departments.

by bobneer on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 10:58:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Lovely (none / 0)

Cops should not be paid that little, especially in New York City. It's a dangerous job (more so than driving a train), plus low salaries encourage corruption.

by Geotpf on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 03:28:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There you go (none / 0)

I'm saying that relatively speaking, the transit workers are not badly paid compared to other city employees.

by bobneer on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 06:07:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Unbelieveable! (none / 0)

I'm not surprised the Firefighters refuse to sign their contract. I'm going to run down to 7/11 and see what a starting asst. mgr. makes. It sounds to me like a lot of public employees in NY are getting screwed by the Taylor Law.

Not to minimize the importance of transit workers as NYC is paralyzed today but I think police officers and firefighters should make at least as much as they do.

They should all be starting at more than $12/hour.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 06:15:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unbelieveable! (none / 0)

Since you referred to my quote, let me respond. I am not trying to minimize the job transit workers do - I depend on them to get to work everyday. However, I can't remember the last time a subway conductor or bus driver put their lives on the line. 2 NYC cops have been killed in the line of duty in the last month. Something is wrong with the value chain when the starting salary of a subway conductor is more than a police officer. I am not against a raise for transit workers - they work hard too. But the point I was trying to make is what this city is paying its starting cops is a crime.

Gary - Just out of curiosity do you live in the 5 boroughs of NY and have you been impacted by the strike? Since you reference 7/11, I tend to think not. We don't have many of those in NYC, thank god.

by John Mills on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:02:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unbelieveable! (none / 0)

Harold Dozier, a TWU worker, was killed on the job last year on December 14. And even more to the point, Kurien Baby, another TWU worker, was killed on November 22, 2002. He had been ordered by his non-union MTA supervisor to work on a signal light alone, without the proper gear or support. This happened within days of yet another TWU worker, Joy Antony, being killed as the result of another non-union MTA supervisor's negligence.

It's a dangerous job.

by Scott Shields on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 10:36:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unbelieveable! (none / 0)

Point well taken. I know it is dangerous and people are killed periodically but it is not nearly as dangerous as being a cop. I don't begrudge the TWU an increase I just think the low starting salary of cops is an outrage.

by John Mills on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 05:06:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cool beans! (none / 0)

Hi Gary. Thanks for your comments. Here is the backup:

> Which specific unions do you support and how Bob?

There was a strike recently at a neighborhood grocery store. I didn't cross the picket line and instead went elsewhere to shop.

> Is $54K big bucks in New York?

Glad to hear you are doing so well. 54K is a lot more than the average salary in New York, especially when you take out financial workers who get paid very well, and far, far more than many people who live in the city make.

> Are they trying to tell me that cops, fire firghters and trash collectors start at $26,000 a year?

Sadly, yes.

> What "special privileges" are transit workers asking for Bob? Name two.

They want us to support them even though they are breaking the law.
They want to put their personal interests ahead of millions of members of their community.

by bobneer on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 06:17:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Special privileges? (none / 0)

> Is $54K big bucks in New York?

I don't know what you mean by "a lot more" Bob. In California $34k for a family of four is the poverty line. Nationwide I believe the average salary is $44k. If $54k is "far,far more than many people who live in the city make," then over 50% of New Yorkers must be on welfare.

>What "special privileges" are transit workers asking for Bob? Name two.

1. They want us to support them even though they are breaking the law.

2. They want to put their personal interests ahead of millions of members of their community.

Sounds to me like you think wanting to make a decent living so they can support their family is a special privilege.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 06:29:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Outrage in New York (none / 0)

Privatize, privatize, privatize. Nice message.

Your support? The building of the NYC subway system was handled by private firms, so says the book you link to at Amazon. Funny thing about that book? It was published by the New York Transit Museum. Why is that funny? The New York Transit Museum is -- SURPRISE -- part of the MTA! You don't think they might have a vested interest in making people think that private, non-union labor is more efficient than public, union labor, do you? Nah...

And a second point you make is that "starting salaries for transit workers, for reference, are more than double those paid to police officers, fire fighters, and trash collectors, according to the New York Sun." Uh... no. That's false. If you'd read the Sun editorial you link to a bit closer, you'd realize you're talking about the starting salary of a subway train operator, not the average starting salary for a transit worker. That's a big difference, seeing as how specialized that position is.

Comparing the starting salaries of transit workers to those of entry-level clerks somewhat silly, anyway. The average salary in New York City was $48,050 in 2003. I'm sure it's gone up a bit since then, but the point is that your $33,699 figure is arbitrary. Why compare transit workers to accounting clerks? Is the takeaway message here that we're supposed to punish transit workers for making more money than other people? The fact of the matter is that transit workers have dirty, tough, thankless jobs. They deserve what they earn. And you clearly don't understand the economics of New York City if you think that transit workers are "well off."

And by the way, rejecting arbitration is under no circumstances "a strong indicator of bad faith" on the part of the TWU. The MTA sought arbitration as a way to avoid any contract negotiation -- not as a way to avoid a strike. The union wants to fight for what they feel they are owed. That is not "bad faith."

My point in writing this post was not to expressly support the strike. I'm not in the union, but I'd like to think another way was possible. With the crooked MTA on the other end of the bargaining table, I wonder if that was really possible. My point was to clear up some of the absurd misconceptions and disinformation that's floating around regarding the strike. Judging from your comments, I have my work cut out for me.

by Scott Shields on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 05:19:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Outrage in New York (none / 0)

Hi Scott. Thanks for your comments.

> You don't think they might have a vested interest in making people think that private, non-union labor is more efficient than public, union labor, do you? Nah...

That the subways were built by private companies is a historical fact. There are plenty of sources for this information.

> Starting salaries.

Starting salaries for transit workers still are high relative to police, firefighters, and sanitation, don't you agree?

> Arbitration

If they are interested in a settlement, they should accept arbitration. This is not a normal labor relations issue: the transit workers have extraordinary power over their fellow citizens. They have to be responsible in the way they exercise it. Their current course of action is totally irresponsible.

by bobneer on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 06:22:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Outrage in New York (none / 0)

Starting salaries for transit workers still are high relative to police, firefighters, and sanitation, don't you agree?

If they are all underpaid, that is irrelevant. It is not surprising that firefighters have refused to sign a contract for three years.

Query: How much "higher" are transit workers salaries? I suspect it is a very small margin.

Labor arbitration very rarely favors the union. As a general rule arbitration is the strategy of choice for employers.

You really don't sound like a supporter of unions in general Bob.

by Gary Boatwright on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 07:38:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Outrage in New York (none / 0)

Even the Transport Workers Union of America doesn't support this union. Are you saying that they too are not supporters of unions in general.

The fact is that this illegal and, yes, selfish action by a rogue Local has alienated many people who support unions in general, not just me.

by bobneer on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 11:11:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Outrage in New York (none / 0)

It's stunning to me that you ignored every one of my specific comments.

I didn't say that private companies didn't build the subways. I said that the book you referenced in saying that private, non-union labor is more efficient than public, unionized labor was published by an organization trying to break the back of the union. You need to respond to that argument, not the historical fact that I of course don't dispute.
You have no idea what starting salaries are for union employees of the transit union. I pointed this out and you ignored it. So no. I can't agree until you give me something factual to support your premise.
This is not a normal labor relations issue. The MTA is known to be crooked. They went into this requesting arbitration before the negotiations even started. That's ridiculous. Should they have gone into arbitration instead of striking after the negotiations failed? I might give you that one.

by Scott Shields on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 09:04:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Outrage in New York (none / 0)

Hi. Sorry I didn't respond to the point about the publisher of the book. To respond: I don't think the political ideology of the book's publisher makes any difference with respect to the point I made. One lesson to draw from the history of the system, I think, is that private businesses built the subways and it would be useful to reexamine what role, if any, they might play in improving the system, which is not working at all right now.

Starting salaries. The AP reports: "MTA workers typically earn from $35,000 as a starting salary ...."

Look: we agree on two points: (1) this is not a normal labor relations issue, and (2) arbitration might have been a wise course for both sides, given the incredible suffering this dispute has caused (and look, I bet the last point, that this strike has caused a lot of suffering) is also something we agree about.

by bobneer on Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 11:17:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Outrage in New York (none / 0)

Anyone that knows better please correct figures that seem significantly off...

Median rent in NYC for a 2 bedroom apartment comes out to about $29,800 a year. Federal income tax on a family of four is roughly $6,000 a year. Not sure about state tax but let's say it's half, or $3,000 dollars. That leaves $16,000 over the course of a year, or $1333.33 a month for a family of four. Utilities, based on CNN Money's cost of living calculator, would be at least $500 a month. Let's say that each family member eats $85 worth of groceries a month- about what I eat (after adjusting for cost of living changes) and I eat poorly. $60 a month on commuting (either in gas or mass transit fares). Now we're down to about $450 dollars a month.

I don't have numbers on car insurance in NYC, but if this family wants to own a car, incidental data suggests that it'll run at LEAST $200 a month. A cup of coffee in the morning and taking the family out to eat once a month will run another $100 a month. That leaves $150 a month for things like clothing, doctor's visits, schools supplies, car payments, student loan payments, renting a movie, savings, renter's insurance, car maintenance, etc. etc.

$54,000 is certainly better than a lot of people make, but it isn't as though it's a king's ransom. Don't make this out to be something that it's not.

by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 06:29:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

cops make less? (none / 0)

That is a problem, but irrelevant to the question of adequate pay for transit workers. When this contract is negotiated and done, I'll fully support other public servants when their turn comes up at the bargaining table.

Otherwise, this is just a race to the bottom of the worst wages, benefits and working conditions.

by Steve Hill on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 08:01:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

$50K a year is a lot (3.00 / 0)

in nyc, unless you want to have children, support a family, or own a decent home/rent a decent apartment... [and then there's that 8-point-whatever sales tax]

by big in japan on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 04:48:15 PM EST

Re: $50K a year is a lot (none / 0)

I love your handle! :)

DAGGER

by goplies on Tue Dec 20, 2005 at 06:02:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What about the economics of it? (none / 0)

I've read through mounds of people's opinions on this board but one thing I haven't found any reference to is the economic impact of giving transit workers the kinds of salaries and benefits that the TWU seem to be asking for.

If there is one thing I learned in school about economics, is that it is all relative. When average salaries go up, the prices will soon follow. You could also reason it the other way around, but the fact is that it ends up being a vicious circle with one constantly leading to the other.

Lots of folks have compared transit employees' salaries to those of police officers, firefighters, trash collection workers, and so on. Some of you have dismissed these arguements as irrelevent which is really off base in my opinion. Changing one will always effect the other.

Lets say transit workers average salaries jump 20% from where they are. Wouldn't that be great for them, they work hard, they deserve it, right? 33,000 people with increased salaries cant affect the economy too much, right?

Well what happens when other public workers, like cops, firefighters, etc all start comparing their jobs to that of a transit worker? Good for them too, lets give them all raises too. We'll end up having to do it because otherwise those good cops and firefighters will end up turning in their badges and picking up a transit job for twice the salary and perhaps better benefits. Who wouldn't?

Next, it'll be the private sector workers. People who work for Wal-Mart, Target, McDonalds, and so on. Eventually minimum wage, welfare, and social security rates will go up too.

"Great!" you say. Now everybody is better off. Alas, this is not the case because economics is all relative and while you weren't looking the price of everything went up and those transit workers can't actually buy any more than they could have before.

My personal feelings are that you should never complain about getting what you agreed to. These folks are getting paid less than they agreed to. The MTA isn't trying to take anything away from people who are already employees, either (as far as I have read).

Also - the agruement that since so much money and commerce rests on the transit employees they deserve more also doesn't fly. If that logic worked in economics you would pay well over a dollar to send a letter, gas would be over $20 a gallon, and your Internet access would cost you hundreds of dollars per month. In the real world, most labor is priced like everything else - supply and demand. If there are a lot of people ready and able to do your job you will have a relatively low salary. If you are highly skilled and there aren't many people that can do your job then you can expect to have a relatively high salary. The fact is that driving a bus or a subway train is something that most folks can do, and there are a lot of people willing to do it.

by sledge on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 05:22:11 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.