THis is a poor argument and muddies the real issue behind a strike. While yes, the low paid workers in this who use the trains will have a harder time getting to work, it does not follow logically (or reasonably) that therefore all workers should accept what their bosses give them. If you sell your labor for a wage, you have every right to withhold that labor if management is not providing an acceptable wage. The truth of the matter is the MTA is dividing the lower classes so they can weaken the labour movement and gain more power in the long run for management. To accept your argument is like saying fighting a war to free a people from oppression is stupid because it hurts the oppressed people. I did not hear this argument from you when speaking about Iraq. To have credibility one must have integrety first.
John Doe | 12.20.05 - 11:33 am | #

Maybe by "confrontation" they are talking about the transit workers and the big corporations who the subway and bus riders work for. I dunno. I don't particularly see this as a class confrontation.
Pietro | 12.20.05 - 11:46 am | #

I consider the strike to be economic terrorism. If you don't like your job, quit. Shutting down an entire city because you're not getting what you want is the ultimate in narcissism. How selfish can these strikers be????
cicero | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 1:23 pm | #

The TWU want to retire at 52 instead of 55? Who retires at 52?
Anonymous | 12.20.05 - 4:02 pm | #

John Doe,

Acceptable wage?? An MTA conductor gets paid $54k + benefits, the operator gets paid even more. MTA offered $59k to the conductors, who essentially just look both ways before the train can pull out of the station, and the union rejected it. $60k to look left and right? Are you kidding me?

This strike, and what unions stand for in general, is nothing more then price fixing - something that's illegal in this country.
Stan LS | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 4:04 pm | #

The transit strike is in violation of NY state law so a judge just imposed a whopper $1 million per day fine.
Leonardo | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 4:13 pm | #

"I consider the strike to be economic terrorism. If you don't like your job, quit."

This view is juvenile and betrays the very 'selfishness' you accuse the transit workers of. Life isn't that easy, and I'd be willing to wager that most people "don't like [their] job[s]." Furthermore, regardless of their education, the simplicity of their jobs, and the amount they're currently being paid, the fact remains that they are providing a VERY important service to New York City. Though I'd be much more sympathetic if they were striking against a private company (as opposed to the City of New York), I believe they have a right to reasonable work, advancements, benefits, etc. To the person who said they want to retire at 52, that's wrong, they want to retire at 55 but the MTA is pushing for them to retire at 62.

Concessions need to be made on both sides - to vilify one side simply because it's the side that provides the service is absurd.
pete | 12.20.05 - 4:13 pm | #

"I consider the strike to be economic terrorism. If you don't like your job, quit."

This view is juvenile and betrays the very 'selfishness' you accuse the transit workers of. Life isn't that easy, and I'd be willing to wager that most people "don't like [their] job[s]." Furthermore, regardless of their education, the simplicity of their jobs, and the amount they're currently being paid, the fact remains that they are providing a VERY important service to New York City. Though I'd be much more sympathetic if they were striking against a private company (as opposed to the City of New York), I believe they have a right to reasonable work, advancements, benefits, etc. To the person who said they want to retire at 52, that's wrong, they want to retire at 55 but the MTA is pushing for them to retire at 62.

Concessions need to be made on both sides - to vilify one side simply because it's the side that provides the service is absurd.
pete | 12.20.05 - 4:13 pm | #

pete,

Sure, the service is important, so why not just pay them $100k a year? Why not a million? Price fixing is illegal for a reason. The market should decide the salary, otherwise its not fair to the consumer. At this rate the fare will be $3 next year. As for the retirement at 62 - that's only for the new hires.
Stan LS | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 4:20 pm | #

I agree - there is a point at which the demands become extortionate. However, I don't think the demands are that crazy. Though both the Union and the MTA are jointly responsible for letting it get to this point, I'm reluctant to tag the TWU with all the blame just because they're less sympathetic and the strike is "illegal."

I agree that the market usually works in setting wages, but things can get oh-so-thorny when we're talking about public utilities. That's why it's difficult, if not wrong for us, sitting on the outside to say "54K for pushing a button and looking both ways? Pshhaw!" Management and union have to reach a consensus as to what's acceptable. All the rest of us in NYC can do is watch and suffer.
pete | 12.20.05 - 4:28 pm | #

Why is it wrong of us? Why should MTA be tied down to a union anyway?
Stan LS | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 4:31 pm | #

Pete,
The issue I have is that the union is preventing people who would be willing to work for 59k and retire at 62, from obtaining employment that both the worker and the employer find acceptable. And then to use that as a pre-text to inconvenience people during a very busy time, seems rather petty to me. If the State had been trying to force current workers to extend retirement, I would be more sympathetic.
Mike S. | 12.20.05 - 4:32 pm | #

"If you sell your labor for a wage, you have every right to withhold that labor if management is not providing an acceptable wage." - John Doe

Except, John, the union does NOT have the right to withhold its labor. The strike is illegal. An individual MTA employee may quit if he or she does not find the wage acceptable, but, as a union, the employees gave up the right to strike by accepting the job.
David Walser | 12.20.05 - 4:40 pm | #

"Estimated daily cost of a strike to the city - $400,000,000
Average Salary for a Subway/Bus operator - $62,000
Starting Salary for a NYPD Police officer - $25,100

Trying to get support from a public that makes less money (on average), will get less salary increases (3.5% versus the TWU's request for 8%), and will have to work over a decade longer (TWU retires at 55)....while making them walk to work in 25 degree weather - Priceless

I'll be wearing a sign on my walk to work that reads: The TWU can kiss my freezing ass!"

http://gopandthecity.blogspot.co...able- shoes.html
Fen | 12.20.05 - 4:47 pm | #

alarmist, henny-penny the sky is falling sensationalists, the mayor included, are really blowing the effects of the strike out of all proportion. new yorkers know how to get along in a crisis (remember 9/11? or the blackout?), which this clearly isn't, at least judging from the faces of folks out today on the streets of the greatest city in the world.
mig | 12.20.05 - 4:57 pm | #

pete?

Toussaint initially wanted the retirement age dialed down to 50. He demanded no contributions to health benefits and no increase in pension contributions by the rank and file, and a CAP on how many disciplinary actions (like docking a paycheck if someone came to work late or abused sick day regs) the MTA was allowed to lay down.

I was born into a MABSTOA family, but this guy is out of his mind if he ever thought that kind of crap would fly. The MTA basically sucks, but Toussaint is nuts.
TC@LeatherPenguin | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 5:07 pm | #

I believe the right to unionize is all the John Does and Joe Schmoes have left against institutionalized, entrenched pure capitalism - not to say I'm a socialist - far from it. But that, Homepage, is why the MTA should be tied down to a union. Whenever you have a large institution employing thousands, it's natural for them to unionize - notwithstanding erecting legal barriers to stop this (which some might argue would be unconstitutional), that's the way it shall remain.

Mike S. - I see what you mean, but once you buy into the Union, you're just a body in a head count. You get the benefits, and when they say "sit" or "strike," you only ask where or when. I give the Union a lot of credit for looking to the future - they have transit workers across this and future generations in mind, not just the immediate wants of the current set. Dunno what turnover is in the MTA but it's fascinating (in a good way) to see a union working for those who have yet to even be hired. I also think it's precedential as far as MTA/TWU relations are concerned.

Finally, to those who say "the strike is illegal," to me, that's as useful a comment as "the strike sucks." Ok, it's illegal - but it's going down and the TWU is prepared to deal with the repercussions later. The legality of such a strike is of secondary concern to all parties involved at this point (though before the strike, it was a slight disincentive to the Unioners).
pete | 12.20.05 - 5:12 pm | #

MTA should *not* be tied down to a union. Union = monopoly. Monopolies are illegal. Price fixing is illegal.

TWU screwed themselves with this one. Paying $60k for people to look left and right before the train leaves the station is absurd. If I had a job which barely required a high school diploma, paid $60k, had awesome benefits and I got to retire at 55 - I would keep it nice and quiet.

But, no, they got greedy and now people know.
Stan LS | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 5:30 pm | #

I agree with an inherent right to unionize, but I also believe employers have a right to hire non-union employees. I'm not sold on the union being able to deny employment opportunities to others. When union employees do that, they go from being advocates for their members to being extortionists and protectionists, exploiting the poor unemployed by keeping them that way by artificially raising the the cost of employment.

As far as the illegality is concerned, contracts must mean something or they mean nothing. Equating illegality to 'sucks' is disengenuous at best. Lets say the MTA decided that even though the contract was for 54k, they were gonna pay 42k. This is illegal as it is a breach of the terms of the contract. This 'sucks' but it is illegal and the reason it is illegal is that it violates the principles of contracts. This strike, which violates the basic agreement between the MTA and the TWU is also illegal, and should be looked at as a bad faith gesture on the part of the TWU to ignore those parts of its agreements it finds inconvenient.
Mike S. | 12.20.05 - 5:33 pm | #

Two things:

1) Homepage says "MTA should *not* be tied down to a union. Union = monopoly. Monopolies are illegal. Price fixing is illegal."

This is overly simplistic. A union resembles a monopoly only in that it concentrates a certain "service" in a certain entity/institution. To equate unions to monopolies to price-fixing requires too many inapposite leaps of logic. You need to look at a union as the proverbial "worker's" last stand against management, which, left to its own will & devices, is interested in one thing: efficiency (a word rendered hilarious by its presence in a discussion about municipalities).

2) Mike S., you say: "As far as the illegality is concerned, contracts must mean something or they mean nothing." As an attorney (among other things), I agree wholeheartedly. But what that comment fails to recognize is that the contract at issue is not a typical contract for employment - my take is that this is truly an exceptional case, that whenever you have employees of the State (big or little "S"), the rights/issues at play transcend the black-letter contracts being analyzed. Admittedly, I tend to draw upon history and "higher principles of law" (i.e., the Constitution) along with my own personal legal views of unions and organized labor in arguing that the literal "legality" of the strike is a non-issue.

That said, the most important thing you need to know is "illegality" is not tantamount to the "impossibility" or "unconscionability" of the strike. OK, they're breaking a law - they'll suffer the consequences. Just as I, in plain view of a patrol car, may choose to speed by knowing full-well I'll be pulled over, stopped and forced to pay a fine at a later time: I may be on my way to a killer party and the trade off in time may be worth it. (poor example, but you catch my drift)
pete | 12.20.05 - 5:44 pm | #

I don't think the law against public employees striking can be considered a contract. In fact, it prempts contracts. Unions would never consent to a contract that prohibited the ability to strike in the future. The strike is the main power they have. I don't think the state has a right to compel someone to go to work, that's slavery. Thus, I don't blame the TWU for violating the law. They should violate the law. With that said, I still consider the strike to be economic terrorism. They could have done a controlled strike that made the lives of management more difficult but didn't strand millions of New Yorkers. Also, I only support peaceful strikes, which mean employees who don't want to strike are not forced to strike, job seekers who want to replace the strikers are not forcibily prevented from working, and union members don't forcibly block entrances, etc. This is the difference between peaceful association and thuggish behavior.
cicero | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 5:51 pm | #

I never equated illegality to unconscionability, but from the state's standpoint, its negotiations with the TWU were on the premise that the union had given up its right to strike. Because they later re-asserted this right and excercised it, means they were at some point acting in bad faith to their commitments. The specific legality may be a non-issue to you and may be an issue to others, I do draw meaning from the bad faith actions.

My point being that the union has now shown a willingness to violate the larger agreement between MTA and TWU, it has lost the ability to argue it's moral standing with any weight. Its contractual commitments now carry less weight and it makes their position much less tenable.

This also gives the MTA an opening to get public support for union-busting in the public sector (though I'm not sure it would be enough to pass a law), which is not helped by stranding hourly workers near Christmas. Also, since this is an illegal strike, it opens up (though not plausible in my mind) to a class action lawsuit by the citizens/workers of NYC for damages, lost wages and such for the duration of the strike on top of the fine.
Mike S. | 12.20.05 - 5:55 pm | #

Would love to continue this conversation folks, but a frosty bike ride to the Lower East Side awaits me - best of luck to all affected by this - keep warm!
pete | 12.20.05 - 5:58 pm | #

Yeah, Socialism is great until you deal with people who won't work, who think the world owes them something, who especially think that YOU owe them something. Work or starve folks, Nature plays it the same way.
RA in Kennewick, WA | 12.20.05 - 6:32 pm | #

These people are ridiculous. At least Paul Krugman has a solution.
Shallow | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 10:03 pm | #

It's called computers. Probably a good 30% of these employees ought to be fired immediately and replaced with automated systems. Use the savings to cut tolls, get more people using mass transit- it's good for the environment!
Matt | 12.21.05 - 12:33 am | #

@Fen: Why compare the starting salary of a cop with the average salary of a transit worker? That's hardly apples to apples.

Want to hear a disgusting number? Port Authority police (who aren't part of the NYPD) can make $90K after a few years on the job! For sitting around a tollbooth all day! An NYPD detective makes 20K less than that!
Dave | 12.21.05 - 4:05 am | #

The theory that in New York, transit riders are (like in the rest of the country) largely the poor shows how little you know about New York. For one obvious example, one of my daily reads is a fairly wealthy economist and frequent commenter on CNBC and Fox who rides the LIRR and then the subway into the city to work.

Just because in your town (and mine), only poor people ride buses doesn't mean upper-income people don't use the subway in NYC. They do, in large numbers.
M1EK | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 11:07 am | #