NY Strike & Amtrak

[AlanB]

This letter was sent to the NY post by a track worker...

Dear Ms. Peyser,

I am a transit worker and for the first time in my 18 year career, proud

to be a member of the TWU.

Let me also say that I am a regular reader of your column and agree with

you most of the time but the hammering this union and its members are

taking by the print, radio and television media is grossly unfair.

How infantile is it of our two top elected officials to resort to name

calling? We, the TWU and its members are not the bad guys here. We are

only asking for a fair contract. I certainly do not want to strike and I

am sorry that my wife and friends have been greatly inconvenienced along

with the millions of other New Yorkers. I can NOT afford to be out of

work.

Setting aside the conspiracy of the governor and mayor to again pick on

this union in order to set up the other unions for defeats at the

bargaining tables, especially in regards to pensions, Ms. Peyser, as a

woman, are you not offended that this agency does NOT offer maternity

leave? That if a woman has a baby, she must use her sick time. Don't you

get maternity leave at your job?

Do you get Martin Luther King Jr's Birthday off? Doesn't just about this

entire country get it off to celebrate this man's legacy and contribution

to society and isn't it shameful as you consider the act of justified

defiance (she illegally broke the law too) of Rosa Parks - on a bus no

less - that we, the largest urban transit union in the country, whose

majority people group is African American, does not get to celebrate the

birthday of the chief protagonist in the civil rights movement?

These are only side issues of which there are many.....................

Let's consider something smaller. Do you have access to a restroom at

your job at the New York Post? I imagine the answer is yes and you

probably don't have to walk more than 100 feet to use the bathroom. I

work in the subway tunnels along with thousands others. Do you think I

have access to a restroom when I am working between stations and all of a

sudden have the urge to go? If, IF, I am lucky, there will be an

operating toilet in the station that I will have to walk thousands of

feet to. It's up to us to "go" at our quarters before we start our work

and then hope that something doesn't kick in while we are on the job. Oh,

did I mention that most of the restrooms designated for employees in the

subways are overrun with rats and/or leaky plumbing? Would restroom

conditions like this at the New York Post offend you? I imagine it would.

Ms. Peyser, with the utmost of respect to New York's Finest and Bravest,

who in my opinion are grossly underpaid to keep you and I safe as they

willingly sacrifice their bodies in their jobs - do you not consider the

worth of the bodily sacrifices our membership have made "just" to get you

from point A to point B? Those who work on the subway tracks, work "under

traffic", that is, as trains are whizzing by less than a foot from our

body AND while we are standing next to a live third rail that is carrying

600 volts of direct current. I myself have been jolted a number of times

in the course of my job and it is NOT a good feeling (to put it mildly)

but then again, unlike some others I have known personally, I have gotten

off the tracks alive. But by the time I retire at the young age of 55 (I

mean, I've been reading how everyone envies us for retiring at such a

young age), I will be pretty much crippled with bad knees, bad back and

bad shoulder from years of carrying heavy equipment and tools to maintain

and replace rails and ties that weigh hundreds to thousands of pounds so

you can travel to YOUR job safely and efficiently.

So please Ms Peyser, please do not consider us thugs or greedy or

selfish as Mayor Mike says. I only make $50,000 gross after 18 years on

this job and that barely qualifies as lower middle class in NYC and after

the taxes (not to mention utilities and gas and other escalating costs of

living ) I have to pay for the privilege of living in this city, I barely

get by. But I'm thankful for this job and I do love my job. And I always

tell people to take the civil service tests because even though the money

is not great, the job is secure, the benefits are good and we are

guaranteed a pension, at least until the government figures out a way to

get their greedy little hands on it like the private sector CEOs have

done to their employees.

I will not take the time to remind you of past contract years when the

MTA has cried poverty at the bargaining table and then within days of

negotiating an unfair contract with the TWU, "suddenly" finds an abundant

excess of money. Nor will I remind you of the last contract battle in

2002, when again the MTA cried poverty and we accepted a 6% wage increase

over 3 years (we're not keeping up with the cost of living here!) with 0%

the first year and then after that contract was negotiated and signed,

Alan Hevesi found a second set of accounting books showing more favorable

figures for the MTA.

The MTA shows a complete lack of respect and appreciation for the

working men and women of the TWU.

And that's what we're fighting for.

Sincerely,

Gary Glover

Trackworker and proud TWU member!

First let me say that I've never begrudged the workers a reasonable pay increase. However, IMHO 8% each year for 3 years is not reasonable. That would have some of the highest paid workers earning $70,000 in just 3 years. That's a $15,000 raise in three years.

There are thousands of workers here in the city that have not gotten a raise this year; many haven't had a raise in 2 or 3 years. Much less an increase of that size.

And as I mentioned above, those striking workers (even those earning the 30K) have now cost many other workers earning 30K or less, 3 days pay. Workers who won’t get strike pay, won’t get a pension, and probably won’t even get a raise next year. Some have even been laid off, since their places of employment are loosing money. Which transit worker wants to apologize to those people?

Then we have the poor fire fighter who normally rides the subway to work, but instead tried to reach work by riding his bike today. He got hit by a bus, not a city bus, and is now in grave condition at the hospital fighting for his life. Which transit worker wants to explain to his family that their pension was more important than his life?

Now, turning to Gary’s letter. First, the mayor has nothing to do with this. He does not control the MTA and therefore he does not have any input towards forcing the MTA to come up with a better contract. Only the Governor can do that. The Governor controls the MTA board with I believe 7 appointees, the mayor only gets 4. So whatever the Governor wants, he gets, since he controls the majority on the board.

Turning to the maternity leave, that I can't speak to, but I'm surprised that it's not covered by the Federal Family Leave Act. Since I don't know when this letter was written, perhaps that explains the next point, or perhaps Gary was just following the union rhetoric. However, the final offer from the MTA did offer to make Martin Luther King Day a holiday. So that argument is right out the window.

Next, could the restroom be improved? I'm sure that they could, but at least the workers have restrooms. We passengers don't in most cases. I rather doubt however that there is anything that anyone could do about the rat problem, even with loads of money.

Is working on the tracks dangerous? Absolutely. But that's the job that you accepted and you agreed to that risk. There are many other people out there working in dangerous jobs too. Hardly a reason to strike.

As for the retirement age, once again I see the union rhetoric coming out again. Gary would not have been affected by either proposal offered by the MTA, since both proposals only affected future hires. I can't tell you how many people interviewed on the picket lines still believe the lies that they were told by their union leaders, that they would not be able to retired until they hit 62. I saw dozens of workers interviewed, all of whom believed that they would get punished by that provision.

And the other offer the MTA gave them, did not change the retirement age for anyone.

Finally, in my conclusion, according to Roger Toussaint at the time of the strike, the only reason for the strike was the pension plan issue. All other things were either resolved or were considered secondary and minor. He walked away over the pension issue. So trying to justify an illegal strike, with issues that were either not on the table or were already resolved simply doesn't wash.

 

[AlanB]

Just as an update, at 6:00 PM, buses are already starting to leave their depots and are starting to make runs on certain major routes.

The subways are seeing trains roll out of their yards and they are already making stops for employee's only at all stations where trains are running. The latest word from the dispatchers, which the media does not yet have, is that they expect to resume regular passenger service at midnight tonight. The media is still speculating that it will be sometime before the start of morning rush hour.

All that said however, apparently there are passengers who are somehow getting into the subway system. The dispatchers just ordered all train operators to only pick up employees, to verify ID before opening a single door. They are specifically ordered not to open all doors.

 

[Dental Wiz]

Alan,

I can't agree with you more on this topic. Frankly, if the only issue pending regarding the decision to make this illegal strike a reality was the pension issue, then this union and their employees should pay dearly for the havoc they created for the city of NY. I disagree with those who call the mayor's comments insensative. Let's tell it as it is. The strke was an illegal, frivolous, and a selfish act. At the peak of the holiday season, this union decides to blackmail the city into accepting overly generous demands. They try to shut down the city, putting countless of their fellow citizens at risk. Knowing what was actually hanging in the balance, was this an appropriate, responsible action? Please!!!!

I guess its the unions' way of sayng Happy Holidays to the people of New York!

 

[Guest]

Just as an update, at 6:00 PM, buses are already starting to leave their depots and are starting to make runs on certain major routes.
The subways are seeing trains roll out of their yards and they are already making stops for employee's only at all stations where trains are running. The latest word from the dispatchers, which the media does not yet have, is that they expect to resume regular passenger service at midnight tonight. The media is still speculating that it will be sometime before the start of morning rush hour.

All that said however, apparently there are passengers who are somehow getting into the subway system. The dispatchers just ordered all train operators to only pick up employees, to verify ID before opening a single door. They are specifically ordered not to open all doors.

Looks like all the extra post 9/11 security is going to get a real workout tomorrow.. it will be a tense morning commute.

 

[GG-1]

Aloha

This thread is a good example of why we need unions and why we don't. Any of you who know I am an officer of a union local may be shocked to learn that I think that there should be no reason for unions in this country. Every company manager should be concerned about protecting the biggest asset of any company, the employees. But in our society, labor is placed on the "Liability" side of the balance sheet.

Some of the comments on both sides of this discussion, really show how much misinformation is out there and how little the public (us) understand about why they got to an impasse, or the last resort by a worker, a strike. If you make this decision neither side wins, everyone lost.

I remember from long ago when I first sat at the negotiation table how I felt the time we were asking for a $ .50 cent an hour raise, the first in 4 years, when the employer showed up driving a custom built Mercedes car. The most expensive car ever sold in the Island's. At that time I needed to apply for state welfare because my wages could not cover the delivery cost of my future daughter. Then there wasn't any health and welfare benefits. Today things have improved in the health and retirement area, but that $ 4.00 an hour wage, was more than I make today, after adjusting for the cost of living, inflation and housing adjustments.

Just to close for myself, What has been keep secret, so that an fair middle ground could be reached? There must be something that kept these side apart. Could it be so simple as a lack of respect by both sides, at the table?

 

[Save Our Trains Michigan]

the reason we have Unions on the Railroad is not just for WAGES like evryone want's to point the finger at

We do a very dangerous job the unions make sure we have safe work rules and a safe place to work plus enforce the rules that are there.

If we did not have Unions we would be walked all over by the RR's the RR's want evreything cheap.

I get real sick of Union Bashing Railfans have no idea what it is like to work for the RR's you see about 5% of what we do and put up with day in and day out.

Proud member of the UTU union

 

[Save Our Trains Michigan]

Here is what i mean the Unions try to do.Besides wages it is Safety

Lawmakers: Respect the conductor

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Congressional lawmakers have issued three special-delivery messages, each declaring: Respect the conductor.

Two letters come from the bi-partisan leadership of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee. This committee would be the starting point for a carrier effort to have Congress impose recommendations of a Bush-appointed Presidential Emergency Board should the UTU and freight railroads, or the UTU and Amtrak, fail to reach negotiated settlements.

A third letter was sent by the Senate's assistant minority leader, who helps shape policy of the Senate Democratic caucus.

The three letters emphasize carriers should not assume Congress will rubberstamp PEB recommendations that reduce train-crew size before comprehensive studies are undertaken to determine how safety would be impacted.

For almost a year, freight carriers have been telling a story on Wall Street that if the United Transportation Union does not agree to crew-size reductions, the railroads’ “special friendship” with the Bush administration would result in a stacked PEB that would recommend one-person crews and a scrapping of UTU crew-consist agreements. The carriers have further boasted that Congress would rubberstamp those recommendations.

Amtrak, meanwhile, is pushing for its own PEB in expectation of a recommendation to eliminate all assistant conductors, which could leave a single conductor responsible for the safety and security of upwards of 1,000 passengers.

Increasingly, in this post-9/11 environment, Congress is not buying the carriers’ arguments that have everything to do with economics and nothing to do with safety and security.

Republican Don Young, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, wrote Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta that “in order to ensure that safety and security considerations are given appropriate weight in resolving the current Amtrak/UTU labor dispute, and to give the National Mediation Board the benefit of Federal Railroad Administration expertise, I am requesting that you direct the FRA to conduct an investigation and issue a report analyzing the crew consist and staffing levels necessary to ensure safety and security on Amtrak intercity trains.”

Young said that while Amtrak has severe financial problems, “Amtrak also must operate in a safety and security environment permanently altered by post-9/11 experience, including several later incidents around the world involving attacks on rail and transit systems.

“During an emergency, conductors are the first responders directly responsible for assisting passengers,” Young wrote. “They must expedite evacuations after a derailment, render first aid, contact local emergency responders, and maintain the safety of the passengers until emergency personnel arrive.”

Young also wrote a letter to the three members of the National Mediation Board, asking the board not to “release” the parties from mediation (which could trigger creation of a PEB) until the FRA study he requested is completed and reviewed by the parties.

Separately, the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, Jim Oberstar, wrote the freight railroads’ chief labor negotiator, Robert F. Allen, and the president of the Association of American Railroads, Ed Hamberger, that “safety is already at risk on the rails.”

Oberstar, citing the railroads’ deteriorating safety record, wrote that “while positive train control and other electronic management systems may help reduce the number of train accidents, fatalities, and injuries over time, reducing crew size on a freight train from two persons to one person may actually negate any safety improvements these new technologies achieve.

“Neither the FRA nor the National Transportation Safety Board has conducted a comprehensive analysis of the impact a reduction in crew size would have on the safety of freight rail operations,” Oberstar wrote.

He pointed to an investigation by the Transportation Safety Board in Canada in response to an accident “involving a lone engineer.” The result was a “report outlining more than 65 needed improvement to such operations, including increased supervision; more intensive engineer training, including 120 to 130 hours of simulator training; implementation and maintenance of an engineer performance record data system; specialized training of supervisors and dispatchers working with lone engineers; additional fatigue mitigation and training practices; improved cab conditions; specified radio procedures and practices; and additional emergency procedures.

“I see no similar countermeasures in your Section 6 notices,” wrote Oberstar, expressing concern that “under the freight railroads’ proposal, only one person would operate an entire freight train, which could extend 110 cars in length, with each car weighing up to 286,000 pounds.

“I want to be very clear,” Oberstar wrote. “There should be no expectation … that the Congress will become involved in this dispute, even in the event that a PEB is established and recommendations are issued. Countermeasures and other safeguards, possibly even unrelated railroad measures, could be attached to such legislation. It is therefore in the best interest of both parties to reach a voluntary agreement,” Oberstar said.

The third letter was written to Allen and Hamberger by Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, the Senate's assistant minority leader. "I am concerned that placing highly technical equipment on locomotives to be operated by overburdened or fatigued employees at the same time that crew sizes are reduced may result in increasingly unsafe operations,” Durbin wrote.

He added that should the matter of crew-size reduction come before the Senate by way of PEB recommendations, “all parties involved should not expect the Senate to look on these matters merely as economic issues.”

UTU International President Paul Thompson said the UTU would continue its intensive educational campaign on Capitol Hill to make every lawmaker aware of “the extreme risk to public safety and security of reducing crew size.”

The UTU has also filed a lawsuit in federal district court seeking to prohibit freight railroads from demanding a re-opening of local crew consist agreements. It is not known when that decision will be handed down.

To view the letters mentioned above, click here for the Don Young letters, here for the Dick Durbin letter or here for the Jim Oberstar letter. (You need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view these documents, available free at Adobe.)

December 17, 2005

 

[Trogdor]

Reading some of the comments here, and elsewhere on the net, I see this strike as being about something bigger than three days' pay for the folks of New York City.

While it's true that the proposed change in benefits wouldn't affect anyone currently working there, why should it matter? What's wrong with unions sticking up for those yet to come? Why shouldn't newcomers be able to enjoy the same benefits as those that came before them? At what point did the official policy of every aspect of life in this country become "f*** the future?"

The next generation of workers (i.e. those my age and younger) already have a six-plus-TRILLION dollar national debt to pay off (and getting bigger to the tune of a BILLION dollars EACH DAY), kindly left to us by our predecessors (i.e. those in power right now). On top of that, we're supposed to settle for higher payments for fewer pension benefits (if we're lucky to even get a job with a pension). Meanwhile, the corporate/executive class of this country is sitting back laughing at this bickering between the lower-middle class and the lower class, fighting over the table scraps while those in power, after finishing their five-course dinner, turn around and tell us that there isn't enough food for everyone.

I think we're all missing the point. I'm generally reluctant to bring politics into discussions like this, but in this case I think it's completely relevant. If our political leaders can afford $400+ billion annually on a military machine to fight some phantom enemy (on top of the $200-300 billion already spent so far on operation desert quagmire), then turn around and tell us "Sorry, there's no money for your pension benefits." "Sorry, there's no money for Amtrak." "Sorry, there's no money for student loans." "Sorry, there's no money for health care benefits," they're playing us for fools. And you know what? They're right. Here we are attacking union workers for standing up for what could be the last bastion of hope for future workers to get decent benefits, yet we're letting the politicians walk all over us (or, should I say, drive all over us in their limousines on the way to the airport to take their Learjets out of town), while they are causing *far more* economic harm to us than TWU could ever do with a strike against the MTA.

I yield back the soapbox.

 

[AlanB]

Aloha
This thread is a good example of why we need unions and why we don't. Any of you who know I am an officer of a union local may be shocked to learn that I think that there should be no reason for unions in this country. Every company manager should be concerned about protecting the biggest asset of any company, the employees. But in our society, labor is placed on the "Liability" side of the balance sheet.

Aloha GG1,

First, thanks for an excellant post!

Yes, you are quite right. Too many employeer's don't consider employee's as an asset. Without the employee, there would be no company. On the other hand, I've seen workers who think that they should also be able to drive that Mercedes that you mentioned in your post. Neither position is correct, IMHO. Workers should expect resonable wages and working conditions, and the employer's should be providing that. On the other hand, employees shouldn't be expecting to share in the profits (unless they've invested in the company) and driving the Mercedes.

Some of the comments on both sides of this discussion, really show how much misinformation is out there and how little the public (us) understand about why they got to an impasse, or the last resort by a worker, a strike. If you make this decision neither side wins, everyone lost.

In this case that is definately true. The strike is over, yet the union still has no contract, and they have no amnesty for their illegal strike. The public has gained nothing, yet many have lost hours of sleep, spent countless dollars that they don't have, and some have suffered an even worse fate as my example of that poor firefighter. The MTA has to date gained nothing either, as they still don't know if they will get their pension demmands met. And there are many who blame them for the strike.

On balance, a slight majority of New Yorkers lay the blame for the strike equally at the feet of both the union and the MTA. So both have taken a bloody nose in the public's eye.

Yet the biggest loss remains that of the public who need and depend on that transportation. The very reason that the Taylor law exists.

Just to close for myself, What has been keep secret, so that an fair middle ground could be reached? There must be something that kept these side apart. Could it be so simple as a lack of respect by both sides, at the table?

That could well be the Six Million dollar question. There may well be something that we are not privvy to, that kept them further apart than things appear. However, I also suspect that you hit the nail on the head with your last statement. I truly do think that there was a lack of respect on both sides.

Personally and this is just my opinion, I think that Roger was being pushed a bit by a few factions within his union who wanted a harder line than he wanted. With it being an election year for him, next year, I think he tried to come on a bit too strong. That caused resentment on the part of the MTA and things escalated from there, with Roger eventually backing himself into a corner.

Consider what one Vice President who was against the return to work said tonight on public TV. He basically said, "We had the city right where we wanted it. We picked Christmas to strike so that we could get the most leverage and now we just gave that up." Now that makes it sound like the union was greedy, hungry, and deliberately called a strike simply because they thought that they could get more out of the MTA by scewing the public at Christmas.

That's certainly not going to win any support from the public to your cause, when you tell them that the reason you didn't wait to strike, that you didn't try harder at the negotiations, was because you thought that you could win more by screwing people at Christmas. It certainly isn't going to play well with the family of that poor firefighter whose lying in a hospital fighting for his life.

And now, just to add insult to injury, a resturant in NYC has filed suit against both the MTA and the Union for loss of business. I don't know if that suit will really go anywhere, but I expect a rash of those suits now. Even if no one wins a judgement against the union and the MTA, millions will now be spent fighting those lawsuits.

And sadly the bottom line still remains that, no one won anything. Yet everyone from the union to the MTA to the City and the residents of the city all lost with this strike. And that's sad.

 

[AlanB]

While it's true that the proposed change in benefits wouldn't affect anyone currently working there, why should it matter? What's wrong with unions sticking up for those yet to come? Why shouldn't newcomers be able to enjoy the same benefits as those that came before them? At what point did the official policy of every aspect of life in this country become "f*** the future?"

Robert,

I don't take issue with the union sticking up for the future and even trying to fight for the future. I do take issue with the union deciding that after about 7 days of negotiating, that it was ok to strike in an effort to try and drive that point home.

As I've pointed out several times, there are several unions in and around this city that have gone well over a year with no contract, that never left the bargening table to further their agenda. This union left the table just five days after their contract expired.

Metro North RR workers have now gone almost 2 years, if not more, without a contract. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that Dutchrailnut. Yet they have not called for a strike. Their job is every bit as dangerous as those who just went on strike. They even work for the very same employer as those who just went on strike.

This local called for a strike against the advice of the International TWU. This local called for a strike after being served with a court order barring a strike and reminding them that it was illegal to strike even without the court order. This local acted like a little child who didn't get what he/she wanted. Five days after the contract expired they walked, less than 2 weeks after the typical and most intensive period of negotiations, they walked. This union at least based upon public knowledge offered no alternatives, it was their way or the highway.

They thumbed their nose at the law, the MTA, their parent union, the City, and everyone in it. That's what I take issue with! :angry:

Had they waited 6 months or even a year with no contract resolution, then I might have had more sympathy for a strike. But especially in light of that one VP's remarks that I related above, this union acted just like a child throwing a temper tantrum IMHO. They weren't prepared to negotiate, they wanted the whole enchilada with no concessions. That's what I take issue with!

 

[Dutchrailnut]

Its easy to lock on to highest salary for TWU crafts, posibly a motorman with much seniority working 5 days a week with weekends off but that worker had to suffer 20 years before getting there.

Most of TWU people are $$33k cleaners and car inspectors. who start at 70% of salary live and work in NY but will have to pay extra.

I work for RR in New York and after 22 get about $100k, and live in suburbs, wealth you say, my bills just barely get paid and after injury settlement I purchased my first new car since I was 18, I am 50 now.

this is working 10 hours 49 minutes every day, pluss a day overtime every 4 weeks or so, you want to compare that to your wifes office job ???

I just killed my first suicide , had to witness other one 4 days later and have bloodpressure going tru the roof ?? still want to compare jobs as office manager ??? yes some workers make $127 k a year but they live on railroad 7 days a week and their kids ask mommy who that guy is ???

 

[Dutchrailnut]

And for your info TWU has never worked one day without a contract.

Does your contractor work without a contract, does your blactop guy, the guy who does siding,???

So why should transportation workers work without a contract, get railroads and MTA to live up to their obligations , and not duck the law like a bunch of cowards.

 

[AlanB]

I work for RR in New York and after 22 get about $100k, and live in suburbs, wealth you say, my bills just barely get paid and after injury settlement I purchased my first new car since I was 18, I am 50 now.this is working 10 hours 49 minutes every day, pluss a day overtime every 4 weeks or so, you want to compare that to your wifes office job ???

My wife doesn't have an office job, she's an assistant store manager and spends 80% of her day on the floor dealing with customers, displays, receiving shipments, checking in merchandise, and ringing on the register as demmand dictates. Her normal work day is 10 hours a day, with a half an hour for lunch out of that 10.

Eight times per year, namely near holiday periods, she works six days a week, not five. Since Thanksgiving, she's worked 10 hours a day, six days a week. Her last day off was December 11th and she won't have a day off till this coming Sunday, December 25th Christmas. That's two week straight at 10+ hours per day.

And now she just found out today that thanks to the strike, the store is hoping to recoup some of it's losses this week, so she gets to work tomorrow from 7am to 11 pm, as do all the other managers in her store and in every store owned by the company.

My wife gets paid no overtime ever, it's required. She gets no extra comp time either for all that OT. And we live in the city where expenses are higher than in the suburbs.

And she gets to do all of that for less than half of what you make, and with no guarenteed retirement fund. By the way, my wife is 43, holds an associate's degree in Fashion Merchandising, a bachelors degree in physcology, and has two years towards a masters in business administration.

So while I don't want to turn this into a competition, the simple fact is that there are many people who make less than transit workers, many who make far less than the highest salaries of transit workers, and don't get half the benifits that transit workers do.

So no, I have no sympathy for workers who decide to flaunt the law and hurt 7 to 8 million workers in this city over an issue that doesn't even affect them personally and an issue that they spent less than two weeks trying to resolve at the bargening table. As I said in my post above, I'd actually have more sympathy for MN workers at this point, than I do for the local 100 TWU here in the city.

 

[AlanB]

And for your info TWU has never worked one day without a contract.Does your contractor work without a contract, does your blactop guy, the guy who does siding,???

So why should transportation workers work without a contract, get railroads and MTA to live up to their obligations , and not duck the law like a bunch of cowards.

Why should the TWU be any better than the unions for the fire department, the police department, or the teachers union?

If they can follow the law, then why can't the TWU? What makes them so special? A union is a union and it shouldn't matter who your employer is or what your job is. If one can follow the law, then so can the other.

 

[AmtrakFan]

the reason we have Unions on the Railroad is not just for WAGES like evryone want's to point the finger at
We do a very dangerous job the unions make sure we have safe work rules and a safe place to work plus enforce the rules that are there.

If we did not have Unions we would be walked all over by the RR's the RR's want evreything cheap.

I get real sick of Union Bashing Railfans have no idea what it is like to work for the RR's you see about 5% of what we do and put up with day in and day out.

Proud member of the UTU union

I am a strong union supporter and we need to have unions in America not less. If we didn't have Unions we would all be making Wal-Mart Wages of $5.60 an hour or what ever minium wage is now. We would be going back to 1890's working condtionins where people were losing limbs and legs. So it proves that we need Unions.

 

[GG-1]

Aloha

Just think, what would be different. If the Air Traffic Controllers, had not insisted their contract, which had not been renewed for two years. Which contained " a no strike clause", was valid, and had, since it had not been renewed, declared it was "Nul and Void". With a legal strike other unions would have honored it ....

Hmmm .... Different outcome!

 

[PRR 60]

Aloha
Just think, what would be different. If the Air Traffic Controllers, had not insisted their contract, which had not been renewed for two years. Which contained " a no strike clause", was valid, and had, since it had not been renewed, declared it was "Nul and Void".  With a legal strike other unions would have honored it ....

Hmmm .... Different outcome!

Just some clarifications on the air traffic controllers strike of 1981.

The no strike requirement was not simply a clause that had been negotiated into the contract between the 1981 controllers union (PATCO) and the FAA. A no-strike agreement was and is a requirement imposed by law on all federal employees. This requirement originated through a law passed in 1955 (and upheld by the Supreme Court in 1971). The individual employment contract signed by every controller contained that requirement. In practice the law had been widely ignored. Several strikes by federal employees had occurred in defiance of the law. The government, perhaps fearful of crossing organized labor, had not often moved to enforce the requirements. That all ended in 1981.

The air traffic controllers walked off the job in August of 1981. They knew they were in violation of federal law, but they did not care. PATCO was convinced that they were so indispensable that the FAA would cave-in to their demands and that no President would dare try and enforce that law. Those demands included a 32 hour work week (down from 40); a 20% pay increase (and not per hour); and full-pay retirement after 20 years on the job. Back then a top-end controller made $50,000 per year, which inflation-adjusted to 2005 is just a tad over $110,000.

They walked out on August 3rd at the height of the summer tourist season, waited for chaos, and expected the FAA to quickly cave-in and give them everything. What they got from President Reagan was 48 hours to return to work or else. About 2000 (of 17000) did, the rest got the "or else". And to the strikers' surprise, those 2000 controllers, plus about 3000 supervisors and 900 military controllers kept air traffic moving remarkably well. Within the next four weeks, 45,000 applications were received by the FAA for about 5000 replacement controllers jobs.

One thing the strike accomplished was a streamlining of the ATC system. Ground holds replaced the in-air holding patterns. Planes are not released to a destination until there is a landing slot open. The number of controllers was reduced by 20%. Those changes are still evident today.

 

[AlanB]

And for your info TWU has never worked one day without a contract.Does your contractor work without a contract, does your blactop guy, the guy who does siding,???

So why should transportation workers work without a contract, get railroads and MTA to live up to their obligations , and not duck the law like a bunch of cowards.

Why should the TWU be any better than the unions for the fire department, the police department, or the teachers union?

If they can follow the law, then why can't the TWU? What makes them so special? A union is a union and it shouldn't matter who your employer is or what your job is. If one can follow the law, then so can the other.

And let's not forget one other thing here. The local called for this strike in defiance of the recommendation of the International TWU. This is perhaps the most telling point here. These are people who should have sided with the local 100, yet they refused to sanction the strike.

In fact the International TWU placed a post on their website for over two days ordering workers to return to work in direct opposition to the local 100 board.

I continue to agree with GG1 on this, that there are most likely some facts that we just don't know yet and we may never know. But when the very people who should most be on your side and rallying hardest for you, tell you not to strike; one has to wonder what the local 100 board was thinking.

 

[Dental Wiz]

I think many posts are missing the post regarding the recent TWU's strike in NYC. The issue isn't about the need for unions or union busting. Unions historically have been an essential componet in protecting workers in the US and their need had not diminished. The issue is about whether an orginization is going to act morally, ethically, responsibly and uphold the lawas it goes about its day to day business.

The local TWU in NY in my opinion did not. As addmitted by it's own VP, they waited until the worst possible time to blackmail the City of NY into giving in to their demands. After 5 days of not getting everything they wanted, they struck illegally. No thought was made regarding the severe consequences of their actions to the great people of NY. The union put their neighbors out in the cold. They caused severe financial hardship for everyone around including their own members. In the end it turned out to be a bothced, ill advised scheme in which no one won.

As a union, the local TWU must bargin in good faith. They have a moral, ethical, and legal obligation to act responsibly. They are not above the law.

Let's hope everyone learned a lesson and things will be better the next time around.

Steve

 

[GG-1]

But when the very people who should most be on your side and rallying hardest for you, tell you not to strike; one has to wonder what the local 100 board was thinking.

Aloha

This is an important part of the issue, WHY did the local ignore the International. I would expect the worse repercussion will be from them. Every time you ignore advise of the International, you lose. They have so much more resources.

 

[GG-1]

Aloha

A news story here said somthing like the "state mediator" would intervine next week. Didn't AllanB say that in an impasse they had to go to arbitration.

My question is the State goverment now in the mix? Arbitration is usually private.

 

[AlanB]

Aloha GG1,

First, yes, that news story is correct. A state mediator is currently involved in the talks, 3 mediators in fact. It was the mediator that got the parties talking, at least through the mediating team (I don't believe that there was any face to face talks). That talking lead to the union's decision to call off the strike. That mediator is also the one who called for a media blackout as to what's going on with the contract talks.

Now officially there is still no deal and talks will resume next Tuesday. The mediator did say that both parties were close and that the MTA won't take the pension thing off the table, but that there might be a way that they would consider taking it off the table, through changes in the health plan.

All that said, there are some who are speculating and personally I'm at least slightly inclineded to believe them, that the parties actually do have a deal. However, after all of the harsh words spewed out by both sides just prior to the strike and during the strike, both sides at this point need to save face. So the speculation goes that since the Governor declared that there would be no talks as long as the union remained on strike, that they will play around on Tuesday pretending to hammer out a deal that in reality is already done.

One thing that leads to this speculation was a statement by the mediator that basically said something like "Both sides are very close to a resolution and I think that we can wrap this up very quickly." Considering the harsh words just a few days before, that is a rather strong statement from the mediator. He's got to know something IMHO.

I also suspect that despite some of the local's board being upset over having no deal and no amnesty, that if indeed there is a deal, that it probably does include a modicum of amnesty. Under the Taylor law, there is no appeal for the members over the 2 days lost pay for each day of the strike. However, once before what happened was that the MTA paid the workers in their pay checks for the fines that the workers then had to pay. This way the workers lost no money due to the Taylor law. They still did loose their normal wages for the days struck, but at least they didn't loose double.

By the way here's another thing that leads to the speculation that there actually is a deal. Several of the exec board made statements to this effect, "Roger told us that he'd explain things and what went on with the meetings with the mediator on Tuesday." Now why wait till Tuesday to tell the board what happened in the meetings that Wednesday night?

Because they couldn't trust all the board members not to open their mouths if they were unhappy with the deal that had been worked out. So Roger simply used his power to pull most of the board to his side, simply based upon his word, to end the strike. By the way, Roger has already scheduled a meeting of the Exec board for Tuesday. He did that the very same day that they voted to end the strike. How could he know that he'd need a meeting on Tuesday? :unsure: No negotiations are that precise, such that you know for sure you'll reach a deal before Tuesday.

Now turning to the arbitration question, no, they didn't not go to binding arbitration. Under the law, both sides have to declare an impasse for that to happen easily. The MTA did declare an impasse after the strike started. But the union, which knew that their demmands were way too high, did not want arbitration because they knew that they would lose that way. They stand to come out far better with a negtiated settlement, than they would with an arbitrated agreement.

Here's the interesting thing though. There is yet another way that binding arbitration could have been imposed on both parties under the Taylor Act. When the MTA declared an impase, because the union did not, the State then sends in a mediating team to investigate what's going on and where each side stands. That team after its investigation can order binding arbitration if they think that there really is an impase.

IMHO and that of many others, Roger knew that he'd lose on this and end up in binding arbitration if he let the team finish their investigation. So despite his bold statement that "he wouldn't return to the table unless the MTA took the pension issue off the table", I suspect that he asked that mediating team to help with the negotiations.

Those mediators did and that's how we either got a deal or at least got so very close that there is little left to negotiate. That mediating team is the same one that I mentioned above that announced the end of the strike and that a deal was close.

Ps. The State was always involved in "the mix", since the state both provides the lions share of the funding for the MTA and the Governor appoints 7 of the 11 MTA board members. The board is really just a front to protect the Governor from direct critcizm and responsability for unpopular decisions. But make no mistake, if the Governor wants something to happen or not to happen, he has the power. The board members serve at his pleasure.

The mayor of NYC gets to appoint 4 board members, which makes him only a token force in anything that happens to the city's transportation system.

 

[AlanB]

As of today, the union has a deal with the MTA to present to it's membership. The executive board for the local 100 is voting right now to accept or reject the offer.

The one thing that has really changed from the original package offered right before the strike, is that the various pension ideas have been removed. In place of that, the union members if they approve the contract, will now have to pay 1.5% of their salary towards their health care.

The pay raises still remain 3%, 4%, and 3.5% respectively for the next 3 years. They get Martin Luther King day as a holiday, which was in the pre-strike proposal and there will be work rule and disaplinary rules changes, also in the pre-stirke deal. At least as of current reports, there is no deal in place to assist the workers who went out on strike, unlike what I mentioned had happened back in 1980 and what I speculated might happen again.

So if that holds, then while the union did manage to keep parity for all workers (meaning that the pension rules remain the same for current and future workers), the union basically lost by striking!

If this deal is approved, then union workers will make less money this contract year, than they did last contract year, which ended a little over week ago on the 22nd. With the 6 days of lost pay, plus the 1.5% health plan contribution, anyone in the union who went on strike will make less this year than they did last year.

Only those who didn't go on strike are actually ahead of the game.

 

[tp49]

I should have chimed in on this sooner, but I am in NY on vacation.

First the TWU was in direct violation of a court order and went out on strike KNOWING that the Taylor Law would be invoked on them. They still made the choice to do so and should pay. Let them be the example that (in the wording of the Taylor Law) "essential" government employees should not strike.

Second, based on NYS law there really is no need for government unions in New York as they have no leverage. The Taylor Law takes away what leverage a private sector union has in their ability to strike.

Third, and something that was totally overlooked in the press coverage of the event is the union's own political situation. As recently as a couple of years ago there were two factions within the TWU one led by Toussiant and another led by another group. It could be argued that Toussiant did what he did as a power play to keep his office come the next union election. Whether this totally backfires on him is another story but is one worth watching.

Last, who was the real winner here after the dust settled. The MTA. The TWU received $3,000,000 in fines each striking worker is out six (6) days salary, and the contract offer they are looking to ratify is eerily similar to the final offer made by the MTA. Also, the way I understood it was that the pension issue (making workers pay into their pension) was only to be for new hires. All government pensions through the NYS Civil Service system are not equal. For example as Ed Koch (former NYC Mayor) said Abe Beam (another former mayor pre-Koch) gets more in pension then I do (Beam is in tier I and Koch is a tier III) and that's the way it should be. Soon there will probably be a tier IV for people coming in after a certain date and they very well will probably have to pay into their pensions.

NYPD is without a contract for years and they didn't strike, and the offer the MTA made before the TWU went out on strike was fair in the wage increase department at the average for government employees in the state.

Before anyone flames me either, I was employed by New York State so I have some experience with the system and knowledge of the Taylor Law.