my preemptive response on the TWU strike
I've written up a preemptive response that I'm going to start posting as a reply to anything negative I read about the strike. Feel free to comment from any viewpoint.
(1) The MTA is running a $1 billion surplus.
(2) The other municipal unions (teachers, fire, police) did give plenty of concessions to the city, but received significantly higher raises than the TWU would get.
(3) On healthcare and pensions: Dividing the union between the current employees and the new hires is purely an attempt at unionbusting. That's what management is supposed to do, I guess - but that doesn't mean we should let them get away with it. By creating 2 tiers of employees, the MTA hopes to sow division within the membership, turning workers against each other in future bargaining. That's reprehensible - I was happy to hear that TWU members were unwilling to "mortgage" the future employees in order to get quick gains.
Furthermore, on Monday night the MTA introduced a new last-minute pension proposal that changed new hire pension contributions from 2% to 6% - a major change that led to the strike. Interestingly, the NY Times reports that this proposal would save the MTA a paltry $20 million over 3 years.
(4) The MTA has a particularly draconian set of disciplinary rules and procedures. With 34,000 employees, there are current 15,000+ active grievances relating just to discipline. The TWU has said repeatedly that they will compromise on the wage increases (which hardly amount to 25%) if the MTA will lighten up in this area.
An example of the MTA's discipline: If you call out sick, the MTA sends a supervisor to your house to make sure you're really there. Would you be happy if your boss gave you so little trust?
(5) Pataki and Bloomberg have been acting in a particularly "reprehensible" fashion (to use Bloomberg's new favorite word) in this dispute. Both kept low profiles and said they had no control during the negotiations. Now, both are grandstanding and saying that the MTA should not negotiate until the strike is called off. Talk about two-faced!
For a bonus bit of pot-calling-the-kettle-black, see the Village Voice: http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/002218.php
(6) The strike has been called illegal under the Taylor Law. I'm uncomfortable with telling *anyone* not to strike, but I can see fire and police. Still, the strike is illegal - fine. But would you have opposed law-breaking in the civil rights movement? Ever hear of civil disobedience? Sometimes the rule of law isn't everything. This union will pay a penalty for their actions - if they pay the consequences, how are they not justified?
Furthermore, all strikes used to be "illegal". It was only through these "illegal" actions that workers were able to obtain the current "right" to strike.
(1) The MTA is running a $1 billion surplus.
(2) The other municipal unions (teachers, fire, police) did give plenty of concessions to the city, but received significantly higher raises than the TWU would get.
(3) On healthcare and pensions: Dividing the union between the current employees and the new hires is purely an attempt at unionbusting. That's what management is supposed to do, I guess - but that doesn't mean we should let them get away with it. By creating 2 tiers of employees, the MTA hopes to sow division within the membership, turning workers against each other in future bargaining. That's reprehensible - I was happy to hear that TWU members were unwilling to "mortgage" the future employees in order to get quick gains.
Furthermore, on Monday night the MTA introduced a new last-minute pension proposal that changed new hire pension contributions from 2% to 6% - a major change that led to the strike. Interestingly, the NY Times reports that this proposal would save the MTA a paltry $20 million over 3 years.
(4) The MTA has a particularly draconian set of disciplinary rules and procedures. With 34,000 employees, there are current 15,000+ active grievances relating just to discipline. The TWU has said repeatedly that they will compromise on the wage increases (which hardly amount to 25%) if the MTA will lighten up in this area.
An example of the MTA's discipline: If you call out sick, the MTA sends a supervisor to your house to make sure you're really there. Would you be happy if your boss gave you so little trust?
(5) Pataki and Bloomberg have been acting in a particularly "reprehensible" fashion (to use Bloomberg's new favorite word) in this dispute. Both kept low profiles and said they had no control during the negotiations. Now, both are grandstanding and saying that the MTA should not negotiate until the strike is called off. Talk about two-faced!
For a bonus bit of pot-calling-the-kettle-black, see the Village Voice: http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/002218.php
(6) The strike has been called illegal under the Taylor Law. I'm uncomfortable with telling *anyone* not to strike, but I can see fire and police. Still, the strike is illegal - fine. But would you have opposed law-breaking in the civil rights movement? Ever hear of civil disobedience? Sometimes the rule of law isn't everything. This union will pay a penalty for their actions - if they pay the consequences, how are they not justified?
Furthermore, all strikes used to be "illegal". It was only through these "illegal" actions that workers were able to obtain the current "right" to strike.