Transit Workers Union went on strike in New York against the Metropolitan Transit Authority. People were upset about not being able to get where they needed to go, but many showed their support. This is a typical situation of an employer wanting the worker to work, but not wanting to pay the worker properly. Why were they on strike? For many reasons including lack of accomodation for growing numbers of female workers with no maternity plans. There was one example of a driver that had to go to work until the very day of her labor. Namely what they were striking against, was the decrease in their pension benefits. Instead of receiving benefits at 55, the contracts were changed stating that they had to be 62. Average life expectancy for a retired transit worker is 2 years after retirement. Inhaling steel dust everyday and dealing with rats are aspects of train track worker conditions. The mayor and governor of NY retaliated by slandering the TWU. They called the TWU greedy. The mayor of New York is a billionaire along with the head of the MTA. They feel that the striking workers are overpaid. Bloomberg spent 75 million dollars in his campaign when running for mayor. Nobody with any sanity would spend this much money unless it was a profitable enterprise. The mayor's agenda to make a public mockery of these transit workers worked fairly well. The media portrayed them as greedy, corrupt, and uneducated. The media has also portrayed New York as a city enraged at the transit workers. This had a great effect for the MTA. When the media portrays the TWU as greedy, and when the media portrays NY as enraged at them, how does the viewer see them? The viewer jumps on the media bandwagon, and becomes enraged at them as well. Many striking workers complained that everything in the media was in favor of the mayor, and against the strikers. At the same time, there were sympathizers. People that joined these transit workers in support. People walking because the transportation system was down expressed their support as well. Even the sympathizers felt that the media was being unfair. Naturally, it would not be in the best interest of the media to portray this. As usual, heavy police presence did whatever they could to suppress the picketers. The objective was to criminalize the actions of the TWU. Furthermore, the media has emphasized the Taylor law which states that transit workers are not allowed to go on strike.
A similar thing happened a number of years ago when PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization) called a strike in the form of a "sick-in" - members calling in sick. I don't know if it was the Taylor law but there is a federal law that prohibits them from striking. After putting up with snarled. delayed and canceled flights for several days, then-president Regan had no choice but to fire them and hire replacements. I believe both the air traffic controllers and the MTA had problems serious enough to warrant attention but striking is not an option for some services that are vital to the nation or a locality. Public transportation is one of those. In both cases to proper approach is arbitration. Both of those unions and the government could have found parties they would agree on to handle the grievances of the unions. Strikes could have been averted with no impact on the public and hundreds of controllers would have still had their jobs. I've not heard of any MTA employees loosing their jobs but that could have been the next phase following the fines against the union and individual members. The primary issue is, in both cases, the people were informed at the time they were hired that strikes were against the law. They understood that and accepted the jobs anyway. So, in the final analysis, considering those facts, who really are the "bad guys" after all???
Given that it is illegal for them to strike, should Bloomberg not have had replacement staff on hand to counter just such blackmail? This is a woeful oversight on his part, and the thugs will be tempted to take advantage if it is not corrected. The first thing he should do is to create a pool of on-call labour from willing workers, possibly retired, and pay them DOUBLE for future strike-breaking duty. Then, when the TWU backs down, he should arbitrarily peg the pay settlment for that year to inflation, then deduct the cost of breaking the strike PLUS the fines incurred. That'll teach the bastards. The MTA is clearly a garbage dump for the type of employee the profit-making sector wouldn't touch with a bargepole, and these morons who complain about rats and surly passengers had better wake up and smell the steel dust, because they ACCEPTED those jobs, and if they don't like them, they should get the fuck out. As for female employees, if you can't handle their maternity plans, don't hire 'em. Jaybee.
And what is "...pay the worker properly."? How much is that? Why? Who is to decide what's "proper"? In most other employment fields, retirement at 55 is considered EARLY retirement ...so what's their complaint? Who forced them to accept the job in the first place? And if they didn't like working there, why did they stay? Baron Max
Strike sucks.They can say whtvr they wanna say...Talk about support! yea right, when you have to walk 10 blocks in 3F temperature,you dont want to think about the support, you dont think of anything apart from surviving such cold to get to your destination for work... BAH! Laterz Rick
People are getting weak! Back in the old days, people walked a lot further than 10 blocks in freezing cold ...so why can't today's people do it? Weak, that's why! Weak and wimpy! Baron Max
The thing about the original post is the the poster is someone who thinks that all working-class (and unemployed) are victims of oppression by "someone." His general outlook on reality borders on the fanatical in that he doesn't understand things like contractual obligations, agreements between workers and management, etc. Nor does he seem to comprehend things like job skills and productivity - thinking instead that everyone should be paid top wages (or something similar) regardless of their level of commitment to their jobs. He believes society as a whole is the oppressor and that those "poor people" that he feels so sorry for have no responsibility in the matter. It isn't their fault they are lazy or shiftless - society MADE them that way (according to him). And the fact that many of them blow away what money they make isn't their fault either. He believes that everyone is entitled to a high standard of living even if they put forth no effort to earn it.
We all know you will die in the US without a job. That's the nature of the country. I'm not really impressed that they signed a form that stated that strikes were against the law. I had to sign a form before I could paid that I swore an oath of alllegiance to the US constitution. Obviously I'm never going to stick to that. That would be unconstitutional for me and unreasonable. Kind of easy argument isn't it. It says on a piece of paper you can't, so you can't. But the situation of the workers is getting worse. They never signed for that either. The US doesn't stick to international treaties either. If their government can say 'fuck this piece of paper' surely their citizens can do the same?!? Imagine everybody had stuck to the rules of the employers during our history. Then there never would have been strikes. Or unions. Or retirements (paid ones). It's our right to protest against injust situations. That's the nature of civilization.
Government workers are coddled, pampered, protected, and overpaid. I worked for a government agency for many years and I became so embarrassed by the fact that my entire agency was ripping off the taxpayers that I simply had to leave. No one can be fired, no one has any performance standards, no one does more than an hour of meaningful work per week. Yes I understand that train drivers work a little harder than pencil pushers, but for the goddess's sake, these people make FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR!!! Don't you wish your father or mother could make that much money? Trains are almost completely automated--if you don't believe it try getting your hand stuck in a closing door, the train will take off and drag you behind it. I now have a job that gets a two percent raise every year--if I'm lucky. I have a college degree and decades of experience, and I don't make a whole lot more money than they do. There's no way these people deserve a five percent annual raise and early retirement. SCREW 'EM! As for the hazards of breathing pollutants, we all do that. There's nothing special about their jobs. It's a well-studied phenomenon that men define their identies through their work. It's quite common for men to only live two or three years after they retire, regardless of the type of work or the age of retirement. It's been argued persuasively that the kindest thing you can do for us is to let us work as long as we're physically capable of it.
That's not true - you won't die without a job. Only if you choose to. There are plenty of government programs plus church and other organizations that will feed you. Forget about what governments do, their purpose is not to be examples of how people should act. And any person that agrees to something and then ignores what they promised to do, it speaks volumes about their personal integrity - and that's sad. If you do not believe in keeping your word you are a shallow human being. If the employers in these special cases (vital services) create hardships upon their workers, there are things in place to correct that. They do NOT have to break the law to do so. Yes, there have been great gains in various industries due to organized labor and the use of strikes. However, those workers did NOT agree to no-strike clauses as a condition of employment. These people and the PATCO bunch did.
The strike is a perfectly legitimate response. The mayor and governor refused to participate in any arbitration. They only wanted to dictate. The union was prepared to arbitrate as long as they mayor and governor were involved. The TWU was willing to put off the strike, but the mayor refused to even show the slightest reasonability. The reason the masses have animosity towards the striking workers is not because it was wrong for the workers to go on strike. The strike was legitimate. The reason for the animosity is purely media bred. Public raltions of the city wanted to ensure that the city would be upset at the striking workers, so they used the media effectively to their end. The Taylor law is not in the best interest of the worker. It prevents workers from going on strike. It is not a just law. Roger Toussaint (president of the union) was being very reasonable and sincere. Meanwhile the mayor and governor were resorting to calling them greedy, and corrupt. It's the other way around.
Oh, I agree with their "right" to strike. However, I also agree with their employers' "right" to fire all of them, or to fine all of them, or to hire new workers in their places. I just can't abide with the bullshit crap that the first post says/implies ...that the poor, poor, oppressed, underpaid workers somehow deserve better than what they signed on to do and get. If they don't like the job, get another one! ...move to Moscow and get a job! ...move to Iraq and get a job! Baron Max
That's the first I've heard of that. Do you have some evidence that shows they refused to participate? And just in passing, it's worth noting that they really weren't required in the arbitration process since neither of them was the employer - MTA is.
Don't fucking try to hide behind words, the strike was ILLEGAL. Whether it was legitimate is a matter of opinion, but the fact is that the strikers had signed up, and could have resigned. But they took an action they SPECIFICALLY agreed, in writing, not to take. I don't see where the fuck the legitimacy is there. Excuse me, but don't you think they have more important things to do than talk to a bunch of lowlife workers? They have employed skilled professionals to talk to those scum. You don't call ICI and ask to speak to the CEO if you're one of the fucking cleaning ladies. It is not reasonable to sign a piece of paper and then break that agreement. No, fuckface, the animosity is that those assholes forced good men and women to trudge to their workplaces in the freezing cold while they sat at home by the phone waiting for their union dictators to decree a return. So write to your Congressman AFTER you resign in protest! Bunch of fucking lazy, spineless public sector scum. Only interested in doing as little as possible. You people nauseate me. Jaybee.
Great! ...LOL! Ya' sure that wasn't written by Baron Max?? ...LOL! And, just to be sure, ....ye're absolutely correct. The "public" seems to be demanding more and more, while wanting to contribute less and less. Baron Max
Let's make a comment here that we are talking about the US public sector. It doesn't have to be this way.
It doesn't?? Are you talking about another of your silly, liberal pipedreams about how the world would be a better, more wonderful place .....if all humans loved all other humans? ...or some crap like that?? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
Wah wah, boohoo to both sides. I dislike strikers but they're free to do as they wish, but I'd rather they just quit their job rather than striking. As for striking being illegal, that's bullshit and there's no way to enforce something like that. What, you're gonna fine me? I wasn't striking, I quit and decided to bitch at you guys. See? What, gonna fine people for not giving a 2 weeks notice before quitting as well? There's numerous idiotic things workers must sign before getting their job but most of em don't agree or follow such silly things even after signing it. Gotta love those "can't become outside friends with workers" laws too, wtf. Heck, on my job I had to sign some stupid stuff but I flat out told em I wasn't gonna sign something so idiotic and they hired me anyways for having the balls to say that. Heh, I also became the leader of my team as well. As for the public complaining about the strikers, boohoo to you guys. Just as you tell those strikers to go get another job, you just as bad whiners can go find another mode of transportation as well. - N
Listen carefully Baron. The day I stepped on US soil I landed in a bureacratic nightmare. No, that is a lie. It already happened months before I set foot on any US soil. The incompetence and no-care attitude is staggering. The bureacratic mess the worst I have seen so far. I have been here three months and they still didn't manage to get my insurance for instance. Of course they tell you it is all fine, but I took me some time to notice they will say anything to get rid of you. A lie is just a tool to them. Everything that should take 3 seconds takes at least 3 weeks or longer. let's make a comparison between the US (efficient free market blabla) and finland (social welfare state). Social security number: US 3 weeks - Finland immediately Health insurance: US 3 months and counting - Finland Immediately First paycheck: US 2 months - Finland immediately Paperwork: US A Mountain - Finland a few simple forms Knowledge of civil servants - US non existing - Finland good Trouble solving - US non existing - Finland good. Tax forms - US several plus 2 weeks waiting time - Finland only need to give them your salary and tax is calculated immediately. The bureacratic shit here is actually so heavy and frustrating that I am contemplating leaving the US prematurely for this reason soley. So baron, DO NOT THINK that this is a universal problem. If we look at the Netherlands that I would put that country in between the US and Finland in this matter. Therefore I do not think we should take this shit for granted, but I think the americans do. They think it is supposed to be like that or whatever. No it isn't. Instead of fighting fucking terrorists maybe you should start combating this kind of nonsense in your own backyard. It sure isn't going to take liberal love to solve this problem. It needs some ass kicking. (btw liberal means rightwing where I come from)
