NYC Transit Strike

ITT we talk about the transit strike.

I say that the MTA should accede to the union's demands.  Honestly, they had a $1 billion surplus just after they acceepted around the same amount in the bond act.  The MTA needs to shape up, use the money to pay ITS fair share of the pensions it has underfunded, and then use the rest to improve the system, not cut prices on Metrocards for six weeks.

Discuss.

The two sides:
They could have paid off debts with the surplus. (yeah right)

If an MTA strike can cause such ungodly losses to the city as they say, then don't they DESERVE the raise?

I take the second stance. These people have a massive hand in the success of New York, and they're underpaid. Of course, people are saying they're striking to soon, but whatever.

When private carriers want to raise revenue by boosting ridership, they lower fares.  The lower fares attract more riders, and some of those riders become regulars, pumping more money into the carrier.

When government carriers want to raise revenue by boosting ridership, they raise fares.  The higher fares detract riders, even regulars, and some of those riders take their money and pump it into other carriers or private automobiles, or they just simply walk.  Granted, it's less likely in Manhattan than in other large cities, but not unheard of.

With that kind of mentality, no wonder transit workers are underpaid and striking.

If the strike was announced with enough advance notice for most folks to make alternate plans (and I understand this one was), it wasn't too soon.

This just in (delayed because my ISP can't keep their DNS servers up):  New York City Transit Workers face $1 Million-A-Day Fine
http://www.thenewmexicochannel.com/news/5584596/detail.html and elsewhere.

nigga no want to werk

Transit workers should shut the fuck up and get back to work. Their work is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

Here's an idea, put more money in providing better services instead of deadweight; paying for workers you don't even employ anymore. That's the reason why the big three automakers, GM, Chrysler and Ford are falling apart.
 
Socialists are always screaming the workers are "underpaid" and those big bad corporations make so much profit they can afford to pay the workers more. In the short term, the people already working get an advantage but already the cost of employing a person has increased so they will be forced to hire less people. The obvious result being less jobs available in the market and more unemployment. Minimum wage is a fun example of this very effect.

Now, we see the long-term results. Companies straddled with decades of debt, each little "pension" bleeding off a little more until they are struggling to even compete in the marketplace. Now, it's costing those workers the socialists love so much their livelihood as jobs are cut. That's still nothing compared to what will happen if those companies come undone. Socialism is all about leeching off the success of others until everyone is dragged down to the same lowest common denominator. 

>>3
More like they raise prices because they're deep in the red, seeing as, in addition to lack of economic incentive for a state monopoly to improve, there are people trying to bleed it dry.

>>6

shaddup tripcode faggot
you lose at life

Here's a thought, perhaps a conspiracy theory...  What if the transit authority deliberately chose this time of year to pressure the union into striking?  By turning down any agreement, they make the union look like the bad guys by striking during the busiest days of the year.

>>7
Get a job, hippie.

>>8
It'd make the union look bad any time of the year.

Transit workers agree to end strike, talks continue
Story at http//www/... and elsewhere on the wires.

>>10
Good to see they finally stopped hurting the people of New York, especially the poor, low-wage earners who suffered from having to pay for more expensive forms of transit.

A NEW CLASS WAR

By RYAN SAGER

December 22, 2005 -- NEW York City is in the middle of a class war — but not the one the Trans port Workers Union expected.

As transit workers walked off the job Tuesday and stayed off the job Wednesday, the rhetoric has heated up on all sides.

Nowhere did the rhetoric get hotter than on a Web site that the TWU set up for the strike. There, as the sun came up on Tuesday, hundreds of anonymous New Yorkers logged on and sounded off about the TWU's decision to shut down the subways and buses.

The surprise (at least to the TWU): Opinions on the site ran roughly 4-to-1 against the union — which pulled the comments off the Web by Tuesday afternoon.

But the real surprise was who was against the union.

Check out a sampling of the outbursts (those, at least, suitable for printing in a family newspaper):

* "I appreciate many of your concerns regarding the contract negotiations, but striking, though [it] may prove a point, hurts more people than it helps," wrote one New Yorker. "My annual salary is less than half than the lowest paid transit worker in the system, and now I am going to lose at least one if not more days of pay due to the strike . . . Thanks for that — and happy holidays."

    

* Another anonymous commenter wrote in urging the TWU to "Please get back to the bargaining table!" He added: "The strike is killing me and my small business! The MTA is irresponsible, but to take it out on us is reprehensible! You need to make some concessions!"

* Yet another anonymous commenter wrote: "Wake up and get with reality, this is USA in 2005 and not communist North Korea. . . . Wow, I wish my company would give me the benefits you want to get. You break the law, you force me to stay home and lose my pay. When my kids ask me why our Xmas is miserable I will have to explain that some selfish Grinches at the [TWU] decided to mess it up for all New Yorkers . . . SHAME SHAME SHAME. I have no sympathy for ANY OF YOU and I hope that you all LOSE tons of money and go into bankruptcy."

Not the reaction the TWU was hoping for.

And also not the war of rich against poor that the unions would like New Yorkers to believe is underway.

One socialist Web site on Tuesday labeled the strike "the biggest class confrontation in the U.S. in a generation" and wrote that "The attitude taken by the city's ruling elite is akin to the reaction of a master to a slave revolt."

Not quite.

As the comments excerpted above show, there is a class confrontation of a kind going on — but it's not between rich and poor. It's between the working class and what might be called the government-worker class.

The gap between the two groups has been growing for a while.

The private sector has been groaning under rising health and pension costs for years. Retired coal miners have lost company-paid health insurance in bankruptcy proceedings. Companies like General Motors have had to lay off tens of thousands of workers because of crushing pension costs.

Yet the benefits for public-sector workers keep getting fatter and fatter.

The reason is fairly simple. While only 8 percent of private-sector workers are unionized these days, some 40 percent of public-sector workers are unionized. And while the rigors of the free market forced private companies to become more efficient, the government faces no such constraints.

Instead, pliant politicians simply give the unions whatever they want, driving up health and pension costs — and sticking taxpayers (the ones trudging over the Brooklyn Bridge this week) with the bill.

It's no wonder average working New Yorkers are ticked.

Transit workers can retire at 55. Not many private-sector workers can do that.

Transit workers don't pay a single cent toward their health-insurance premiums. Not too many private-sector workers get that deal, either.

As one commenter wrote in to the TWU: "Get with reality . . . 90+% of people in this area will never be able to retire by 55 . . . pensions across America are going to default. Sad state of America, yes, but unfortunately the rest of us are in the same boat."

Hmmm . . . a boat. Maybe that's how we'll get to work tomorrow.

Strikes are for faggots who don't want to work and want the ones who don't have anything to do with it to fix their problems. By striking, they deserve what they're through, as they demonstrate they are unworthy of something better.

>>13
 It didn't start out that way but it certainly is that way now. There's no reason to work harder or better your performance because you can't get fired for being a shitty worker, damn unions.

>>14
The only way I see to fix this is to forcibly disband unions every few years so they can't become a bureaucracy but still serve their purpose. Taking a page from the anonymous who posted against permabans in the devlog, random time frames will keep people guessing and keep corporations from winning by simply waiting it out. It'd be hard to implement correctly but keeping each side thinking they won't last another day so they best reach a compromise soon would keep strikes from lasting months or even years.