3 users logged onTips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |      
Log In
Sign Up | Forgot Password?

How the fate of Labor Hangs in the Balance of the TWU Strike

by: Media In Trouble

Wed Dec 21, 2005 at 12:37:34 PM EST



Dear god, what a barrage of anti-labor commentary I have had to deflect since I seem to be the only person in the Universe (besides Scott Schields) seemingly supporting the TWU and its use of Strike force to achieve their goals.

My opinions on this have been pretty much summed up in my comments on this post, but I think more airing out is necessary.

First off, I am truly amazed that I have had to defend the TWU's actions when discussing them with known liberals.  What happened to the glorious days when all liberals would get behind anyone who thought collectively they had been pooped upon by the upper echelon's of society or "the man." Particularly when so much evidence demonstrated that said pooping upon was a reality?

This is most definitely the case in the TWU strike. As a matter of fact, as far as striking goes, this can be the end all be all of the entire labor movement as we know it... (more below the fold)

Media In Trouble :: How the fate of Labor Hangs in the Balance of the TWU Strike
Why? Labor is dying, they have been loosing out because the rest of our society has become complacent about our wages and benefits. We figure whatever "the man" gives us, we should be happy with it.  Whereas the funciton of unions is to get more than what "the man" wants to give us because we think we deserve more.

There is more and more information leaking out about the negotiations everyday, and everyday I feel the TWU's case for striking is stronger.

Today we learned that the MTA wanted the TWU workers to increase their pension contributions from 2% to 6%. This allowed for a total savings of $20 million. Did you get that?

No biggie right? Except when they only agree to give you a pay raise of 3.5%:

With the transit workers' union demanding raises above inflation, Mr. Kalikow raised his wage offer so that raises would average 3.5 percent a year for three years, up from 3 percent in his previous offer. Responding to the union's demand that he not raise the retirement age, Mr. Kalikow also dropped his proposal that future transit workers not qualify for a full pension until age 62, up from 55 for current workers.

So whatever raise they made would go to their pension.  So in essence, they would loose money out of their pockets and into a pension.  This is in essence a pay cut. To help fund a pension fund. A pension by the way that had to be funded with the MTA's $1 billion dollar surplus.  Why?  Because they hadn't been funding it in the past!!!!

This is no different than in the private sector, where every year, laborers get squeezed for higher health care premiums, or nibbles of other sorts that basically eat away at what we get for a raise. Which typically is not keeping up with inflation. Not to mention, the private sector seems to be gearing up for another major Government bailout of its pensions. Should we be upset about that?

This is the Boiled Frog Metaphor:

...If you put a frog into a pot of boiling water,
it will leap out right away to escape the danger.

But, if you put a frog in a kettle that is filled with water that is cool and pleasant,
and then you gradually heat the kettle until it starts boiling,
the frog will not become aware of the threat until it is too late.

This has been happening to America since the Reagan years (perhaps before then).

While we are trying to keep from falling off the proverbial hamster wheel, the upper echelon is pilfering pensions, stealing from the backs of the people whose blood, sweat, and tears their pocket filling profits are made from.  Little bits at time. 

The injustice has to stop.

First off, the disinformation with the TWU strike is incredible. It is a prime example of why New York should not vote for Republicans even if they are of the RINO type.  Bloomberg and Pataki were totally absent from negotiations as was the President of the MTA. Yet, they are all the first to throw insults to the union.  They are the ones claiming the Union did not take the negotiations seriously. Don't you think the president of the MTA at the very least should have showed up a little more than an hour before the contract deadline arrived?

Don't you think that Gov. Pataki given the fact that the MTA is his responsibility should have been part and parcel to some discussions?

Don't you think that Bloomberg who just recently was behind the "strap-hangers" in opposing a fare increase should be on the side of the Union, given the fact that the fare hike was obviously unnecessary ($1 bil. surplus)? 

Not to mention that any shortfall in the MTA's budget not allowing them to have better finances is directly a result of both Pataki and Bloomberg's starving of the MTA beast?

This is when RINO's become republicans, when they can use whatever political clout, bully pulpits, and legislative force to supress support, and foment disdain for those who keep the city functioning?

Citing over inflated numbers about how much is being lost economically, simultaneously ignoring how much has been gained economically from the TWU?  Saying its crappy that this is happening around the Holidays when the MTA signed a contract that would expire at this time?

Finally the idea that the strike is illegal.  The Taylor law is argueably unconstitutional on 1st ammendment grounds. Why is it that if you are a public employee, you give up your right to "peaceably assemble" and "petition the government for redress of grievances?" The Taylor law has never been challenged beyond NY State Supreme Court. The time is perhaps ripe for such a challenge, for this law needs striking down.  It is seemingly unconstitutional as applied in this context.

The TWU is united for a very good cause, and it is taking a courageous stand against the state who has profited off of them, a Republican Assembly, Governor, and Mayor, and odds of comming out of this without going bankrupt.  The system has been gamed against them, and if you read what has happened from the beginning of the negotiations, you see a pattern of disrespect and dismissal on the part of the powerful.  The powerless know their only option to stay alive as a union and as a force for future contracts is to strike for benefits that justify union membership (ie. better pensions, health care, and working conditions than the other people get).

The left would be wise to embrace the good people of the TWU. They are the blue collar workers who make the engine of New York turn regularly. They deserve better than what the corrupt MTA says they can afford.

In conclusion, the TWU has afforded blue collar people the ability to become middle class citizens, if that isn't the goal of liberalism/progressivism, then what is?

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I'm with you (0.00 / 0)
I haven't been following the posts on the strike, only ancillarily a NJ topic :), but I think about as much of billionaire Bloomberg calling the strike "immoral" and the strikers "selfish" without mentioning what their real concerns are, as I do about Cheney today casting the tie breaking vote on spending cuts that are disastrous for the poor, after just buying a $2.6 million waterfront weekend home near Rumsfeld's in a Maryland town, now referred to as the "hawk's nest".

Blocking a two-tiered retirement system and not having to pay into their healthcare (especially if that negates their cost of living raise), when the MTA is gouging passengers and has a huge surplus seems legitimate to me.

Two small points.  The fact that the police are poorly paid seems to me irrelevant to what the transit workers are asking for.  And I think if you read the statistics on violence by occupation, you'll find bank tellers, convenience store workers and bus drivers right up there among workers who face considerable violence on the job.


Me too (0.00 / 0)
I am always amazed at how anti-labor this country is when you consider how many people here have jobs and how many benefit from organized labor's gains.

And I agree with kwilkinson when she talks about billionaire Bloomberg calling the strikers names.  Yeah, right.  Why, they're out to get themselfs some big ol' mansions and stuff, those selfish people.  Why, they don't deserve what they earn.  Not like billionaires like Bloomberg.  Why should a guy struggling to feed his family and keep his health care benefits get a raise?  He didn't earn it like billionaire Bloomberg earned his billions.

The problem is that everyone in this country thinks someone else's raise is coming out of their pockets.  It isn't, believe it or not.  And when workers everywhere show support for workers everywhere, workers everywhere benefit.  If you are concerned about the money for the TWU workers coming out of your pocket, just remember that when they make more money, you will too.  Stop being afraid you might lose something if someone else gains something.  The gains of labor over the years are reflected in your paid vacation, partially paid health benefits, and the few other gains we have managed to hold onto.

DBK


[ Parent ]
Okay, then riddle me this: (0.00 / 0)
Let's get beyond labels (anti-labor, etc.) and talk turkey:

Would you support a retirement age of 55, a 5% guarranteed pay increase and no-contributions to health insurance for all Americans?

And then the follow ups:

If yes, how would you pay for it?

If no, why give it to this group?

myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.blogspot.com


Wrong Issues (0.00 / 0)
It isn't about the retirement age and it isn't about health care costs.  As of today, the MTA has dropped those demands.

The single issue keeping the strike going is the MTA's desire to force a tripling of mandatory worker contributions to the pension fund.  They are trying to get the courts to set a legal precedent by forcing the issue.  They were actually trying to get the union to give them up voluntarily, but that isn't working too well.

Do you have a pension?  If so, then it's your fight.  You see, if the MTA can force a change in the pension rules - previously set by law and exempt from labor negotiations - then your boss gets the greenlight to completely alter your pension agreement at any time.

Raising the contribution from 2% to 6% may not sound like much, but it erases the bulk of the payraises that have been offered.  How would you like to get paid more and take less home?

Let's say you start out with $100.  You pay $2 into retirement and take home $98.  Under the MTA's plan, you would suddenly be getting paid $103 - but taking home $97.  Next year, you'll get paid $106, but take home $99.  In the third year, you'll get paid $109, but take home $104.

The result is that you get slightly more than a 5% raise over three years.  How greedy does the union sound now?

XT

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.


[ Parent ]
wrong issue in the negotiations, not in the PR battle (0.00 / 0)
First of all, I definitely don't have a pension.  But that's not unusual.  I'm like most of the general public and the overwhelming amount of the under 40 I won't get a guarranteed payment except for Social Security, my IRA and a 401K for past employers (current has none). 

I'm not complaining.  I'll work on my own job situation and all that.  My point is, I'm the general public.  That's where Democrats should be fighting.

Sure the MTA may have given up on 55, because its not going anywhere, fine.  But among the public, that's outrageous.  And you know as well as I that we couldn't have a society where everyone retires at 55.  So why should one group gets it?  Fight for reasonable benefits, not outrageous ones!

I get the point on the raise going to pension.  It happens in the private sector all the time.  I started at a company, got a raise after a year and then got health benefits which took the raise completely away. 

And believe me if all things were equal I would say its outrageous to have a raise go to increased contributions and then call it a deal.  But given the perks that already exist, it does lessen the unfairness of the raise going to contribution. 

myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.blogspot.com


[ Parent ]
The strike issue (0.00 / 0)
was about pensions.  The MTA held it until hours before the deadline.  The speed with which they dropped everything else shows that they didn't really care about the retirement age or anything else.  It's all about pensions.

The fact that you don't have a pension should put your dog in the fight.  Everyone should have the ability to provide for their retirement.  However, if they can simply up your ante at any time, then why should you even worry? 

Employers without unions can change their pensions at will.  From your statement, it seems like you've experienced this.  Why should the company mismanage the pension fund and then be able to require you to pay for their mistake?

I think you're right that they are losing the PR battle, because Dems are not going out on a limb and saying everyone should have a pension.  So what if you can pay into an IRA?  If you barely get enough money to make ends meet, you can't afford to pay into it.  What good is it then?

This is all tied together and the one leg that holds it up is Social Security - which is being shaken at the foundation.

Dems need to put their big dogs in the fight.  If not, then there's no reason to have them around anyway.

XT

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.


[ Parent ]
retirement at 55 for some but not others (0.00 / 0)
Look.

If i worked 8 hours a day in the shit, piss, and rat infested hell hole that is the NYC subway, then perhaps I wouldn't want to be down there until I was 62.

The fact that some of these guys do things like heavy lifting and such, just makes the point stronger.

Equal retirement for equal work ok.

But there are inequities in the work these folks do.  You cannot compare the day to day of a transit worker to the day to day of the rest of the society.

Plus, they are not the only ones who get to retire at 55.  Cops and Firefighters that spend most of their time sitting on their ass get to retire after 20 years of service.

Media In Trouble


[ Parent ]
if... (0.00 / 0)
i already had a retirement age of 55, YES

and if the MTA was offering a 5% pay raise, then YES.

But they aren't offering a 5% pay raise, and there is no evidence that the pension of 55 is the real fiscal problem for the MTA.

Instead, it is the funding cuts proposed by Bloomberg and Pataki (linked in the post above) that are causing any sort of fiscal issues.

Media In Trouble


[ Parent ]
Good dodge (0.00 / 0)
What you won't answer is if you will support these benefits for EVERYBODY. 

Should the Democratic Party fight for a 55 year retirement age for everybody?

You won't say yes or no.  And I wouldn't either.  Because its an obvious trap.  But its a trap required by the premise of your post.  You challenge those who criticize as 'non-progressive' but my question proves its obvious there is always limits to how much we can give.  So then the question is: Who gets? 

So my point is, fight for the broad-based meaningful progressive changes not an interest group that already has a good deal.



myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.blogspot.com


[ Parent ]
YES (0.00 / 0)
Yes I would support these benefits for everybody.  I think that Health care is a right not a privelege and I think that a liveable wage is also a right not a privelege.

I also think that any entity profiting off the backs of its workers should take care of them once they stop working.

Have you ever spent more than an hour in a subway station?

It smells like shit piss and puke.  How would you like working in those conditions for 8 hours a day?

My question to you is should blue collar workers work as long in their lives as white collar workers?

The answer should be an obvious NO!  Because blue colar workers by nature use their bodies whereas white collar workers use their brains.

Brains tend to last longer than braun.

So trapping me with "everybody" is simply unfair.  Its comparing apples to oranges.

Not everybody works as hard or has to deal with all the shitty conditions that the transit workers do, so perhaps they do deserve a shorter working life.

Media In Trouble


[ Parent ]
They deserve a livable wage and are (0.00 / 0)
given a more than livable wage.  When you are looking to tell a 23 year old new worker that he can retire at 55 and get a paycheck.  Yeah, its gone to far, and most opinion even among Democratic leaning people will probably back that up.

And while I do support health insurance for everyone which would take a lot of those issues off the table, we should all be equal so that equal pressure will be put on improvement of our retirement system as a whole.  No, I don't think we could have a society where everyone retires at 55.  There wouldn't be enough work done. 

The premise of your whole post is wrong.  The fate of labor is definetly NOT with this strike.  It may be in a Wal Mart parking lot, but not here.

myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.blogspot.com


[ Parent ]
not enough work done? (0.00 / 0)
give me a break.

plenty of work would be done even if people would and could retire at the age of 55.

I would like to see the metrics you used to come up with this one.


Media In Trouble


[ Parent ]
I'm talking about all people, all of America (0.00 / 0)
not working til' 55.  If this is what you want, I applaud you as a true progressive rather than a defender of a narrow interest of one group. 

But no, I don't think the numbers would add up if everyone over 55 stopped working (and of course consuming resources)  I guess an ecoonomists could do the numbers.  I'd love to be wrong on that, but I doubt it.

myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.blogspot.com


[ Parent ]
Actually, early retirement is good for everyone (0.00 / 0)
Enticing people to retire at 55 relieves a company of paying ten more years to them at the top salary level.  It saves them millions of dollars in that time - and even more over the life of their pension.

It also encourages younger workers to stay rather than seeing them walk out and retraining new people.  That means better qualified workers and that is beneficial to everyone. It also means that younger workers can move into higher wage positions being vacated by older workers.

Ever work somewhere that the only way to move up is to wait for someone to die?  Early retirement solves that problem and gives younger workers, retirees, and businesses each part of the monetary benefit for solving that problem.

XT

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.


[ Parent ]
being that i (0.00 / 0)
didn't know enough of the facts yesterday, i wasn't able to post my opinions...although my inclination was that unless the union was truly doing something ridiculous i would most definetly support the union.  I was also shocked to see such criticism from the supposed liberal blog of jersey.

"liberal blog" (0.00 / 0)
anyone, regardless of political affiliation, is  welcome to comment on this blog, as long as they are respectful.

[ Parent ]
i wasn't trying to say (0.00 / 0)
that they shouldn't be commenting.  I just wanted to point out that I was surprised that this was the main reaction that people were having.  Of course people can believe the strikers are wrong. I just didn't expect to see it here.

[ Parent ]
criticism? (0.00 / 0)
the critics were in the comments and the post that was elevated was started by someone whom like yourself didn't know all the facts.

Thus my post.

Media In Trouble


[ Parent ]
any group has to prove its case (0.00 / 0)
to get my support.  I'm not gonna fall in line just because someone is a 'Democrat' or a union. 

myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.blogspot.com

[ Parent ]
A different tact... (0.00 / 0)
I'd like to take the discussion in a different tact if I may. Since the debate seems to have expanded beyond NY and the MTA, I'd be curious to know the different positions on the autoworkers union.
GM has recently lost a lot a money (maybe 3 billion last quarter) and seems to want to pin that on 70$/hr labor plus benefits cost for all workers (included retirees).
Do you believe that is indeed the problem that is currently breaking the company? If so, do you think benefits that were previously negotiated were too generous? I haven't followed GM too closely and I am not sure if their current situation is due to gross mismanagement or not. But my question really revolves around the fact that market forces will cause GM to correct their compensation plans (or whatever is the real cause of their position) or go under. What bothers me about the public unions, transit, teachers, or otherwise is that there is no competition or market force to keep compensation/benefits in check. I believe that's where the unions lose their public support. The majority of Americans and their companies have to compete for their jobs, benefits, and/or market positons. In the private sector, regardless of compensation, the public knows that if the compensation was truly ridiculous, the company would cease to compete and dissappear. In the public sector, there is no such market force and a seemingly endless supply of capital (taxes) so the public (myself included) is constantly questioning what those services are really worth.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

GM as a cast study (0.00 / 0)
First of all, GM lost $2.5 billion in 2005 because, for some reason, people stopped buying gas-guzzler cars and SUV's.

The biggest fixed expense for GM is health care expenses - where union-members pay 7% of the health care costs.  Health care costs GM almost $6 billion.

Source

GM's biggest problem is that their products ready to roll out this year include the Hummer 3, the HHR, and the Solstice roadster, following up on the failed Aztec (voted the ugliest car of the year - "It looks like Montezuma's revenge feels.").

A few years ago, when GM was leading sales with high-profit margin cars, the 15% labor cost was no problem.  What caused the problem?  The very same market forces you are talking about.

It isn't labor costs (alone) that are sinking GM.  It's bad management decisions.

XT

To hell with what she wants, let's make Rosi Efthim the next DSC chair.


[ Parent ]
ADVERTISEMENT
Featured Stories

Blue Jersey Radio

The Voice of NJ Politics
» Next show: Tues. @ 8:00p
» Hosts: Jeff Gardner & Jay Lassiter
» Call in: (646) 652-2773
» iTunes Subscribe | Archives



Connect with
Blue Jersey

Hate Ads? Make them disappear.
Subscribe:

Blue Jersey Essentials

 EDITORIAL DIRECTOR
 Rosi Efthim

 STAFF WRITERS
 Adam L a/k/a/ clammyc
 Bill Orr
 bytheshore73
 Hopeful
 Jay Lassiter
 Jeff Gardner
 Scott Weingart
 Senator Loretta Weinberg
 Vincent Solomeno
 Rosi Efthim

» About | FAQ | In the News
» 
» Tips:
» Front Page RSS Feed
» User Diaries RSS Feed
» Blue Jersey on Twitter » Blue Jersey on Facebook » Blue Jersey T-shirts
ADVERTISEMENT

Blog Roll

» Alicia Menendez
» Alive and Kickin
» Barista of Bloomfield Ave
» Blog the Fifth
» Capitol Quickies
» The Center of NJ Life
» Channel Surfing
» Daily Newarker
» The Englewood Report
» Frank Lobiondo Record
» Fred Snowflack
» Freedom to Tinker
» Fresh Jersey (Mike Kelly)
» Garden State Grapevine
» Gloucester City News
» Green Jersey
» Herb Jackson
» Hoboken Journal
» Hoboken Now
» The Inside Clamdigger
» Jersey Blogs
» Jersey Jazz Man
» Lassiter Space
» Latinos NJ
» Middletown Mike
» More Monmouth Musings
» NJ Domestic Partnership
» NJ Politics Unusual
» NJ Voices: Policy Watch
» On Our Radar
» The Opinion Mill
» Other Spaces
» Plainfield Plaintalker
» PolitickerNJ
» Retire Garrett
» Ruins of Trenton
» Senator Ray Lesniak
» Stovetop Diplomacy
» Sustainable Cherry Hill
» The Subversive Garden
» Teaneck Progress
» Trenton Kat
» We Don't Need Permission
» Xpatriated Texan

Cartoons

» M.e. Cohen
» Jimmy Margulies
» Drew Sheneman
» Rob Tornoe
Search




Advanced Search










Ads do not constitute
an endorsement
from Blue Jersey.



Blue Jersey Gear

Visit the Blue Jersey store. T-shirts, bumper stickers & more!


Shirts available in dozens of styles and colors.






Visit the Blue Jersey Store

Contact Us
» Editor: 
» Press releases: 
» Advertising inquiries: 
» Tips:
About Us
» About Blue Jersey
» Blue Jersey in the News
» FAQ/Usage
» 
» RSS Feed

Misc Stuff
» Blue Jersey Radio
» Blue Jersey on Twitter
» Facebook Group
» MySpace Page
» NJ Politics 101 Wiki
» Blue Jersey Podcast
» Screaming Carrot Award
» Contribute to Blue Jersey
6409 satisfied users, visits and 0 subpoenas served since Sept 28, 2005
© Blue Jersey, powered by the mighty SoapBlox.