unionize this

What if they had a strike that had an impact while not shutting down the entire system. Maybe a 1 hour strike on each shift, even a 1 hour strike during each rush hour. I think that would still cause enough inconvenience to have a meaningful impact to negotiations without shutting down the entire system.

I am not privy to the negotiations and I support what unions stand for, so I support them. Strikes are not popular, so I am sure this is a last resort.

Sure, Pink Kitty should just join a union. It’s always that simple ain’t it? Maybe I should too. Thousands of people drive over my bridges every day, I deserve better pay. After all, I apparently get paid about the same as a subway driver in NYC. My fellow engineers and I can go on strike after a couple of bridges fall down and kill a few dozen people, then you taxpayers will appreciate us more.

I can sympahize with their problems very much. But you don’t accept a job and then refuse to show up. It’s not right.

If it was only about safety then I’m sure the New York Times would be happy to do a story or five thousand on safety violations on the subway. Safety concerns are just an excuse to make it look less about them.

The strike is illegal. You are defending a union that is violating a law that is intended to protect the public from the chaos and danger that comes from having the NYC transit system shut down.

Why are you defending criminals?

Because I hate America, duh!

illegal schmillegal. the whole point of a strike is to show someone (ownership, management, the general public) what they’d be missing if whatever service is currently being taken for granted suddenly wasn’t there. i wonder if the people of new york decide that they want safer subways and better paid employees when they hoof it to work for a day or two?

I am really annoyed/amused to see “the Bill Hobbs” make a comment on your blog that so immediately brings down the level of discourse with bullying fallacies. People ask me why I don’t blog, and this is why. This guy is the person you point to as a fine example of the medium? I’d like to see Mr Hobbs sit in on a political science class at the university where he is employeed and see how far he gets with such thoughtless garbage.

There are things unions can and do do to flex their muscle without outright shutting things down.. I assume sometimes though a specific show of power is necessary..

There’s an interesting document published by a chapter of the IWW called Fire Your Boss that covers techniques used in the fashion you mention, though. Some are subtle and clever, others are just outright (and probably illegal) sabotage.

Word, Amanda. Why Bill Hobbs is considered the paragon of blogging standards will be forever beyond me. I think it may have something to do with how he defines himself.

Chris, their current salaries are hardly a pittance. The average MTA worker makes in excess of $50,000 per year. Many of those MTA workers have jobs that don’t require much more than showing up: ticket seller, guy who makes sure no one’s arms are sticking out of the door, etc. And they want a raise and earlier retirement? These guys have it made, and instead of waking up smiling every day, thankful that they’re making good money with benefits and not washing dishes (which would be the other career option for many of them), they go on strike. They’re in desparate need of Ronald Reagan therapy.

Even the NY Times is agin the strike.

You don’t suppose the employer has some obligations to live up to, too? Or is it just that the workers need to sit down and do what they’re told?

Frankly, I’m fine with it being about them. It SHOULD be about them. (Although if there are safety issues, it is in fact best they get aired. But it’s a distinct issue.) I, for one, am pleased to work a 40 hour work week. I am pleased to do so in (relatively, at least) safe and healthy conditions. And I see no historical evidence that this was caused by people just doing what they were told no matter the consequences.

I’m sorry that the strike inconveniences you. You’re clearly not one of the parties in dispute. But I am mystified that the MTA is to be held blameless; nobody strikes without all safer options having been exhausted without success. (Strikers historically tending to be risking jobs, safety, and on occasion, lives.)

-R

The two central ideas in the Les Jones post are entirely wrong.

$50K might sound great if you don’t live in New York, but it’s not a good salary in the city, especially if you want to raise a family. With the market rate on a two bedroom apartment in a good neighborhood at around $2100-$3200, making $50K a year means you can rent in one of the poorer, working-class neighborhoods in the city and still see rent eat up half of your after-tax income.

The other myth is that transit work is not physcially demanding. Conductors and token booth workers might have it relatively easy (although both are threatened with being phased out by automation). The rest of the work the MTA offers is train and bus yard work, rail line work and driver positions. All of it is pretty demanding, the kind of work that you might be able to do into your 50s before you start to come apart, but into your 60s? Maybe.

Working underground in the cold might sound pretty sweet where you’re from, but personally, it’s not the sort of job I would want to take for wages that entitle me to work until I die in a poor neighborhood.

So the strike is about safety at its heart, eh? So tell me Chris, which one of the union’s key demands, higher pay or better pensions, addresses those safety concerns?

The answer is neither. Safety issues are a straw man raised by the union to cover their own greed and by union apologists to cover their own bias. If the union was truly concerned about safety, then its demands would reflect that. Instead, it’s demanding more money.

Go figure.