OK, so if the title didn't tick you off heres the article, but if it did, here's the article anyways :
NY Transit Strike

So my thought would be that these guys have a social responsibility to operate the transit system despite weather or not they like the union contract their working on.

Although they may not have the contract they want there affecting the other individuals who depend on them for their transportation needs. Their decision reaches far beyond their own personal selves. Many of them may have been preparing for the strike, but what about the non transit workers who didn't see this coming, and relied on the system to go about their daily lives?

To me the entire thing looks selfish. You can still negotiate a contract without a strike, keep the system running at at least a minimum level if you desire to strike, but stopping the system completly is a selfish action.

Taylor Law
The taylor law protects the rights of the public employees to have a union but also prevents them from going on strike. Are they biting the hand that feeds them?

Any opinions on this?


-Chris

Screw 'em. Give them the option work or be replaced its that simple. Don't like it tough




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Jackalope wrote:Screw 'em. Give them the option work or be replaced its that simple. Don't like it tough

It's not that easy......what you have here are 2 types of employees, bargaining unit, which are union employees, and exempt which is management. When a strike like this occurs the exempts pick up the work or they can hire temps, people to do the work on a temp basis......the union contract gets reconstructed while this strike is going on. If the union employees do not agree with the new contract it then goes to an arbitrator (spelling), an outside company to work up a new contract. At this time union employees have the option to "cross the line" which means they give up their union rights and continue to work. now this rarely happens because those who cross the line can be fined by the union because of their union contracts.

Whatever comes about this, the union members are not getting paid while on strike so hopefully an agreement can be made!

But it does suck for the evryday working people who rely on them.

California freeways clogging up daily and preventing you from going to work, a union strike once every 10-20 years sounds like a GOOD deal to me.


---

FIRE EM ALL !! That'll learn em.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

Starting with Jack!

Alexander: Management is usually the ones to pick it up. They can't hire temp workers unless the temps like getting barred from entering the building (They're called SCABS for a reason).

Rascal: I don't know about Taylor's law, but in Canada there are jobs that are termed essential (Public utility workers, Hospital workers/EMS, Firefighters, Police) that may NOT take job action that would endanger the public. In our case, we can still unionise, but our job action is limited to refusing Overtime work, and refusing evening duties if the job is not listed as 24/7... Any outstanding labour disputes are almost universally decided in binding arbitration. My group is a liiiittle different but we're bound under the same rules...

As for the current situation: If they were here and they strike by walking off the job, so be it. As fro everyone else: either telecommute, or get yourself a bike and go Chinese-style. Unless they're termed essential, they're within their rights.


Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:
Rascal: I don't know about Taylor's law, but in Canada there are jobs that are termed essential (Public utility workers, Hospital workers/EMS, Firefighters, Police) that may NOT take job action that would endanger the public. In our case, we can still unionise, but our job action is limited to refusing Overtime work, and refusing evening duties if the job is not listed as 24/7... Any outstanding labour disputes are almost universally decided in binding arbitration. My group is a liiiittle different but we're bound under the same rules...

The Taylor law states that public service employees are not allowed to go on strike. I think there is a loop hole however due to the fact that the current contract ran out on Dec.16th. My main argument is that they should still continue to do their job out of social responsibility.

Tellecomuting is fine....if your job offers it.

Biking is fine...if your not disabled, elderly or have any physical ailments or disabilities that disallow you from physical exurtion.

They are not only striking, but there disrupting the lives of others in the process. For me this is an example of a union using it's power for the good of only its people and no one else. It is selfish.

I understand the need for contract negotiations and for competitive wages, god knows New York is one of the most expensive places to live in the US. However I disagree with walking off the job, just because you can, and holding out on working just because your in negotiations. Saddly its the way that unions like to reorganize and in this example members can be penalized for breaking the strike and continuing to work.


-Chris

The Taylor law makes it illegal for them to go on stirke. they were going to do it last friday but figured to try and work something out. now they have to pay the city for every day that they strike . if they strike for 5 days then it counts as 10 days pay. these people think that they are getting a raw deal and think the MTA has a surplus of money. they think, oh well we should be getting that extra money. how when there is none. all the money the MTA makes goes back into what they pay out for pensions, Security, Maintenence, ect.

Biking 20 miles to work in 20 degrees is not gonna happen.

The cabs cost you $10, plus every zone it you cross is an extra $5.

You can only drive down there with 4 people in your car. thats hard to do because we have people coming from all over the state, even Connecticut and Jersey.

Rascal: that's why you lobby for changes.

I remember reading about when that same kind of law was in in effect for all PSE's, and the Gov't wouldn't return to the negotiation table, and an arbitrator ruled in favour of the employees, and the gov't STILL didn't do anything. There was a general strike. Things got changed in a damned hurry.

As for the current situation, if there's been negotiating going on, I'd expect there would be SOME good faith on the part of employees in that they'd keep working until the issues were solved, or there was an impasse, THEN strike. Governments are just as tight on the purse strings as most any other employer... Labour Strikes are one of the few real and legal tools organised labour has in negotiation, if they lose that, then what's the point?

I realise that there's inconvenience involved (I've lived through 4 teacher's strikes, 2-3 Bus strikes and 3 gov't strikes... trust me), but you can live though it, and you CAN get around, even if you're not fully able-bodied. NY DOES have streets, and other options for mobility.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Me ?!?!? But I don't work for New York transit?




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

I don't see the problem...

Also, the NY Transit workers are striking illegally.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

It's an ugly situation all around...

• The Union is now being fined $1M per day that the strike goes on for violating the injunction issued by the court last week prohibiting a strike.
• Mayor Bloomburg and the head of the MTA have publicly stated that there will be NO further negotiations until the workers return to their jobs.
• EVERY worker who walks out will be liable for fines equal to two days GROSS pay for every day they are not on the job.
• The parent organization of the Local Transportation Worker's Union has publicly stated that the strike was not authorized by them, and is the result of "militant action" by the local. As a result they may move in and take over the negotiations.

TWU Local 100 has signed it's death warrant. It's becoming more and more apparent that they are not acting in the best interest of the workers they represent, and I don't think it's going to take much for the city and the MTA to determine that they won't negotiate with them any longer. When that happens, the workers will have the option of going down with the ship, or crossing the picket lines to continue working for the MTA. It's a slight possibility but it's still possible, since the MTA now has no active contract with either these workers OR this union. It happened to the air traffic controllers, it happened to the Major League Baseball umpires and I don't think it's that far-fetched of a possibility here.

Any way you cut it, nobody is going to win here as long as those people don't get back to work. The Taylor Law prohibits transit workers from striking, regardless of whether a contract is in force. The city and the MTA have now said bargaining is called off until they're back to work. No negotiations will happen, the Union will make it's existing black eye worse, and the MTA will be one step closer to becoming a non-union shop. I'm all about worker's rights, and I even participated in the CWA/IBEW strike against Verizon in 2000...but this is just plain abusive. The union doesn't have the right to hold an entire city's livlihood over the barrel to suit their own ends, especially if the strike wasn't authorized by their own organization.

The workers are expecting their union to represent them fairly and competently, and they are being led to the slaughter by incompetent leadership. Instead they're getting Bob Goodenow-like tactics that will hurt everyone. For those that don't remember, Goodenow was the executive director of the NHL Player's Association and cost us an entire season of hockey AND cost the players a better deal due to his arrogance.






09:f9:11:02:9d:74:e3:5b:d8:41:56:c5:63

He He, Glad they are nailing those walk out bastards where it will actualy hurt them,
right in the wallet !! HA !! serves them right.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

The local will pick up the tab for the strike, and each person will probably get reimbursed by the union for the 2 days pay. If not, I'd be looking for new representation, you follow what the local says, assuming everything is getting the ascent from the parent union.

That's where the mess turns ugly.

And the NHLPA isn't a Union in the classic sense of it. It's the body that is authorised by the players to work out a deal with the club owners. If it were a UNION, the players wouldn't have been allowed to go to other leagues with unions or salary caps to take jobs away from other players that have seniority in that league.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

F them. It's not like you need to go to school and shell out alot of money to learn that job. Go faster traing, slow down train, take ticket. Come on. They make enough money as it is. They have benefits. They had job security. What more do they want?

( rubs hands together and laughs fiendishly ) THE WORLD !!!!!! HA HA HA HA WE WANT THE WORLD !!!!! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:The local will pick up the tab for the strike, and each person will probably get reimbursed by the union for the 2 days pay. If not, I'd be looking for new representation, you follow what the local says, assuming everything is getting the ascent from the parent union.

Apparently the math is lost on you this time. The union doesn't have the resources to reimburse the employees for that money. There are 30K+ members involved in the walkout. They make anywhere from $30K to $55K a year, so let's assume an average income of about $150 per day ($39K per year). They have walked for one day so far which means that every employee owes two days wages in fines. That means if the union is going to pick up that tab they're going to have to pony up 9 million dollars. This is for one day of the strike. Tomorrow it will become 18 million, and so forth. According to their own filing with the court, they have about $3M in assets, and they're already on the hook for $1M of that in their OWN fines.

Most unions DO have strike funds, but it's never anywhere near an employee's normal wages. CWA's strike fund for Verizon employees was $200 per week. It helped a little bit, but when you're used to making $60K a year it's not much. If the union's total assets are only $3M, I can guarantee they don't have much in the way of a strike fund for their workers. It's just plain facts though...what they are doing is illegal, and the local acted on calling the strike without authorization. They'll get their come-uppance, I'm sure.

Here's what I see happening: sometime tonight or tomorrow the international arm of the union will step in and take over the negotiations. The workers will be sent back to work to get the MTA back to the bargaining table and a contract will be put to bed within a few days. Once that's done, the current leadership of the local will be dismissed and replacements appointed under the oversight of the international union. Somewhere along the line a compromise will be struck reducing or setting aside the fines for the workers, but keeping the $1M per day fines for the union, as well as the $1000 per day for union officers responsible for calling the strike.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:And the NHLPA isn't a Union in the classic sense of it. It's the body that is authorised by the players to work out a deal with the club owners. If it were a UNION, the players wouldn't have been allowed to go to other leagues with unions or salary caps to take jobs away from other players that have seniority in that league.

I would think they would be the authority on whether or not they are a union. By definition, a "body that is authorised by the players to work out a deal with the club owners" IS a union.

nhlpa.com wrote:http://www.nhlpa.com/AboutTheNHLPA/WhatIs.asp

The NHLPA is a labour union whose members are the players of the NHL and whose mandate is to represent their interests. Headquartered in Toronto, the NHLPA has a staff of approximately 50 employees who work in such varied disciplines as labour law, product licensing and community relations.

09:f9:11:02:9d:74:e3:5b:d8:41:56:c5:63

@!#$ GAM!

Blowhardsayswhat?

UNION = SCREWED.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

NHLPA isn't recognised by the ILO, and it doesn't follow normal labour practices. I can form whatever kind of association I like, but in order to be a union, I have to enforce the bylaws on my members, meaning, no scabs in, no thieves out. They have no agreements with other player's unions, and are not recognised in Canada by the Canadian Labour Congress.... They're an association, no matter what they call themselves, what do I know though, Bob White (fmr President of the CLC) was going on about the NHLPA during the last strike (94?) and basically called them a bunch of things, but never "union" (My dad's company has the cleaning contract for the CLC building.. I worked there from the time I was 16).

And I didn't realise that the Union was incurring that heavy a fine load (Also understand, I don't know what the annual salary is). Either way, I can't see the union expecting their members to carry the fines that they incurred following the local's orders. The Union itself (international organisation or whatnot) would either have to work something out, or seriously loose face and confidence with it's membership... I could see other Unions like UAW or Steelworkers horning in on that action.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

/\ /\ /\ Thats why I said union = screwed.




Semper Fi SAINT. May you rest in peace.

What's stuck in your craw Drew?

Jack: Unions and businesses have to strike a balance... I've worked in private and public, union and non-union environments. I've seen good and bad, but inevitably, when there is a union in place, there's a reason. Sadly, egotistical jerks are abound everywhere.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:NHLPA isn't recognised by the ILO, and it doesn't follow normal labour practices. I can form whatever kind of association I like, but in order to be a union, I have to enforce the bylaws on my members, meaning, no scabs in, no thieves out. They have no agreements with other player's unions, and are not recognised in Canada by the Canadian Labour Congress.... They're an association, no matter what they call themselves, what do I know though, Bob White (fmr President of the CLC) was going on about the NHLPA during the last strike (94?) and basically called them a bunch of things, but never "union" (My dad's company has the cleaning contract for the CLC building.. I worked there from the time I was 16).

And I didn't realise that the Union was incurring that heavy a fine load (Also understand, I don't know what the annual salary is). Either way, I can't see the union expecting their members to carry the fines that they incurred following the local's orders. The Union itself (international organisation or whatnot) would either have to work something out, or seriously loose face and confidence with it's membership... I could see other Unions like UAW or Steelworkers horning in on that action.

Whether they are a "union" or not, they are the Bargaining Organization of Record for the players in all negotiations with the owners. It doesn't matter one iota whether the Canadian Labor board recognizes them. They are the group authorized to bargain in the name of the players. That includes the Canadian players, Canadian teams and Canadian owners as well. That, in common definition, makes them a union.

I understand that you're saying they don't meet a strict legal definition of a union, but that's immaterial here. My reference to the NHLPA was as a shining example of what happens to members of a union/association when they follow incompetent leadership. Everybody loses.






09:f9:11:02:9d:74:e3:5b:d8:41:56:c5:63

On that last point, you have no arguement.

On the point as to whether or not they're an actual union, they function similarly, but no one that works in a 'real' union (Teamsters, AFL-CIO, UAW/CAW, Steelworkers etc, even a lot of the players I know) has any illusions.. the players are far too well paid to NEED a union anymore, they have it in case they feel the need to make more money. It's not like they have to worry about getting 'Fired' because if they're good enough, they'll get signed by another team.

Collective bargaining is functionally useless for them now, because the money involved is too great, and the number of NHL players is too small for them to worry about a scab doing their job... it's not factory work afterall.





Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.