« Big Brother Bush? | Main | Mohammed Cartoon Conflict Grows »
December 22, 2005
NYC Transit Strike: Selfish or a Necessary Stand?
On the third day of New York City's transit strike, the first in 25 years, "leaders of striking bus and subway workers in New York agreed... to a return to work after talks at which the union and transit authorities undertook to resume talks on a contract," reports Reuters.com.
The strike, repeatedly called "selfish" by NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is illegal due to state law barring public workers from striking. Transit Workers Union leaders have been threatened with jail, the union is being fined $1 million each day of the strike, and striking workers "will also lose two days’ pay for every day they are on strike, and they could also be jailed" (MSNBC.com).
Still, according to a WNBC/Marist poll, 38% of New Yorkers support the strike. According to CNN.com, Local 100 of the TWU president Roger Toussaint justifies the strike as "transit workers are tired of being underappreciated and disrespected." Even some commuters with schedules disrupted by the strike sympathize with transit workers. According to The Associated Press, Matthew Higgs said, ""I try to put myself in their shoes. The only way you can get what you want is to take a stand. These guys work every day. ... Why shouldn't their kids have good health care? Why shouldn't their kids be able to go to college?"
Either way, some have speculated that the fines TWU and individual transit workers are facing will quickly eat up whatever raise in pay transit workers may receive after negotiations are settled.
Did NYC's transit workers take a brave stand for their rights, or are they acting selfishly and stupidly?
Posted by Tuck at December 22, 2005 01:09 PM
Comments
Damn right they were acting stupidly it's illegal for public workers to strike, especially around the Christmas season.
Posted by: Henry at December 23, 2005 09:23 AM
Bus drivers and subway workers of the Transport Workers Union make from $47,000 to $55,000 per year, which is more than what NY police officers and firefighters make. I thought that the deal from the Metropolitan Transit Authority giving them a 3% raise in the first year, then a 3.5% raise the next year, and then a 4% raise the third year was pretty fair. They even left the retirement age at 55 alone but that wasn't enough for the TWU. If they hadn't walked off the job, the TWU wouldn't have had to lose 2 days pay for the 3 days they were on strike in addition to the $3 million fine under the Taylor Law.
Posted by: Henry at December 23, 2005 09:38 AM
Henry,
Most workers with the TWU do NOT make the 47k to 55k that your message leads people to believe. The figure is more like 22k to 25k. The misinformation that was reported by people who would have liked to see the strike fail bothers me. I am not necessarily pro-union, but I am pro-worker. If a union is necessary to improve the worker's worklife conditions in a particular job category, then I will support it as long as it is not corrupt.
Companies are sucking the blood from the lowest levels of their workforce while excessively rewarding their big honchos... even companies which are not being run particularly good by their management. That nonsense has to stop. People are going to wake up one of these days when they realize that the majority of those people who make a decent living in this country are those who don't give two sh*ts about anyone else. The jobs that support working class and many middle class families are moving overseas with the help of management in this country. If management doesn't give a cr*p about those they manage, then maybe their jobs should be moved overseas as well. With this in mind, big business is ruining this country in ways that will become more evident in the future. Why pump up the economy of China to the detriment of the American worker? China is our enemy, so why reward her? Also, stop the illegal immigration at the border. That will both secure the border for a country's safety and more than likely open up some of the better paying jobs that are currently held by illegal immigrants. It is a fallacy to believe that illegal immigrants only work at the low paying jobs that "most" Americans refuse. I don't believe that. I believe the business has found a way to pay people less money and benefits under the nose of our government by hiring many illegal immigrants. Illegal immigration depresses workers wages in this country. Granted, pay should be in line with the skill value of a particular job. But please don't forget about the obscenely overpayed CEO's and other upper management people in many of the companies that operate in our country. Things are out of whack in this country. The quicker things turn around, the better for everyone.
Posted by: JM at December 29, 2005 05:22 PM
You're right in some ways, JM. That's why we need to throw away the IRS and support the Fair Tax Bill.
Let's bring back jobs to the US by not punishing achievement with high taxes.
The problems are not "Big Business" but Big Government, wasteful spending and a tax code that is out of this world, forcing businesses and investments overseas. Just ask where the filthy rich like Teddy Kennedy invest their money. You guessed it... overseas, where taxes are less. You lower taxes and immediately you see an increase in revenues and a bolstering of the economy. Works every time. It's a no-brainer to anyone who understands economics.
And you know what? Despite oppressive taxes, the economy is doing extremely well. Just think how much better it would be for all of us if we adopted a Fair Tax system. If you care about our economy and want to help the poor and middle class go to www.fairtax.org and read up on the best idea since electricity.
Posted by: Eve at December 30, 2005 11:50 PM
You live in the city too? Actually, I read in Newsday and the NY Daily News that they do make from 47 to 55 grand annually so I don't believe I'm mistaken but I understand your opinion.
You can check out the figures here for yourself:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/375500p-319119c.html
Posted by: Henry at December 31, 2005 01:06 AM
JM,
You couldnt live on the streets of New York for 22-25k a year.
Get a grip on reality!
Posted by: Wayne at January 1, 2006 08:40 AM
Eve,
Every time you mention the fair tax I get goose bumps! I wish it were the case but it never will be I'm afraid.
Posted by: Wayne at January 3, 2006 08:01 AM
Okay so besides a national retail sales tax what are the cons of the Fair Tax system? Almost everything comes with a catch. Frankly, I don't think that such a thing will ever be passed.
Posted by: Henry at January 3, 2006 11:39 PM
Henry, I haven't found any cons to the plan. The only ones it hurts are the K Street lobbyists who make all their money lobbying for loopholes their rich clients can use to keep from paying their taxes.
Click on my name to go read about it or go to www.fairtax.org. Basically in helps the poor and middle class by relieving them of excess tax burdens and gives money back to the poor. It creates more revenue through an embedded tax that equals the taxes added to products through income and other misc taxes. So products won't cost any more than they do now and you'll keep your entire paycheck. I think you said you were in school, but when you get out and have to pay taxes, imagine not having to worry about April 15th every year.
It also brings back investments and labor here to the US, and catches revenues previously untaxed by getting the same taxes through purchases from people who don't normally pay taxes, like drug dealers, for example.
And think of the literally billions we spend with the IRS. Unfortunately it will put a bunch of useless IRS employees out of business, but I'm sure they can find other work.
It makes such perfect sense and there's a lot of support for it, but if it doesn't pass it will be because too many people are not interested enough to read about it or too lazy to make changes. That what saddens me. We've been so used to prosperity and freedom that we don't see it going away until it's too late.
I trust you'll read about it, Henry, but you don't have to. If you can come up with any cons after reading about it, please let me know because I can't find anything bad about it at all. And I've read the book.
Have a good year !
Posted by: Eve at January 9, 2006 09:48 PM
Thanks Eve, that was very informative. If it's ever put to a vote I sure hope it passes. You have a good year too.
Posted by: Henry at January 11, 2006 08:02 PM
I wish we could create topics on this blog. The topics someone starts are rather dull (and somewhat biased if you asked me.)
I'd start a topic on the Alito hearings.
It's like watching the 3 stooges match wits with Einstein. Actually, I think I said that about the Robert's hearing, but this time around it's even funnier.
Those idiotic Democratic Senators are so funny. They lie even when we know they're lying. Now that's stupid. How such morons ever got into office is mind boggling. Watching a drunk like Teddy Kennedy try to sound 'holier than thou' when he's the one who was kicked out of Harvard for cheating, and got drunk and drowned an innocent woman in his car. Why the people in Mass. are so stupid to vote him in every year is beyond me. How could there be that many stupid people all in one little state? They can't all be just ignorant, can they?
Let's start a topic here on the "Dog & Pony Show" going on with the Alito nomination hearings.
Any other funny stories? Come on guys, it only sounds boring. Watch it if you get a chance. I can't stop laughing !!
Posted by: Eve at January 14, 2006 10:04 PM
Eve,
Your right, did you see even liberal Spectre has had enough of Kennedy? Yeah Spectre, the hero to the liberal told Kennedy he was being ridiculous,in so many words. I think this only helps the conservative view and shows the democrats are being held hostage by the extreme left.
Posted by: Wayne at January 18, 2006 07:59 AM
I have no opinion on Ted Kennedy but if the people of Massachusetts like him then they're entitled to vote for him they're not stupid.
Posted by: Henry at January 18, 2006 11:36 PM
I think how somebody like Tom DeLay became majority leader is mind-boggling. Too bad he turned out to be corrupt like certain other members of Congress, Dems and Republicans alike.
Posted by: Henry at January 18, 2006 11:43 PM
What's even more mind-boggling is the number of politicians we know have committed crimes such as murder and racial bigotry yet are not even questioned about it and are kept in office despite their crimes. (eg: Kennedy & Byrd)
That's the advantage of being a Democrat. You can commit any crime and it will be covered up. Don't try this if you're not a liberal.
Posted by: Eve at January 22, 2006 02:12 PM
Eve, you once asked for a funny story. I don't have a funny story but I found a few anti-liberal jokes that will cheer you up. Maybe Wayne will like 'em too.
1. Question - What is the difference between a liberal and a puppy?
Answer - A puppy stops whining after it grows up.
2. Question - What is the only thing worse than an incompetent liberal President?
Answer - A competent liberal President.
3. Question - Why do the male members of the Kennedy family cry while having sex?
Answer - Mace.
4. Question - Who was the first liberal Democrat?
Answer - Christopher Columbus. He left not knowing where he was going, got there not knowing where he was, left not knowing where he'd been and did it all on borrowed money.
5. Liberals are like seagulls: all they do is squawk, eat crap, and they are protected by the government (or the left-wing media).
Posted by: Henry at January 22, 2006 09:37 PM
Ted Kennedy is an old bastard he should retire. Maybe the only reason the Massachusetts people like him is because he's an Irishman. I don't think I would ever vote for him.
Posted by: Henry at January 24, 2006 06:37 PM
Teddy's father was good at fixing elections. Remember he fixed the JFK elections.
Perhaps Teddy learned how to stay in office from his father.
Posted by: Pete at February 5, 2006 05:58 PM
