[LeslieMoran]

I support unions when they protect workers' rights and working conditions (I think there's a lot of merit to the complaints of terrible, unsanitary conditions for MTA workers. The budget surplus should absolutely have been spent on upgrading stations - including MTA workers' areas - and not pissed away on the meaningless "holiday bonus" pr gimmick). However, as best I can tell in this case, the union is leveraging the strike (threat or reality) just to horn in on the budget surplus. Seems like simple greed. I haven't read any justification for the MTA workers demanding free benefits, lowered retirement ages and fairytale raises aside from they simply think they should have them.

They deserve good pay and benefits, not extraordinary, better-than-the-private-sector pay and benefits. If I have to walk to midtown from Brooklyn in freezing rain tomorrow I'm going to tell off any picketing MTA worker I see. (and I'm usually just about socialist on these issues)

[Izzy]

If THIS \/ happens ... omg:

35 pct of cabbies may stay home for transit strike

December 15, 2005

http://www.newyorkology.com/archives..._of_cabbi.html

If there is a subway and bus strike in New York City on Friday, about 35 percent of the city's taxi drivers may also stay home rather than deal with the stress and new, complicated fare system, the director of the Taxi Workers Alliance told NewYorkology.

Bhairavi Desai said her organization, which represents about 7,000 of the city's 12,787 licensed cabbies, is encouraging drivers not to work during a strike in part because they could ultimately lose their operating licenses if they charge the wrong fares under the city's Strike Contingency Plan announced Wednesday.

"It's going to be incredibly stressful," she said. "And at a time of utter chaos, they've come up with this zone system" that neither passengers nor drivers are likely to easily understand.

Instead of a regular metered-fare, the zone system, created by the city without input from the Taxi Workers Alliance, would charge each passenger $10 initially and $5 each time the cab passes into a new zone during the trip. Cabbies would also be allowed to pick up multiple passengers along the way.

[Rffkwfct]

Not pretty!

[muytreda]

News so far:

Queens bus lines (private lines being aquired by the MTA) will be first. Nice of them to leave people stranded at work, eh?

Butt munchers.

[AnetTeilor]

Looks like we have a reprieve for the most part untill late Monday night. Yay for me as I have to go to 125th St. Monday.

[mikajuise]

December 18, 2005

Transit Union Tries New Tack on Pensions

By SEWELL CHAN and STEVEN GREENHOUSE

In a move that could alter the shape of its deadlocked contract negotiations, the transit workers' union intends to file a complaint with a state labor board today, asserting that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority cannot legally insist that the union accept less generous pensions for future subway and bus workers.

The union, Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union, said yesterday that it would ask the state's Public Employment Relations Board to seek a court order barring the authority from making pension demands part of its final offer for a new contract. The authority, in response, dismissed the legal action as a public-relations ploy and asserted that both sides had traditionally discussed pensions in their contract talks.

Neither side moved from its position yesterday, although top negotiators met for about four hours before taking an afternoon recess. Talks resumed and then recessed once again about 11 p.m.

If the state board were to rule in the union's favor on the pension issue - an outcome the authority insisted is doubtful - it could compel the authority to drop its demand for a worse pension plan for future transit workers. That demand, both sides say, is the main obstacle to a settlement.

The dispute added a new wrinkle to the brinkmanship that has characterized the last several days. The authority has said that it has made its final offer. The union has set a new strike deadline of 12:01 a.m. Tuesday for the whole transit system and another for 12:01 a.m. tomorrow at two private bus companies in Queens that are being transferred to the authority's control. Union officials said yesterday that they had asked the authority to put its best and final offer on the table by 9 p.m. Monday so the union's executive board would have time to consider it before the Tuesday deadline.

The union's president, Roger Toussaint, and the authority's chairman, Peter S. Kalikow, did not attend the talks yesterday, held at the Grand Hyatt hotel. Each side offered competing interpretations of the day's events to the journalists who have transformed hotel meeting rooms into a round-the-clock encampment.

At 3:10 p.m., the authority's chief negotiator, Gary J. Dellaverson, said he was optimistic. "We're negotiating," he said. "The talks have not broken off. At this stage of the game, I would say talking is progress."

Three hours later, Ed Watt, the union's secretary-treasurer, was less sanguine during a brief appearance. "Both sides are in what seem to be intractable positions," he said. "As a result, these negotiations have only been exploratory and, again, there has been no progress."

A lawyer for the union, Walter M. Meginniss Jr., disclosed the union's plan to file a legal action. In an interview, he argued that the state's Taylor Law, which governs relations between government employers and public-sector workers, permits pensions to be discussed in a contract negotiation but bars either side from insisting on pension changes as part of its final offer.

The authority wants to require that new employees not be eligible for a full pension until age 62, compared with age 55 for most current employees. The pension changes would require approval by the Legislature. The authority, which technically may not directly discuss pensions at the bargaining table, is in essence demanding that the union agree to jointly petition the Legislature for those changes.

Such petitions, known as joint-support legislation, are a "permissive" subject of collective bargaining under the law, Mr. Meginniss said, but they are not a mandatory subject like salaries, wages and hours - the basic terms and conditions of employment.

"You can always push and push for a permissive subject, and the other side says no," he said. "What you can't do is go and take the last step - 'We refuse to reach an agreement unless you give in on this permissive subject.' "

Mr. Meginniss said a 1975 decision by the board, in a contract negotiation involving the City of New Rochelle and Local 273 of the International Association of Fire Fighters, supported Local 100's argument. In that decision, the board ruled that both sides "improperly insisted" that nonmandatory terms be included in a new contract.

In an interview, Mr. Dellaverson, said, "Everything that we're doing in the bargaining is totally appropriate and completely consistent with the history of negotiations between the T.W.U., Local 100, and the M.T.A."

Mr. Dellaverson, who is a lawyer, said the union's argument would apply only if either side were asking the state board to refer the dispute to a panel of impartial arbitrators. For transit workers, police officers and firefighters, the Taylor Law requires arbitration if either side files a petition stating that there is an impasse and the board then orders mediation that fails.

Mr. Dellaverson said that neither side had declared an impasse and said of the union's legal complaint, "This is a one-day press tactic, but it's not meaningful."

Mr. Meginniss said he disagreed with Mr. Dellaverson. "His view is that you only reach impasse when you go to an arbitration panel, and that's not true," Mr. Meginniss said. "When you take the position that you will not sign a contract unless it has a permissive subject in it, you are violating the Taylor Law. And that is the position they are taking."

It is not clear how the board will rule, and more important, whether it will rule in time to make a difference. The union has vowed to begin a strike at Jamaica Buses and the Triboro Coach Corporation tomorrow and a general subway and bus strike on Tuesday if no accord is reached.

Gov. George E. Pataki appointed the board's chairman, Michael R. Cuevas, and its other member, John T. Mitchell; a third seat is vacant.

Mr. Pataki, a Republican, has strongly supported the authority's stance in the talks. He has called the contract fair, urged the union to accept it and warned that a strike would be illegal and could result in steep fines.

Mr. Watt, the union official, said the governor's stance was hypocritical. "While the governor is wagging his finger at transit workers, that they shouldn't break the Taylor Law, his own agency, the M.T.A., is violating the Taylor Law," Mr. Watt said in an interview.

Bruce C. McIver, who has overseen labor relations for the city and the authority, said: "This is really an attempt by the union to get the high ground in terms of public perception. The M.T.A. is saying, 'We've made an offer, and we're not going to improve it no matter what.' So the union is trying to create an environment in which the M.T.A. will feel pressure to get the item off the table."

Union leaders have voiced confidence that the Democratic-controlled State Assembly, which is friendly to labor, would not do the authority's bidding and enact a worse pension plan, especially because the city's top labor leaders have rallied behind the transit workers.

On Thursday night, just before the first strike deadline, the presidents of the city's Central Labor Council, the United Federation of Teachers, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association and 1199, the giant health-care union, backed Mr. Toussaint's effort to maintain current benefits.

Riders continued yesterday to follow the talks with a mixture of anxiety and curiosity.

"I thought for sure they were going to strike on Friday," said Aubrey Hairston, 25, a musician who lives in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. "I was so sure, and it didn't happen, so I am much more up in the air about Tuesday. I pray it doesn't happen."

Damien Cave and Michael S. Schmidt contributed reporting for this article.

* Copyright 2005The New York Times Company

[sonsayx]

I don't support the union OR the MTA in this. The MTA is unfairly hoarding their surplus money and giving out for holdiday discounts that aren't necessarily needed, while the union is asking for the pension eligibility to be at 50 and an 8% per year pay increase. Those demands sound nice, but they are too generous. However, I don't think that the pension age should be raised to 62. How about keeping it at 55, or if not, then raise it to 58 or 59 if there really is a pension problem?

Meanwhile, I've been watching the news within the last hour and now there's talk of Metro North workers going on strike! This is going to hurt Westchester, Putnam, and Dutchess County residents, as well as those in Fairfield County and New Haven County, CT. (although I'm not sure if CT people if we hurt since I'm sure that the inter-state issue may make it harder to wage a strike.)

[Abofedrorobox]

December 20, 2005

Union Rejects Contract Offer, M.T.A. Reports

By STEVEN GREENHOUSE and SEWELL CHAN

Leaders of the transit workers' union rejected the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's latest contract offer last night, management officials said, as the city braced for the possibility of a transit strike for the first time in a quarter-century.

With just an hour before a strike deadline of 12:01 a.m. today, Tom Kelly, an authority spokesman, said it had put "a fair offer on the negotiating table."

"Unfortunately, that offer has been rejected by the Transport Workers Union, and they have advised us that they were going - that they are going - to leave the building, and going to the union hall," Mr. Kelly said. "The M.T.A. remains ready to continue negotiations." He offered no further details, and union officials would not discuss the developments as they headed into their private strategy session.

The developments capped a day of intense negotiations between the two pivotal figures in the talks - Peter S. Kalikow, the authority's chairman, and Roger Toussaint, president of Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union - who bargained face to face yesterday for the first time since Friday, meeting for nearly 12 hours at the Grand Hyatt hotel next to Grand Central Terminal.

Stepping up the pressure, the transit union began a strike yesterday morning against two Queens bus lines, stranding 57,000 passengers in what the union portrayed as a prelude to a strike that would shut down the nation's largest transit system.

The union originally threatened to shut down the whole system on Friday, but pushed back the deadline to today, seemingly to increase its leverage by warning of a walkout the week before Christmas, one of the busiest weeks for retailers. The state's Taylor Law prohibits strikes by public employees and carries penalties of two days' pay for each day on strike.

As a result of all the threats and deadlines, many New Yorkers for the second straight week felt wildly off balance, straining to figure out how their children would get to school and how they would get to work or to doctors' appointments.

Some New Yorkers backed the transit workers, some saw them as greedy lawbreakers, and some said that both sides in the negotiations deserved the public's disdain.

Warning that a strike would be illegal, Gov. George E. Pataki and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg stepped up their campaign to pressure the union, with the mayor saying that a strike would be "reprehensible."

"The city and state and courts - everybody is going to enforce the law, and anybody that thinks that they can just go break the law is sadly mistaken," Mr. Bloomberg said. "There can be no winners in a strike - it's not going to force the M.T.A. to make a settlement. If anything, it's going to probably dig them in."

At rallies outside the governor's office and in Queens alongside the striking bus workers, Mr. Toussaint and many union members trumpeted their defiance, insisting that it was more important to obtain what they viewed as a just contract than to obey the law barring strikes. Mr. Toussaint said the union would not push back its strike deadline as it did on Friday.

"Unless there is substantial movement by the authority, trains and buses will come to a halt as of midnight tonight," he said at a rally for the bus workers in East Elmhurst, Queens.

With anger in his voice, he added, "We maintain, as we have in the past week, that threats are not going to produce a contract and are not going to work against us. And Governor Pataki should think carefully before he wags his finger at transit workers on television. We transit workers are accustomed to being threatened by transit managers, but we do not appreciate being threatened on public television."

City officials have prepared an emergency plan that would increase ferry service, allow taxis to pick up multiple fares, close several streets to traffic except for buses and emergency vehicles, and prohibit cars with fewer than four passengers from entering Manhattan below 96th Street during the morning rush. The city, alert to the threat of sabotage, is also deploying hundreds of police officers to secure subway entrances in the event of a walkout.

The main obstacle to an agreement, both sides say, is the authority's demand that the union, which represents 33,700 subway and bus workers, agree to pension plan that raises the retirement age for future transit workers to 62, up from 55 for current workers.

The transportation authority asserts that it needs to bring its soaring pension costs under control to stave off future deficits. But union leaders vow that they will not sell out future transit workers by saddling them with lesser benefits.

One idea being considered, one person on the authority's side said, was to drop the authority's demand to raise the retirement age for pension eligibility for new workers and instead have all transit workers contribute more toward their pensions.

Earlier yesterday, Mr. Toussaint hinted at some movement in the talks, saying that the union would reduce its wage demands to 6 percent a year, from 8 percent a year, if the authority promised to reduce the number of disciplinary actions brought against transit workers. The authority has offered raises of 3 percent a year for three years.

The union began its strike against two Queens bus lines, Jamaica Buses Inc. and Triboro Coach Corporation, in the hope of pressuring the authority to reach an overall settlement. The walkout angered many Queens commuters and caused many to squeeze into vans and taxis.

The 707 workers at the two bus companies have been without a contract for 33 months. The authority is taking control of those two companies and five others, and union officials assert that the strike against the companies is not prohibited because the authority has not taken full control of them.

The Public Employment Relations Board, a state body that oversees labor relations for government employees, did not issue a decision yesterday in response to a complaint that the union filed on Sunday, asserting that the authority had violated state law by including its pension demands as part of what it said was its final offer. The union has asked the labor board to seek an injunction ordering the authority to drop its pension demand.

At 9:15 p.m. yesterday, the board's executive director, James R. Edgar, said the board had not yet received the authority's legal papers replying to the union.

Many New Yorkers said a strike would disrupt their lives. Doreen Simon, 55, who lives in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, and works as a housekeeper in Riverdale, the Bronx, said, "I'm going to stay home. What can I do? I can't take a cab to the Bronx. It's going to hurt."

The union has repeatedly urged Mr. Pataki to join the talks, trying to put the onus on him if there is a walkout. But the governor, like the mayor, says that the professionals at the authority should handle the talks.

Mr. Bloomberg said that a walkout would hurt many workers in the hotel, restaurant and garment industries who earn less than the transit workers. The transit workers average $55,000 a year with overtime.

"You've got people making $50,000 and $60,000 a year - are keeping the people who are making $20,000 and $30,000 a year from being able to earn a living," Mr. Bloomberg said. "That's just not acceptable."

Workers at the Metro-North Railroad and Long Island Rail Road are not expected to strike in support of transit workers. Anthony J. Bottalico, the chairman of the union that represents Metro-North engineers, conductors and rail-traffic controllers, said none of his members planned to strike.

However, two other unions, which represent Metro-North ticket collectors and track workers, have vowed to show solidarity with Local 100 by refusing to cross any picket lines, and they could conceivably delay, though not disrupt, regular train service.

* Copyright 2005The New York Times Company

[Alliopeti]

I hope the union does stike.

Instead of reflexively howling about the transit workers' union, maybe people should turn their sites to the MTA, who have made their wealth on all of our backs.

[bpejjssoe]

You think the union demands for 8% raises, age 50 retirements & free healthcare are reasonable?

From where I stand it seems like both sides are greedy.

[pouslytut]

Four words: We are so f*cked
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 20, 2005
Transit Union Calls for Strike in Divided Vote
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE and SEWELL CHAN

Leaders of the transit workers' union rejected the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's latest contract offer last night, and voted to call a strike shortly after 1 a.m., according to two members of the union's executive board. But the vote to call a strike was not unanimous, and so for at least a half an hour after the formal vote, union leaders remained divided on whether to actually proceed with the walkout.

Adding to the confusion, the president of the Transport Workers Union of America, the parent union for the city's transit workers, told the local executive board he could not support a strike, the two members said. They said that the president, Michael T. O'Brien, said he believed that the transportation authority might change its offer, and he urged the union to re-enter the talks.

A transit strike, the city's first in a quarter century, would prevent people from going to work, cause hundreds of millions of dollars in economic damage and upend the life of the city in the week before Christmas.

The vote by the union board came after a 12-hour round of intense negotiations between the two pivotal figures in the talks - Peter S. Kalikow, the transportation authority's chairman, and Roger Toussaint, president of Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union - who bargained face-to-face yesterday for the first time since Friday.

But with just an hour to go before the deadline, Tom Kelly, an authority spokesman, said that efforts to settle the dispute had faltered after the union turned down what he called "a fair offer."

"Unfortunately, that offer has been rejected by the Transport Workers Union, and they have advised us that they were going - that they are going - to leave the building, and going to the union hall," Mr. Kelly said. "The M.T.A. remains ready to continue negotiations." Union officials would not discuss the developments as they headed into their private strategy session.

The developments capped a day in which the transit union stepped up the pressure by beginning a strike yesterday morning against two Queens bus lines, stranding about 57,000 passengers in what the union portrayed as a prelude to a strike that would shut down the nation's largest transit system.

The union first threatened to shut down the whole system on Friday, but pushed back the deadline to today, seemingly to increase its leverage by warning of a walkout the week before Christmas, one of the busiest weeks for retailers. The state's Taylor Law prohibits strikes by public employees and carries penalties of two days' pay for each day on strike.

As a result of all the threats and deadlines, many New Yorkers for the second straight week felt wildly off balance, straining to figure out how their children would get to school and how they would get to work or to doctors' appointments.

Some New Yorkers backed the transit workers, some saw them as greedy lawbreakers, and some said that both sides in the negotiations deserved the public's disdain.

Warning that a strike would be illegal, Gov. George E. Pataki and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg stepped up their campaign to pressure the union, with the mayor saying that a strike would be "reprehensible."

"The city and state and courts - everybody is going to enforce the law, and anybody that thinks that they can just go break the law is sadly mistaken," Mr. Bloomberg said. "There can be no winners in a strike - it's not going to force the M.T.A. to make a settlement. If anything, it's going to probably dig them in."

At rallies outside the governor's office and in Queens alongside the striking bus workers, Mr. Toussaint and many union members trumpeted their defiance, insisting that it was more important to obtain what they viewed as a just contract than to obey the law barring strikes.

"Unless there is substantial movement by the authority, trains and buses will come to a halt as of midnight tonight," he said at a rally for the bus workers in East Elmhurst, Queens.

With anger in his voice, he added, "We maintain, as we have in the past week, that threats are not going to produce a contract and are not going to work against us." Later, at a rally outside the governor's office in Manhattan, he sought to justify a walkout by saying, "There's a calling that is higher than the law, and that's the calling of justice."

City officials have prepared an emergency plan that would increase ferry service, allow taxis to pick up multiple fares, close several streets to traffic except for buses and emergency vehicles, and prohibit cars with fewer than four passengers from entering Manhattan below 96th Street during the morning rush. The city is also deploying hundreds of police officers to secure subway entrances in the event of a walkout.

The transportation authority's 11th-hour offer included a 3 percent raise in the first year, 4 percent in the second year and 3.5 percent in the third year of a new contract, representatives on both sides said. Before yesterday, it was offering 3 percent a year for three straight years.

The authority dropped its demand to raise the retirement age for a full pension to 62 for new employees, up from 55 for current employees. But the authority proposed that all future transit workers pay 6 percent of their wages toward their pensions, up from the 2 percent that current workers pay.

The transportation authority asserts that it needs to bring its soaring pension costs under control to stave off future deficits. But union leaders vow that they will not sell out future transit workers by saddling them with lesser benefits.

Earlier yesterday, Mr. Toussaint hinted at some movement in the talks at the Grand Hyatt hotel, saying that the union would reduce its wage demands to 6 percent a year, from 8 percent a year, if the authority promised to reduce the number of disciplinary actions brought against transit workers. The authority has offered raises of 3 percent a year for three years.

The union began its strike against two Queens bus lines, Jamaica Buses Inc. and Triboro Coach Corporation, in the hope of pressuring the authority to reach an overall settlement. The walkout angered many Queens commuters and caused many to squeeze into vans and taxis.

The 707 workers at the two bus companies have been without a contract for 33 months. The authority is taking control of those two companies and five others, and union officials assert that the strike against the companies is not prohibited because the authority has not taken full control of them.

The Public Employment Relations Board, a state body that oversees labor relations for government employees, did not issue a decision yesterday in response to a complaint that the union filed on Sunday, asserting that the authority had violated state law by including its pension demands as part of what it said was its final offer. The union has asked the labor board to seek an injunction ordering the authority to drop its pension demand.

At 9:15 p.m. yesterday, the board's executive director, James R. Edgar, said the board had not yet received the authority's legal papers replying to the union.

Many New Yorkers said a strike would disrupt their lives. Doreen Simon, 55, who lives in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, and works as a housekeeper in Riverdale, the Bronx, said, "I'm going to stay home. What can I do? I can't take a cab to the Bronx. It's going to hurt."

The union has repeatedly urged Mr. Pataki to join the talks, trying to put the onus on him if there is a walkout. But the governor, like the mayor, says that the professionals at the authority should handle the talks.

Workers at the Metro-North Railroad and Long Island Rail Road are not expected to strike in support of transit workers. Anthony J. Bottalico, the chairman of the union that represents Metro-North engineers, conductors and rail-traffic controllers, said none of his members planned to strike.

However, two other unions, which represent Metro-North ticket collectors and track workers, have vowed to show solidarity with Local 100 by refusing to cross picket lines, and they could conceivably delay, though not disrupt, regular train service.

December 20, 2005
Transit Union Calls for Strike in Divided Vote
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE and SEWELL CHAN

Leaders of the transit workers' union rejected the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's latest contract offer last night, and voted to call a strike shortly after 1 a.m., according to two members of the union's executive board. But the vote to call a strike was not unanimous, and so for at least a half an hour after the formal vote, union leaders remained divided on whether to actually proceed with the walkout.

Adding to the confusion, the president of the Transport Workers Union of America, the parent union for the city's transit workers, told the local executive board he could not support a strike, the two members said. They said that the president, Michael T. O'Brien, said he believed that the transportation authority might change its offer, and he urged the union to re-enter the talks.

A transit strike, the city's first in a quarter century, would prevent people from going to work, cause hundreds of millions of dollars in economic damage and upend the life of the city in the week before Christmas.

The vote by the union board came after a 12-hour round of intense negotiations between the two pivotal figures in the talks - Peter S. Kalikow, the transportation authority's chairman, and Roger Toussaint, president of Local 100 of the Transport Workers Union - who bargained face-to-face yesterday for the first time since Friday.

But with just an hour to go before the deadline, Tom Kelly, an authority spokesman, said that efforts to settle the dispute had faltered after the union turned down what he called "a fair offer."

"Unfortunately, that offer has been rejected by the Transport Workers Union, and they have advised us that they were going - that they are going - to leave the building, and going to the union hall," Mr. Kelly said. "The M.T.A. remains ready to continue negotiations." Union officials would not discuss the developments as they headed into their private strategy session.

The developments capped a day in which the transit union stepped up the pressure by beginning a strike yesterday morning against two Queens bus lines, stranding about 57,000 passengers in what the union portrayed as a prelude to a strike that would shut down the nation's largest transit system.

The union first threatened to shut down the whole system on Friday, but pushed back the deadline to today, seemingly to increase its leverage by warning of a walkout the week before Christmas, one of the busiest weeks for retailers. The state's Taylor Law prohibits strikes by public employees and carries penalties of two days' pay for each day on strike.

As a result of all the threats and deadlines, many New Yorkers for the second straight week felt wildly off balance, straining to figure out how their children would get to school and how they would get to work or to doctors' appointments.

Some New Yorkers backed the transit workers, some saw them as greedy lawbreakers, and some said that both sides in the negotiations deserved the public's disdain.

Warning that a strike would be illegal, Gov. George E. Pataki and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg stepped up their campaign to pressure the union, with the mayor saying that a strike would be "reprehensible."

"The city and state and courts - everybody is going to enforce the law, and anybody that thinks that they can just go break the law is sadly mistaken," Mr. Bloomberg said. "There can be no winners in a strike - it's not going to force the M.T.A. to make a settlement. If anything, it's going to probably dig them in."

At rallies outside the governor's office and in Queens alongside the striking bus workers, Mr. Toussaint and many union members trumpeted their defiance, insisting that it was more important to obtain what they viewed as a just contract than to obey the law barring strikes.

"Unless there is substantial movement by the authority, trains and buses will come to a halt as of midnight tonight," he said at a rally for the bus workers in East Elmhurst, Queens.

With anger in his voice, he added, "We maintain, as we have in the past week, that threats are not going to produce a contract and are not going to work against us." Later, at a rally outside the governor's office in Manhattan, he sought to justify a walkout by saying, "There's a calling that is higher than the law, and that's the calling of justice."

City officials have prepared an emergency plan that would increase ferry service, allow taxis to pick up multiple fares, close several streets to traffic except for buses and emergency vehicles, and prohibit cars with fewer than four passengers from entering Manhattan below 96th Street during the morning rush. The city is also deploying hundreds of police officers to secure subway entrances in the event of a walkout.

The transportation authority's 11th-hour offer included a 3 percent raise in the first year, 4 percent in the second year and 3.5 percent in the third year of a new contract, representatives on both sides said. Before yesterday, it was offering 3 percent a year for three straight years.

The authority dropped its demand to raise the retirement age for a full pension to 62 for new employees, up from 55 for current employees. But the authority proposed that all future transit workers pay 6 percent of their wages toward their pensions, up from the 2 percent that current workers pay.

The transportation authority asserts that it needs to bring its soaring pension costs under control to stave off future deficits. But union leaders vow that they will not sell out future transit workers by saddling them with lesser benefits.

Earlier yesterday, Mr. Toussaint hinted at some movement in the talks at the Grand Hyatt hotel, saying that the union would reduce its wage demands to 6 percent a year, from 8 percent a year, if the authority promised to reduce the number of disciplinary actions brought against transit workers. The authority has offered raises of 3 percent a year for three years.

The union began its strike against two Queens bus lines, Jamaica Buses Inc. and Triboro Coach Corporation, in the hope of pressuring the authority to reach an overall settlement. The walkout angered many Queens commuters and caused many to squeeze into vans and taxis.

The 707 workers at the two bus companies have been without a contract for 33 months. The authority is taking control of those two companies and five others, and union officials assert that the strike against the companies is not prohibited because the authority has not taken full control of them.

The Public Employment Relations Board, a state body that oversees labor relations for government employees, did not issue a decision yesterday in response to a complaint that the union filed on Sunday, asserting that the authority had violated state law by including its pension demands as part of what it said was its final offer. The union has asked the labor board to seek an injunction ordering the authority to drop its pension demand.

At 9:15 p.m. yesterday, the board's executive director, James R. Edgar, said the board had not yet received the authority's legal papers replying to the union.

Many New Yorkers said a strike would disrupt their lives. Doreen Simon, 55, who lives in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, and works as a housekeeper in Riverdale, the Bronx, said, "I'm going to stay home. What can I do? I can't take a cab to the Bronx. It's going to hurt."

The union has repeatedly urged Mr. Pataki to join the talks, trying to put the onus on him if there is a walkout. But the governor, like the mayor, says that the professionals at the authority should handle the talks.

Workers at the Metro-North Railroad and Long Island Rail Road are not expected to strike in support of transit workers. Anthony J. Bottalico, the chairman of the union that represents Metro-North engineers, conductors and rail-traffic controllers, said none of his members planned to strike.

However, two other unions, which represent Metro-North ticket collectors and track workers, have vowed to show solidarity with Local 100 by refusing to cross picket lines, and they could conceivably delay, though not disrupt, regular train service.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/ny...rtner=homepage

[brorwargy]

I have to say, I'm glad. Every public worker in this city deserves more money and I hope this sets a precedent.

Unless your work is a matter of life and death, you're probably not "f*cked."

[disappointment2]

Transit workers are often overpaid, rude to their customers, and often take advantage of the very good benefits they already receive. Some of them are down right lazy, not working when they should be, calling in sick prodigiously and generally taking advantage whenever possible to do as little as possible as much as possible.

Other transit workers often take a real pride in their jobs and do a good a job as possible.

Ultimately though, I agree completely with the mayor that the strike is illegal, immoral, and selfish. I am one NYer who is tired of this city being "underappreciated and disrespected" by transit workers.

[Filmania]

Shadenfrau: Shame on you and people like you - those arrogant, uninformed and insensitive.

You think people can handle it, don't you? So you want MTA to pay the workers better? Well, if you read newspapers and tried to educate yourself (not sure if it's possible) you would know that the reason they walked out is that MTA wanted to increase the retirement age to 62 and ask new workers to contribute towards the health plan - that's what all of working in private sector do and have always done. So making more money was not the main issue.

Who will suffer most from this strike? Not the rich living on Manhattan's East/West side. They can hail a cab and get to work. The ones who will suffer most are lower-middle class and middle class people that have to get to work from Brooklyn and Queens. Those that don't have money to pay the inflated car service charges. Those who don't have 3-4 other people to ride with. Those that get payed by hour and will lose some of their precious earnings because of this strike. And the city and its businesses will lose. This union clique is just like a mafia demaning stores to pay up. It's racketeering. It's illegal and immoral.

[Qwjyrgij]

There is enough hostility involved in a transit shutdown without you adding a personal note.

[carline]

I bought some Metrocards yesterday and I was talking to the booth lady. She said the whole card replacement/credit system was a sham, people are not getting cards and/or credits returned to them. Think about all those cards that will wind up with just $1.00 left on them that will get thrown away (half) from the current holiday promotion. MTA just chisels away.

[Muramoursuard]

that's what all of working in private sector do and have always done

Not true.

[NumDusthouh]

I have to say, I'm glad. Every public worker in this city deserves more money and I hope this sets a precedent.

Unless your work is a matter of life and death, you're probably not "f*cked."

I don't think so schade. Since when are they "entitled" to more money than anyone else for an essentially no-skill job?

It is something that needs to be done, and they do deserve FAIR pay and compensation, but since when do we start judging the worth of someones efforts and labors based simply on years of service?

It is also not fair to compare it to profit margins, being a public service.


I think that the unions are being pissey. Most of the changes do not even effect them at all, just new hires. Doing things like making pensions start at, gee I don't know, RETIREMENT AGE, is not too unreasonable to ask. Maybe they should just limit the number of years a pension lasts now that people are, on average, living so much longer after retirement? Retire at 55 if you want, you will only get 15 years of pension (etc etc).




ON THE OTHER HAND, I also agree that the MTA is being god-awful stupid in this. They keep raising fares and taking in more money, but that money evaporates with no real signs of overall improvement. I know that they are trying to do some station renovation (we are involved with some of that) but they have a poor track record with spending in general.

Not much worse than any other government agency, but that is no excuse.

The holiday discounts were stupid. I would rather have cleaner stations than cheaper fares for a limited period of time.


The bottom line is this. These guys can argue all they want, the only ones that suffer are us, the general public.

The MTA is not going to go out of business like some private companies due to a strike, and the MTA workers are not suffering much more than the people they are keeping from work, all in the name of "more money for Me".

Bleh.

[Unakjyfk]

The bottom line is this. These guys can argue all they want, the only ones that suffer are us, the general public.

The TWU workers will find that they themselves are going to suffer a great deal: Lost Wages (which can never be made up and will completely wipe out whatever gains they are hoping to get), Fines ($25k / day so I hear, which undoubtedly a court will rule can be taken out of future wages), Loss of Public Support (whatever support the union now has from ridership will quickly evaporate).

Does the union leadership / board of directors continue to get paid during the strike? Often those folk have separate contracts from what the workers have. So their "suffering" is of a very different type.

Leadership has claimed that what this is all about is "respect". That is an elusive goal, and something that workers will find hard to gain from management, politicians, et al -- especially in a situation like this where the strike action is against the law.

[pE71J5Sw]

I have to say, I'm glad. Every public worker in this city deserves more money and I hope this sets a precedent.

Repectfully, Not EVERY public worker deserves more money. I think I'd look to social workers, cops and fireman before MTA workers, but then none of them can afford a dramatic strike, huh?