Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
TWU just won an arbitration award granting 4% annual raises in pay and benefits
OK, before this gets really out of hand, I'd like to mention that everyone should stop reading the garbage that has been printed in the Post over the last 12 months about this. Here is what actually happened:
Last December, TWU and MTA agreed to a contract that worked out to 11% spread out over three years. (We did not pick up any additional benefits; we simply kept what we already had). Then Mayor Bloomberg stepped in and interfered--he said something about wanting to set 4% increases as a benchmark, and even though our contract was going to do exactly that, he somehow convinced MTA that they could get away with less. So the union requested binding arbitration--which is provided for by the notorious Taylor Law, and has to be agreed to by all parties.
The arbitrator made a ruling in August that basically granted us the contract previously agreed to. MTA then turned around and took the matter to court. The judge ruled, in effect, that binding arbitration is binding arbitration, and that MTA's claim that they didn't have the money to pay raises was baseless (always remember that MTA keeps more than one set of books for just such occasions!) In fact, the judge bent over backwards to accommodate MTA, and declared that the first two years of 4% should be paid in two separate increases of 2%, twice a year.
So what it all comes down to is this: we were not "awarded" a contract. We were simply backed up on the contract that had been agreed to before the Mayor's interference.
And now, having put the truth out there, I shall stand aside and let the complaining take over the stage. People who have a problem with unions in general aren't going to want to hear any of this, and I fully expect counter arguments based on little more than personal feelings. But don't expect me to sit quietly by and listen to a bunch of uninformed misstatements.
OK, before this gets really out of hand, I'd like to mention that everyone should stop reading the garbage that has been printed in the Post over the last 12 months about this. Here is what actually happened:
-- SNIP --
And now, having put the truth out there, I shall stand aside and let the complaining take over the stage. People who have a problem with unions in general aren't going to want to hear any of this, and I fully expect counter arguments based on little more than personal feelings. But don't expect me to sit quietly by and listen to a bunch of uninformed misstatements.
The arbitration process is just textbook Taylor Law legal procedure. The objection people have to is to the raises themselves, not the (typically) drawn-out arbitration and judicial review process to make it legal.
As for what really happened last Friday, I have read Judge Sherwood's actual legal opinion with is a much more accurate source than the Post, or the TWU newsletter.
Speaking of uninformed misstatements, here are a few:
Judge Sherwood did not modify the terms of the contract to "bend over backward for the MTA". In Taylor Law arbitration cases, judges have no authority to change the terms of the contract decided by the arbitrators. A judge can only review the arbitration process to determine that procedure was followed, and the arbitrators' findings and statements of fact are "plausible" and "rational". (Note the absence of "reasonble").
Bloomberg had nothing to with this. In fact, you guys should be thanking him because the 4% annual raises given by the city to its employees was the major factor that the panel used to justify the award under the 6-point evaluation criteria set forth by the Taylor Law. The MTA tried to argue (among other things) that the award ignored the "ability to pay" criteria, because economic conditions since last December had rapidly reduced MTA revenues. The only thing Bloomberg ever did was back up that position by saying, in effect, that the City can simply afford raises better than the MTA, so the 4% precedent set by the city should be considered as applicable to MTA.
Also, the "two sets of books" accusation is baseless. The only two sets of books reviewed by the arbitration panel were revenue forecasts: one prepared by MTA, the other by TWU itself. According to Sherwood, the panel chose to use accept the less dire forecasts provided by the union for the "ability to pay" test.
Judge Sherwood did not say that the ability to pay contention was "baseless". He did say, that Taylor Law arbitration panels need only provide "a barely colorable justification for the outcome" and the use of the Union's economic forecast documents constitutes adequate "barely colorable justification". In fact in the next paragraph he notes that if were up to him, he would have not awarded such large raises, but legally he cannot do that.
I'd rather they'd stop doing the nightly/weekly "maintenance" and just run the dmn train.
See, the problem with that is, if you don't do the maintenance, the trains aren't running anywhere.
I find the poll option to close the subways in the wee hours interesting; there has always been a huge outcry whenever anything like that was mentioned in the past. I wonder whether people around the city would consider it now.
Newsflash to all New Yorkers- just be happy you have a solid public transit system at all. I'm here in metro Detroit and just paid $62 to fill up my tiny sedan. I'll be lucky if it lasts me a week!
I have a friend in planning and she mentioned that it would take so long to stop the trains and start them back up that it isn't worth the money to try that solution.
I have a friend in planning and she mentioned that it would take so long to stop the trains and start them back up that it isn't worth the money to try that solution.
Well, I'm a tower operator--I have a lot more to do with the daily movement of trains than the people in Operations & Planning. I can tell you that it wouldn't be a small feat to stop the whole system and start it up again...but on the other hand, I couldn't tell you that it's worth the money saved. Shutting the whole system down, even for five or six hours, would mean quite a bit of lost revenue; there are a lot of people who use--in fact, rely on--subway service running fulltime.
I would rather they raise the fares. I think they are losing a lot of money by selling unlimited rides cheaply, which is partly hindering them from making capital improvements. They should start billing by distance.
04-11-2011, 09:59 PM
grant516
n/a posts
Since the revenue all comes from the same sources, the MTA units should all be equal in price.
A Bridge Toll, a Subway, a bus, a LIRR, a MNR, SIR, should all cost the very same. Whatever the average price is. There's no explanation as to why a driver should pay more than a subway rider; or that a 20 mile LIRR ticket should be 5x more than a 30 mile NYCT bus ride.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
