Why doesn't Bloomberg just freakin' settle with the union?

Are they asking for THAT much money? In Chicago, they'd be blaming the mayor - and he/she'd be out of a job the next time around....

The MTA is a state agency and the governor appoints most of the board.

The issue isn't salary to current transit workers - it's future pensions which won't impact budgets for a decade.

Not much he can do.

n/t

They work for the vast bureaucracy known as the MTA. All Bloomie can do is make contingency plans for the city.

Started with Reagan when he squashed the air controllers. Every union in the country should have gone out on strike that day because they rolled over and surrendered when they let that happen. Union membership was about 35% of workers then, now its about 12% and getting weaker.

That any strike they undertook would be illegal and their jobs forfeit.

And common, I might add.

Are you really defending Reagan here?

In order to state that the ATCs conducted an illegal strike and were rightfully fired for it.

Any act or statute barring anyone from collective bargaining is unconscionable and unconstitutional.

Did you change your mind on the pre-employment argument, or are we trying to drop it quietly?

That is YOUR opinion. Employers as well as employees have rights too.

What's it like living in frickin' fairy land? I'll come visit you when I need a break from the real world.

Employers have rights.......You're damn right, and at present they have all the rights.

Drug tests

Credit reports

Background checks

At-Will Employment

Well that's too bad, but that's the way it is.

With bills to pay.

on your bills.

Maybe it's different in NYC...

You can do better than that Right Wing talking point. Raegan tried to go there too, but his 'study' found corporate america had more (8-to-1) crime than Labor.

Next, Jimmy Hoffa will come into it...

Yeah, I said it -- anti union/anti union says alot about a person and their values and beliefs.

"Employers have right," Reagan was right firing the ATC, etc. SHAME.

does not mean that the ability to bargain collectively is eliminated. There are some positions in which striking should be illegal, if you feel strongly enough about it, then you can strike, and suffer the penalties for civil disobediance, if they are invoked.
If the Union signs a CBA that bans striking under certain circumstances, and you say that agreement is illegal, what does that say about the concept of collective bargaining?

This particular strike is not well thought out, and will hurt the Union in the long run. And the union's PR has been awful. They are losing on every side, and the people they are hurting the most are the people most likely to be sympathetic to labor (the working poor) They are alientating their base, and the smaller companies in the City most. The poor are the people missing work because they can't commute, they are the ones walking 50 blocks during the coldest week of the year so far to get to work. Not the rich.

Not that the Union doesn't have the right to strike, if they feel it's neccesary, but that right doesn't make it a smart strategic move on their part.

on edit: In my situation, for instance, in DC. if the Metro struck, it wouldn't affect me much, beyond a minor inconvenience, I can afford to live close enough to my work to walk or bike there. but can the Janitors?

We are talking about public employees being barred from striking regardless of any CBA language.
No strike clauses are generally included in contracts and the cover the length of the agreement ONLY.

You are trying to spin here, but really any contract talks without the ability to strike are worthless.

one side can stop work, then so can the other. that's fair.

in the case of the ATC union, as I recall (I'm fuzzy, correct me if I'm wrong) that all employees signed a non-strike clause. If the union allowed them to sign something not covered by the CBA at that time, then the union was stupid and got what it deserved.

A lot of people do.

You are incorrect about the ATCs. They were barred from striking.

or by fiat? what I've seen says it was in the contract signed by all new employees.

a lockout isn't stopping work? ok.

They are barred by the government.

This is all about "War on the Holidays"

its Pataki that screwing things up; Bloomberg has no power over the strike, he's just mouthing GOP talking points, but people will believe Bloomberg could have done something (they're wrong, but that hasn't stop people before)

It has become a test of wills, like many union-management fights. The Transit Authority does not want to "reward" the workers for an illegal strike. Today's article said that the judge is considering imprisoning the union leaders.

A public-benefit corporation chartered by New York State in 1965, the MTA is governed by a 17-person Board. Members are nominated by the Governor, with some recommended by New York City's mayor and the county executives of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Dutchess, Orange, Rockland, and Putnam counties, with the members representing the latter four casting one collective vote. The Board also has six rotating non-voting seats held by representatives of organized labor and the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee (PCAC), which serves as a voice for users of MTA transit and commuter facilities. All Board members are confirmed by the New York State Senate.

http://mta.info/mta/network.htm

MTA refuses to give up 10 year 4% pay cut for all future hires. TWU Local 100 rightfully rejects the creation of a two-tier system.

Get that, all of you anti-labor people here on DU? That's brotherhood and sisterhood.

SOLIDARITY!