December 20, 2005
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Under threat of legal action, more than 30,000 New York City transit workers went on strike early Tuesday, shutting down the nation's largest public transportation system just days ahead of Christmas."Transit workers are tired of being underappreciated and disrespected," said TWU President Roger Toussaint. "The Local 100 executive board has voted overwhelmingly to extend strike action to all MTA properties immediately."
One of the issues behind the strike is a ridiculous demand of guaranteed 8% raises over the next three years.
Meanwhile, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is calling the action "selfish."
I don't like unions. I don't like most all of the labor laws I've ever heard of; I think they're unjust in that they ask businesses to give preferential treatment to people who are members of gangs unions.
This MTA strike is a good example. If someone at my company told their boss, "If you don't give me at least an 8% raise for the next three years, I'm not coming to work," they would be fired. Actually, all forms of that sort of cohersive behavior should be greeted with immediate termination, in my opinion. But you're not allowed to fire people for being in unions.
Employment is just like any other trade; it happens by the mutual consent of employee and employer. If either party does something the other doesn't like, the second may choose to terminate the relationship.
So, the MTA people are striking and the city is considering suing.
This morning, there are 7 million people trying to catch cabs, walking, riding bikes, carpooling and driving because the service they usually PAY to recieve is being denied to them by those who are, in turn, PAID to provide it.
Steps could have been taken to prevent this, but they're all illegal.
Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at
03:08 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: James at December 20, 2005 06:50 AM (Y1ZUf)
Who could be expected to make a rational choice between working and being fined, or not working and still being fined? In other words, because some people want to extort more money from your employer -- even if you're happy with your job -- you will end up paying no matter what side you choose.
Posted by: John Powers at December 20, 2005 12:26 PM (6Kz8K)
I'm against unions on principle. I do not think it's a good idea to join these mobs even if they don't do something idiotic like shutting down the New York transit system. They are mechanisms for egalitarianism and serve to hinder the able and hide the weak.
Posted by: Trey Givens at December 21, 2005 12:51 AM (NWdQJ)
Posted by: Amy at December 21, 2005 06:25 AM (6FH9R)
One of the things I loved about Reagan is when the Air Traffic Controller's union went on strike, he fired them all and put the national guard in charge of ATC. I would have done the same thing with the TWU if it were at all feasible.
The company I work for is a high-end real estate investment, management, leasing and construction firm, and we have a hand in managing the MTA headquarters. This afforded me the opportunity to meet many top MTA execs, and sadly I must say that the majority of them are nowhere near being the sharpest knife in the drawer. They really needed to bring in mediators a lot sooner.
I much prefer my company's method of dealing with unions though. Whenever we buy a new property that's staffed with union workers, we fire the lot of them and re-hire. This usually results in a month of protesting in front of our building with a giant inflatable rat that the unions are so fond of here.
When it becomes clear to the union thugs that we will never give in, they resort to (no joke) vandalism, sabotage, and death threats to not only our execs, but their families too. We've had to house employees and their families at undisclosed locations several times this year to keep them safe from the union gangs.
Posted by: Matt at December 22, 2005 07:19 PM (ZzSgh)
I don't care so much that people are in unions, although I personally think it's foolish and morally questionable, but I am bothered by the laws that protect them.
Employment is a trade and labor laws interfere in that exchange by inhibiting the employers' ability to get their fair share from the exchange.
Posted by: Trey Givens at December 23, 2005 05:55 AM (NWdQJ)
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
