Dre L
Well-Known Member
Bless all the strikers. May they ride it out for weeks.
Sweet TRANSIT STRIKE
- Thread starter Dre L
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
Yup... Just gotta love those unions! This will really boost their popularity...
Last edited by a moderator:
Johnny O
Well-Known Member
Pay them whatever they want and adjust the bus and subway fares accordingly. Same with all other public employees, pay them and raise taxes to cover it. The end result will be less mass transit riders and people will move away to lower tax areas, thereby reducing the need for as many public employees. It worked in Pittsburgh. Less people live here every year and there ain't no housing bubble or school overcrowding. :lol:
Good for them. The article does not give the complete story. I think they have a valid point to strike. Raising the retirement age from 55 to 62 is wrong. Why not try splitting the difference?
Tom
Tom
Deleted deleted
Well-Known Member
Let's hear the other side of the story, fellas... the MTA is sitting on a $1 BILLION cash surplus. Why should the union workers pay for their health insurance when there's that much cash sitting idle?
Jeff C
Well-Known Member
I pay for my own health insurance, why shouldn't everyone else pay for their own insurance? If you don't want it, don't pay for it. Looks like this will be another thread about whether or not unions are good.
Jeff C.
Health Insurance paid for by your employer is part of your compensation. Getting a raise or getting free health coverage. Both are "raises".
Tom
Health Insurance paid for by your employer is part of your compensation. Getting a raise or getting free health coverage. Both are "raises".
Tom
Jeff C
Well-Known Member
Maybe that's part of the problem. I see a job as something you do and get paid for. Nothing else. Maybe a bonus if you something special during the year.
John Mastrocco
Active Member
Union asked for 8%. MTA offered 3%. Union came down to 'under' 5%. MTA offered 3.5%.
Union wants to continue the health insurance as it is now - free. It's not a raise if you already have it. MTA wants them to pay 1% of their salary. That would be a 1% pay cut, not a raise. No movement on either side.
Union has a 55 retirement age. MTA wanted to raise it to 62. MTA backed down and said 55, but new workers contribute 6% of their salaries to retirement fund.
Union wants disaster preparedness training for all employees. MTA says no.
Union wants the state and city to once again contribute to capital funding - which buys new trains, cars and track. 10 years ago state and city used to give MTA 20% of the MTA budget for that stuff. Now it's nothing. The union would like the city to restore at least some of that funding since the MTA is owned by the City and State and they get the benefit. Not even a consideration by the City or the State.
If the MTA had said 4.5%-5% raise
Left health insurance free - at least for now - or phased in charges over the life of the contract
Left retirement at 55 with new employees contributing 3% of their salary.
Agreed to disaster preparedness training.
And the city and state promised to look at restoring at least part of the capital spending budget,
I bet they would have had a deal.
That seems like a small price to pay for a benefit to the City and State valued at $400 Million/Day.
Union wants to continue the health insurance as it is now - free. It's not a raise if you already have it. MTA wants them to pay 1% of their salary. That would be a 1% pay cut, not a raise. No movement on either side.
Union has a 55 retirement age. MTA wanted to raise it to 62. MTA backed down and said 55, but new workers contribute 6% of their salaries to retirement fund.
Union wants disaster preparedness training for all employees. MTA says no.
Union wants the state and city to once again contribute to capital funding - which buys new trains, cars and track. 10 years ago state and city used to give MTA 20% of the MTA budget for that stuff. Now it's nothing. The union would like the city to restore at least some of that funding since the MTA is owned by the City and State and they get the benefit. Not even a consideration by the City or the State.
If the MTA had said 4.5%-5% raise
Left health insurance free - at least for now - or phased in charges over the life of the contract
Left retirement at 55 with new employees contributing 3% of their salary.
Agreed to disaster preparedness training.
And the city and state promised to look at restoring at least part of the capital spending budget,
I bet they would have had a deal.
That seems like a small price to pay for a benefit to the City and State valued at $400 Million/Day.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeff Geist
Active Member
Health insurance prices are increasing every year. If companies continue to cover the same amount or all of the costs, there may be no company in a couple of years to work for. Asking the union to pay 1% when many other companies have employees paying 10-30% is nothing is comparison. I would love an 8% increase but standard cost of living increases are about 2-4%.
I like the retirement age situation. It sounds like they grandfathered the unions employees already working. I'm a big fan of grandfathering existing employees...as long as the financial implications are not detrimental to company's success.
If the unions workers get their way, the non-union workers will be the ones who suffer and have to make up the difference. I understand the unions. I understand union employees. But I also understand my inability to conform to the union ways of doing things. And I like to think for myself and not have the unions do the thinking for me. (I'm not saying anything deragatory about union employees; in many cases they are told what to do, how to do it, etc. not their inability to think)
Let's not forget...if one side gives in on this contract...they could be screwed for years with new contracts.
I like the retirement age situation. It sounds like they grandfathered the unions employees already working. I'm a big fan of grandfathering existing employees...as long as the financial implications are not detrimental to company's success.
If the unions workers get their way, the non-union workers will be the ones who suffer and have to make up the difference. I understand the unions. I understand union employees. But I also understand my inability to conform to the union ways of doing things. And I like to think for myself and not have the unions do the thinking for me. (I'm not saying anything deragatory about union employees; in many cases they are told what to do, how to do it, etc. not their inability to think)
Let's not forget...if one side gives in on this contract...they could be screwed for years with new contracts.
Last edited by a moderator:
Frank Marano
Well-Known Member
my uncle is a train conductor in NYC and is on strike as we speak, so you know what side I am going to choose......
Jeff C,
The benefits are part of a "package deal" of your compensation. Hourly rate, would be higher if you did not get any other benefits.
Whats the problem with that?
Tom
The benefits are part of a "package deal" of your compensation. Hourly rate, would be higher if you did not get any other benefits.
Whats the problem with that?
Tom
buzz worth
Active Member
I cannot even imagine commuting to a job in NYC. I'd rather be a pipe salesman in Kentucky than deal with that much of the "public". (oh......I am???)
Traveling thru airports has become a disgusting venture anymore with the "geat unwashed masses"
This country is stepping ever closer to communism......we all work to pay for those that don't have "their share of the pie". Where's Hillary??? Uncle Teddy?
sean
Traveling thru airports has become a disgusting venture anymore with the "geat unwashed masses"
This country is stepping ever closer to communism......we all work to pay for those that don't have "their share of the pie". Where's Hillary??? Uncle Teddy?
sean
John Mastrocco
Active Member
Scott Simon said:
The MTA is
The MTA is not a private or even publicly traded company. It is literally a government owned supposedly self-funded corporation. The taxpayers literally own it. And while it was designed to eventually operate without tax money, it hasn't quite reached that point. So when the infrastructure needs improvement and the income can't support that improvement, shouldn't taxes be used to fund the 'company assets'?
Believe it when I say $1 Billion won't pay for a whole lot of infrastructure. And since the current pension fund is underfunded by $450 million, shouldn't the $1 Billion be used to bring it up to date? Are they going to wait unil they have to declare the pension fund bankrupt and break their promise to all the people - including the ones already retired - like United and GM and a lot of other companies are currently doing?
That's another sticking point in the negotiations. Get the pension system up to date with the $1 Billion.
The MTA is
The MTA is not a private or even publicly traded company. It is literally a government owned supposedly self-funded corporation. The taxpayers literally own it. And while it was designed to eventually operate without tax money, it hasn't quite reached that point. So when the infrastructure needs improvement and the income can't support that improvement, shouldn't taxes be used to fund the 'company assets'?
Believe it when I say $1 Billion won't pay for a whole lot of infrastructure. And since the current pension fund is underfunded by $450 million, shouldn't the $1 Billion be used to bring it up to date? Are they going to wait unil they have to declare the pension fund bankrupt and break their promise to all the people - including the ones already retired - like United and GM and a lot of other companies are currently doing?
That's another sticking point in the negotiations. Get the pension system up to date with the $1 Billion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rocco,
Didn't you know nobody deserves a pension fund unless you wrked in the military?
Tom
Didn't you know nobody deserves a pension fund unless you wrked in the military?
Tom
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2003
- Messages
- 22,366
- Reaction score
- 752
- Location
- Long Island, NY
- What engine do you have?
- V8 engine
- What year is your Sport Trac?
- 2010
- What Generation is your Sport Trac?
- 2n Gen Owner
All i know is this is 1 big Cluster F*&^ and caused a heck of a lot of problems for my office to properly opperate...
Second.. Raising the retirement age... WHO CARES... I have to work till i am 67 freaking years of age to get full Social security, I can NOT retire unless i get full SS... Forget these people.... Do your dam job.... I am sick of unions I deal with them every day... We get double the work done in 1/2 the time without a union contractor on the job...
The electrical unions are not allowed to use Cordless drills here in NYC... YOU tell me why!!..
Takes longer to get a corded drill set up with cords and generators...
I have to pay part of my medical, doctor co-pays, Only a 401K to retire on, and have to work to 67 for full SS...
Tell the MTA to bite me !!!!
Todd Z
Second.. Raising the retirement age... WHO CARES... I have to work till i am 67 freaking years of age to get full Social security, I can NOT retire unless i get full SS... Forget these people.... Do your dam job.... I am sick of unions I deal with them every day... We get double the work done in 1/2 the time without a union contractor on the job...
The electrical unions are not allowed to use Cordless drills here in NYC... YOU tell me why!!..
Takes longer to get a corded drill set up with cords and generators...
I have to pay part of my medical, doctor co-pays, Only a 401K to retire on, and have to work to 67 for full SS...
Tell the MTA to bite me !!!!
Todd Z
Tim Reynolds
Active Member
Second that Todd. I'm all for fair wages, safe working conditions.....blah blah blah, but come on.
Nelson Atwell
Well-Known Member
Perhaps the National Guard will have to take over operating the transit system??
John Mastrocco
Active Member
You are all acting as if this is something NEW they are asking for. It's not. Health insurance and retirement are at those levels RIGHT NOW. These are existing benefits the MTA wants to reduce and the Union is fighting to keep at the same level. You wouldn't do the same?
If you were promised you would be able to get full retirement benefits at 55 and then the company making the promise decided it didn't like the deal and wanted to renege on it, you'd be upset as well.
Besides, age 55 is only for the MTA retirement benefit - which isn't as much as you seem to think. They still have to wait for SS and the US laws governing their IRA's to kick in. So the money is more of a supplemental income after age 55 that allows them to accept a lower paying position with a different company and live somewhat comfortably until they can start withdrawls from their IRA and SS kicks in.
If you had the same benefits right now tell me you wouldn't fight to keep them from being changed. Tell me you weren't upset when full retirement went from 65 to 67 for you. Tell me you are happy to let the owners of your company make whatever promises they like, then change the rules whenever they like? (And I didn't say they didn't do it - I said tell me you're happy when they do.)
Tell me none of these things do/would piss you off or you wouldn't fight the changes if you were able - so I can tell you you're full of it.
"I don't have it so why should they?" is not valid. People should be able to get whatever they can agree to with their employers and if they have more clout because of collective bargaining that doesn't make it wrong.
Just because you (and I) are not getting as sweet a deal, why should we hold it against someone that can get or has gotten a sweeter deal? Isn't that just a little bit selfish and self centered?
If you were promised you would be able to get full retirement benefits at 55 and then the company making the promise decided it didn't like the deal and wanted to renege on it, you'd be upset as well.
Besides, age 55 is only for the MTA retirement benefit - which isn't as much as you seem to think. They still have to wait for SS and the US laws governing their IRA's to kick in. So the money is more of a supplemental income after age 55 that allows them to accept a lower paying position with a different company and live somewhat comfortably until they can start withdrawls from their IRA and SS kicks in.
If you had the same benefits right now tell me you wouldn't fight to keep them from being changed. Tell me you weren't upset when full retirement went from 65 to 67 for you. Tell me you are happy to let the owners of your company make whatever promises they like, then change the rules whenever they like? (And I didn't say they didn't do it - I said tell me you're happy when they do.)
Tell me none of these things do/would piss you off or you wouldn't fight the changes if you were able - so I can tell you you're full of it.
"I don't have it so why should they?" is not valid. People should be able to get whatever they can agree to with their employers and if they have more clout because of collective bargaining that doesn't make it wrong.
Just because you (and I) are not getting as sweet a deal, why should we hold it against someone that can get or has gotten a sweeter deal? Isn't that just a little bit selfish and self centered?
Jeff Geist
Active Member
Rocco - I would and do fight for everything that I have and piss and moan when I lose those things (I work for Verizon and no longer have a pension). However, I still show up and work. I do my job and get paid to do my job. I think the big picture is being missed here. The union will cut off it's face to spit it's face. They don't care about the well being of the company. If they did, they'd reconsider their ridiculous demands. Come on...an 8% increase. That's crazy talk. They care more about squeezing more than they deserve (and yes...they always ask for more than they deserve just like the company offers less than what they should).
And here's the kicker...if you don't like it, you can always go get a job someplace else. It may not be as wonderful a job as the one you have...but you have choice. But after a while of being protected by the union, it's tough to get away from them and you get used to that comfort.
And here's the kicker...if you don't like it, you can always go get a job someplace else. It may not be as wonderful a job as the one you have...but you have choice. But after a while of being protected by the union, it's tough to get away from them and you get used to that comfort.
