Comments on: Facing tough times, transit unions come under fire

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:32:14 +0000

But this is not what unions do. Yes, they raise salaries for their members. They do that in France and Germany and Japan too, and yet transit there doesn’t have legacy cost issues. The problem is that American unions specifically, and not German or Japanese unions, object to technological improvements that make workers redundant, such as OPTO, driverless shuttles, short dwells, and proof of payment for commuter rail. Most of those inefficiencies come from general stupidity of local business culture, and would happen even if management had a free hand.

By: oscarfrye

oscarfrye — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:31:16 +0000

Thank you, Nicole, for speaking the truth.

This passage in particular is perfectly stated, concise, and spot on:

. . nobody can seriously claim to be a transit advocate and not address these issues. Unreformed labor costs mean that money that should go into capital spending — to improve transit — is instead going to pension and benefit costs. And the public does not support more transit investment because it knows that it is just paying for benefits that are no longer available anywhere else. Unreformed labor means that we will forever be stuck with bad transit. Support for transit is not the same as mindless support for the TWU . . .

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:32:34 +0000

The problem isn’t even the MI in general, whose contributions to public discourse include Heather “Blacks are criminals” MacDonald and Charles “Blacks are genetically stupid” Murray. It’s Gelinas herself, who has never found a social problem she couldn’t blame on spending, taxes, or union workers.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:29:08 +0000

Nicole, what value does the market put on City Journal, or the National Review, or any of the other donation-based wingnut welfare magazines?

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:46:25 +0000

Perhaps more interesting than arguing about the Merits of the case would be analyzing the mechanics of the case itself.
With Roberts named as a defendant along with the MTA what incentive does Roberts have of being against worker raises now (!). And why would they remove Roberts as a defendant or would some other individual (not to hard to figure out) be named as a defendant (additionally or instead of) Roberts.

Moreover as the Economy looks worse with 100 Million yanked by the state … it should have absolutely no bearing in this case as it happened AFTER the binding arbitration. With the MTA perpetually in financial straights would one then argue that workers should never get raises? Doesn’t government deep pockets display a different type of economic hardship than private industry (well yes). Therefore not unconscionable as what must be proved here.

MTA has a very, very tough case

By: Anon

Anon — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 01:01:34 +0000

The likelihood that this gets overturned is zero to none. Gelinas calls arbitration a ruse? Well certainly it’s a strategy.
and so is bringing binding arbitration to a court of law … a public image strategy. No reason to get all huffy and puffy. The workers will get their raises. The rule of law is Supreme but unfortunately long winded.

By: Nicole Gelinas

Nicole Gelinas — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:42:30 +0000

“and just who is to decide what constitutes “underpayment”? the elitists of the manhattan institute? apprently! they are inside the minds of the people it seems:”

No, the market decides, by the fact that the MTA already gets many qualified applicants for each open job. When the MTA can longer do so, that means that it is not paying enough.

And, to the other commenter, yes “takehome” was imprecise. I was referring to cash wages and overtime — before taxes. I used the word only to denote a different between the cash compensation and other intangible benefits like healthcare, not to mean post-tax. Apologies for that. It is pre-tax.

By: Evan

Evan — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:52:46 +0000

not to be nitpicky but it’s actually “A FUNNY Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum”. Unless you were making a point by saying crazy…if so apologies.

By: Niccolo Machivelli

Niccolo Machivelli — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:49:18 +0000

“this isn’t a labor relations blog. It’s an MTA blog”
From your lips to God’s ears.

There is no public negotiations, anywhere, anytime. There is only negotiations based on trust and negotiations based on power. Take your pick. In this case, you and the mediocracy do not trust who you have sent forth as a negotiation representative. Thats your problem, work it out. The union has to trust who they send forth. Thats what representatives do, they represent.

I’m someone who looks to make a deal instead of looking for confrontation. Some parties on both sides get more juice out of the confrontation than they do constructing a good deal. The Post is sort of like Will Rogers in reverse, they never saw a deal they liked. My objection is to you feeding the confrontation-hungry labor warriors over at the Manhattan Institute and treating them as if they were transportation advocates. All you have really made a case for is funding mass transit by cutting workers wages and benefits. That won’t go very far.

My advice is to try to build social capital between workers, management, consultants, contractors and commuters. That endeavor has been driven into the bush by those that value confrontation. And this blog, is throwing fuel on the fire.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:24:03 +0000

They legally can’t and got in a lot of trouble for doing so in 2005. Do they want to? Probably.