Comments on: MTA to appeal year three of TWU arbitration award

By: Will2Munny

Will2Munny — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 21:09:08 +0000

Why doesn’t anyone on these blogs talk about the 800 Lb gorilla of bond issues? Pataki and his minions left the MTA in a deep hole. Anyone remember when the voters rejected the 1.6 billion bond issue in the 1990′s yet pataki and his coat hangers Virgil Conway and Kalikow borrowed and borrowed. The MTA is 5th in the USA in outstanding bonds after the states of California, Texas, New York State and NY City. The penchant for using outsiders like lawyers is only part of the problem. MTA skilled trades do a subway station overhall at 2/3rds the cost of outside contractors. 15 million versus 22 million on average. Remember that bondholders lineup to get their money before either passengers their service or workers get their pay. It is the law. So it is easy for you folks to ramble on about TWU contracts but remember many of these skilled, semi-skilled and otherwise trained work force moves 8 million plus with a backward management, that gets in the way more then helps. Let’s look at some of the managerial pay and where they live (mostly the suburbs) versus where transit workers live and spend their money (NYC). When you look at other skilled professionals like MTA engineers versus outside engineers let’s say for argument sake they are paid 3 to 4 times what MTA engineers make. Let’s look at the extension of the number 7 line, who needed or asked for that real estate speculators and the multi-billionaire mayor? Just like the public subsidy for Atlantic yards in Brooklyn for Bruce Ratner or the Taj Mahal fulton street project that was on the property owned by Peter Kalikow. i could go on and on but the bottom line is these are ALL costs borne by the riders and workers of the MTA and no one really ever talks about them. WHY?
Most of these projects are funded out of bond issues with interest costs and the private for profit companies getting a lot more money then transit workers will ever see. The MTA Capital Program is wasteful and inefficient yet rarely challenged by legislators or the media. We need people like Assemblymember Richard Brodsky to delve into these sweetheart deals on a regular basis. Then we need swift punishment handed out to MTA managers and corrupt contractors both. Lets submit these contracts to the light of day?

By: rhywun

rhywun — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 02:50:34 +0000

No idea. But after I posted this, I did think up numerous counter-examples, such as television stars and sports figures, who often get multi-year contracts–but only if they have a proven track record. I still think the vast majority of contract workers probably only get one year at a time. And… I seem to recall many years ago before I had a proper career, I worked several union jobs (grocery store, hotel) and the contract was always one year at a time. The multi-year contract seems to be public-sector phenomenon more so than in the private-sector. I have no idea why that is.

By: For Walder, labor costs an 800-pound gorilla in the room :: Second Ave. Sagas | A New York City Subway Blog

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:26:41 +0000

[...] least afford it, its largest union had just been awarded a three-year raise, and the agency’s decision to appeal the arbitration result had left many at the TWU bitter toward the [...]

By: AK

AK — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:13:53 +0000

David, if the firms are working on even a partial-contingent fee basis, they would have a clear incentive to be up-front about odds because otherwise they’d risk wasting their time with a loser of a case. I don’t know if there is a contingency fee arrangement in this instance (I doubt it, but it’s possible).

By: David Robertson

David Robertson — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 15:02:13 +0000

This cost-benefit analysis is illogical, unreasonable and it is idiotic, why – show me a law firm that will reject those few thousand bucks on appeal.

Now if we play the numbers game, i.e. law firm A will encourage & entice them and say you have 11% chance of winning, law firm B will say you have 11.25% chance of winning, law firm C will say you have 11.30% chance of winning and so forth – if this is your idea or strategy to exhaust every avenue, it will leave a sour taste for the upcoming contract negotiation 2011 which is not far away.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 05:40:50 +0000

The lawyers’ fees are going to end up much higher than $50,000, and the chance of winning is much less than 10%. There’s a lot of optimism bias in the MTA’s belief that the chance of winning is high enough to justify spending the money.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 04:22:48 +0000

I believe Danish contracts are 2-year. Do you know how long German contracts are?

By: rhywun

rhywun — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 03:19:04 +0000

One possible solution to this mess–well, not this mess, but the next one–is to end this three-year contract nonsense. Contracts should be for one year only, as in most of the real world. To grant these generous multi-year terms while asking little or nothing in return except for the employee’s ability to stick around is a recipe for municipal disaster.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 22:01:50 +0000

But shouldn’t this be viewed as strengthening the Taylor Law too? As judges uphold the law, it shows the MTA that the Taylor Law is both a roadblock for them and a source of protection for unions. As this case is showing, it takes an egregious legal error for Taylor Law provisions to be thrown out, but that shouldn’t stop the MTA from trying if someone thinks they can make a case.

By: Working Class

Working Class — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 21:58:52 +0000

I understand what you are saying, but if this is how it is going to be then the taylor law should be immediately thrown out!!!