Earlier this week, when the Republican-controlled State Senate voted to repeal the payroll tax, I accused them of playing politics poorly with the MTA. I’ve already explained why Sen. Lee Zeldin’s fiscal claims are pure fantasy, and I’m not the only one eying this measure with skepticism.
In The Post today, Nicole Gelinas takes the Senate to task for missing what she feels are the right issues. First, Zeldin’s charges that the MTA could save $1.4 billion seem to resemble nothing approaching reality, and second, she wants to see state leaders getting tougher on wages and employee benefits. I’ll excerpt extensively for the purposes of discussion:
On Wednesday, Senate Republicans fulfilled a longtime promise, voting to slash the tax roughly in half: Their plan would exempt small businesses and schools come January, then end the tax in the suburbs over two years, while reducing it by a third within the city. But the bill has no chance in the Assembly; all the GOP has done is remind us that the shift of party control of the Senate only changes the sound of the grandstanding. The Republicans are no more likely to stick up for taxpayers and riders against public-sector unions than were the Democrats.
Sure, Sen. Lee Zeldin, the freshman Long Islander who has pushed hardest for the bill, sounds good. He says correctly that the MTA can be more efficient, sell off real estate and explore some privatization. But the MTA is already doing the first two: Headcount is down 4,066 people since 2008. Even if it cuts 4,000 more, it would still face a $660 million annual deficit by 2014.
Plus, Zeldin and colleagues are tiptoeing around the elephant in the room: Albany has no idea where to get the $9.9 billion needed for the next three years’ worth of investments in rail cars and buses, plus construction projects like bringing the Long Island Rail Road into Grand Central. Zeldin notes gamely that MTA Chairman Jay Walder can save bucks on capital. But even if Walder saved 20 percent, Albany would need to come up with nearly $8 billion. That’s an extra $520 million a year in debt costs.
The senators claim some of their tax repeal is pain-free. But this is fantasy: They’d give the MTA $100 million in revenues from New York’s carbon cap-and-trade plan — money that may well not materialize. And they’d restore state aid to the city, with the provision that Gotham devote $150 million to transit. That’s moving money around.
If the GOP were serious, it would address union-labor costs. In three years, MTA pension and health costs will rise 30 percent. It’s not just a city issue; suburban railroad workers enjoy benefits not available in the private sector. But in Wednesday’s debate, senators talked everything from MTA “mob infiltration” to “criminal accounting” to whether tax-paying is “patriotic.” Nobody said that the MTA’s workers should pay more for health care, saving $150 million, or that pensions for new workers should be less generous.
On a three-year wage freeze, Zeldin was less than firm, telling me that “I would support just about anything that the MTA and the unions agree to, provided it’s fiscally responsible.” He said that pressure should come from the popular governor, since “to do something that impacts large unions, it can’t be just one senator leading by the chin.”
GOP lawmakers, as usual, are gung-ho on the tax issue. But on the union medicine needed, they profess that it’s the MTA that has to come up with ideas. The MTA, in turn, knows not to ask for anything anti-union that Albany doesn’t support.
Democrats, who were too busy discussing Fernando Ferrar’s mustache, have been no better, she says, but that’s seemingly beside the point. No one in Albany is willing to push either the MTA or its unions to make some badly needed concessions.
Now, I’m not a stridently anti-union guy usually, and I’m certainly not as against organized labor as Gelinas and the Manhattan Institute are. Yet, it’s clear that the MTA has a labor problem. It cannot keep doling out wage raises and full pensions while the rest of its financial picture declines. It cannot become a welfare institution that cannot provide adequate transportation service because too much of its budget is tied up in employee compensation. Fiscal responsibility will start with better payroll measures.
Ultimately, the MTA should be looking at ways to streamline operations through OPTO, through overtime control and through better collaboration across departments. It’s slowly getting there, but it’s going to need political support to do so. Will the Governor step up? Will the Senate? Will anyone?
37 comments
If there was only a way for taxpayers & transit riders to “strike”
If only there had been a way for taxpayers and transit riders to “vote against Andrew Cuomo’s anti-transit right-wing austerity agenda” without it being taken as a vote for Carl Paladino’s anti-transit right-wing austerity agenda…
The Rent Is 2 Damn High Party?
Any chance they take a cue from NJ (amazing isn’t it?) with the new deals the state govt just made with public unions? Higher percentage of pension contributions, sliding scale of health-care contributions, higher retirement age?
Here’s Gelinas on the subject of OPTO:
“However, candidly, I do not think we can solve our problems simply by reducing staffing. For example, many supposed anti-union forces in New York City advocate for one-person train operation — i.e., the elimination of the conductor. I am not so sure about this idea. I wonder whether one person is adequate to supervise evacuation of a train that can carry 1,300 people in an emergency, for example. If we could reform pension benefits for new workers and reform health benefits for all workers, this question would not be so acute.”
Heh. The Manhattan Institute really needs more think in its tank. Two generations of a crappy education system has created a huge population of these quantitatively illiterate hacks to work in those types of places.
It’s amazing how this is so all-or-nothing though. Having two people on a train at rush hour might make a little sense, but having two on at all times is absurd. For the most part, 1300 people aren’t crowding out of 2am trains during the blue moons when these types of emergencies do occur.
These folks have had 3-4 years with no raises….. how is that runaway?
non union people i should say
“It cannot keep doling out wage raises and full pensions while the rest of its financial picture declines. It cannot become a welfare institution…”
Are you calling pensions “welfare” Ben?
Everyone should have the right to retire at 50 with a full pension. After all, that’s what the TWU struck for in 2005.
The retirement age is 55. How about I send you into the tracks as a track worker? I am sure you will have no problem doing that job until your 65. Right? Because I have never met a 65 year old who could not pick up a 1,000 pound rail tie. Now get to work!
Good try, but the people who wanted to retire at 50 weren’t track workers. Let’s not obfuscate the facts here.
I’m not sure what your talking about. The current retirement for new workers is 25/55.
Why is it a pension and not a 401k plan like so much of the privately employed world?
401(k)s aren’t exactly the best way to to encourage saving.
Why don’t you ask the opposite question: Why is it a 401K and not a pension in so much of the privately employed world?
401K’s were never meant to be retirement vehicles, just supplemental to a pension. You’re supposed to have the three legged stool: social security, pension AND a 401K.
Meanwhile the CEOs making tens of millions of dollars keep promoting class warfare between the middle class and union members. YOU should have a pension as well.
People here really need to stop believing in the OPTO fantasy. It will save very little money. And whatever money is saved can easily be wiped out by the increase in lawsuits that will result from not having a conductor.
What are the actual numbers? How much would be saved per year if we sacked all the conductors tomorrow?
What lawsuits would you anticipate after their sacking? Lawsuits from the conductors or passengers who would somehow suffer from their absence? Have such suits come in cities that have gone from two-man trains to one-man trains?
You would still need to have condcutors during rush hour. Even if OPTO was implemented, you would not be “sacking” all of the conductors.
Why? There are plenty of systems that run OPTO 24/7.
Yes but those are 3,4 and at the most sa shorter car 6 train sets that are running OPTO.
8 car trains on the El in Chicago are OPTO, and at rush hours
Four years ago, the MTA estimated OPTO savings of at least $100 million. It would have to be part of a package of savings.
Does that $100 million figure include the massive upfront costs that would have to be incurred before OPTO can be implemented? (ie: installing monitors by the first car). Wait, let me answer that question for you: No, it does not.
Sorry. I wasn’t clear. Those are eventual savings in year four. Years 1-3 were starting at around $20 million and escalating upwards as the technology came online. To answer your question, yes they counts the video monitor installation.
Much of the savings can also be found in the bloated middle management at NYCTHQ
People really need to stop believing that OPTO is going to lead to an increase of lawsuits. That’s the most laughable claim I’ve ever heard. OPTO is implementing throughout the world on trains as crowded as New York’s. There aren’t damaging injuries or a plethora of lawsuits. I realize union leaders have basically brainwashed rank-and-file into hating OPTO, but it’s perfectly fine and a step in the right direction toward streamlining operations. In the friendliest possible way, let me ask you to please just get over it if you care about the future of transit in New York.
“I realize union leaders have basically brainwashed rank-and-file into hating OPTO, but it’s perfectly fine and a step in the right direction toward streamlining operations.”
I don’t know of too many people who want to do the job of two people for a measley $2 extra per hour. It’s interesting that the biggest OPTO advocates are people who have never once worked in the subway. Even train operators, who would see their pay increase through OPTO, do not want it.
And it’s interesting that the biggest OPTO opponents are people who barely have heard of Tokyo, Paris, London, or any of the other major subway networks of the world.
Tokyo does not have true OPTO Alon. Come on, you know that. They have condcutors. Instead of being on the train, they are on the platform.
The pushers are only present at the busiest stations (which are far busier than anything in New York). Nice try, though.
Actually Tokyo does have conductors on board the trains:
http://www.japantoday.com/cate.....away-train
Only on some lines – generally the less modern ones. Toei has OPTO on two out of four lines, Tokyu has OPTO on at least some lines, and the Tsukuba Express has OPTO. I believe Tokyo Metro has OPTO, but I’m not sure – its history only says the first OPTO segment opened in 2002. At any rate, Japan is well behind the German-speaking world in OPTO.
You’re right, many people end up doing multiple jobs at not additional increase in wages. Here, operating the trains and doors complement each other and are not in conflict. Many conductors, in reality, do not ‘hang’ to ensure nobody is being dragged.
Ben, I’m impressed with this straight-up post. Any iota of reason and sanity is usually scrubbed from public discussions of the MTA.
Add work rules and practices designed to maximize headcount and minimize quality (new trackbed crumbles and rails go out of line days after being installed) and I’d hazard that 50% of MTA’s total labor + retirement cost could be cut.
[…] the realities of the agency’s poor and unstable finances” — although Zeldin still won’t say whether he favors a wage freeze. Filed under: Uncategorized […]
[…] In the Post, freshman State Sen. Lee Zeldin outlines what he wants from a new MTA chief. On the list is “new contracts with the MTA’s unions that reflect the realities of the agency’s poor and unstable finances” — although Zeldin still won’t say whether he favors a wage freeze. […]