IT'S ON- TWU STRIKES!!!!

Captain M wrote: This has nothing to do with shareholders, If a company has 500 employees and they all put in for a pension plan, with the cost of inflation , the "plan" is based on that company growing larger and the next generation of at least 500 employees putting into the pension "plan" which supplanyts payments to the current retirees. However any smart company needs to expect that in the future it may not have market share it currently has.

Pension plans grow at rate faster than inflation; these are long-term investments.

No smart company expects anything but growth.

Jack Krohn wrote: Metulj,

I read the salary quote in last week's AMNew York. What's your source? No matter how you slice it, the TWU workers get a generous package that they take for granted. They're selfish and out of touch with reality. I pay 50% of my health insurance costs, and they're whining about possibly paying 1-3%? Sorry, no sympathy whatsoever from me. I hope that the imminent fines bankrupt the union.

My source is the New York Times from lsat week when this all came to a head and their source was the actual contract itself. As much as I love the cheerful nature of the guys handing out AM or Metro at G.A.P. 2/3, I'll take the NYT as more authoritative. There has been a lot of propaganda puked by the MTA and a lot of it has been regurgitated by the weaker elements of the NYC press.

The union has a strike fund of impressive proportions. They recently sold their headquarters on the UWS. As for your 50% of your health care costs, I suggest finding another job. The MTA is currently hiring bus drivers at 25 bucks an hour.

qtrain wrote:
Pension plans grow at rate faster than inflation; these are long-term investments.

Sorry, you are going to have to back that up. Name a investment vehicle that can match inflation for the past 50 years without supplemental payments.

qtrain wrote:
No smart company expects anything but growth.

Thats not true, sensible accounting must be present in the case of a downturn.

I wont disagree that there are a lot of businesses and government agencies doing wrong but "pension" is a pyramid scheme, and it is also the sticking point for which TWU went on strike.

metulj wrote: [quote=Captain M]
I wont disagree that there are a lot of businesses and government agencies doing wrong but "pension" is a pyramid scheme, and it is also the sticking point for which TWU went on strike.

And the MTA screwed up the pension, not the TWU.


and how is that?

what I don't understand is this: if pensions won't work, and social security won't work, and no investment will out-pace inflation over time, how will anyone retire? that doesn't make a lick of sense.

I won't spout trash, mostly because I'm not in the city at the moment; even if I were, I wouldn't have to commute, as I ride my bike everywhere; and I don't know anything about the contract. But, here's my two cents:

1) I think workers should be taken care of in their old age. A half-pension at 56 or whatever (so $25000 a year) isn't too much to expect, having put in 25 straight years working in the skank-ass subway. No-one will be able to retire on that in the city, realistically, but, hey.

2) just because we have to pay a ridiculous amount for health care doesn't mean that everyone should. I support unions, especially those that stand up and demand reasonable things--I don't know about the TWU, but health care costs will not be 'solved' when they're passed onto employees. They'll be solved when there is better regulation of the health care industries and (maybe) nationalised health care. And even then.

3) as much as their jobs are "easy," reading about how often people fall on the tracks, conductors get assaulted, and so on, in addition to the idea of driving a train back and forth 8 hours a day--I mean, hell, that work sucks and is dangerous. Plenty of people have "easy" jobs, but this one carries with it a lot of responsibilities and therefore should merit ample (or, at least, requisite) remuneration. And the implication that you have to be educated (the GED thing, for instance) to make money is so offensive, I won't even go there.

and, yeah, whatever, I could babble more, but I still have a paper to write.

Subject: Re: LIRR

Candicissima wrote: Not only do you have to go through Jamaica, but you better buy your ticket in advance because I tried to do just that and the line was wrapped around to Hanson Pl. And then you have to wait once you get to Jamaica. I waited forever -- did you know there's only 2 ticket booths down in the Flatbush LIRR? Well, I didn't until today. The conductor was actually encouraging people not to go the Jamaica-Penn route because he said it was worse there. It's fucking hell and I just gave up and walked.

I ended up walking from my place on Eastern Parkway and Classon/Franklin down to the Nostrand stop on the LIRR. There was one machine and one booth attendant working, so it wasn't the quickest line, but I easily made the train. It actually wasn't a half-bad situation, all things considered. I imagine things would have been worse at Atlantic Terminal, however.

The only thing that got under my skin was the audacity of the MTA to charge $8 one way from Brooklyn to Penn Station (via Jamaica). I tend to find fault with both sides in this strike, but that little turn of the knife belongs to only the MTA. Since my office won't reimburse extra fees this week, maybe I'll send the MTA my receipts and expense report.

Think I'll be walking home. I used this site http://www.gmap-pedometer.com/ to figure out what seems to be a quick route home. Looks like BWay to Bowery to Manhattan Bridge, then the Flatbush march.

metulj wrote: Thanks for saying this.

I have a GED and I am finishing up my doctorate. I guess by this prevailing attitude, I am should be paid less at my next job than someone who also has a doctorate, but managed to get through high school.

Props. That's awesome. A PhD in what? I just started mine in History (or, if you prefer, "Future Unemployment.")

I never understood the automatic link people draw between (level of) education and income. It makes sense in general--the more educated you are, the higher your income tends to be higher--, but it always seems to degenerate into, "you're uneducated, you don't deserve a better job or a high income." As if education is exactly comparable to intelligence, ability, or ambition.

It's similar to the, "well, if there are recent immigrants who will do it for $2 and no health care, then it's better for them to do it." That reasoning always makes me REALLY angry. What makes "them" any less deserving of health care and reasonable pay than "us"? Just because desperate people will do it for cheap doesn't mean that we should make them do it for cheap.

Social justice, people!

muteflute wrote: what I don't understand is this: if pensions won't work, and social security won't work, and no investment will out-pace inflation over time, how will anyone retire? that doesn't make a lick of sense.

I won't spout trash, mostly because I'm not in the city at the moment; even if I were, I wouldn't have to commute, as I ride my bike everywhere; and I don't know anything about the contract. But, here's my two cents:

1) I think workers should be taken care of in their old age. A half-pension at 56 or whatever (so $25000 a year) isn't too much to expect, having put in 25 straight years working in the skank-ass subway. No-one will be able to retire on that in the city, realistically, but, hey.

2) just because we have to pay a ridiculous amount for health care doesn't mean that everyone should. I support unions, especially those that stand up and demand reasonable things--I don't know about the TWU, but health care costs will not be 'solved' when they're passed onto employees. They'll be solved when there is better regulation of the health care industries and (maybe) nationalised health care. And even then.

3) as much as their jobs are "easy," reading about how often people fall on the tracks, conductors get assaulted, and so on, in addition to the idea of driving a train back and forth 8 hours a day--I mean, hell, that work sucks and is dangerous. Plenty of people have "easy" jobs, but this one carries with it a lot of responsibilities and therefore should merit ample (or, at least, requisite) remuneration. And the implication that you have to be educated (the GED thing, for instance) to make money is so offensive, I won't even go there.

and, yeah, whatever, I could babble more, but I still have a paper to write.

1) The workforce is getting smaller, people are living longer, most people are having less kids. The solution is the unfortunate fact is that people will have to work until a later age.

2) This is a national matter and I dont disagree

3) The guy that drives the train maybe, but mechanics, the cleaners, the kiosk guys......give me a break. None of those jobs require a GED nor are they "dangerous", thats my point. The fact is TWU is unwilling to accept the reality that those jobs could be given to someone who would appreciate the current agreement, and they could do it without a GED even.

I used to work as a deckhand on large booze cruise boats, the people were great and smart and enjoyed their job but the work could be dangerous so I'm not impressed by any of the dangers on their job, I think I made 8 bucks an hour at most.

Captain M wrote: 1) The workforce is getting smaller, people are living longer, most people are having less kids. The solution is the unfortunate fact is that people will have to work until a later age.

2) This is a national matter and I dont disagree

3) The guy that drives the train maybe, but mechanics, the cleaners, the kiosk guys......give me a break. None of those jobs require a GED nor are they "dangerous", thats my point. The fact is TWU is unwilling to accept the reality that those jobs could be given to someone who would appreciate the current agreement, and they could do it without a GED even.

I used to work as a deckhand on large booze cruise boats, the people were great and smart and enjoyed their job but the work could be dangerous so I'm not impressed by any of the dangers on their job, I think I made 8 bucks an hour at most.

Fair enough. I haven't read the contract, nor do I know how the salaries are broken down, but it seems pretty clear to me that the cleaners and kiosk folks should make considerably less than the conductors, mechanics, engineers, signal operators, and so on--those whose work directly impacts the lives of the millions of people riding the subways. Also--a half pension at 56 or whatever doesn't mean these people aren't working (esp. since inflation will take a chunk out of it, in any case), it just provides a safety net for them; especially if social security is "in danger" (whether because it is hated by conservatives or insolvent), there needs to be something to help folks get by as they grow older. There are only so many greeter jobs at Walmart, you know?

Maybe Target could hire them as extra security?

J0518 wrote: it was funny to see about 50 of us trying to figure out how the hell you get on the walking ramp.

The entrances to the pedestrian and bike lanes on the bridges are terrible. they make no sense and the signage is really, really lacking.

muteflute wrote:
The entrances to the pedestrian and bike lanes on the bridges are terrible. they make no sense and the signage is really, really lacking.

I'll be walking down Bowery to get to the Manhattan Bridge in a few hours. Is it easy to access the ped. lane from there? Anything I should be looking for to find the ramp easier? What about staying on one side or the other to avoid bikers? They seem to be unusually cranky and self-righteous today. Any suggestions?

Captain M wrote: Sorry, you are going to have to back that up. Name a investment vehicle that can match inflation for the past 50 years without supplemental payments.

The S&P500 ? Historical average annual rate of return of ~10% (with dividends reinvested) for 75 years, compared to ~3% for the consumer price index.

Captain M wrote: [quote=qtrain]
No smart company expects anything but growth.

Thats not true, sensible accounting must be present in the case of a downturn.

I exaggerated my point, and I agree with you; but I think sensible accounting should also be in order when it comes to living up to benefit promises. This rash of pension busts has more to do with an aging workforce and underfunding of pension plans than any inherent flaw in the system.

pitu wrote: [quote=OnEasternParkway][quote=muteflute]
The entrances to the pedestrian and bike lanes on the bridges are terrible. they make no sense and the signage is really, really lacking.

I'll be walking down Bowery to get to the Manhattan Bridge in a few hours. Is it easy to access the ped. lane from there? Anything I should be looking for to find the ramp easier? What about staying on one side or the other to avoid bikers? They seem to be unusually cranky and self-righteous today. Any suggestions?

It's totally easy, and there should be thousands of people going that way . . . ped walkway is on the southside of the Manhattan Bridge.

Yeah, the Bowery side ain't bad. The South side is the pedestrian side, the North is the bike side, although no-one seems to really care (or, at least, have not in the past). I just hate the Brooklyn side so much....

RAH wrote: I also think the national coverage of the strike has been terrible. the news articles are focused on angry commuters, and while certainly I am sure there are a lot of them out there, there are also people like me who support the transit workers. I thought the local news coverage (at least the local abc station which I watched for most of this morning) covered both sides.

One happy exception was the NYTimes slideshow about the morning commute--every walking commuter was upbeat, not at all upset about the walk, and supportive of the strikers, which was really surprising and kind of nice.

Jack Krohn wrote: I pay 50% of my health insurance costs, and they're whining about possibly paying 1-3%?

I think you misunderstood the numbers here. They're not asking them to pay 1-3% of the health care premiums, they're asking them to pay 1-3% of their salary in health care premiums. I still think that's quite comparable to what most people have had to start paying over the last few years, but the way you wrote this, it makes it sound like you're paying 50% of your salary in health care premiums, not 50% of the premiums, which likely works out to something comparable to 1-3% of your salary.

Hope this makes sense. Head still addled by Nyquil...