How the TWU Blew It
Good article about how the TWU screwed up:
http://nydailynews.com/12-21-2005/front/v-echo/story/376627p-319815c.html
Roger Toussaint has done a huge disservice to all of the union members. I hope they remember this when it comes time for re-election.
http://nydailynews.com/12-21-2005/front/v-echo/story/376627p-319815c.html
Roger Toussaint has done a huge disservice to all of the union members. I hope they remember this when it comes time for re-election.
Comments
-
I think this is truly how the TWU blew it (and how history will record the strike):
"Respect: This is the union's catch-all phrase for why it's striking, covering everything from salary to discipline to working conditions. No doubt it has some valid issues, but, with apologies to Aretha Franklin, disrupting Christmas week for millions of people is no way to get R-E-S-P-E-C-T." -
dailyheights wrote: I think this is truly how the TWU blew it (and how history will record the strike):
Again, New York is a city chock full of liberals until those liberals are inconvenienced. Let's call them '6 Train Liberals.' Still, as a staunch defender of the TWU on the issues of wages and benefits, I think the timing was asinine.
"Respect: This is the union's catch-all phrase for why it's striking, covering everything from salary to discipline to working conditions. No doubt it has some valid issues, but, with apologies to Aretha Franklin, disrupting Christmas week for millions of people is no way to get R-E-S-P-E-C-T." -
Look, no doubt about it, unions are a mixed bag. Mostly they have overpaid leaders who worry more about their relations w the employers than anything else. Most unions aren't democratic and most don't fight back anymore. Roger came out of New Directions, which was a reform group w/in the union that advocated for militant contract negotiations and union democracy. Since he has been in office he's shifted his politics, he pay himself more, he has more appointed (as opposed to elected) staff, he accepted serious concessions during the last contract a few yrs back and he doesn't mobilize members for contract fightbacks. That said, TWU Local 100 is still a militant union when compared to most unions out there. I wish Roger had not settled the strike the way he did, but there is no doubt that the strike allowed him to push back concessions he would have otherwise been forced to accept.
Finally, all those in favor of universal national health care and pensions, raise your hands! If you're not raising your hands then you're okay paying for your own health care and pensions right? Lets be clear. This union was fighting for all of us. I don't have a pension plan. I want one. I'll never ever get one if there aren't folks out there fighting back and saying you know, I deserve a pension. -
seems to me that, while the strike was unfortunately timed and inconvenienced a whole ton of people, they won. they got reduced pensions off the table
(which, by the way, the MTA should never have had ON the table--talk about illegal)
, which the MTA had thrown on the table about, what, 45 minutes before the deadline? that's shitty. the union was backed into a corner--they could either keep setting new deadlines and eventually have to eat a shitty (and technically illegal) contract that would become a precedent for (illegally) slashing pensions all over the city; or, they could bite the bullet and do an unpopular strike. Why is no-one talking about that?
They won. It sucked for many people, but they won. They had the balls to go and call the MTA on it, and from now on, the MTA will know that they have to be a bit more careful negotiating.
Unions may not be all fun and fireworks, but I can appreciate a union that takes corporate strong-arming and spits it back in their faces, even if they know it will make them really unpopular and cost the city (and them, too! they all lost money on this, don't forget it) a ton of money.
(Muteflute's militant side comes out) -
What?
Sorry but I feel like I'm hearing a lot of crap here.
If someone came to me tomorrow and said I could have a pension if I put in 6% of my salary...I'd do it. They were not fighting for us, they were holding the city hostage for more money, 5% to more to be extact. They city was not taking away the pension, but asking them to put money into it so it can be more viable.
We all know the MTA (Kalikow) sucks, but thats not the issue for the TWU, they just want more money and benefits.
They have have better benefits than 7 of 10 americans and probably 9 of 10 New Yorkers.
They blew it by thinking if they took the city hostage they could get whatever they want, only to realize ...
1) People were inconvienenced... but the people kept moving
2) how their great benefits would get smeared all over the press and New Yorkers would be infuriated by their greed realizing how much they made
3) Discussion became about firing them all (see Reagan Air Trafic Controllers), and starting from scratch.
Unions had their time but it is an outdated idea now and serve little purpose but to keep men Like Roger Toussaint fat. -
You know...everytime I hear the "hostage" line, it makes me madder than before. There's this thoroughly retarded soundbite running on 1010 WINS with a woman saying that. The subway not running isn't being held hostage. Being somewhere tied up with a gun in your face is being held hostage. If you were being held hostage, you wouldn't be able to make alternate (if inconvenient and time-consuming) plans. So, can that really ridiculous hyperbole. And the TWU couldn't give a flying fuck what Mr. Joe Schmo NYer thinks about them unless he's a voting union member. And if you think some negative public opinion is going to topple unions, you're nuts.
If anything the continuing debate on the strike is showing is that, "most" New Yorkers have vastly disagreeing opinions on the whole thing and as with any big issue all over the news, many are so caught up in whatever half-truth biased buzzwords and media hardman posturing they've seen/read that they can barely tell their brains from their asses. -
muteflute wrote: I can appreciate a union that takes corporate strong-arming and spits it back in their faces
Absolutely. And I wish more people would understand how this type of "corporate strong-arming" is detrimental to more groups of people than just "the unions" ... it's one reason why SO MANY individuals are without health care, pensions, permanent, secure positions throughout the entire workforce ... it's part of the much-maligned concept of "the race to the bottom" ... -
hos·tage (hŏs'tĭj)
n.
1. A person held by one party in a conflict as security that specified terms will be met by the opposing party.
2. One that serves as security against an implied threat: superpowers held hostage to each other by their nuclear arsenals.
3. One that is manipulated by the demands of another: “National policies cannot be made hostage to another country†(Alan D. Romberg).
How does that not fit?
Its not a soundbite...its what they tried to do.
What I cant believe is some people are so pro-Union that they can't accept that maybe the TWU has overextended itself and is doing a greater disservice than any benefit. -
Anybody: when your boss, public or private sector, says, "no vacation time for you this year until you put in 5 hours of overtime for the next 2 months and I don't care about your childcare arrangements, that's your problem" are we being held hostage or what? Sure, striking in the public sector means that we, the public, gets inconvenienced on a large scale. But withholding our labor power is all we've got as workers. I am really happy unions were there to fight for the 8 hour working day.
-
I'm not so pro-union that I can't admit that it didn't really, really suck to walk 14 miles on Tuesday, but you know, it wasn't a life or death situation and I dealed with it. And despite the definition thinly fitting, I still call "oh please" on the feeling that the transit strike made hostages of everyone in NYC. If I had the resources at my disposal push back my employer when they try to make me go too far, I'd use it also if I felt like they had me backed into a corner.
Captain M wrote: We all know the MTA (Kalikow) sucks, but thats not the issue for the TWU, they just want more money and benefits.
What's the point of being in a union if not to give their members more money and benefits from their employer? Otherwise, you're just a hapless free agent just chasing after a little piece of the pie and even more likely to get screwed over. And so what that they have better benefits if they're not willing to protect them? If anything maybe knowing that people in unions have a pretty sweet deal would encourage more people to join one so they can get all the perks too. There's no point if having a good deal if you're not going to do what it takes to keep them. Maybe next time they should call you and everyone else who feels like they were held hostage and schedule a convenient time for everyone so no one will have to feel all put out and stuff.
They have have better benefits than 7 of 10 americans and probably 9 of 10 New Yorkers. -
I don't have a pension plan. I want one. I'll never ever get one if there aren't folks out there fighting back and saying you know, I deserve a pension.
Your glorification of pensions stems from a misunderstanding of what they are. People think "pensions are guaranteed money", and 401k's are "risky." This is plain false. There are no guarantees in life, and frankly my financial advice to any young person would be to get every penny they can out of their pension plans, because I think they're going to crash spectacularly.
Consider that with a 401k, as you approach age 50 or so you can put most or all of your money into AAA rated securities, which are the least likely to default. In contrast, NY state is rated by Moody's as Aa3, which is four ticks below AAA, and that's after a recent upgrade. So, in fact, your risk can be much further reduced with a 401k. Of NY, Moody's says, "Relative to other states, New York's exposure to potential fiscal stress still remains above average, however, primarily reflecting its heavy economic and revenue reliance on the volatile securities and financial services industry." It also notes that New York City's need to provide more resources towards education "represents a significant future fiscal risk." Still think your pension is foolproof?
Furthermore, when you have a govt pension the money does not belong to you. Receiving it, or not, depends on the whims of politicians. What if a rightwing Republic government takes over and decides it'd rather use your pension money to attack some oil country? Well, tough luck for you. I believe you're better off owning your retirement funds than trusting them to the type of corrupt bureacrats that run the MTA. -
What bothers me is that the people who were hurt the worst by this strike were the ones who could least afford it and are the least likely to benefit from it.
Middle-class knowledge workers got to keyboard from home. Or else ride their mountain bikes from close-in nabes and be congratulated because they got to the office before noon.
But the people who get paid by the hour to be somewhere at a specified time were screwed. So were the small business owners who spent pre-Christmas shopping days without deliveries or customers.
There are winners and losers, but no heroes here. The TWU will probably come out of this with health and pension benefits far beyond what private industry can afford, and God bless 'em for grabbing it while it's still available.
But this can't be construed as a victory for all working people: most of the folks who took the real hit aren't ever going to get the same deal. And it's not because those people aren't equally deserving; it's just because they don't have the ability to shut down the whole city when they want to. -
It seems like nobody is talking about the elephant in the room...if the MTA and the actuaries are right, and pension costs continue to increase sharply and the unfunded obligation grows...and the workers do not absorb more of the cost...where does the money come from. Any shortfalls will eventually come from the general fund. That means either expenses get cut (decreased services) or revenues go up (fares rise).
We can talk all we want about the billion dollar surplus (by the way the surplus was not from fares or increased state subsidies but because of increased mortgage recording taxes and sales taxes collected in the region - so if the economy falters or the real estate market slows the problems will just get bigger faster) but the bottom line is that rightly or wrongly that is now gone. We can wish and argue that there should be more state subsidies but historically speaking that is not likely to happen. We can talk about bad management and corruption and waste but even eliminating a number of top MTA executives or cutting back on their salaries is only going to make a small dent in the unfunded liabilties going forward.
Given the current level of contributions and the current investment climate (which admitedly could change dramaticly over time) the only way to make up for these shortfalls is going ot be decreased expenses (service cutbacks) or fare increases or a combination of both. What are we as a society willing to accept in order to assure that MTA employees continue to receive their full pensions and benefits? Is it imprtant enough to you to pay a $5 fare with less sevrice?
At what point are riders supposed to say we can't afford this, or do we always say that this is the right and just thing because people who work hard for a living should not have to contribute towards their pensions, that is the sole responsibilty of the business.
What are you willing to pay at the farebox to make sure that MTA employees maintain a solid living wage, excellent health benefits and their current pension plan. At this point in my life, given my current situation, I'd probably be willing to pay about $3 a trip. After that I think I'd want to see some changes made. Maybe you are $5 or even $10 a trip. What's the number for you?
Anyway I'm out of here for a few days. Everybody have a great holiday, whatever you celebrate. -
rogersma wrote: What bothers me is that the people who were hurt the worst by this strike were the ones who could least afford it and are the least likely to benefit from it.
:roll: Hanging tough with Mayor Billions. Structural poverty is what hurts them, not a transit strike. They are vulnerable because of an economic system designed to ensure that such a class of worker exists. Lessen the impact of structural poverty, lessen the impact of the transit strike. My favorite example of someone who was hurt by the strike was "Chinese food delivery guys." Wait. You mean those nasty illegals who are stealing jobs from ordinary Americans? Or the people who couldn't bring you your 13 Flavor Noodles from Tang Tang? -
metulj wrote: Hanging tough with Mayor Billions
Not sure how concern for the real working poor translates into support for our plutocrat Mayor. In the broad scheme of things, the TWU is a middle-class organization (thanks to unions, by the way) using its power to advance its economic interests. Nothing wrong with that, but it has nothing to do with infrastructure poverty one way or the other. Years ago Orwell warned about letting ideology cloud human sympathy. So as it ever was. -
Warning: The following is a pro-TWU rant that will not change anyone's opinions
Captain M wrote: We all know the MTA (Kalikow) sucks, but thats not the issue for the TWU, they just want more money and benefits.
These are exactly the reasons I support the TWU. The fact that they have better benefits is great- just because I pay my health insurance out of my own pocket doesn't mean that everyone else should too.
They have have better benefits than 7 of 10 americans and probably 9 of 10 New Yorkers.
And regarding Kalikow, it's time all New Yorkers stood up to the unaccountable agencies that spend OUR money and disdain any democratic oversight. It thrills me to hear Toussant standing up to the leaches at the MTA and governor's office who act like we should just get with the program. If Toussant succeeds in getting better benefits, that's a nice bonus, but now our unelected rulers in the MTA will at least have to worry that the natives might be restless.
Thank goodness the TWU can earn a middle class wage. They might end up the last group who is not either rich or poor. I have to be honest and say that I'm kinda disgusted with how everyone wants to identify with the billionaires: billionaires probably won't fight for an equitable society.
Up to now, our country has treated poor people like chumps, sending them off to war and letting them get killed, and taking their land with eminent domain. Now they are treating everyone like chumps, and too many of us are just going on with it.
But I've had enough of it. If Kalikow came to my house, he could expect some uncivil disobedience. -
rogersma wrote: [quote=metulj]Hanging tough with Mayor Billions
Not sure how concern for the real working poor translates into support for our plutocrat Mayor. In the broad scheme of things, the TWU is a middle-class organization (thanks to unions, by the way) using its power to advance its economic interests. Nothing wrong with that, but it has nothing to do with infrastructure poverty one way or the other. Years ago Orwell warned about letting ideology cloud human sympathy. So as it ever was.
Well put. I thought the predominant output of American capitalism was supposed to be an ever increasing middle-class, but if you don't have some bullshit Horatio Alger story to legitimize you, you don't count. For every person who bends over to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, 10 get kicked in the ass. -
metulj wrote: My favorite example of someone who was hurt by the strike was "Chinese food delivery guys." Wait. You mean those nasty illegals who are stealing jobs from ordinary Americans? Or the people who couldn't bring you your 13 Flavor Noodles from Tang Tang?
Clarification: this is some kind of joke, right? I'm not sure of your point here, exactly, but please tell me you're note anti-immigrant in addition to being anti-taxpayer. (plus anti-small business owner, straphanger, the unemployed, the law, the TWU's parent union, and anything else that might conflict with the TWU) -
escap wrote: [quote=metulj]My favorite example of someone who was hurt by the strike was "Chinese food delivery guys." Wait. You mean those nasty illegals who are stealing jobs from ordinary Americans? Or the people who couldn't bring you your 13 Flavor Noodles from Tang Tang?
Clarification: this is some kind of joke, right? I'm not sure of your point here, exactly, but please tell me you're note anti-immigrant in addition to being anti-taxpayer. (plus anti-small business owner, straphanger, the unemployed, the law, the TWU's parent union, and anything else that might conflict with the TWU)
Maybe a sarcasm emoticon would have made it clearer for you. -
escap wrote: [quote=metulj]My favorite example of someone who was hurt by the strike was "Chinese food delivery guys." Wait. You mean those nasty illegals who are stealing jobs from ordinary Americans? Or the people who couldn't bring you your 13 Flavor Noodles from Tang Tang?
Clarification: this is some kind of joke, right? I'm not sure of your point here, exactly, but please tell me you're note anti-immigrant in addition to being anti-taxpayer. (plus anti-small business owner, straphanger, the unemployed, the law, the TWU's parent union, and anything else that might conflict with the TWU)
Right. I am also pro-irony, which you seem to not be able to grasp. Should I be surprised? -
Oh yeah, I'm such a dummy--that's me!
Good, I'm glad you're pro-immigration. Silly me, I mistook you for a socialist, but perhaps there's a liberal capitalist inside you waiting to get out after all! I'll try to nurture that. -
That's right. You can be against the current immigration policy without being anti-immigrant. I am.
-
Oiseau wrote: That's right. You can be against the current immigration policy without being anti-immigrant. I am.
Wait, aren't you Canadian? -
escap wrote: Oh yeah, I'm such a dummy--that's me!
Since when is "socialist" derogatory? I consider myself a socialist; first of all, i don't see why that has anything to do with immigration; second of all, I don't see why it is a bad thing. Believing that the market will produce the most efficient and just result is about as hocus-pocus as believing that the gov't has to try to tweak the result.
Good, I'm glad you're pro-immigration. Silly me, I mistook you for a socialist, but perhaps there's a liberal capitalist inside you waiting to get out after all! I'll try to nurture that.
Also: so everyone is bandying about the pensions-won't-work-in-ten-years-when-they-grow-far-too-unwieldy. Fair enough. I'm concerned about that, too. But think about this: a cut in pension is, in real terms, a huge cut in salary. If you calculate what you 'earn' working for the MTA, the pension can be figured in money terms as part of your salary. In that way, your salary is not just, say, 50k, but is, rather, 50K-plus-whatever-the-MTA-puts-into-your-pension-fund or 50K-plus-your-total-future-pension-liability-divided-by-however-many-years-you'll-end-up-working. (Apologies for the really long line). So a huge pension cut is, essentially, a huge cut in salary.
So maybe escap is right. 401K's may be a better and safer investment (let's not even TALK about market crashes wiping them out--so much for safety there). Fair enough. So what I'd want, as a union, is for the MTA to contribute as much, per year, to my 401k, as they would to my pension. That way, my compensation remains the same and they get out of a ridiculous pension scramble.
But the MTA doesn't want to do that. And this is where unions come in handy (and I'm not saying, as always, that the TWU is right or good or whatever)--they prevent corporations from ruling over an atomized workforce which cannot negotiate but can only accept executive fiat.
(If you'll forgive the dorky history grad student in me, read up on Hannah Arendt or de Tocqueville--they seem to me to give us a good argument for why people should be allowed to organize together in groups to resist executive power. here's where I'm socialist, but it seems to me that corporate culture nowadays is veering closer and closer to totalitarianism. But that's just me) -
muteflute wrote:
Big ups to you for the Arendt shout-out!
(If you'll forgive the dorky history grad student in me, read up on Hannah Arendt or de Tocqueville--they seem to me to give us a good argument for why people should be allowed to organize together in groups to resist executive power. here's where I'm socialist, but it seems to me that corporate culture nowadays is veering closer and closer to totalitarianism. But that's just me) -
muteflute wrote:
I consider myself to be socialist as well and agree groups should be allowed to convene to resist executive power but we are in a different day and age than Arendt or Tocqueville, or even Marx for that matter. None of these authors had the technological presence that we have today to consider. Look at how falsh mobs worked 2 summers ago, or even how our own daily heights works. For this reason old school unions are inherently overwight beasts that are unable to move quickly, out of touch with reality and their members, and ultimately do more harm than good, for example I present the TWU.
(If you'll forgive the dorky history grad student in me, read up on Hannah Arendt or de Tocqueville--they seem to me to give us a good argument for why people should be allowed to organize together in groups to resist executive power. here's where I'm socialist, but it seems to me that corporate culture nowadays is veering closer and closer to totalitarianism. But that's just me)
Do you really think Toussaint has the same economic considersations as the the people he represents or even afected by the strike. Do you think Toussaints original requests were really even realisitic? Did you see some of the interviews of the strikers, many were uninformed about what they were even striking for, I consider this to be failure of the TWU to adequatly educate its members of the problems they were facing. -
Captain M wrote: I consider myself to be socialist as well and agree groups should be allowed to convene to resist executive power but we are in a different day and age than Arendt or Tocqueville, or even Marx for that matter. None of these authors had the technological presence that we have today to consider. Look at how falsh mobs worked 2 summers ago, or even how our own daily heights works. For this reason old school unions are inherently overwight beasts that are unable to move quickly, out of touch with reality and their members, and ultimately do more harm than good, for example I present the TWU.
Perhaps so. But I don't see that the technologization of society has improved the problems of atomization. Flash mobs are all well and good, as are online communities, but they do not represent a new way of organizing effective political or economic resistance. Look, for instance, at the much-vaunted and relatively-ineffective WWW organizing of the democratic-affiliated groups in the last election--they did not do at all as well as the centrally-organized organizing efforts of the republican party, partially because they did not have quite the same amount of investment, but also because they were not unified under a coherent set of issues. Take it as you will as a comparison, but corporate america IS centralized and powerful, and an inchoate and fragmented resistance is not going to be able to effectively stop it from pursuing its own ends. In general, trade unionism may also be obsolete, but it sure is better than the Walmart-ized alternative.
Do you really think Toussaint has the same economic considersations as the the people he represents or even afected by the strike. Do you think Toussaints original requests were really even realisitic? Did you see some of the interviews of the strikers, many were uninformed about what they were even striking for, I consider this to be failure of the TWU to adequatly educate its members of the problems they were facing.
Right now, is there a better way? I don't think so. Am I wholeheartedly in support of this union and this strike? I don't think so. Am I still in favor of unionized resistance? Yes. Am I optimistic about its ultimate success? No. -
muteflute wrote: Look, for instance, at the much-vaunted and relatively-ineffective WWW organizing of the democratic-affiliated groups in the last election--they did not do at all as well as the centrally-organized organizing efforts of the republican party, partially because they did not have quite the same amount of investment, but also because they were not unified under a coherent set of issues.
They also did not have the power to gerrymander. -
Responses to a few of the above points:
Gerrymandering is indeed a gigantic problem. The only near-solution I can think of is to ensure that districts are drawn by nonpartisan committees out of the control of politicians. Any other suggestions?
Socialism-Immigration issue: Not all socialist countries are closed to immigration, but free movement of labor is as much a cornerstone of capitalism as is free movement of capital. Socialism, on the other hand, embraces a far more static economic model that can be threatened by immigration.
401K vs. Pensions: Again, when you cite the danger of investing in the stock market, don't forget that all pension funds are invested in that same stock market. As far as the MTA offering contributions into employee 401k's, I think that's a great idea. The problem with pensions is that the benefits are defined but not the contributions. Talk about hocus pocus!! That's why they're so damaging to corporate and government budgets--they're built on houses of cards. The MTA would be better off paying double into 401k's what it currently pays into pensions, because at least it wouldn't then face indefinite, unfunded obligations going forward into eternity.
Finally, on the "need" for unions: Unions or strict regulation are essential when employers have a monopoly or other severe advantage. However, when employers are highly competitive with each other, unions are not only unnecessary but counterproductive, because it is in employees' best interest to be able to retain their mobility. A highly competitive market therefore benefits both workers and consumers, and corporate profits don't exceed their cost of capital (risk), so this seems to me to be the ideal we should strive for. -
New York Transit Deal Shows Union's Success on Many Fronts
He was excoriated on tabloid front pages and by the mayor and governor. As thousands streamed across the Brooklyn Bridge on a frigid night during last week's transit strike, someone in a car yelled out his name, prefacing it with a curse.
But now, a day after details of an agreement between the transit workers and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority were spelled out, Roger Toussaint, the union's president, seems to have emerged in a far better position than seemed likely just a few days ago.
Mr. Toussaint, whose back appeared to be against the wall last week, can boast of a tentative 37-month contract that meets most of his goals, including raises above the inflation rate and no concessions on pensions. Indeed, several fiscal and labor experts said yesterday that Mr. Toussaint and his union appeared to have bested the transit authority in their contract dispute.
The authority did not come away empty-handed, however, as it obtained a major concession: For the first time, the 33,700 transit workers will pay a portion of their health insurance premiums.
But if there is a real winner in the walkout that hobbled the city at the height of the holiday season, it is the union members who went out on strike, and the man who led them.
"It's a good contract for the union in that it does keep in place, for the most part, benefits that are extremely favorable to them," said Steven Malanga, a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute, a conservative research organization, who called last week for firing the strikers. "For them, you can say this is a great deal."
When Mr. Toussaint appeared before television cameras at 11 p.m. on Tuesday to announce the settlement, he commented little except to read an impressive list of new worker-friendly provisions: raises averaging 3.5 percent a year, the creation of paid maternity leave, a far better health plan for retirees, a much-improved disability plan, the adoption of Martin Luther King's Birthday as a paid holiday, and increased "assault pay" for bus drivers and train operators who are attacked by passengers.
Then Mr. Toussaint announced a big surprise: Some 22,000 workers will each receive thousands of dollars in reimbursements for what are considered excess pension contributions; for several years, these workers paid more toward their pensions than other workers. For those workers, that money will easily offset the fines of slightly more than $1,000 that most of them face for taking part in the illegal strike. The union itself could still face a $3 million fine that a judge ordered because of the 60-hour strike.
"The union did especially well, all things considered," said David L. Gregory, a labor relations expert at St. John's University. "Toussaint got everything he needed, and he also got what he needed in terms of the bigger picture. With the strike, he mollified the radical left in his union and helped placate the middle of his rank and file who were demanding to be treated with dignity and respect."
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds