How the TWU Blew It

bleeds wrote:

You and the other losers who reside on this board are bitter, white gentrificationists, who can't believe a bunch of mostly black, blue-collar workers make more money than you. So you've come here to bellyache about it.
Instead, have the impetus to actually go about impoving your own life. These workers are doing the best for themselves. I can see that you only value yourself in terms of the degrees some school gave you. And it seems like these degrees aren't worth much. You're telling everyone here that you're worthless. I'm understanding why you would feel that way. If you feel so badly about the TWU, stop riding the trains and buses. Let your unemployed ass hail a cab everytime you need one. I'm sure you'll teach the TWU a good lesson!

First off, I have no problem with someone making more money than me if they work for it, not if they strike for it. And I don't care what color they are, you're the racist assuming that race is even an issue there.

And you tell me to improve my own life... did you read my post, I got two masters, not for fun buddy, but to improve my life. I did not have to break laws and fuck with millions of people to get where I am. It's call hard work. Maybe you and the TWU should try it instead of crying that you don't get to retire at 55. waaa waaa waaa.

And I'm not employed, you [redacted]. Why don't you go [redacted] with the TWU.

Mod note: Be nice!

kosherdave wrote: [quote=bleeds]

Did everyone remember to attach their colostomy bags before logging on today? :roll:

Carnivore wrote: http://angermgt.meetup.com/cities/us/ny/brooklyn/

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

However, there's a reason that striking is illegal for public employees. They are in a monopoly situation and are providing a public service that is critical to the health and well being of millions of uninvolved people. I would not support the NYPD in a million years if they went on strike, or the Fire Department, or public health workers, the military, or the government. If any of them choose to quit, that's their right, but a strike means the coercion of others into not working. Furthermore, the TWU purposely timed its strike to inflict maximum pain on ordinary citizens, even though we had no control over the negotiations. That's called using us as hostages, and was especially painful for poor people.

Escap is completely correct in the reasoning behind the Taylor Law. The other thing that ALL the public sector unions conveniently forget to mention is that the Taylor Law was created as part of an agreement between the state and the unions in order to allow public sector employees to organize in New York. The trade off was unionization but no right to strike which was supposed to provide employees with the protection of a union but keep the public safe from having to deal with no essential services. Prior to the passage of the Taylor Law there were NO unions for New York public sector employees.

The reality is that public sector employees have a pretty good deal. For those who are not college educated they have jobs that provide a level of salary and benefits that are no longer achievable in the private sector in similar jobs. For college educated folks in the public sector, there is a definite trade-off between the salary they make compared to similar jobs in the private sector, but the quality of life is much better. I've worked with attorneys from both the state and the city and they all work on average fewer hours than people who are in firms. I think that a lot of the problem is "the grass is greener" syndrome. Public employees want to be paid like folks in the private sector, but they don't want to have private sector pensions or benfits.

escap wrote: I think the whole argument about whether the workers "deserve" salary XYZ really distracts from the main issue--the strike. There's not necessarily a correlation between wage and education, so let the TWU and the MTA negotiate whatever salary they can that is mutually agreeable. It's not up to us to decide the "right" amount for them to make, and so long as there's no coercion involved, I'm happy as a taxpayer to contribute to competitive salaries for public employees--again, based on the legitimate means of negotiation, arbitration, and the market. If there's perception of injustice, then public protests, speeches, editorials and other legitimate means of rallying public support are all perfectly valid.

However, there's a reason that striking is illegal for public employees. They are in a monopoly situation and are providing a public service that is critical to the health and well being of millions of uninvolved people. I would not support the NYPD in a million years if they went on strike, or the Fire Department, or public health workers, the military, or the government. If any of them choose to quit, that's their right, but a strike means the coercion of others into not working. Furthermore, the TWU purposely timed its strike to inflict maximum pain on ordinary citizens, even though we had no control over the negotiations. That's called using us as hostages, and was especially painful for poor people.

So don't distract from the issue with this racial bs!! For god's sake, most people on this board are even more upset about CEO salaries, and CEO's are predominantly white and educated. This is not about TWU benefits or gentrification, it's about the strike.

Your concern is faux. I don't believe a word you say. It's clear you don't want to face the uncomfortable reality of racism.

bleeds wrote: Yet it is about race. DENIAL is weak and COWARDLY. I mentioned the FDNY. They're just as blue-collar as the MTA, yet white. They get overwhelming support for pay raises and such. Why?

The relative level of support for the FDNY isn't pertinent to your accusations of racism directed towards kosherdave and drano. Even if it was, there's no way that you can prove that the differing levels of support has something to do with race. So, why don't we forget about trying to set up straw-men (that you can't knock down anyway) and instead, why don't you tell me which of their (kosherdave and drano) comments supports your theory that their (kosherdave and drano) angst is racially motivated?

alafairnadia wrote: [quote=bleeds]Your concern is faux. I don't believe a word you say. It's clear you don't want to face the uncomfortable reality of racism.

hey wait. mods. are we SURE this isn't anon-g?
Pretty sure. Bleeds' arguments are much more lucid than anon g. I'm not saying I totally agree with him, but to some extent I see his point (especially about the different levels of support for the different public service unions, where I believe there is an element of racism involved). That never happened with anon g.

bleeds wrote: Your concern is faux. I don't believe a word you say. It's clear you don't want to face the uncomfortable reality of racism.

Great retort, by the way... :roll:

Carnivore wrote: (especially about the different levels of support for the different public service unions, where I believe there is an element of racism involved)

Come on... really... Okay, how 'bout this- which job, transit worker or fire fighter, is more highly romanticized? In fact name ANY job that's more highly romanticized (across the board- men, women, and children) than a fire fighter... What? Astronaut? Maybe, but that's not exactly a real-world job. I'm thinking that that's going to sway public support more than anything else.

Carnivore wrote: [quote=alafairnadia][quote=bleeds]Your concern is faux. I don't believe a word you say. It's clear you don't want to face the uncomfortable reality of racism.

hey wait. mods. are we SURE this isn't anon-g?
Pretty sure. Bleeds' arguments are much more lucid than anon g. I'm not saying I totally agree with him, but to some extent I see his point (especially about the different levels of support for the different public service unions, where I believe there is an element of racism involved). That never happened with anon g.

I know, but the quote above is just so ... gentriconfrontational. maybe I was just hoping anon-g had finally registered. hope spring's eternal, etc.

nybt wrote: Come on... really... Okay, how 'bout this- which job, transit worker or fire fighter, is more highly romanticized? In fact name ANY job that's more highly romanticized (across the board- men, women, and children) than a fire fighter... What? Astronaut? Maybe, but that's not exactly a real-world job. I'm thinking that that's going to sway public support more than anything else.

That's certainly a good point. I didn't say that racism is the only reason, just that it's a factor. Maybe the FDNY is a bad example. How about this one- the garbage strike never really generated the same level of venom as the transit strike. That was another strike that was mostly more about inconveniencing people, but with some level of health risk involved. The sanitation union is much more white than the transit union, and the job is not at all romanticized. People weren't happy about that strike, but I never heard the kind of comments people have written here about the TWU.

I love the "UAW ruined manufacturing in America" argument. Catch up, skippy. Unions have been on their ass for 30 years. The US has the second lowest rate of union membership among the G-8 (behind France, interestingly). When the history gets written about what happened to the US auto industry, it'll focus on the fact that the Big Three kept using Fordist business models long into the period where companies like Toyota were beating their pants off with better made, more desirable cars using a better, more flexible business model. That's a lot harder to think about than "It's the UNION'S FAULT!!!!"* Add this to your ridiculous assertion that the UAW ruined American manufacturing in general and it starts to gets to the outright giggle point. Please see the copious literature on globalization or just pick up The Economist any odd week.

*NOTE: Thinking is hard.

escap wrote: Metulj, I thought you'd like that one.

I do subscribe to the Economist, as well as the WSJ and the NYT. I had a short space to say merely that my anti-TWU feelings are not a result of racism. Bleeds was saying I was pro other unions and not the TWU, so I was just trying to make a point.

You are of course right that there are tons of factors that have contributed to the decline of the US manufacturing industry (which is still strong, btw, contrary to popular belief). The UAW does share part of the blame (and if you don't see this than it's YOU who needs to read up). However, I'm not as dumb as you think--I fully admit that the blame falls on plenty of others shoulders as well.

We could have an intelligent discussion about it. Racism accusations would not be part of that intelligent discussion.

I think the unions have rolled up and handed gifts in terms of labor concessions to American manufacturing concerns and still those concerns have still either moved it overseas or ceased to exist. Unions play a minor part of what has happened, in particular, since the mid-80s. Capital will chase labor from which it can generate surpluses anywhere it can, all over the globe. I was at an AIDS conference recently where a couple of economists were saying that Africa has to be brought under control (in terms of many different vulnerabilities, AIDS included) because it was where captialism is going that have to go to find cheap labor by 2050 or so. Colonizers. Model. Of. The. World.

Yeah, dragging race into the MTA/TWU argument on a "It's the only thing" level is disingenuous, but I think it an important part of why the TWU feels it gets no "respect." When the guy telling workers that they are making too much money doing a dirty, dangerous job is white and owns one of the best collections of Ferraris in the world, you'll always have that undercurrent. Don't dismiss it wholesale, I say. OTOH, defending the MTA is a though row to hoe....

I can understand why TWU sympathizers might sense racial overtones to the situation. Just don't include me in that mix--I own no ferraris and I don't care what race the TWU members are (and there are thousands of white members incidentally).

I could hurl tons of stats at you about the UAW and I bet you could hurl counter-stats back at me all day. Let's agree to disagree.

On the Africa issue, I wasn't sure of your point. But have you ever heard of convergence theory, or the Solow model? In a simplistic nutshell, it says that because economic returns should be higher in poor countries, capital flows should flow into them, and that in the long run free flows of capital and labor should create a GDP per capita that is roughly equal in all countries around the world. The pros and cons of this theory are the stuff of Phd theses, but the Solow model earned a Nobel prize and it's an important idea. Conditional convergence is shown empirically to have already taken place. So I think it's important to make a huge distinction between 19th century imperialism and colonialism that exploited Africa and sowed the seeds of the continent's current woes, and the idea of future investment and trade, that should in theory create a win-win that vastly improves prosperity and quality of life in poor African nations.

BTW, I love how much this board meanders. Props to Carnivore for stirring up this thread again.

Clearly we have a different take on things, but touche--at least you've done your homework.

metulj wrote: global labor exploiters

This was my favorite. You mean "employers"? Yeah, I just signed an agreement yesterday to become exploited this summer. I was happy, but when you phrase it this way, it puts a whole new spin on the situation....

Now back to studying for finals (including Toyota's operational model, among other things).

How many more meandering replys/posts till page 3?