Jump to content

LIRR unions, MTA prepare final contract offers as strike looms


User

Recommended Posts

image.JPG

The MTA and the unions representing nearly 6,000 Long Island Rail Road workers will begin laying out their final offers Monday in a 4-year-long contract dispute.

The White House-appointed Presidential Emergency Board No. 245 will convene in Manhattan at noon to hear from LIRR labor leaders and Metropolitan Transportation Authority negotiators. Without a resolution, LIRR unions could go on strike as early as July.

It's the second time since November that President Barack Obama has assembled a three-member board of expert mediators to try to resolve the contract impasse. A first board largely supported the unions, calling for raises totaling about 17 percent over six years, and no changes to work rules.

Rather than come up with its own terms for a deal, the second board will only choose "the most reasonable" final offer in a report expected in about a month. The board's recommendation is not binding.

MTA officials and LIRR union representatives, under a gag order by the presidential board, declined to comment on today's meeting.

After reaching a tentative agreement with the Transport Workers Union last week for raises totaling 8 percent over five years, MTA chairman Thomas Prendergast said TWU contracts typically establish a pattern that the agency expects its other unions, including those at the LIRR, to follow.

An LIRR union source, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he expects the railroad labor groups will stick to their guns in pursuing the more lucrative terms of the first presidential board. Because the subway workers' contract has not yet been ratified by the MTA board, the TWU board or union members, it will carry little weight with the federal mediators, the source said.

"The position everybody is taking is that we're unaffected by this," the LIRR union source said of the TWU deal. "We don't see that it's going to make that big of a difference."

But former TWU president Roger Toussaint said the TWU deal could only hurt the LIRR unions, because it "lowers the bar significantly" on what they could expect.

Toussaint noted that MTA and labor sources have both confirmed that the MTA made an offer to the LIRR unions in February that was within the constraints of the first presidential board's recommendations.

"This is a real betrayal," Toussaint said of the TWU's deal. "Certainly . . . would have come out better by any measure based on what was on the table."

Link: http://www.newsday.com/long-island/lirr-unions-mta-prepare-final-contract-offers-as-strike-looms-1.7775804

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I rarely agree with former TWU Local 100's President Roger Toussaint but he's absolutely right in this case. From where I sit the proposed agreement between the (MTA) and Local 100 stinks to high heaven. The whole thing reeks of a choreographed ballet between Andrew Coumo and Local 100 to undermine the Presidential mediation board and the LIRR unions. It looks like Prince Andrew wants to influence the mediators by saying " look Local 100 agreed to x percent " therefore the LIRR and MNRR should accept the same thing. If I was still an active employee I would never accept what Local 100 appears to agree to. I sincerely hope that the Presidential panel sticks closely to it's original proposal for the LIRR unions and I hope that they ignore Local 100. There is no way that Local 100 sets the pattern for the railroad unions. IMO Local 100 members should hold off on their contract demands and wait for the railroad unions to settle. In other words, they should "flip the script" and hold back settling anything since the (MTA) President and the Governor are looking for pattern settlements.Let the Presidential panel set the parameters first.Carry on.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I hope concessions are made on both sides.  These raises will have to paid for one way or another, and it ALWAYS involves the passenger paying more.  I'm just not sure how much more the average passenger can afford in NYC.  I know everything is going up, but most folks are not seeing their paychecks go up.  Apparently wages have been relatively stagnant here in NYC, so it will be interesting to see what happens with these negotiations.  We already know that there will be increases coming in 2015 and 2017, but these contract negotiations could just put the (MTA) back into a precarious position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These raises will have to paid for one way or another, and it ALWAYS involves the passenger paying more.

 

Not always.  Initial reports coming out make it seem like this money will come primarily from trimming down the next capital program, so while the passenger might ultimately end up 'paying', the money is not necessarily going to come directly from the farebox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not always.  Initial reports coming out make it seem like this money will come primarily from trimming down the next capital program, so while the passenger might ultimately end up 'paying', the money is not necessarily going to come directly from the farebox.

The money never always comes directly from the farebox... It's just not the farebox... There's the taxes as well... New Yorkers subsidize their transportation more than any other city in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not always.  Initial reports coming out make it seem like this money will come primarily from trimming down the next capital program, so while the passenger might ultimately end up 'paying', the money is not necessarily going to come directly from the farebox.

 

According to the NY Times, it's coming from reducing the amount being put in the pension and health care funds, which seems rather self defeating (and will eventually lead to an even bigger pension problem than the MTA already has).

 

Cuomo seriously needs to stop with all the accounting magic his administration is pulling all over the place. In the end, the riders will have to pay both Peter and Paul, and this is all just a silly distraction from the actual problem of an underfunded MTA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the NY Times, it's coming from reducing the amount being put in the pension and health care funds, which seems rather self defeating (and will eventually lead to an even bigger pension problem than the MTA already has).

 

Cuomo seriously needs to stop with all the accounting magic his administration is pulling all over the place. In the end, the riders will have to pay both Peter and Paul, and this is all just a silly distraction from the actual problem of an underfunded MTA.

Oh enough with the (MTA) not being funded enough... It's getting rather old and tired... How about the (MTA) starts becoming more fiscally responsible?  The money that they waste in so called "capital improvement projects" is a joke.  I'd like to know how many capital improvement projects have they done in the last 5 - 10 years that have come in ON TIME AND ON BUDGET? <_< The only thing that they think they're supposed to be fiscally responsible with is being stingy with bus, train and subway service, but they continue to give out inflated salaries and contracts to companies who can't complete projects on time and come in consistently over budget.  That has nothing to do with being underfunded, and everything to do with incompetence and a lack of oversight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh enough with the (MTA) not being funded enough... It's getting rather old and tired... How about the (MTA) starts becoming more fiscally responsible?  The money that they waste in so called "capital improvement projects" is a joke.  I'd like to know how many capital improvement projects have they done in the last 5 - 10 years that have come in ON TIME AND ON BUDGET? <_< The only thing that they think they're supposed to be fiscally responsible with is being stingy with bus, train and subway service, but they continue to give out inflated salaries and contracts to companies who can't complete projects on time and come in consistently over budget.  That has nothing to do with being underfunded, and everything to do with incompetence and a lack of oversight.

Got to look at it differently. When you estimate the cost it is in the present not 10 years in the future. Just look at the SAS, it was on the books for 70 years and you see the costs involved now. Anything you plan now gets blown up because laws and requirements change to the time of building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh enough with the (MTA) not being funded enough... It's getting rather old and tired... How about the (MTA) starts becoming more fiscally responsible?  The money that they waste in so called "capital improvement projects" is a joke.  I'd like to know how many capital improvement projects have they done in the last 5 - 10 years that have come in ON TIME AND ON BUDGET? <_< The only thing that they think they're supposed to be fiscally responsible with is being stingy with bus, train and subway service, but they continue to give out inflated salaries and contracts to companies who can't complete projects on time and come in consistently over budget.  That has nothing to do with being underfunded, and everything to do with incompetence and a lack of oversight.

 

7 Line extension is coming on budget. Not on time, but that's an issue with that weird inclined elevator they're putting in (which was bound to happen, since the MTA had no experience with that type of equipment before, and it doesn't seem like something that gets commonly requested in New York). The Fulton Center isn't coming on budget, but that's because they literally trashed the plan due to the recession and then had to bring it back from the dead and redesign parts of it at the insistence of the community. Second Avenue got held up by lawsuits, and East Side Access is literally blowing up a new two-level train station 100 ft into bedrock. It would be impossible to find a peer agency taking on projects of such (singular) difficulty in North America, and difficult to do for the rest of the world.

 

The MTA needs $100B over the next 20 years to fund signals, station maintenance/upgrading and new train cars. This is with no new shovels in the ground. Unless you are somehow suggesting that the MTA can "save" its way to funding $100B in capital projects on its own, the MTA needs more city and state assistance, and maybe federal if it can get its hands on it.

 

Also, this is the first major expansion in the Metro area since the 70's and 80's (and even then, we didn't manage to actually finish everything). If you know of another major construction company with expertise in tunnel boring, station excavation, or transportation infrastructure that offers better prices, I'm sure that the MTA will be more than happy to get a number or some contact information. There's not exactly a lot of scope for cost reduction in projects if every contractor works under the same union rules, there's not a lot of scope for cost reduction, particularly since there aren't that many qualified contractors in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 Line extension is coming on budget. Not on time, but that's an issue with that weird inclined elevator they're putting in (which was bound to happen, since the MTA had no experience with that type of equipment before, and it doesn't seem like something that gets commonly requested in New York). The Fulton Center isn't coming on budget, but that's because they literally trashed the plan due to the recession and then had to bring it back from the dead and redesign parts of it at the insistence of the community. Second Avenue got held up by lawsuits, and East Side Access is literally blowing up a new two-level train station 100 ft into bedrock. It would be impossible to find a peer agency taking on projects of such (singular) difficulty in North America, and difficult to do for the rest of the world.

 

The MTA needs $100B over the next 20 years to fund signals, station maintenance/upgrading and new train cars. This is with no new shovels in the ground. Unless you are somehow suggesting that the MTA can "save" its way to funding $100B in capital projects on its own, the MTA needs more city and state assistance, and maybe federal if it can get its hands on it.

 

Also, this is the first major expansion in the Metro area since the 70's and 80's (and even then, we didn't manage to actually finish everything). If you know of another major construction company with expertise in tunnel boring, station excavation, or transportation infrastructure that offers better prices, I'm sure that the MTA will be more than happy to get a number or some contact information. There's not exactly a lot of scope for cost reduction in projects if every contractor works under the same union rules, there's not a lot of scope for cost reduction, particularly since there aren't that many qualified contractors in the first place.

What they need for their capital program has nothing to do with them being more fiscally responsible.  My point is when you're not fiscally responsible, your needs will naturally be higher, and considering that New Yorkers subsidize their transportation more than any other place in the U.S., we already give the (MTA) enough of our hard earned money.  They should working equally as hard to ensure that every dollar is spent wisely.

Got to look at it differently. When you estimate the cost it is in the present not 10 years in the future. Just look at the SAS, it was on the books for 70 years and you see the costs involved now. Anything you plan now gets blown up because laws and requirements change to the time of building.

Sorry, but cost overruns must be factored into situation because otherwise, if there's a problem, you have to know where those funds are going to come from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they need for their capital program has nothing to do with them being more fiscally responsible.  My point is when you're not fiscally responsible, your needs will naturally be higher, and considering that New Yorkers subsidize their transportation more than any other place in the U.S., we already give the (MTA) enough of our hard earned money.  They should working equally as hard to ensure that every dollar is spent wisely.

 

Sorry, but cost overruns must be factored into situation because otherwise, if there's a problem, you have to know where those funds are going to come from.

 

It's the wrong way to look at it. Think about it this way; there are only a small handful of companies hiring from the same union operators under the same work rules. The MTA can't just demand that they lower prices; there are simply not enough competitors for it to do so.

 

New Yorkers don't subsidize the MTA in the way that you think they do. In fact, it has significantly higher farebox recovery vs costs than the rest of the nation; most transit agencies only cover 30-40% with fares, but the MTA covers 60-70%. On top of that, with the introduction of bus transfers and unlimited cards, the inflation-adjusted fare paid of the average ride is still below that of the average fare paid prior to the introduction of the Metrocard. Given that state and city funding levels have either stagnated or declined even without adjusting for inflation, it's clear that more could be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they need for their capital program has nothing to do with them being more fiscally responsible.  My point is when you're not fiscally responsible, your needs will naturally be higher, and considering that New Yorkers subsidize their transportation more than any other place in the U.S., we already give the (MTA) enough of our hard earned money.  They should working equally as hard to ensure that every dollar is spent wisely.

 

New Yorkers also get the most service out of the public transportation system than any other place in the United States, so it's only obvious that they should subsidize it the most..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New Yorkers also get the most service out of the public transportation system than any other place in the United States, so it's only obvious that they should subsidize it the most..........

Oh is that right? How many ways should we subsidize it? What I was really getting at the over taxation here.  Commuter tax, taxi tax, bridges and tolls... Whether one uses the system or not, they're paying in multiple ways either way.  The more people use the system, the cheaper it should be, not the other way around....

 

 

It's the wrong way to look at it. Think about it this way; there are only a small handful of companies hiring from the same union operators under the same work rules. The MTA can't just demand that they lower prices; there are simply not enough competitors for it to do so.

 

New Yorkers don't subsidize the MTA in the way that you think they do. In fact, it has significantly higher farebox recovery vs costs than the rest of the nation; most transit agencies only cover 30-40% with fares, but the MTA covers 60-70%. On top of that, with the introduction of bus transfers and unlimited cards, the inflation-adjusted fare paid of the average ride is still below that of the average fare paid prior to the introduction of the Metrocard. Given that state and city funding levels have either stagnated or declined even without adjusting for inflation, it's clear that more could be done.

I'm not talking about any of that... What does oversight have to do with what you're talking about?  A lot of these projects go over budget and over schedule due to a lack of oversight.  I worked in the construction industry for a few years, and NYC is THE place to do construction because projects can be completed ON TIME an ON BUDGE, BUT you have on top of the contractors to ensure that they're on the job and doing things correctly.  When the cats away the mice will play and those guys love slacking any chance that they can.  They also need to do a more thorough review process when they hire companies to ensure that they can meet the deadlines set forth in the RFPs instead of trying to select the cheapest bidder.  Cheap doesn't always equal cheap in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not talking about any of that... What does oversight have to do with what you're talking about?  A lot of these projects go over budget and over schedule due to a lack of oversight.  I worked in the construction industry for a few years, and NYC is THE place to do construction because projects can be completed ON TIME an ON BUDGE, BUT you have on top of the contractors to ensure that they're on the job and doing things correctly.  When the cats away the mice will play and those guys love slacking any chance that they can.  They also need to do a more thorough review process when they hire companies to ensure that they can meet the deadlines set forth in the RFPs instead of trying to select the cheapest bidder.  Cheap doesn't always equal cheap in the end.

 

 

The problem is that in that part of the industry in general, there isn't enough expertise in the metro area for projects like these. As a result, MTA relies heavily on consultants and contractors to do a lot of the supervision/auditing, because they simply don't have the in-house expertise to manage all these projects well at the same time. Even if they did, I doubt MTA would have the ability to pay salaries needed to retain such in-house knowledge. The lack of institutional experience shows; on projects that they do a lot, like signal replacement and track repair, MTA works very quickly, efficiently, and cost-effectively. The MTA does normal maintenance and emergency repair effectively; it's just big capital projects that they have a problem with.

 

Also, the MTA is subject to the state procurement process, so something would have to change at state-level to solve the issues with RFPs. It was designed with the best of intentions (outlawing everything that Tammany did in projects), but now it's too much of a labyrinth for new companies to effectively navigate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I'm of the belief that the MTA should try to do more and more in-house (particularly by sharing things among agencies), there are some things that would be very impractical to keep the people, equipment, and expertise to do everything in-house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that in that part of the industry in general, there isn't enough expertise in the metro area for projects like these. As a result, MTA relies heavily on consultants and contractors to do a lot of the supervision/auditing, because they simply don't have the in-house expertise to manage all these projects well at the same time. Even if they did, I doubt MTA would have the ability to pay salaries needed to retain such in-house knowledge. The lack of institutional experience shows; on projects that they do a lot, like signal replacement and track repair, MTA works very quickly, efficiently, and cost-effectively. The MTA does normal maintenance and emergency repair effectively; it's just big capital projects that they have a problem with.

 

Also, the MTA is subject to the state procurement process, so something would have to change at state-level to solve the issues with RFPs. It was designed with the best of intentions (outlawing everything that Tammany did in projects), but now it's too much of a labyrinth for new companies to effectively navigate.

Well that's the problem when you have to rely on consultants. There has to be some level of trust of the consultants that the (MTA) hires and if they're not on the top of their game, well then the (MTA) has to fork over more money, so they're paying money to ensure that "X" consultant is good enough to ensure that they don't get royally robbed during the project, and believe you me, some of those contractors do and will try to run up the price where they can.  That's the other issue the (MTA) faces.... Receiving RFP's that are marked up high, forcing them to pay out more than they should and that's a simple supply and demand situation, because unfortunately, there are only a certain amount of GC's that can handle certain big scale projects due to the amount of manpower and expertise needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.