Trainmaster5 Posted October 31, 2009 Share #1 Posted October 31, 2009 Somehow I get this queasy feeling that the Bloombum dominated media and the are going to stretch this out as long as they can hoping that TWU Local 100 workers will get frustrated and re-open negotiations with management. Our fearless leaders have already jumped ship to the international and the governor, who controls the board, in theory, has let Bloombum and company set the agenda. I think Governor Patterson should man-up and force the to accept the fact that they lost THIS round and move on. Letting the mayor and editorial boards set the agenda for a quasi-state authority only makes him look inept. The young lady who referred to the board as "doodyheads", while somewhat impolite, also indirectly implicated the governor's administration too IMHO. If contract arbitration is really part of the Taylor laws underpinnings this impasse has made the law itself worthless and outdated. I read Mr. Zucotti's award decision in it's entirety, something the tabloids never printed, and in it he showed the where the money was to fund the award. That part has never been publicized because it undermines Bloombum's and the editorial boards' position.They would rather focus on how much the arbitrator was paid and not the fact that Local 100 and they agreed to it in advance. Let's see how this plays out, mindful of the fact that the press is spinning this the way the mayor wants and not in a truthful, straightforward manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MotormanMike Posted October 31, 2009 Share #2 Posted October 31, 2009 So Trainmaster , am I to understand from your post that you don't intend to vote for Bloomberg? Wow. :confused: Hot stock tip : Bloomberg enterprises are investing heavily in the Vaseline industry ... looks like they are anticipating lots of people getting a screwing ... :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted October 31, 2009 Author Share #3 Posted October 31, 2009 So Trainmaster , am I to understand from your post that you don't intend to vote for Bloomberg? Wow. :confused: Hot stock tip : Bloomberg enterprises are investing heavily in the Vaseline industry ... looks like they are anticipating lots of people getting a screwing ... :cry: I'm not a resident of NYC anymore, so no. If I were I wouldn't anyway. The people voted, TWICE, for term limits so I'd wish him well in his future endeavors and move on. No matter how good or bad he's been as mayor I abhor the fact that he thinks he could buy my principles or my vote. For emperor Bloombum to think that laws mean nothing to rich people like him is a direct slap in the face to all New Yorkers in my opinion. Unfortunately in this day and age where American Idol, John and Kate , etc are popular shows, I think most New Yorkers are stupid enough to be bought off by this arrogant bast**d. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MotormanMike Posted October 31, 2009 Share #4 Posted October 31, 2009 I was being sarcastic about you not voting for him ... I have a laundry list of reasons I wouldn't vote for him , and not just his treatment of the MTA. I'd add his overturning of term limits , and his gun control fanatacism , among other things. :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOB2RTO Posted October 31, 2009 Share #5 Posted October 31, 2009 The young lady who referred to the board as "doodyheads", while somewhat impolite, also indirectly implicated the governor's administration too IMHO. Compared to what I would have called them, and what I feel they are (a bunch of sea-sucking, worthless, sh!+heads), she was actually very polite............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted October 31, 2009 Share #6 Posted October 31, 2009 I'm not a resident of NYC anymore, so no. If I were I wouldn't anyway. The people voted, TWICE, for term limits so I'd wish him well in his future endeavors and move on. No matter how good or bad he's been as mayor I abhor the fact that he thinks he could buy my principles or my vote. For emperor Bloombum to think that laws mean nothing to rich people like him is a direct slap in the face to all New Yorkers in my opinion. Unfortunately in this day and age where American Idol, John and Kate , etc are popular shows, I think most New Yorkers are stupid enough to be bought off by this arrogant bast**d. That's a major reason I hate Bloomberg also. He's the rich boy who thinks he can buy his way out of any situation. But hey if they somehow win against the TWU then you guys will have legal precedent against the Taylor Law in every negotiation going forward...and it will be the MTA/Bloomturd's own fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOB2RTO Posted November 2, 2009 Share #7 Posted November 2, 2009 That's a major reason I hate Bloomberg also. He's the rich boy who thinks he can buy his way out of any situation. But hey if they somehow win against the TWU then you guys will have legal precedent against the Taylor Law in every negotiation going forward...and it will be the MTA/Bloomturd's own fault. True. If MTA can get away with breaking the law, without penalty, then we should be able to do the same. MTA doesn't want to abide by the laws of arbitration, we shouldn't have to abide by any law barring us from striking........ Besides, we aren't emergency workers, and people already tell us daily they will get a car to get around, to stop from using us. Those statements say "we don't need you, and have an alternative form of transportation"......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messino Posted November 2, 2009 Share #8 Posted November 2, 2009 B/O and T/O C/Os and everyone else who was supposed to get the raise should all strike. If I was a T/O Id strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Igor Gaysinsky Posted November 2, 2009 Share #9 Posted November 2, 2009 i have a gut feeling that they will strike i think they should hire some that has commons sense with the mta stuff and knows what the job is about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LexAveExp5 Posted November 2, 2009 Share #10 Posted November 2, 2009 even though they SHOULD, i just dont see it happening. they just struck during the last round of negotiations, they would look like babies in the court of public opinion since their salaries and benefits are public information and most of the public is jealous.... even when there wasnt a recession Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will-Bx-718 Posted November 2, 2009 Share #11 Posted November 2, 2009 B/O and T/O C/Os and everyone else who was supposed to get the raise should all strike. If I was a T/O Id strike. Everyone was pose to get the raise, and there will be no striking. We did that last round and it didn't change anything on the contract we got forced down our throats. This time the contract went in our favor and the MTA , BloomBUM and the public call in outrageous and too pricey . Even though we got a 10.5 % raise last contract. And a 11% raise is not much over the course of 3 years. Almost every other city agency got a double digit raise and no one made a big deal about that. No one said the city can't afford such outrageous raises in these economic times. And most of those other agencies were already getting paid more than TA workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noflexdont Posted November 2, 2009 Share #12 Posted November 2, 2009 This really upsets me. It crazy how the MTA can say they have no money, yet when asked to open up there many books they don't. I'm sure MTA management raises are more then 11% over 3 years. They also contract out work that can be done in house and would save millions. I believe that the contract that is pending will happen for us after the elections. Some times i wonder about my union. i have over heard a union officer say nobody wants to strike, that takes money out of our pocket. That should not be the way a union officer or any union member thinks. If it means to lose a little bit of money now for gains in the future it is well worth it. I Would like to know if there is anyone that i can write too (State Senate, NYC council, ANYONE!!!)to vent my anger. It's just plain bonkers whats the MTA is Doing. Im sure 95% of the MTA blue colllar work force dont mind working hard for the system, we just want a fair contract! sorry if im all over the place it is 4:27am Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LexAveExp5 Posted November 12, 2009 Share #13 Posted November 12, 2009 well they may not WANT to strike, but the union sure is setting the groundwork for one. this came out today "For Immediate Release" http://www.twulocal100.org/node/3403 TRANSPORT WORKERS CHARGE: NEW YORK’S BAN ON PUBLIC SECTOR STRIKES VIOLATES INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 11, 2009 New York, New York and Geneva, Switzerland What: discussion by distinguished panel of experts on labor law on New York State’s Taylor Law pursuant to changes filed with the ILO by TWU Local 100 Where: Columbia Law School, Jerome Greene Hall, Room 102 When: November 19 4:00pm-6:30pm click here for event flyer <pdf> Transport Workers Union Local 100 today filed a Complaint with the International Labor Organization (ILO) in Geneva. The ILO is a tripartite UN agency that brings together governments, employers and workers of its member states, which include the United States, “in common action to promote decent work throughout the world.” The complaint, directed to the ILO’s Committee on Freedom of Association, tests the legality and the chilling effects of New York State’s Taylor Law in light of ILO standards which protect the freedom of association and collective bargaining as fundamental human rights. The Taylor Law bars all strikes in the public sector, and punishes strikes with extensive fines, imprisonment of union leaders and loss of automatic dues deduction. The complaint alleges that these restrictions on strikes by public sector employees under New York’s Taylor Law constitute “a serious infringement on core trade union rights” protected by international law. In December 2005, Local 100 engaged in a 60 hour strike approved by its Executive Board after the MTA, which then had a billion dollar surplus, demanded that the union accept a two-tier system of pension benefits in which newly hired employees would have substantially inferior pensions to current employees. Although the parties arrived at a tentative agreement on a new contract shortly following the brief strike, the New York courts fined the union $2.5 million, charged employees two days' wages for every day of the strike, imposed individual fines on the top three union officers, and, more than four months after the strike ended, imposed a brief jail term on Roger Toussaint, the President of Local 100, for his role in the strike. Most significantly, the courts indefinitely suspended automatic deduction and transfer of dues to the Union, and refused to restore them for 17 months. These sanctions were disproportionate to the penalties imposed on two other Unions that participated in the same strike, suggesting that the penalties were aimed at a broader suppression of workers’ rights through intimidation. According to the complaint, the sanctions against the union under the Taylor Law constitute “severe violations” of the internationally protected human rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining. The complaint is filed against the U.S. government, which as an ILO member state is bound to ensure that state and local authorities protect the labor rights of public sector workers. The complaint asks the ILO to recommend that the Taylor Law be amended to comply with international labor standards and that Local 100 and its members be reimbursed the fines and penalties that were imposed on them. In conjunction with the filing of the complaint, the International Commission for Labor Rights has convened a group of five experts on public sector unionism to examine the Taylor Law prohibition of strikes in the public sector in the context of the 2005 strike and the union’s current experiences with contract arbitration. The experts' report will be submitted to the International Labor Organization. The experts will participate in a public event, sponsored by the Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School, concerning whether and how the Taylor Law might be reformed to better protect both rights and public order. The experts are also hoping to consult with a wide range of relevant employers, business leaders, elected officials, and other public sector unions while conducting their assessment of the Taylor Law in global context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LexAveExp5 Posted November 16, 2009 Share #14 Posted November 16, 2009 wow, local 100 is actually challenging the legality of the taylor law and nobody has anything to say??? this is so obvious that they're at least THINKING about striking if the court overturns their contract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted November 17, 2009 Author Share #15 Posted November 17, 2009 wow, local 100 is actually challenging the legality of the taylor law and nobody has anything to say??? this is so obvious that they're at least THINKING about striking if the court overturns their contract It may seem obvious to you but there's been no talk of a strike out here with the rank and file. The Taylor law is being challenged on legal and human rights terms as it relates to the UN laws while our contract fight is being heard in New York state courts, under state statutes. The next step after that would be Federal courts, under Federal statutes. I doubt the would want to go that far although TWU Local 100 might take that step to test the constitiutionality of the Taylor law. I really don't see a scenario where the UN courts in Geneva, Switzerland will determine this contract fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LexAveExp5 Posted November 17, 2009 Share #16 Posted November 17, 2009 nah, i dont mean the court in switzerland, i mean the court here. but it just really looks like they're trying to make a strike legal just in case the new contract is overturned by the court HERE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MotormanMike Posted November 17, 2009 Share #17 Posted November 17, 2009 For arguments sake and nothing more , it would take years of legal battling to potentially overturn the Taylor Law. So even if the union is planning a legal fight to overturn it , it's extremely unlikely it will be overturned in time for it to matter in relation to this contract , assuming it even can be overturned at all. I hopethe matter doesn't go before any international court , since the USA doesn't need permission from the UN or international bodies to determine the outcomes of our internal court battles and system of law. What Trainmaster5 said is correct , there is no talk of a strike at this time among the rank and file. At this point it seems we will come out on the winning side of things and I think most of the rank and file is cautiously optimistic about the outcome. Should the arbitration ruling be overturned , I personally don't know what the union and the membership will do about it. I can say I personally thought the ruling was fair , we didn't get the moon and the stars but that's not realistic anyway , but considering all things I think the award was decent. I don't know why the MTA is playing the games they're playing , but I don't think they're going to come out with a victory , I believe the arbitration ruling will stand. Time will tell if I'm right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainzone Posted November 29, 2009 Share #18 Posted November 29, 2009 I would be all in to strike for REAL this time if the city takes away what we rightfully won. This isn't just about TWU local 100, this is about ALL unions!! If they do it to us, who's next?! :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LexAveExp5 Posted December 4, 2009 Share #19 Posted December 4, 2009 theres an opinion piece in this weeks "The Chief Leader" that speculates that the wants you guys to strike so they can fire all of you like Ronald Reagan did with the Air Traffic Controllers back in the 1980s. but they cant do that right? cuz you guys struck in 2005 and they never said they could do that. i dont think its in the Taylor Law that they can fire anybody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted December 4, 2009 Share #20 Posted December 4, 2009 theres an opinion piece in this weeks "The Chief Leader" that speculates that the wants you guys to strike so they can fire all of you like Ronald Reagan did with the Air Traffic Controllers back in the 1980s. but they cant do that right? cuz you guys struck in 2005 and they never said they could do that. i dont think its in the Taylor Law that they can fire anybody If the Union struck and they fired everybody oh boy would that be fun. I'd get on the first non NYCT bus outta town and watch the city burn from another place. Those unemployed finance a-holes couldn't drive a bus or operate a train if their lives depended on it. They'd run screaming for mamma the second the schoolcar instructor told them they had to step over a third rail. But if they did, then I'd come back to throw rocks at them. If that was the city's grand scheme, they'd have a mutiny on their hands. YOu all wanted Bloomturd, now you got him. Guess what, shit's about to get REAL bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LexAveExp5 Posted December 4, 2009 Share #21 Posted December 4, 2009 lol i voted for Thompson and the election was very close but nobody supported him from his own party so he really only got the Anti-Bloomberg vote, since nobody really knows anything about him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainzone Posted December 4, 2009 Share #22 Posted December 4, 2009 If the Union struck and they fired everybody oh boy would that be fun. I'd get on the first non NYCT bus outta town and watch the city burn from another place. Those unemployed finance a-holes couldn't drive a bus or operate a train if their lives depended on it. They'd run screaming for mamma the second the schoolcar instructor told them they had to step over a third rail. But if they did, then I'd come back to throw rocks at them. If that was the city's grand scheme, they'd have a mutiny on their hands. YOu all wanted Bloomturd, now you got him. Guess what, shit's about to get REAL bad. Yes, them trying to fire everyone would be a sight being it's over 30,000 employees. Besides the trouble it would cause the city, can you imagine what the worker would do when these pen pushers take away the little lively-hood we have...our house, cars, our kids going to a good school, parents that we take care and depend on us etc.etc. People would actually get hurt, if not killed. When you're dealing with unions, hard working people and their life, it's nothing to toy around with. Right and wrong has to fit in here somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted December 4, 2009 Share #23 Posted December 4, 2009 Yes, them trying to fire everyone would be a sight being it's over 30,000 employees. Besides the trouble it would cause the city, can you imagine what the worker would do when these pen pushers take away the little lively-hood we have...our house, cars, our kids going to a good school, parents that we take care and depend on us etc.etc. People would actually get hurt, if not killed. When you're dealing with unions, hard working people and their life, it's nothing to toy around with. Right and wrong has to fit in here somewhere. Maybe the world needs revolutions from time to time. If that happens, it's going to be interesting seeing every pompous yuppie / muppie / ouppie bankster, lawyer, and lobbyist getting pushed out of buildings and every politician kicked in the teeth and floated up the east river if that happens. The man with nothing to lose has only everything to gain. Because the one thing about the working people is that we still out number those rich cocksuckers. And that's why they want gun control. "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -Thomas Jefferson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainzone Posted December 4, 2009 Share #24 Posted December 4, 2009 Maybe the world needs revolutions from time to time. If that happens, it's going to be interesting seeing every pompous yuppie / muppie / ouppie bankster, lawyer, and lobbyist getting pushed out of buildings and every politician kicked in the teeth and floated up the east river if that happens. The man with nothing to lose has only everything to gain. Because the one thing about the working people is that we still out number those rich cocksuckers. And that's why they want gun control. "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -Thomas Jefferson couldn't have said it better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LexAveExp5 Posted December 8, 2009 Share #25 Posted December 8, 2009 http://www.amny.com/urbanite-1.812039/union-leaders-transit-contract-dispute-could-inspire-direct-action-1.1640477 Union leaders: Transit contract dispute could inspire "direct action" Sunday December 6, 2009 6:54 PM By Heather Haddon A band of union leaders are on a collision course with MTA management. The aggressive new leaders gunning to take over the Transport Workers Union Local 100 are pledging to take action of some sort next month if the MTA continues to fight their raises. “Rather than taking the soft approach, the only thing that will convince the transit authority is direct action,” said John Samuelsen, 42, a track worker who leads the slate challenging the current TWU leadership. Workers in the 35,000-member union voted earlier this year to elect new executives, and ballots in the contentious race will be counted Monday with results expected to be announced by the evening. The contract has become a pivotal issue in the election. An arbitration panel granted workers 11 percent raises over three years, but the MTA is seeking to overturn the contract. A judge is considering the matter and is expected to make a decision in the next month or two, board members said. Curtis Tate, the current TWU president who took over from Roger Toussaint, has organized rallies in response to the spat. In an interview with amNewYork, Samuelsen would not spell out how he would “ratchet up” pressure against the MTA, but said that it would be “significant.” The election is expected to be close, but Samuelsen’s team had an leg up in a partial count earlier this year. well i hope this means rather than a strike, the TWU will be smart about this and expose the MTA's hidden money to the general public the way that the arbitrator did in that 46 page report that i read the day it came out. its the only way to get the public on the union's side and would create political pressure for the to back the f- off of their challenge to the contract :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.