Walder and Samuelsen meet to discuss options

[LexAveExp5]

you know what i always thought would be a good idea for contract negotiations? trying to get a COLA. because even though your general wage increase would be less, you'd still be guaranteed to keep up with inflation! the situation you have now is that you get screwed when times are good and if you get a good raise when times are bad, the public hates you and the appeals your award!!!

 

at the post office we have a COLA system and almost always get a 1.2% general raise on top of that every year. when gas prices were ridiculous we were raking in the dough. now that there's no inflation we get no COLA but we still get our general wage increase. but prices for most big things (like gas and houses) have come down quite a bit anyway so how can you complain? you guys never get the 24% over 3 years anyway lol

[Rutgers Tube]

Anyone willing to sell out the future employees deserves to lose their job. You are not a union member, just a selfish bastard. A god damn union is supposed to protect all members, and not sacrifice some for others. All of you who are willing to sell out our future employees, why don't you get out of the union and be independent contractors instead of union members. You make me sick and deserve the crap you're going through.

 

You are doing exactly what the TA wants you to do morons. Yeah, the new guys aren't here yet, so why give them anything good? Let's take care of what we have. You know what's going to happen if you selfish morons allow this? The union as weak as it is, will fall apart even more to the point where there will no longer be a union and you won't have shit later on. Make a deal with the devil and you deserve the hell you get after. Morons.

 

See now, Crane... this is the type of union-bashing diatribe that I'm not keen on, and I'll speak for myself ONLY (though others may agree with me) that there just isn't a place around here for this sort of rant. Furthermore, your statements are contradictory.

 

A union does protect its members, but it shouldn't protect those that aren't due-paying brothers and sisters. You make these claims that the members are self-serving because they're concerned about their welfare and not the welfare of "future employees," a faulty argument. Future employees are NOT current due-paying members of a union that represents those within the title that they have yet to be hired for. Does that make sense to you? Future employees have not been hired yet - they don't exist to any current employees. They may never exist. Future employees are not on any payroll for their future employer, they do not pay dues to any union, and they should not be directly considered in any negotiations that may arise. Do you worry about maintaining the car that you don't yet own and make payments on? Do you pay for repairs for a house that you don't own? Do you buy diapers, food and clothing for a child that you don't yet have and may never have - ever? The purpose of a union is to protect its current members by working towards achieving common goals. Goals such as improved working conditions, layoff avoidance, the resolution of disputes with a management structure and better benefits.

 

You talk about the union falling apart and becoming independent contractors and making deals with The Devil. You want to see a union dissolve rapidly? Try buying rights for those who may never show up by selling the rights of those who have been showing up faithfully, without question, for years and years. Make that diabolical deal with The Devil, and he'll smile, tell you that you've just made a sound investment, and go back to his lair with the knowledge that you just sold yourself short this time, and will be a much shorter sell each time thereafter. Try making a concession now and giving up a much-needed and much-deserved right at the present time, and then try getting that back during the next negotiation. Go ahead. I challenge you on that. You think it's easy sitting at a table where everyone is in a contest to see whose wallet is fatter so that each person sits higher than the next? You think it's fun breaking out the scales, weighing the "now's" and the "later's," facing having a child who might end up working for the same employer who no longer even thinks about offering the benefits that you gave up because you thought that a trade back then would offer security for this bullshit "future" that you're so concerned about? If you can do all of this without perspiring, getting nauseous and still sleeping well at night... you don't have a conscience.

 

You sit and talk this, that and the third on these forums. Wonderful. Where the hell is the walk? Are you at meetings and rallies and hearings lobbying for the rights of the "unborn" who may end up becoming a stillborn? Are you writing to your union leaders and lawmakers about your concerns? Probably not, because you feel that it's better to whine and complain and insult people that you've never met and know absolutely nothing about on an internet web site then actually do something about it. You're not even vocal, and while I can understand how someone may feel the way you, as if the future is being sold down the road because of present needs, your way of trashing people is a much greater show of greed, self-righteousness and selfishness than any negotiations that I've yet to see or read about.

 

I don't know about you, but my ass is behind my face, so when I walk down the hallway, my face is always ahead of my ass. With that in mind, please answer me this one question:

 

Why should I sell my face to save my ass and be forced to walk backwards through life to always try to stay ahead?

[RTOMan]

See now, Crane... this is the type of union-bashing diatribe that I'm not keen on, and I'll speak for myself ONLY (though others may agree with me) that there just isn't place around here for this sort of rant. Furthermore, your statements are contradictory.

 

A union does protect its members, but it shouldn't protect those that aren't due-paying brothers and sisters. You make these claims that the members are self-serving because they're concerned about their welfare and not the welfare of "future employees," a faulty argument. Future employees are NOT current due-paying members of a union that represents those within the title that they have yet to be hired for. Does that make sense to you? Future employees have not been hired yet - they don't exist to any current employees. They may never exist. Future employees are not on any payroll for their future employer, they do not pay dues to any union, and they should not be directly considered in any negotiations that may arise. Do you worry about maintaining the car that you don't yet own and make payments on? Do you pay for repairs for a house that you don't own? Do you buy diapers, food and clothing for a child that you don't yet have and may never have - ever? The purpose of a union is to protect its current members by working towards achieving common goals. Goals such as improved working conditions, layoff avoidance, the resolution of disputes with a management structure and better benefits.

 

You talk about the union falling apart and becoming independent contractors and making deals with the deal. You want to see a union dissolve rapidly? Try buying rights for those who may never show up by selling the rights of those who have been showing up faithfully, without question, for years and years. Make that diabolical deal with a devil, and he'll smile, tell you that you've just made a sound investment, and go back to his lair with the knowledge that you just sold yourself short this time, and will be a much shorter sell each time thereafter. Try making a concession now and giving up a much-needed and much-deserved right at the present time, and then try getting that back during the next negotiation. Go ahead. I challenge you on that. You think it's easy sitting at a table where everyone is in a contest to see whose wallet is fatter so that each person sits higher than the next? You think it's fun breaking out the scales, weighing the "now's" and the "later's," facing having a child who might end up working for the same employer who no longer even thinks about offering the benefits that you gave up because you thought that a trade back then would offer security for this bullshit "future" that you're so concerned about? If you can do all of this without perspiring, getting nauseous and still sleeping well at night... you don't have a conscience.

 

You sit and talk this, that and the third on these forums. Wonderful. Where the hell is the walk? Are you at meetings and rallies and hearings lobbying for the rights of the "unborn" who may end up becoming a stillborn? Are you writing to your union leaders and lawmakers about your concerns? Probably not, because you feel that it's better to whine and complain and insult people that you've never met and know absolutely nothing about on an internet web site then actually do something about it. You're not even vocal, and while I can understand how someone may feel the way you, as if the future is being sold down the road because of present needs, your way of trashing people is a much greater show of greed, self-righteousness and selfishness than any negotiations that I've yet to see or read about.

 

I don't know about you, but my ass is behind my face, so when I walk down the hallway, my face is always ahead of my ass. With that in mind, please answer me this one question:

 

Why should I sell my face to save my ass and be forced to walk backwards through life to always try to stay ahead?

 

The word is called "Hypocrite" i believe....

 

Yes thats the word.....

[Blatherskite]

See now, Crane... this is the type of union-bashing diatribe that I'm not keen on, and I'll speak for myself ONLY (though others may agree with me) that there just isn't place around here for this sort of rant. Furthermore, your statements are contradictory.

 

A union does protect its members, but it shouldn't protect those that aren't due-paying brothers and sisters. You make these claims that the members are self-serving because they're concerned about their welfare and not the welfare of "future employees," a faulty argument. Future employees are NOT current due-paying members of a union that represents those within the title that they have yet to be hired for. Does that make sense to you? Future employees have not been hired yet - they don't exist to any current employees. They may never exist. Future employees are not on any payroll for their future employer, they do not pay dues to any union, and they should not be directly considered in any negotiations that may arise. Do you worry about maintaining the car that you don't yet own and make payments on? Do you pay for repairs for a house that you don't own? Do you buy diapers, food and clothing for a child that you don't yet have and may never have - ever? The purpose of a union is to protect its current members by working towards achieving common goals. Goals such as improved working conditions, layoff avoidance, the resolution of disputes with a management structure and better benefits.

 

You talk about the union falling apart and becoming independent contractors and making deals with the deal. You want to see a union dissolve rapidly? Try buying rights for those who may never show up by selling the rights of those who have been showing up faithfully, without question, for years and years. Make that diabolical deal with a devil, and he'll smile, tell you that you've just made a sound investment, and go back to his lair with the knowledge that you just sold yourself short this time, and will be a much shorter sell each time thereafter. Try making a concession now and giving up a much-needed and much-deserved right at the present time, and then try getting that back during the next negotiation. Go ahead. I challenge you on that. You think it's easy sitting at a table where everyone is in a contest to see whose wallet is fatter so that each person sits higher than the next? You think it's fun breaking out the scales, weighing the "now's" and the "later's," facing having a child who might end up working for the same employer who no longer even thinks about offering the benefits that you gave up because you thought that a trade back then would offer security for this bullshit "future" that you're so concerned about? If you can do all of this without perspiring, getting nauseous and still sleeping well at night... you don't have a conscience.

 

You sit and talk this, that and the third on these forums. Wonderful. Where the hell is the walk? Are you at meetings and rallies and hearings lobbying for the rights of the "unborn" who may end up becoming a stillborn? Are you writing to your union leaders and lawmakers about your concerns? Probably not, because you feel that it's better to whine and complain and insult people that you've never met and know absolutely nothing about on an internet web site then actually do something about it. You're not even vocal, and while I can understand how someone may feel the way you, as if the future is being sold down the road because of present needs, your way of trashing people is a much greater show of greed, self-righteousness and selfishness than any negotiations that I've yet to see or read about.

 

I don't know about you, but my ass is behind my face, so when I walk down the hallway, my face is always ahead of my ass. With that in mind, please answer me this one question:

 

Why should I sell my face to save my ass and be forced to walk backwards through life to always try to stay ahead?

 

 

 

With that response I would vote that you are walking backwards. Did you actually read what I said? Where did I say that the union will become private contractors? That's not what I said. I said "All of you who are willing to sell out our future employees, why don't you get out of the union and be independent contractors instead of union members." I was suggesting to the employees willing to sell out future employee that maybe they should become private contractors instead of union members since they don't give a damn about anyone but themselves.

 

Why is this layoff mess happening? Could it be because of previous union members voting for that contract to allow future layoffs? What does it matter? They weren't current due paying union members so the current members got what they wanted, and by the time the layoffs could happen, they would either be long retired or have enough seniority that they won't get laid off. Hmm sounds a lot like what you're saying. Screw any future employees. Why not make this an exclusive union and not take on any future members? Now your ass won't need to be cut off. It will be nice and thin.

 

Willing to sell someone else out to benefit yourself only is a testement to someone's character, or rather their lack of character and lack of human instincts other than spoiled child selfishness.

 

And who is bashing the union? I'm saying to the employees willing to sell out that what they are doing is against what a union does and was desigined for, to protect all current and future union members by giving them all the same equal rights, benefits and work rules. How long do you think any union will last when different member have vastly different rights? Resentment happens, and the union slowly starts to be divided and splits. MTA's thinking? Divide and conquer. They are starting to attempt to implement the 1st phase. Divide. The sellouts are walking right into it like blind rats. Conquer will come next and very quickly once division is successful. You don't save your present by killing your future. Some of you have a lot of growing up to do to understand what being a team is and what equality in a union is. Do you even know what union means? It means coming together and growing, not get rid of some parts to keep some other parts in a somewhat liveable state.

 

Before you criticize, try actually reading what someone is saying. Anyone that thanked you for your comment isn't that bright and shouldn't be in a union.

[RTOMan]

Before you criticize, try actually reading what someone is saying. Anyone that thanked you for your comment isn't that bright and shouldn't be in a union.

 

A union which im glad you wont ever be a part of again...

[Blatherskite]

Before you criticize, try actually reading what someone is saying. Anyone that thanked you for your comment isn't that bright and shouldn't be in a union.

 

A union which im glad you wont ever be a part of again...

 

Thank you RTblowman for proving to me yet again why your statements aren't worth responding to. I am in the union, oh but I'm white, a racist like you wouldn't understand that, but it is what it is. You've made some of the least educated dumbest comments on this site. Thank you for continuing.

[Blatherskite]

Before you criticize, try actually reading what someone is saying. Anyone that thanked you for your comment isn't that bright and shouldn't be in a union.

 

A union which im glad you wont ever be a part of again...

 

And I won't waste my time responding to your idiotic remarks anymore after this one, nor will I even bother reading anything you have to say, so don't bother responding. Responding to, or reading what a fool like you have to say is a waste of time. Just like you are so in tune with everthing, you had no clue about the second round of layoffs set for this month, you were trying to act as if primo were the idiot. Want to find the idiot rtofool? Look in the mirror.

[RTOMan]

Thank you RTblowman for proving to me yet again why your statements aren't worth responding to. I am in the union, oh but I'm white, a racist like you wouldn't understand that, but it is what it is. You've made some of the least educated dumbest comments on this site. Thank you for continuing.

 

You commented though..

 

So I own you.....

 

I dont care what race you are either and Idiot is an idiot....

 

Which you are so please dont let me stop you from being an Idiot.

 

I dont want harry to nuke this thread because its a good one so i will just use this button here to make your dumb and obvious childish posts "dissapear"..

 

Watch....

 

The Ignore button is a great tool to use on tools like you..

 

Have a nice day!

[rr4567]

The Ignore button is a great tool to use on tools like you..

 

 

But how do you use the Ignore button on this:

 

 

[East New York]

Ok now let's tone it down guys! We can agree to disagree without it getting ugly. Unless threads get totally out of hand, we will try to leave them open, but Infractions, Restrictions, and Bans will be issued, and strictly enforced.

 

With that response I would vote that you are walking backwards. Did you actually read what I said? Where did I say that the union will become private contractors? That's not what I said. I said "All of you who are willing to sell out our future employees, why don't you get out of the union and be independent contractors instead of union members." I was suggesting to the employees willing to sell out future employee that maybe they should become private contractors instead of union members since they don't give a damn about anyone but themselves.

 

Before you criticize, try actually reading what someone is saying. Anyone that thanked you for your comment isn't that bright and shouldn't be in a union.

 

Now I see where you are coming from, but I don't think you are getting the major point RTO is trying to make. Now don't think we are jumping on you or anything, its just that current Union members are getting shafted, so why should they have to suffer just to make sure the people behind them will be well off? Yes it may be slightly selfish, but look at the airline industry. Do you think they WANT to sell out future members? Of course they don't. That's not the point. The point is the here and now. Everyone has to worry about themselves, and their families. I like to think of myself as a good person who will always help out a fellow man in any way that I can. But I also didn't get where I am in life worried about Tom, Dick and Harry's well being. I have to wish them the best, and do me! So why shouldn't current MTA employees who many are on the verge of loosing jobs, and many who will inevitably loose their jobs as well worry about who's coming behind them, when they may not even be able to afford something off the dollar menu in the near future! I know its harsh, but its a dog-eat-dog world sometimes.

[RTOMan]

Thats why i did what i did East New York im not getting into a childish debate hence the Ignore button.

 

Like i said this is a good thread and i dont want it nuked.:tup:

[Blatherskite]

Ok now let's tone it down guys! We can agree to disagree without it getting ugly. Unless threads get totally out of hand, we will try to leave them open, but Infractions, Restrictions, and Bans will be issued, and strictly enforced.

 

 

 

Now I see where you are coming from, but I don't think you are getting the major point RTO is trying to make. Now don't think we are jumping on you or anything, its just that current Union members are getting shafted, so why should they have to suffer just to make sure the people behind them will be well off? Yes it may be slightly selfish, but look at the airline industry. Do you think they WANT to sell out future members? Of course they don't. That's not the point. The point is the here and now. Everyone has to worry about themselves, and their families. I like to think of myself as a good person who will always help out a fellow man in any way that I can. But I also didn't get where I am in life worried about Tom, Dick and Harry's well being. I have to wish them the best, and do me! So why shouldn't current MTA employees who many are on the verge of loosing jobs, and many who will inevitably loose their jobs as well worry about who's coming behind them, when they may not even be able to afford something off the dollar menu in the near future! I know its harsh, but its a dog-eat-dog world sometimes.

 

rto never makes a point, he just makes obnoxious responses to people he disagrees with or says word like a 1985 rap reject to people he agrees with. The last time I heard a fool say word was Vanilla Ice in Ice Ice Baby in 1990. It doesn't matter anyway since I won't be wasting my time reading anything from that racist.

 

The point no one seems to be getting is that the reason these layoffs are happening is because of union members like the ones saying sell out the new guys, give me what I want. Guess what? The ones getting laid off were the former new guys getting sold out by the older guys who let Toussaint put in that layoff clause in the first place, so the ones about to get laid off that are saying sell out the next guys, have no remorse from me or other real union members because they are just as bad as the previous sell outs. When you have no unification in a union, you have no union.

 

You can blame Toussaint all you want for the layoff clause, but in the end the union members ratified it. If you don't know what you are voting for don't vote. When you don't learn from history, don't cry about being a victim because of it. This is exactly what the MTA wants. They want the members to sell the future out so each contract they can screw members more and more to the point that the word union member is just a euphemism for paid slave, and nothing else. It's because of the sell out scabs that unions are becoming weaker and weaker. It's because of the selfishness that many Transit positions will eventually be phased out. What are you going to do when the next MTA gestapo attack comes and there are not going to be any more new employees? Are you going to say sell them out? There won't be any left. Then the newer guys will be sold out by the older guys. You have to have no character to honestly call yourself a union member and support the screwing of any other union member, present or future.

 

It's the stupid fraternity mentality down here that screws everything up. The you have to pay your dues BS. If I went through hell, then you have to go through it as well. I don't think that way. Why? I have a soul. If I went through hell and you are a new employee, I will take you under my wing and tell you what I went through, so you can either find out a way to avoid it, or better deal with it. What's the point of everyone having to go through the same hell if they don't have to? That's just pointless and stupid. Real union members make sacrifices for the good of the entire union, not just themselves.

[SubwayGuy]

But how do you use the Ignore button on this:

 

 

B)

 

Chill with the attempted "jokes" and let the people here work out their differences or agree to walk away. You do this in every thread, it's not funny, and it's certainly not constructive.

[Blatherskite]

Subwayguy, you are one of the few people here that makes sense most of the time. Thanks for coming in and trying to kill some of the immaturity. Some people think that their age doesn't reflect their immaturity, but they don't understand how immature their responses are.

 

 

Another thing about what is going on right now with the MTA and the Union is this. The union is like a husband that's cheating on his wife. The cheating is the layoff. If the wife finds out about this, the husband will lose a lot (union members will lose their jobs). The MTA is the blackmailer that has this layoff clause (cheating) dirt on the husband. The MTA is saying, sell out your family and friends, or I tell your wife everything. The union sells out to keep the MTA quiet. Wait, the MTA decided the price he received (extreme pay cuts, union givebacks, etc.) were to low. Now the MTA wants more, or it's threatened to tell the husband's wife. He already gave her a little taste (the first layoffs) now she is suspicious of the husband. The husband now has his back against the wall, and will do whatever the MTA wants it to do.

 

The US says it doesn't negotiate with terrorists. The Union needs to say, we don't negotiate with scumbags. We will fight you as one, because if we are not one, we are nothing. It's good you sellouts weren't fighting with Washington during the revolutionary war, or else we would still be a colony.

[Alex L.]

You can blame Toussaint all you want for the layoff clause, but in the end the union members ratified it.

 

I'm fairly sure that the lay-off clause appeared in the contract that was voted down, struck over and given to TWU via an arbitrator.

[Blatherskite]

Letters to the Editor April 9, 2010

 

No-Layoff Clause Vital

To the Editor:

 

Transport Workers Union Local 100 member Brother Percival Thomas in his March 12 letter to the editor attacked Local 100 President John Samuelsen for having joined together with the last Local 100 president, Roger Toussaint, who both had attacked Willie James after the then-Local 100 president negotiated a no-layoff clause in the contract extension of 1996. As one of the five Local 100 and TWU officials who helped negotiate that contract extension, I must respond.

 

When Willie James took office in 1996, hundreds of our union brothers had been laid off, and as he traveled to Transit Authority locations speaking to workers, he informed them that the most-pressing problem was job security i.e., getting our laid-off members back to work. He was receiving the calls and letters from these families, and he would not rest until he got them back to work.

 

In the spring of 1996, in emergency around-the-clock negotiations, after some preliminary discussions, the Willie James administration negotiated the no-layoff clause, which returned all of the hundreds of laid-off union members back to work. We were aware that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in the future could cry broke, and lay off these same or other Local 100 members. We openly discussed that possibility before we developed our contract language and signed off.

 

But more importantly, Brother Thomas, you should stop telling the membership that the union cannot negotiate with management to prevent layoffs. Clearly, that’s exactly what President James did.

 

Just ask yourself, Local 100 members, if the no-layoff clause had no legal bind on the MTA, why was it at the top of its list to remove this clause during Roger Toussaint’s first contract negotiation? Further, it should be clear that if the no-layoff clause had not been given back to management, our membership would not be faced with this problem and the MTA would have to cut its top-heavy management ranks and other areas and keep its hands off our union membership.

 

President James’s accomplishments should not continue to be belittled, especially one that protected our members’ jobs. Finally, Brother Thomas, you should ask yourself why you are making arguments that management must be happy with, in terms of your position that the union cannot reach an agreement with the MTA to stop layoffs.

 

The bottom line is, after demonstrations and meetings, the new union leadership must be able to negotiate with management and reach an agreement to stop these layoffs.

 

ARNOLD CHERRY

Retired Vice President

Local 100 and TWU Executive Council

[Blatherskite]

1K layoffs on track to save MTA $50M

By TOM NAMAKO, Transit Reporter

 

Last Updated: 1:29 PM, February 23, 2010

 

Posted: 2:46 AM, February 23, 2010

 

Comments: 16

 

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/layoffs_on_track_to_save_mta_aaTjq31THmj9Ib57UwZ4hM#ixzz0ppOrksj7

 

The cash-strapped MTA is set to announce a plan today to lay off more than 1,000 employees this year in an attempt to dig out from a $700 million budget shortfall, sources said.

 

Officials expect to save $50 million from the planned cuts, which will affect station agents as well as administrators.

 

About 600 managers from all of the agency's divisions -- including NYC Transit -- will receive pink slips over the next several days, sources said.

 

Most of those workers are not unionized, and the layoffs will range from high-ranking managers to lower-level jobs, MTA board and agency sources said.

 

 

Felix Bryant

Manned token booth

And transit officials also plan to ditch 450 station agents at a much faster pace than what was announced in December, a board source said.

 

Those workers mostly belong to the 35,000-member Transport Workers Union.

 

"[MTA chairman] Jay Walder envisions a system devoid of workers, and riders are going to pay a heavy price for this philosophy in the case of an emergency," said TWU president John Samuelsen.

 

He added he wasn't alerted to the layoffs by MTA brass.

 

But he did say that the previous TWU bosses -- led by Roger Toussaint, who was at the helm during the 2005 holiday-season transit strike -- gave up a clause during contract negotiations in 2002 that prevented its workers from being canned.

"The union will fight to defend its membership, but our position has been substantially weakened since previous administrations gave up a no-layoff clause in 2002," Samuelsen said.

 

An MTA source said in-house lawyers have given Walder the all-clear to "accelerate" laying off the station agents, instead of relying on the process of attrition.

 

Samuelsen said the current contract does have a clause that says workers can be shifted to other jobs, and will use that language to try and keep his members on the payroll.

 

Bean counters from consulting firm Accenture have been analyzing MTA's headcount for weeks as the agency struggles with a massive budget hole caused by lower-than-expected tax revenues and cuts in state aid.

 

At a committee meeting yesterday, board members listened as finance officials described real-estate tax revenues slipping even further than what was projected.

 

In total, that income is down by about $5.2 million more than expected, according to agency documents.

 

One of the first promises Walder made after taking over last year was to reduce the 70,000-person workforce and cut down on extreme overtime costs.

 

To make up for the massive budget deficit, the agency has already proposed eliminating free student MetroCards and scaling back service for disabled riders.

 

On top of that, officials want to implement a severe schedule of service cuts that will take dozens of buses off the road, eliminate the M and W lines, and reroute the V.

 

Those proposed cuts will go before a public hearing next month.

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/layoffs_on_track_to_save_mta_aaTjq31THmj9Ib57UwZ4hM#ixzz0ppOQYdbj

 

 

No offence TSS LaBianca, but you are mistaken.

[Blatherskite]

I think this is something worth striking over and having intense negotiations more than fighting to have Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday be a Transit holiday.

[East New York]

I think this is something worth striking over and having intense negotiations more than fighting to have Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday be a Transit holiday.

 

Sure its worth fighting for........ But MLK day is a federal holiday! So what are you talking about?

[Blatherskite]

Sure its worth fighting for........ But MLK day is a federal holiday! So what are you talking about?

 

After the strike Toussaint announced that MLK's birthday was now a Transit paid holiday and acted as if he had the ultimate triumph and the strike was worth it. There are not very many paid holidays at Transit. I think they are MLK day Memorial day Independence day Labor day Veterans day Thanksgiving and Christmas I think. Correct me if I am wrong people, or if I am missing any.

[roadpilot]

You forgot Lincolns B day, Presidents day, New Years day, Thanksgiving

[SpikeMauler]

Letters to the Editor April 9, 2010

 

No-Layoff Clause Vital

To the Editor:

 

Transport Workers Union Local 100 member Brother Percival Thomas in his March 12 letter to the editor attacked Local 100 President John Samuelsen for having joined together with the last Local 100 president, Roger Toussaint, who both had attacked Willie James after the then-Local 100 president negotiated a no-layoff clause in the contract extension of 1996. As one of the five Local 100 and TWU officials who helped negotiate that contract extension, I must respond.

 

When Willie James took office in 1996, hundreds of our union brothers had been laid off, and as he traveled to Transit Authority locations speaking to workers, he informed them that the most-pressing problem was job security i.e., getting our laid-off members back to work. He was receiving the calls and letters from these families, and he would not rest until he got them back to work.

 

In the spring of 1996, in emergency around-the-clock negotiations, after some preliminary discussions, the Willie James administration negotiated the no-layoff clause, which returned all of the hundreds of laid-off union members back to work. We were aware that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in the future could cry broke, and lay off these same or other Local 100 members. We openly discussed that possibility before we developed our contract language and signed off.

 

But more importantly, Brother Thomas, you should stop telling the membership that the union cannot negotiate with management to prevent layoffs. Clearly, that’s exactly what President James did.

 

Just ask yourself, Local 100 members, if the no-layoff clause had no legal bind on the MTA, why was it at the top of its list to remove this clause during Roger Toussaint’s first contract negotiation? Further, it should be clear that if the no-layoff clause had not been given back to management, our membership would not be faced with this problem and the MTA would have to cut its top-heavy management ranks and other areas and keep its hands off our union membership.

 

President James’s accomplishments should not continue to be belittled, especially one that protected our members’ jobs. Finally, Brother Thomas, you should ask yourself why you are making arguments that management must be happy with, in terms of your position that the union cannot reach an agreement with the MTA to stop layoffs.

 

The bottom line is, after demonstrations and meetings, the new union leadership must be able to negotiate with management and reach an agreement to stop these layoffs.

 

ARNOLD CHERRY

Retired Vice President

Local 100 and TWU Executive Council

 

Willie James was the worst union president in the history of local 100. He was clueless... I also don't remember any layoffs in 1996. Which titles were laid off? Traffic checkers maybe? Does anyone remember this? I remember the TA was threatening layoffs big time but I don't remember them actually laying anyone off. James re-opened the contract and gave back raises due to the TA threatening layoffs due to being hundreds of millions in the red. I guess Willie and his staff didn't do their homework cause it was later found out that the TA actually were hundreds of millions in black. So Willie gave back raises and recieved a no layoff clause from an agency swimming in hundreds of millions in surplus. Clueless Willie also opened the door for WEP workers to clean stations for their welfare checks. That move cost stations 600 cleaner jobs.

[Blatherskite]

Willie James was the worst union president in the history of local 100. He was clueless... I also don't remember any layoffs in 1996. Which titles were laid off? Traffic checkers maybe? Does anyone remember this? I remember the TA was threatening layoffs big time but I don't remember them actually laying anyone off. James re-opened the contract and gave back raises due to the TA threatening layoffs due to being hundreds of millions in the red. I guess Willie and his staff didn't do their homework cause it was later found out that the TA actually were hundreds of millions in black. So Willie gave back raises and recieved a no layoff clause from an agency swimming in hundreds of millions in surplus. Clueless Willie also opened the door for WEP workers to clean stations for their welfare checks. That move cost stations 600 cleaner jobs.

 

I think it's a tie between him and Toussaint, each gets the tie for their own reasons of failure. Lets see if Sammy can fix it. In reality he can't do much worse.

[SpikeMauler]

After the strike Toussaint announced that MLK's birthday was now a Transit paid holiday and acted as if he had the ultimate triumph and the strike was worth it. There are not very many paid holidays at Transit. I think they are MLK day Memorial day Independence day Labor day Veterans day Thanksgiving and Christmas I think. Correct me if I am wrong people, or if I am missing any.

 

New Years Day, Presidents Day, Lincoln's Birth Day

[cdi919]

Willie James was the worst union president in the history of local 100. He was clueless... I also don't remember any layoffs in 1996. Which titles were laid off? Traffic checkers maybe? Does anyone remember this? I remember the TA was threatening layoffs big time but I don't remember them actually laying anyone off. James re-opened the contract and gave back raises due to the TA threatening layoffs due to being hundreds of millions in the red. I guess Willie and his staff didn't do their homework cause it was later found out that the TA actually were hundreds of millions in black. So Willie gave back raises and recieved a no layoff clause from an agency swimming in hundreds of millions in surplus. Clueless Willie also opened the door for WEP workers to clean stations for their welfare checks. That move cost stations 600 cleaner jobs.

 

he also messed up the health care funds,back when the union used to run it.