MTA, Transit Workers Union Still In Negotiations After Contract Expires

[MHV9218]

^ This is like talking to a six-year old. Just babbling nationalism at this point.

 

@SubwayGuy: I fundamentally agree with your analysis of the homeowner situation, but I do think that even a drop in the bucket with regards to that $400 is still a worthy drop, and this is only emblematic of the GOP's larger obsession with worsening the political and economic standing of the American middle class. The irony is that Trump did not even run on that sort of platform--he was far more populist, and even pushed middle-of-the-road policies and reforms (like capital gains taxes) that both sides of the aisle would agree with (though his virulent prejudices were not to be forgiven from any angle). But now that he has been elected, a pivot to the typical Republican platform combined with alt-right racial prejudices has left us with the worst of all combinations. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

^ This is like talking to a six-year old. Just babbling nationalism at this point.

 

@SubwayGuy: I fundamentally agree with your analysis of the homeowner situation, but I do think that even a drop in the bucket with regards to that $400 is still a worthy drop, and this is only emblematic of the GOP's larger obsession with worsening the political and economic standing of the American middle class. The irony is that Trump did not even run on that sort of platform--he was far more populist, and even pushed middle-of-the-road policies and reforms (like capital gains taxes) that both sides of the aisle would agree with (though his virulent prejudices were not to be forgiven from any angle). But now that he has been elected, a pivot to the typical Republican platform combined with alt-right racial prejudices has left us with the worst of all combinations. 

Yes because supporting expensive social programs for people that can't really afford to own a home is just what we need... We have to reign in costs across the field.  Ensure that salaries aren't bloated... Ensure that costs get under control so that we can remain competitive.  That's what it comes down to.  We can't have social programs bogging down our economy and our ability to grow and remain the #1 power.

[GojiMet86]

For the last time, you'd have to ask him.  I'm not part of his administration nor am I inside his head.  The people whose jobs he saved surely don't care.  They can continue to provide for their families, and as an American, I think that's a good thing.  America first...

 

I know you're fond of writing to your politicians.

 

So you, as a citizen who placed trust on him, ask him: "Why did you lie?"

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I know you're fond of writing to your politicians.

 

So you, as a citizen who placed trust on him, ask him: "Why did you lie?"

I don't trust any politician.  I voted for him because I agree with his ideology from a fiscal standpoint.  I'm a protectionist like he is and agree that we need to reign in spending and focus on things that work for America and Americans and make America competitive again.  I'm not going to waste my time worrying about something so trivial, something that Obama should've addressed to begin with when Carrier initially said they were sending ALL of those jobs overseas.  I'm focusing on the big picture, and so far I've been pleased.  Let the work continue tomorrow to make America great again!

 

What I care about is a president that has the balls to tell it like it is and someone who will to stand up for America.  We haven't had a president that like in decades, and it's refreshing to see someone fighting for this country instead of selling us out.  Obama was all talk and no action....

[GojiMet86]

I don't trust any politician.  I voted for him because I agree with his ideology from a fiscal standpoint.  I'm a protectionist like he is and agree that we need to reign in spending and focus on things that work for America and Americans and make America competitive again.  I'm not going to waste my time worrying about something so trivial, something that Obama should've addressed to begin with when Carrier initially said they were sending ALL of those jobs overseas.  I'm focusing on the big picture, and so far I've been pleased.  Let the work continue tomorrow to make America great again!

 

What I care about is a president that has the balls to tell it like it is and someone who will to stand up for America.  We haven't had a president that like in decades, and it's refreshing to see someone fighting for this country instead of selling us out.  Obama was all talk and no action....

 

 

He has no balls if he lied about those jobs being saved. 1600 jobs lost isn't trivial.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

He has no balls if he lied about those jobs being saved. 1600 jobs lost isn't trivial.

Whatever the number is, it's better than no jobs being saved at all. Your beloved Obama was more than prepared to let all of those jobs go to Mexico before Trump stepped in, so please. Your attempt at "accountability" is pathetic.  

[GojiMet86]

Whatever the number is, it's better than no jobs being saved at all. Your beloved Obama was more than prepared to let all of those jobs go to Mexico before Trump stepped in, so please. Your attempt at "accountability" is pathetic.  

 

Wow, real comfort for the union workers that really thought they were going to keep their jobs. I'd love to see you tell them what you told me. Spoken like a true businessman.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Wow, real comfort for the union workers that really thought they were going to keep their jobs. I'd love to see you tell them what you told me. Spoken like a true businessman.

The union has to be realistic... We are seeing what happens economically when unions aren't realistic.  You are seeing it in France and other western countries.  There are limits in what companies can afford, and if the U.S. is going to be competitive against the Chinas or the Mexicos or what have you, we have to keep salaries and other benefit packages in line.  However, I DO get that the cost of living is rising, and that's why it's important that we focus on tax cuts to put more money back into the pockets of middle class Americans.  I also believe that we have to reduce social programs and handouts.  Get people that are able to work out in the field EARNING their pay.  Enough with the handouts... I don't think that we should be supplementing the poor and I have no gripes saying it.  I've busted my @ss for years working to support myself and those who can work should do the same and pay their fair share.  We had eight years of them and it has to stop.  Reduce social programs, allocate those funds for other things that actually help our economy instead of draining it.  Look at Germany... Their economy was in the toilet because they were giving out money left and right to people who were unemployed and simply refused to look for work.  When Germany started cutting social programs and getting rid of the endless handouts and forcing those people to earn their keep, their economy turned around. 

 

We have to do the same thing here.  That doesn't mean that I support gutting social security or programs designed to help the elderly or the less fortunate, but we cannot progress giving endless handouts to be able bodied people who can work.  We also need tax reform and tax simplification to ensure that people are paying their fair share, which includes the poor.

[GojiMet86]

The union has to be realistic... We are seeing what happens economically when unions aren't realistic.  You are seeing it in France and other western countries.  There are limits in what companies can afford, and if the U.S. is going to be competitive against the Chinas or the Mexicos or what have you, we have to keep salaries and other benefit packages in line.  However, I DO get that the cost of living is rising, and that's why it's important that we focus on tax cuts to put more money back into the pockets of middle class Americans.  I also believe that we have to reduce social programs and handouts.  Get people that are able to work out in the field EARNING their pay.  Enough with the handouts... I don't think that we should be supplementing the poor and I have no gripes saying it.  I've busted my @ss for years working to support myself and those who can work should do the same and pay their fair share.  We had eight years of them and it has to stop.  Reduce social programs, allocate those funds for other things that actually help our economy instead of draining it.  Look at Germany... Their economy was in the toilet because they were giving out money left and right to people who were unemployed and simply refused to look for work.  When Germany started cutting social programs and getting rid of the endless handout and forcing those people to earn their keep, their economy turned around. 

 

We have to do the same thing here.  That doesn't mean that I support gutting social security or programs designed to help the elderly or the less fortunate, but we cannot progress giving endless handouts to be able bodied people who can work.  

 

 

And what happens to those people? What's your solution? It's an incredible coincidence that everyone else suffers but you.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

And what happens to those people? What's your solution? It's an incredible coincidence that everyone else suffers but you.

I already gave a solution.  

[GojiMet86]

I already gave a solution.  

 

That's a hope, not a real world solution.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

That's a hope, not a real world solution.

It's what Trump is looking to implement... Cutting welfare, taxes and simplifying our tax code... All things that are doable and realistic... Cutting welfare was something he noted during his inauguration address. 

 

 

 

We will build new roads and highways and bridges and airports and tunnels and railways all across our wonderful nation. We will get our people off of welfare and back to work, rebuilding our country with American hands and American labor.

Source: http://time.com/4640707/donald-trump-inauguration-speech-transcript/

[GojiMet86]

It's what Trump is looking to implement... Cutting welfare, taxes and simplifying our tax code... All things that are doable and realistic... Cutting welfare was something he noted during his inauguration address. 

 

Source: http://time.com/4640707/donald-trump-inauguration-speech-transcript/

 

And what will happen when does jobs don't materialize? Then what?

[Via Garibaldi 8]

And what will happen when does jobs don't materialize? Then what?

More speculation... 

[GojiMet86]

More speculation... 

 

I don't know. 1600 workers have lost their jobs already.

[SubwayGuy]

^ This is like talking to a six-year old. Just babbling nationalism at this point.

 

@SubwayGuy: I fundamentally agree with your analysis of the homeowner situation, but I do think that even a drop in the bucket with regards to that $400 is still a worthy drop, and this is only emblematic of the GOP's larger obsession with worsening the political and economic standing of the American middle class. The irony is that Trump did not even run on that sort of platform--he was far more populist, and even pushed middle-of-the-road policies and reforms (like capital gains taxes) that both sides of the aisle would agree with (though his virulent prejudices were not to be forgiven from any angle). But now that he has been elected, a pivot to the typical Republican platform combined with alt-right racial prejudices has left us with the worst of all combinations. 

 

But the issue is that's using taxpayer dollars to subsidize the middle class, and the middle class already faces the highest burden of taxes relative to their total wealth of any social class.

 

Capital gains taxes reform does not have bipartisan support, unless you're talking about how both parties want to keep preferential rates for capital gains so that rich people (many of whom make most of their money passively from investing) can continue to enjoy preferential tax treatment as compared to those who actually go out and work for their money.

[SubwayGuy]

The union has to be realistic... We are seeing what happens economically when unions aren't realistic.  You are seeing it in France and other western countries.  There are limits in what companies can afford, and if the U.S. is going to be competitive against the Chinas or the Mexicos or what have you, we have to keep salaries and other benefit packages in line.  However, I DO get that the cost of living is rising, and that's why it's important that we focus on tax cuts to put more money back into the pockets of middle class Americans.  I also believe that we have to reduce social programs and handouts.  Get people that are able to work out in the field EARNING their pay.  Enough with the handouts... I don't think that we should be supplementing the poor and I have no gripes saying it.  I've busted my @ss for years working to support myself and those who can work should do the same and pay their fair share.  We had eight years of them and it has to stop.  Reduce social programs, allocate those funds for other things that actually help our economy instead of draining it.  Look at Germany... Their economy was in the toilet because they were giving out money left and right to people who were unemployed and simply refused to look for work.  When Germany started cutting social programs and getting rid of the endless handouts and forcing those people to earn their keep, their economy turned around. 

 

We have to do the same thing here.  That doesn't mean that I support gutting social security or programs designed to help the elderly or the less fortunate, but we cannot progress giving endless handouts to be able bodied people who can work.  We also need tax reform and tax simplification to ensure that people are paying their fair share, which includes the poor.

 

The problem is that unions are the only mechanism by which working and middle class people have been able to see results.

 

What big business has done is pit American workers against modern day slavery in third world banana republics, and then turn around, and through their paid-for friends in media say, "See, this is why unions are bad!" and blame the union for the outsourced jobs.

 

The fact that you had full time workers at Wal-Mart getting public benefits because Wal-Mart paid them so little illustrates the problem. That's a taxpayer funded subsidy of Wal-Mart profits...because Wal-Mart should not be able to do that in the name of greater profits, and then sic the taxpayers with the bill for the fact the employee can't get out of poverty on that substandard pay.

 

Whereas a responsible government would have, through tariffs and protectionist initiatives, made sourcing goods from underdeveloped third world banana republics that don't support their own working or middle classes, financially un-feasible for American businesses.

 

But the government has been paid to look the other way.

 

Unions aren't the problem.

 

If unions are so bad, then why are the plutocrats rushing to unionize through super PAC's and partisan foundations designed to manipulate public policy in their favor? More importantly, why can't people call a spade a spade in this, and see them for what they are?

 

You know what acting out and demanding better treatment gets a worker without a union? Fired, and replaced on the cheap...without even a guarantee that the replacement will be a US citizen or paying US taxes. That's a very real problem and it's been the narrative for 35 years.

 

You spin a good yarn about eliminating the number of people on welfare by making them work, but what about people who work hard and still qualify for benefits because their jobs pay them so little? What about people who work as much as they are allowed, but can't get enough hours to pull themselves up? What about people like me who work incredibly hard and just want to get ahead in life, and who benefit from financial savvy, but are always swimming upstream in greater and greater currents because the further I get the more they take away from me?

 

There are a lot of incredibly stupid people on welfare and you see them mostly cuz you live in a city, and that's where they tend to be concentrated. But the majority of welfare earners are white, live in very poor areas, and many of them do work odd jobs as much as possible. Remember the broader picture here, we're not just talking about NYC with these issues.

 

I don't support subsidizing high risk loans to increase homeownership. In fact, if you want to make real estate more affordable, the best thing that can be done is place a moratorium on all sales of residential real estate to non US citizens unless they declare that it will become their primary residence in an attempt to apply for citizenship (in which case limit them to only the one property). And force them to sell it if they make it not their primary residence, or generate any rental real estate income from it at any point. That alone would stem the tide of foreigners snapping up the most valuable real estate in the country and profitting off OUR PEOPLE who legitimately need a place to live via high rents.

[SubwayGuy]

It's what Trump is looking to implement... Cutting welfare, taxes and simplifying our tax code... All things that are doable and realistic... Cutting welfare was something he noted during his inauguration address.

 

Ah yes, "simplifying the tax code". I love that one. Usually right around now is where some political dolt will get on TV and talk about the flat tax, or some other "benefits the rich" tax initiative.

 

Want to simplify the tax code? Lower all rates, and limit deductions.

 

Rich people love tax deductions. Because tax deductions are actually a form of regressive tax policy, rather than progressive. Let me explain, and I'm intentionally going to keep this example simple because anyone who's ever tried to do their own taxes knows it never is this easy. But the principle I'm demonstrating still holds true in real world examples:

 

Suppose two people have taxable income. Both are single.

 

Person A: $10,000

Person B: $10,000,000

 

OK. The tax rates are tiered. Person A and person B both pay the exact same tax rate (for 2016) on the first $9,275 of their income. This is a fact and you can look it up HERE ON THE IRS WEBSITE. This actually holds true of any two taxpayers as they progress through each of the tax brackets, until one of the two being compared can't reach the top of a bracket, at which point no further tax is owed.

 

So to simplify, person A pays $927.50 in taxes, plus 15% of the amount earned above $9,275. Person A Total Tax Bill: $1,036.25

 

Person B goes through all the other brackets since they make so much more. I won't list them here, you can click on the website to see them, but I will do the math for you and tell you that Person B Total Tax Bill: $3,916,169.95

 

Deduction time

Now, suppose each of them made the same donation to a qualifying charity: $100.

 

Person A gets to reduce their taxable income by $100. Since they are in the 15% tax bracket at their income level, and the deduction doesn't drop them into a different one, Person A reduces their tax bill by $15.

 

Person B also gets to reduce their taxable income by $100. Since they are in the 39.6 tax bracket at their income level, and the deduction doesn't drop them into a different one, Person B reduces their tax bill by $39.60.

 

So for making the same donation to charity, the rich person benefits more.

 

The ultimate way to fix the tax code would be to increase rates on very high earners through creating additional brackets. There is no way that someone making $500,000 / year should be paying the same marginal tax rate as someone making over a million dollars a year. Secondly, the Alternative Minimum Tax wouldn't be necessary with a fair tax code, and thirdly, eliminating tax deductions or phasing more of them out at higher income levels would prevent plutocrats from benefitting more from the same tax avoiding behaviors as middle class people.

 

Or, perhaps, make tax deductions bottom up instead of top down. Deduct from the first income, not the last...so both the poor and rich person reduce their tax bill by $15 in the above scenario.

 

But they don't want that. They want to talk flat tax because, if implemented, that would save rich people a lot more money. It would also put a lot of accountants, who by and large aren't in the plutocrat sphere, out of work.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The problem is that unions are the only mechanism by which working and middle class people have been able to see results.

 

What big business has done is pit American workers against modern day slavery in third world banana republics, and then turn around, and through their paid-for friends in media say, "See, this is why unions are bad!" and blame the union for the outsourced jobs.

 

The fact that you had full time workers at Wal-Mart getting public benefits because Wal-Mart paid them so little illustrates the problem. That's a taxpayer funded subsidy of Wal-Mart profits...because Wal-Mart should not be able to do that in the name of greater profits, and then sic the taxpayers with the bill for the fact the employee can't get out of poverty on that substandard pay.

 

Whereas a responsible government would have, through tariffs and protectionist initiatives, made sourcing goods from underdeveloped third world banana republics that don't support their own working or middle classes, financially un-feasible for American businesses.

 

But the government has been paid to look the other way.

 

Unions aren't the problem.

 

If unions are so bad, then why are the plutocrats rushing to unionize through super PAC's and partisan foundations designed to manipulate public policy in their favor? More importantly, why can't people call a spade a spade in this, and see them for what they are?

 

You know what acting out and demanding better treatment gets a worker without a union? Fired, and replaced on the cheap...without even a guarantee that the replacement will be a US citizen or paying US taxes. That's a very real problem and it's been the narrative for 35 years.

 

You spin a good yarn about eliminating the number of people on welfare by making them work, but what about people who work hard and still qualify for benefits because their jobs pay them so little? What about people who work as much as they are allowed, but can't get enough hours to pull themselves up? What about people like me who work incredibly hard and just want to get ahead in life, and who benefit from financial savvy, but are always swimming upstream in greater and greater currents because the further I get the more they take away from me?

 

There are a lot of incredibly stupid people on welfare and you see them mostly cuz you live in a city, and that's where they tend to be concentrated. But the majority of welfare earners are white, live in very poor areas, and many of them do work odd jobs as much as possible. Remember the broader picture here, we're not just talking about NYC with these issues.

 

I don't support subsidizing high risk loans to increase homeownership. In fact, if you want to make real estate more affordable, the best thing that can be done is place a moratorium on all sales of residential real estate to non US citizens unless they declare that it will become their primary residence in an attempt to apply for citizenship. That alone would stem the tide of foreigners snapping up the most valuable real estate in the country and profitting off OUR PEOPLE who legitimately need a place to live via high rents.

Several countries have restrictions on foreigners buying property or make difficult to do so.  We need something like that here.  Too many properties being bought as investment properties or the lovely "a pied-à-terre".  I too don't support subsidizing high risk loans to increase home ownership. It's another housing bubble waiting to explode.

 

As for welfare and Walmart, Walmart is a perfect example of a company that is destroying our country by forcing its distributors to provide the lowest price, which often means turning to China to do so.  They also are known for selling counterfeit goods.  These are companies that we need to levy tariffs against and that I hope Trump will severely punish.  Regarding your comment about them paying low wages and unions, I agree with you to a point.  Unions are partially useful, but unions also work to protect workers that are incredibly lazy.  Let's be honest here.  Some of your fellow co-workers aren't as hard working as yourself, and that is a problem with unions. Enabling mediocre work for a bloated salary isn't great either, and quite frankly the has to continue to work to eliminate such scenarios.  It isn't good for the unions, and it isn't good for the taxpayers or the country as a whole.  In order to sustain high salaries and compete globally, we must have a productive workforce, which is the case with the U.S. overall, but more can be done.  If we are going to compete with the Chinas and the Mexicos long term, this is a must.  

 

Going back to Walmart, I go back to the idea of low paying service jobs trying to replace higher paying manufacturing jobs.  It doesn't work.  I don't completely blame Walmart because working as a cashier in ANY place of business was never meant to put food on the table for an entire family.  Just absurd all around.  The amount of anger that I see stepping into stores is amazing.  The people working in these service jobs clearly realize that they will never get ahead because those jobs were always dead end positions.  We cannot start propping up salaries by overpaying workers in these types of fields.  Can't happen and won't happen, as automation will step in to even the playing field if it becomes a real issue.

 

As I said previously, we must continue to invest in technology and manufacturing, which includes bringing back manufacturing to ensure that we have good paying jobs long term, and the unions will have to make concessions for the good of everyone.  Sorry to say that but it's the truth.  I mean at some point it just becomes too expensive to keep giving increases for the same position, which is why you ultimately have to make concessions.

[SubwayGuy]

Several countries have restrictions on foreigners buying property or make difficult to do so.  We need something like that here.  Too many properties being bought as investment properties or the lovely "a pied-à-terre".  I too don't support subsidizing high risk loans to increase home ownership. It's another housing bubble waiting to explode.

 

As for welfare and Walmart, Walmart is a perfect example of a company that is destroying our country by forcing its distributors to provide the lowest price, which often means turning to China to do so.  They also are known for selling counterfeit goods.  These are companies that we need to levy tariffs against and that I hope Trump will severely punish.  Regarding your comment about them paying low wages and unions, I agree with you to a point.  Unions are partially useful, but unions also work to protect workers that are incredibly lazy.  Let's be honest here.  Some of your fellow co-workers aren't as hard working as yourself, and that is a problem with unions. Enabling mediocre work for a bloated salary isn't great either, and quite frankly the has to continue to work to eliminate such scenarios.  It isn't good for the unions, and it isn't good for the taxpayers or the country as a whole.  In order to sustain high salaries and compete globally, we must have a productive workforce, which is the case with the U.S. overall, but more can be done.  If we are going to compete with the Chinas and the Mexicos long term, this is a must.  

 

Going back to Walmart, I go back to the idea of low paying service jobs trying to replace higher paying manufacturing jobs.  It doesn't work.  I don't completely blame Walmart because working as a cashier in ANY place of business was never meant to put food on the table for an entire family.  Just absurd all around.  The amount of anger that I see stepping into stores is amazing.  The people working in these service jobs clearly realize that they will never get ahead because those jobs were always dead end positions.  We cannot start propping up salaries by overpaying workers in these types of fields.  Can't happen and won't happen, as automation will step in to even the playing field if it becomes a real issue.

 

As I said previously, we must continue to invest in technology and manufacturing, which includes bringing back manufacturing to ensure that we have good paying jobs long term, and the unions will have to make concessions for the good of everyone.  Sorry to say that but it's the truth.  I mean at some point it just becomes too expensive to keep giving increases for the same position, which is why you ultimately have to make concessions.

 

On the contrary, however, that is the beauty of hourly positions.

 

People at work know I am a good employee, that's why I've never had a hard time getting overtime. Which means I have the opportunity to earn higher pay than the "lazy" kind of employee that a supervisor would be loath to offer overtime to. Additionally, just because unions may represent a few bad employees does not make it right to cast good employees in that lot and make them all suffer the same fortune.

 

Again, we must not try to compete with countries that pay slave wages. Otherwise, we are competing with slavery, and will lose everytime on an economic value basis. And our workers will bear the brunt of that loss. Protectionism seeks to level the playing field by making it disadvantageous for companies to exploit another country's slave labor, which benefits the American working class, who must now only compete against other nations that offer their workers a decent standard of living. American workers are extremely hard working and efficient. We work among the longest hours in the developed world, and all measures of efficiency have skyrocketed since 2009. By all accounts, we are one of the premier workforces in the world, and are worth more because we do more. But that model fails when you introduce slave wages because a company can get more production per dollar out of slaves who are 1/5th as effective as we are when they can pay them $2/month.

 

Cashier may not be a high end job, but it is a job, it serves a purpose, and it is ultimately necessary in the economy. Again, no one who works 35 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, should be hovering around the poverty line. That's just simply good fiscal sense. No matter what the job is. If the job wasn't necessary, it wouldn't exist. If it exists, it should pay a living wage.

 

As for the MTA, the biggest area the MTA needs to reign in costs is contractors. Contractors always go over budget and have cost overruns. Before TA I did contracting work. Unless a change order was filed, we had to do the work for the price quoted. But in TA, countless delays and overruns lead to more money thrown at contractors to try and meet the original timeline that was quoted. This is because this is another example of crony capitalism at work. So you'll hear all about how much we make to do the incredibly vital work of actually running service every day, all the while hearing crickets as contractors take longer and longer to complete work that is increasingly over budget.

 

Lest we forget, the Second Avenue Subway was originally slated to open sometime in 2012, and was supposed to feature a third track at 72nd Street. 42nd Street / Hudson Yards was originally slated to open in 2011, and the original plan from the previous decade had a station at 10th Avenue and 40th Street. Yet somehow, both projects were reduced in scope, late, and the costs increased. But that's all well and good when Andrew Cuomo's out there congratulating himself for "completing" a project "on time" that he didn't oversee the planning and groundbreaking on. Guy could tell you he cured polio and half the idiots in this city would believe him.

[Union Tpke]

http://nypost.com/2017/01/23/cuomos-risky-deal-for-the-mta/

[R10 2952]

http://nypost.com/2017/01/23/cuomos-risky-deal-for-the-mta/

The NY Post is clearly shilling for those who simply want to pit the working class against each other.  It's not the employees who are draining the transit system of revenue, it's the idiot politicians who refuse to adequately fund public transportation. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The NY Post is clearly shilling for those who simply want to pit the working class against each other.  It's not the employees who are draining the transit system of revenue, it's the idiot politicians who refuse to adequately fund public transportation. 

I'm sorry but are we not supposed to question how the will pay for all of this? I think that's the main question being posed here and it's a legitimate one.  It isn't about pitting anybody against someone else.  These raises have to paid for and we likely will be paying for them, so yes, I want to know how the will pay for them.

[DaTransitMan4608]

I'm sorry but are we not supposed to question how the will pay for all of this? I think that's the main question being posed here and it's a legitimate one.  It isn't about pitting anybody against someone else.  These raises have to paid for and we likely will be paying for them, so yes, I want to know how the will pay for them.

No. We absolutely have the right to be questioning them as to where they are going to get the funds for this. What we're not supposed to be doing is convincing the public that MTA employees are the reason the system is being drained. These guys put up with a lot as it is between dealing with delays, mismanagement, and passengers taking out their frustrations on them. We don't wanna give people more of a reason to be hostile towards them. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

No. We absolutely have the right to be questioning them as to where they are going to get the funds for this. What we're not supposed to be doing is convincing the public that MTA employees are the reason the system is being drained. These guys put up with a lot as it is between dealing with delays, mismanagement, and passengers taking out their frustrations on them. We don't wanna give people more of a reason to be hostile towards them. 

Actually the author of the article AGREES that they should get a raise, and states that the raises are IN LINE overall, but to not question where the will get the monies from is completely irresponsible.  We deserve to know how this will be paid for since we will be paying via higher taxes and/or higher fares in the future.  The is a PUBLIC agency.  If they were a private agency I would agree but they aren't.