jack, i do blame the twu... look at the costs of those benefits in thw entire MTA budget. they had no justification for a strike, none at all and if the city and state gives in rest assured the fares and your taxes will go to pay for it.

this is neither the first, nor the last that such misleadings by the feds should appear as misgivings of the proletariat. blame not touissant, i know, for he is only a messenger not of those very laborors that which he represents, but rather his older and bigger brother. we shall be affored for our own pedal labors - a holiday blast - free of such destruction, as our army of skilled comput-ANTs traced the tunnels, and swept the the Battlefield of the New Age. Yes, our grandest of all bothers in London, and Jerusalem have all but become accustomed to the luxury of which we travel - a subconscious free of that sound - BOOM!

Hm, email did not get posted. It's montecristo6@hotmail.com.

miss representation: a basic, crude criterion for measuring the effectiveness of a strike would be to check whether the union achieved a contract better than the one they would have gotten without work stoppage, corrected for costs of the strike. This involves a tricky counterfactual, since all we know is that MTA offered either retirement at 62 and contribution of 1% of wages or retirement at 55 and contribution of 6% *when the strike was called*. But, assuming that this was entirely unacceptable to TWU, by definition some improvement would have had to be granted by arbitration, which is where a negotiation to impasse must lead eventually, where Toussaint likes it or not (source: labour lawyer on Brian Lehrer's show). So, if TWU runs out of the meeting flush with glee tomorrow and says something like, "lo, we managed to maintain status quo ante (55/0%)", it does not at all mean they achieved this strictly thanks to the strike! I'll personally be convinced only if they gain something that seems improbable to have been granted by arbitration splitting down the middle: for instance, if they come away with 52/0%. That's not negotiation, that's highway robbery, and that's what a strike would presumably be shooting for.

I am pleased you see the importance of resolving the matter of unfunded pension liabilities in principle. It's not obvious to me that it is a "state issue", although you may be able to show this with some elaboration. It's not particularly interesting that *legally* it's the state legislature that handles the problem; I am far more curious about the *economics* at work. On who's shoulders will the eventual burden of this liability fall? That's what counts. Since New York City derives most of the benefit from the subway system, it probably should be us, the tax-paying residents; and if we find this burden too heavy, *we* should be empowered to bring the point to TWU. Unfortunately, there's this confusion about what MTA represents, and whether it can be taken to speak for the NYC taxpayer, since it is technically a state agency. Yet I sincerely doubt whether the state will be willing to take on the pensions when push comes to shove, and I am afraid of a really sub-optimal outcome, where TWU pushes for more, and neither NYC nor state are willing to say no because of the ambiguity on who'll be charged in 30 years. Viz. San Diego system, or this very NYC system in the 70s to see what happens when the pigeons finally come home to roost.

As far as the bet goes, I'll take the over, if you think (I think you do) that the workers won't be charged even the two days of earnings fine provided under Taylor Law. Feel free to email me to hammer out the details.

"...more than half of the average TWU worker..."

Not every MTA worker makes $55,000. The majority make lots less.

If you want the MTA fares to stay put and not go up, don't blame the TWU. Blame the MTA and the corruption within the agency.

It's sad to think that some think that the TWU is the source of all of the headaches in the MTA. Peter Kalikow and Larry Reuter are incompetent overpaid lumps of meat. But few would ever speak out as publically against them as the bile being spit towards TWU workers.

Granted the TWU lost some goodwill in this strike, but even at their worst they are still the least of the problems the MTA has to deal with.

hey youth of today! if i call you a bitchass, and we're trying to come to an agreement about something, wouldn't that get in the way? wouldn't you respond to that as a threat? as if i disregarded you and your opinions and wouldn't think twice about kicking your ass?

(i know that's what you wanted, a violent reaction, right? you're a funny funny guy.)

also (not to youth of today): and remember that the transit workers are not the kids with parents who can back them up, or people with many educational/ financial opportunities to go to grad school. think about the people who do and their characteristic for a second.

i for one hope the MTA does not back down. i can't afford another fare increase or more taxes on my salary, which is just more than half of the average TWU worker who is out on strike (i am working on that problem, by going back to school next year). the city is already too expensive, the unions cannot expect that the public is an unlimited tap for cash and i would much rather see the money put to continuing to clean up, modernize and expand the system, not to more bloated union salaries (MTA management included)

FUCK THE TERRORIST WORKERS UNION!!!!!!!

"Did anyone listen to Toussiant's entire statement yesterday? I think it's pretty clear he indicated that they didn't see this as a fight to the death, they only wanted pensions to come off the table. That's why the 'folded' so easy."

It's possible that some think Toussaint miscalculated in calling a strike, but he's not an idiot: he knew what the fines would be before he and the TWU board pulled the trigger, and things seem to be going fairly close to what you'd expect for a union getting fined $1M/day with $3M-$4M in their coffers. He showed the membership that the TWU has backbone, and I agree, probably did a great deal of good for union solidarity in NYC generally. Without question, the union probably will gain some small monetary concession from the strike, but the political gain is huge and easily underestimated.

Whether Pataki and Bloomberg's repraisals following this strike will outweigh the benefits to NYC labor more generally, I'm less convinced.

"You didn't know that TWU members don't live in the city?"

No. I am laughing at the blindness and inaccuracy of that statement. You're simply wrong.

"The TWU is no exception to the rule that all the better-paid NYC public employees live outside the city."

Yes, a $16.00 per hour bus driver is living in the suburbs! Hillarious statement and conceit.

If you think the vast majority of MTA workers live in the suburbs, you probably have never ridden the subway.

You didn't know that TWU members don't live in the city?

They were allowed to live outside, along with all the better-paid NYC public employees (cops, teachers, fire) by 1960s state legislation. At the time, the TWU was mostly white, otherwise they would have been forced to live in the city like less well paid city employees (exceptions are made for managers and other highly paid based on the "difficult to recruit" exemption).

Most are hardly in a position to take transit, at least until they have seniority. Let's say you live in the Rockaways and have low senority -- you may end up being assigned to start your run in Williamsbridge, Bronx, one hell of a long commute by train. Eventually they have enough seniorty to pick a place close to home, but as I said, most choose the suburbs -- even the exurbs as far away as the Poconos.

The TWU is no exception to the rule that all the better-paid NYC public employees live outside the city.

"Almost no TWU member uses transit to get to work."

Hillarious!

"They drive, and live in the suburbs."

Even funnier!

Yes, every MTA worker comes into town driving their SUV from their suburban homes to pass out subway maps and sell Metrocards. LOL!

(For one, most MTA workers use the subways to get to work. So there's a catch-22 as to how to get people to their positions.)

Almost no TWU member uses transit to get to work, although its free to them. They drive, and live in the suburbs. The bus depots and train yards are at the end of the line, not the center of Manhattan, and workers get re-assigned for every pick, often to a place far away from where they live.

I hope tomorrow counts as a fourth day of the strike if NORMAL service is not running by 12:01 am.

They shut it down fast enough, didn't they?

"I don't believe the strike is over. 1010 WINS says it will be 18-24 hours before service is up and running. It shouldn't take that long..."

I don't pressume the job of getting workers in place and starting up the worlds largest Subway system from a 'cold' state is that easy.

For one, most MTA workers use the subways to get to work. So there's a catch-22 as to how to get people to their positions. Second, running a few trains on the track to keep the tracks themselves in good shape is not enough to assure all is good. Would you really want to get on a train and then find out that there's some signal issue that nobody checked out? Being stuck in a non-moving train is a lot worse than being stuck without trains at all.

In general, if the strike ends buses will run more quickly than the trains do. So that's your best bet.

In the words of the greatest Yankee of all time, Yogi Berra, "It ain't over 'till its over."

i hope that the strike ends today, otherwise commuting tomorrow (when everybody's trying to get out of town for holidays) is going to be a nightmare.

"Huh", they haven't voted to end the strike, they've agreed to "take steps to go back to work". I don't know what that means, but it doesn't sound like "going back to work".

http://1010wins.com/topstories/local_story_356054551.html

mc: I'll wager you a bottle of your favorite bourbon total fines paid by the TWU has an over/under of seven figures (that's a million), and the members pay nothing above loss of wages for time on stike.

I said effective because I still believe by the time it's said and done, there will be no pension changes, an a final offer better than what the MTA first came with, and girding the other unions for the coming battle.

Did anyone listen to Toussiant's entire statement yesterday? I think it's pretty clear he indicated that they didn't see this as a fight to the death, they only wanted pensions to come off the table. That's why the 'folded' so easy.

I agree pensions need to be addressed, but that is a state issue (by their own doing), and should be addressed there, which is what the union argued. The deal cut in 2000 was not part of collective bargaining.

Your "even more latest" update is not accurate.