Leftover Metrocard Change Infuriates Some
2nd Avenue Subway Cooling System Will "Blight" UES
Should Payphones Be Free?
Tiger Woods' Alleged Mistress Lost Fiance On 9/11
NY Anti-Smoking Campaign Budget to be Slashed
The Transport Workers Union executive board agreed to a new contract with the MTA. The raises are 3%, 4%, and 3.5% raises over three years that the MTA had offered a week ago; the new thing is that workers will be paying 1.5% of their salaries towards health care. While the vote was 37-4 (plus one absention), one dissenter told the Post, "We're paying 4.5 percent for medical [benefits] over the course of the contract. That means we're only getting a 6 percent increase in pay." But there was no inclusion of the MTA's pension demand that essentially broke the TWU's back and made them strike. Now, the members of the union need to vote on the contract, but Newsday points out that there are some other issues are yet to be detailed, such as "cost of fines for the strike and other factors such as work rules, deployment and other possible improvements for the workers." Well, Gothamist is glad the strike is over. We can't believe it's been a week since the middle of the strike, but that's what a lot of eggnog and latkes can do you to.
The NY Times has a graphic that details the evolution of the MTA's offer from early December to present. Subwayspot has a Roger Toussaint soundboard (!). And Gothamist on the Transit Strike.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Nice math by that dissenter. Unless all the reports I've read are mistaken, TWU members will be paying 1.5 percent of their salaries toward health care over the length of the contract. The rate is not going to accumulate (i.e. 1.5 percent in year one, three percent in year two and 4.5 percent in the third year).
So, what exactly did they gain by striking?
I know that most people would be happy to get what the MTA offered. It looks like Mike Quill wannabe Rogert Toussant lost and is quickly becoming a joke. The only thing they gained by striking is pissing off the ridership.
So, what exactly did they gain by striking?
Well, if you look at the chart from the article:
No change in the pension contribution, age, or years experience required.
Reimbursement for some pension contributions made before 2001.
Job titles won't be merged.
Increased health benefits after retirement.
$4 million in miscellaneous concessions, including increased death benefits if you're killed on the job.
The only concession the union made was that all workers are now paying 1.5% for health care.
They saved their pension arrangement by striking. In fact, the Taylor Law says that the pension can't be part of contract negotiations, so the MTA actually broke the Taylor Law before the TWU did. That's what they meant when the union said they were forced to strike. The TWU needs better PR. My uncle who works in the union explained it at dinner better than Toussaint did at press conferences.
And yes, most of us wish we had benefits as good as the transit workers do. But most of us wouldn't want to work in such difficult, uncomfortable and dangerous conditions. Plus, if unionized workers lose good benefits, then what chance does anyone else have of getting decent benefits without a union?
Respect was also a big issue. If I found out that the company I worked for had a budget surplus and spent it on unnecessary discounts for customers instead of shoring up the pension fund or putting it toward health insurance, I'd be ticked off too. And it's not like a train conductor can just quit and become a train conductor for another company. That pension isn't portable. Leaving after 20 years of service when the pension requirement is 30 years means they get nothing. Striking is the only bargaining tool they have.
its too bad these are not market rate jobs. there is no reason, i should be subsidizing these salaries/pensions/benefits when i am not even making close to them and there is no doubt that they would be filled quickly if they were.
The one thing that bothers me is the improvement in health benefits for out-of-state retirees.
Bad enough they get better schools and lower overall taxes (no local income tax) because they don't have to live in the city. They also get even lower taxes (no state income tax in Florida) when retired because they don't have to live in the region.
It just makes it seem that NYC public employees are unwilling to live in the environment they help to create for the rest of us.
But at least they didn't get an even fatter pension by going with lower pay for future (less motivated, less qualified) employees as well, like the other unions.
For all you suffering types that can't seem to find a job paying 40K and resent the TWU for helping some folks for doing so, you might want to check out this page. Unlike the NYPD, there isn't an age requirement, and the job qualifications can be rather low, which would clearly be useful for y'all.
What did the TWU get? Here's the MTA offer from Dec 13 (via Newsday):
"In its latest offer, the MTA has proposed a 3 percent raise in the first year and a conditional raise of 2 percent the second year. It also is asking for givebacks on pensions and health coverage: For example, it wants new employees to pay 2 percent of their earnings toward health care."
It looks like the union improved the offer across the board (bigger raises, one year extension of contract, no pension givebacks and lower health care contributions). And they are negotiating on fines, which I stand my by claim the TWU won't pay more than $1M, and individual members won't surrender more than wages for days not worked. The spin will be an admission from the city that the pension demand was skirting the Taylor Law as much as the strike, so it isn't a free pass for the TWU to break the law.
But, look at the contract offered by the MTA the night before the strike, and compare it to what they have now.
It looks like it's a wash for the union.
So, I ask again, what was the point of the stike? They were fined and got bad PR, but no substantial gains.
I'd like to get some verification of this. Who first brought up the subject? Did the MTA try to raise the pension age first or did the TWU try to lower it first? It takes two to tango or to negotiate, so if it's illegal to do so, both parties are equally guilty.
They won on pension demands. If you were paying attention during the strike, they kept insisting that their pensions were key. They pretty much got the same raise they were originally offered, but had to pay a tiny bit more on health care in order to get that looming 6% pension contribution off the table. Seems like they won to me, especially if the fines get revoked. The TWU may have gotten bad PR, but so did the MTA - a far more visible organization.
no, i think the twu came out far worse after this whole fiasco, because now people are aware of their salaries, pensions and benefits. I don't think they received much if any pitty and actually felt a backlash from the public.
Let's use our gentrifying superpowers and take all the TWU jobs. That'd be pretty cool if everyone in Williamsburg had a day job with the MTA.
The TWU has been trying for years to change the pension to a 20/50 system. They have been doing it the way it's supposed to be done, by lobbying the state legislature. The proposal (which passed, but died on Pataki's desk) calls for ALL transit workers to pay almost 10% of their wages towards pension. http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A06753
(The proposal (which passed, but died on Pataki's desk) calls for ALL transit workers to pay almost 10% of their wages towards pension.)
From your own link, "Participants in the 50/20 plan shall pay additional member contributions of 6% of their salary." That plus 2% equals eight percent, doesn't it?
The TWU claimed the employees would be covering the cost. But it wasn't true, because if it was, why not just save up the money yourself?
And what about yet another five years of health insurance in exchange for not working. At that age, and for family coverage, that could be $100 to $150G (the average for all ages, including 20 somethings, is up to $14G per year for family coverage, and for less generous insurance than the MTA gives out). That's $5,000 per year worked if you are only working 20.
As I've said, on health insurance we are either all in it together or we are not, and those who already have a good deal should not be getting more while others pay taxes and pay nothing.
And on pensions there is no way everyone can be paid to do nothing one year for every year they work, and while those with physically demanding jobs have a right to expect an earlier retirement, 55 let alone 50 is just too soon to be riding other people's backs. Especially with all the debts being dumped on those future slaves as well.