TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- USA - New York
-- How will you fare...
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by hitokiri see my friend thats where we have yo disagree remember what i said bout how the tailor law favors the business simply because of the fact that if the unions strike then there are penalties which means that unions can t just up an and strike like normal ppl which means that the companies have a lot more power the only protection that unions have particularly twu is to strike when its most convienient which would be around christmas time since there is a lot of revenue to be made in the city if the strikes were held during warmer weather mta wouldn t not mind the fact that the strike is on follow what im saying? |
hmm...so is this Strike continuing into...tomorrow (Wednesday)? anyone care to make any guesses on this? hmm if I go in tomorrow i may need to find some sort of car pool..
The stock market is the Santa for people like Kalikow. Of which the DJIA hasn't changed drastically compared to a week ago.
Police and EMS response times have not increased so all is good. Quite unlike the doom and gloom the idiots at City Hall keep crying about.
Some students are seeing their finals being postponed.
All is clear.
For you pre-law and law students:
Public Employment Relations Board: TWU Local 100 -v- MTA NYC Transit
STATE OF NEW YORK
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
----------------------------------------
In the Matter of the Application of
TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF GREATER NEW YORK,
LOCAL 100,
Charging Party,
For Injunctive Relief Pursuant to Civil Service Law � 209-a.4,
- against -
MTA/NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT,
Respondent.
----------------------------------------
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION
FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO
CIVIL SERVICE LAW � 209-a.4
....excerpts....
FACTS
1. Background
Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100 (�the Union�? or �Local 100") is the collective bargaining representative of the operating and maintenance hourly employees who are employed by the Employer. Local 100's bargaining unit comprises approximately 34,000 employees, including subway operators and conductors, bus drivers, token booth clerks, bus and train mechanics, and track workers in New York City. The Employer is a public benefit corporation created pursuant to Article 5, Title 9 of the Public Authorities Law and is responsible for operating all of the rapid transit lines (subway and elevated railroad lines) within New York City, virtually all of the bus lines within the Boroughs of Brooklyn and Staten Island and substantial numbers of bus lines in the Borough of Queens and some bus lines in Manhattan. These lines carry more than six million passengers in the City of New York each weekday. The Employer also operates power substations, distribution facilities, subway and bus maintenance and repair shops, and garages and depots. Affidavit of Ed Watt (�Watt Aff.�?).1-3. NYCERS is a �public retirement system�? as that term is used in Civil Service Law � 201(4). The structure of the pensions provided to current members of NYCERS are specified in the New York Retirement and Social Security Law. Those terms provide that newly hired transit employees have a pension with a normal retirement age of 55. Retire. & Soc. Sec. Law � 604-b(b)(4-a)(ii). Any modification of those terms would require legislative action amending the Retirement and Social Security Law. The majority of Local 100's current members are entitled to NYCERS pensions. Watt Aff., � 7.
2. The negotiations for a successor agreement
The most recent collective bargaining agreement between the Union and the Employer was effective from December 16, 2002 through December 15, 2005. Negotiations over the terms of a successor agreement began on October 14, 2005. The 2005 negotiations between Local 100 and the MTA have been difficult. The negotiations take place in the context of a reported $1 billion surplus in the MTA�s 2005 budget. However, the MTA claims that it will have a deficit by 2008. The MTA's predictions of its financial health have traditionally been remarkably unreliable. For instance, in February 2004, the MTA was projecting a $539 million deficit for 2005. In July 2004, the deficit decreased to $436 million and in November 2004, the MTA was still projecting a $116 million deficit for 2005. By February 2005 however, the MTA began to project a $76 million surplus. In July the projection for the 2005 surplus increased to $833 million. In September, Comptroller Hevesi projected a surplus of $900 million. As of October 2005, the MTA acknowledged that even this last projection was too low and that it would have a surplus of $1 billion. Watt Aff., � 4.
....excerpted....
ARGUMENT
I. THE EMPLOYER HAS VIOLATED SECTION 209-a.1(d) BY INSISTING
ON ITS DEMAND FOR A NEW PENSION TIER.
It is a fundamental principle of American laborjurisprudence that a party to collective bargaining breaches its duty to bargain in good faith by insisting to impasse on a nonmandatory subject of bargaining. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in NLRB v. Borg-Warner Corp., 356 U.S. 342 (1958), good faith does not license the employer to refuse to enter into agreements on the ground that they do not include some proposal which is not a mandatory subject of bargaining. . . . [S]uch conduct is, in substance, a refusal to bargain about the subjects that are within the scope of mandatory bargaining. Id. at 349. An employer�s insistence on a nonmandatory subject �as a condition to any agreement�? is therefore unlawful. Id.
This rule applies with equal force to bargaining under the Taylor Law, which imposes the same duty to bargain in good faith concerning terms and conditions of employment as the federal statute addressed in Borg-Warner. For example, in City of New Rochelle, 8 PERB � 3071 (1975), the union alleged that the employer had �violated CSL �� 209-a.1 . . . (d) in that . . . it improperly insisted that the clause [dealing with a nonmandatory subject of negotiations] be carried into the successor agreement.�? 8 PERB � 3071 at 3124. The Board agreed that the City�s insistence on the inclusion of the clause was an improper practice. Id. at 3126. See also Madison Central School District, 22 PERB � 3057 (1989). In the instant case, because the Employer�s pension demand is a prohibited subject, the Employer�s insistence on its inclusion in the collective bargaining agreement violated, and continues to violate, section 209-a.1(a) and (d).
A. The Employer�s Pension Demand Is Prohibited Under the Express Terms of the Taylor Law.
In 1973, the Taylor Law was amended to specifically exclude retirement benefits from the definition of terms and conditions of employment subject to collective bargaining. Section 201, subdivision 4, as amended, states:
The term "terms and conditions of employment" means salaries, wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment provided, however, that such term shall not include any benefits provided by or to be provided by a public retirement system, or payments to a fund or insurer to provide an income for retirees, or payment to retirees or their beneficiaries. No such retirement benefits shall be negotiated pursuant to this article, and any benefits so negotiated shall be void.
Jeez 
. Looks like Bush needs to hurry up and finish revamping these archaic Social Security policies while he's still in office. The age was set to 55 back when people were expiring not too long after.Times have changed and people don't seem to get that. Of course, until things change, the MTA is legally in the wrong - and if not in the wrong then they certainly don't have the legal upper hand.
As far as the "boy who cried wolf" thing going on w/the MTA and their projected deficits; they're playing too many games w/the people of NY and with the TWU. NYer's don't have time for games 
. Whether they're gonna give them their little +$7 on their checks or not that business needs to be kept in the board room where it belongs.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.