|
MTA Strike (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| mcb001982 |
| quote: | Originally posted by kid nyce
4 block ho! lols |
:tongue3 |
|
|
| lazy chick |
| i hate traffic!! took me like 25 minutes to get to work... |
|
|
| neon |
| quote: | Originally posted by langxazn
so who actually went into work today?? |
Senior Counsel picked me up at 10.. ate at a diner till 12, got into office by 1:15PM. (five hours later than normal clock-in)
Senior Counsel then drove me home.. via Brooklyn Battery Tunnel (45 min ride).
TWU Local 100 :whip: |
|
|
| avikonen |
Don't know if you heard this in the news yet but it looks like the sticking point was that the union wouldn't accept the term where for new workers 6% of their pay would be withheld for healthcare. The MTA gave them everything else include 8% pay raises for the next 3 years and a retirement age of 55.
I'm sorry. But if this true, they have made a BAD mistake. I sympathize for the union workers. They got screwed at the last negotiation. But rejecting this offer makes them look bad and they are going to quickly lose any populist support they have. :( |
|
|
| Scoops |
| quote: | Originally posted by avikonen
Don't know if you heard this in the news yet but it looks like the sticking point was that the union wouldn't accept the term where for new workers 6% of their pay would be withheld for healthcare. The MTA gave them everything else include 8% pay raises for the next 3 years and a retirement age of 55.
I'm sorry. But if this true, they have made a BAD mistake. I sympathize for the union workers. They got screwed at the last negotiation. But rejecting this offer makes them look bad and they are going to quickly lose any populist support they have. :( |
They should be lucky they even have a job |
|
|
| kadomony |
| well now the union's being fined 1 mil a day :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Hovo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Scoops
They should be lucky they even have a job |
EXACTLY! |
|
|
| VisionsofPVD |
Touissant should be jailed! Just walked 55 blocks....no one on the street is happy, especially when its 20 degrees!
Great timing TWU 100! |
|
|
| kid nyce |
| quote: | Originally posted by VisionsofPVD
Touissant should be jailed! Just walked 55 blocks....no one on the street is happy, especially when its 20 degrees!
Great timing TWU 100! |
beat me by 10 blocks |
|
|
| djeternal |
I lost all respect for the TWU. I dont sympathize anymore. Construction workers and that type of labor...fine...strike...but how much more do u want to drive a bus? There are people gettin payed less with no benefits who are gettin the bills payed. DONT BUY THE SPINNING DUBZ! Buy things you can afford...its simple and it works. ANd if you have to strike cuz you gotta pay off the TV that wont fit in your home...can u do it in the spring? Did any1 see that guy on the news who said, "we shouldve gone on strike earlier...now we are the laughing stock of NY"? Am i the only one who wanted to punch him and finish with "Your the laughing stock either way".
I LOVE WALKING IN 20 DEGREE WINDS FOR A COUPLE HOURS. |
|
|
| DarkAngel |
I can't even IMAGINE what it must be like up there. Never while I lived up there did I even dream a strike could go down. My job gets its paperwork from 55 Water Street and thanks to the strike, we didn't get ANYTHING in today. I seriously hope things get resolved for you NYTAs ASAP.
DA. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
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.
The MTA violated the Taylor Law before negotiations were at an impasse.
The (NYS) Taylor Law
As long as the TWU stands their ground in court on this injunction to the MTA they can't lose. |
|
|
|
|
