Tuesday, December 20, 2005

!@#!$%!!#!$@#@

Posted by FM at 6:24 a.m.

!@#$#$#@@!#$@!$@!$@#

Update: NYC - Rush hour wind chill 10°F - children are walking to school in this weather. Yeah, go TWU Local.



5 comments:

emily1 said...

if this dude thinks they were underappreciated before, just let him see how much people actually *hate* them now.

7:49 a.m., December 20, 2005
FM said...

welp... i decided to take the early nj transit express train to manhattan to avoid the rush. penn station was a madhouse. but it could have been worse.

i could be living in one of the five boroughs.

anyway, it just stinks that it will cost me $19.00 to commute today. my girlfriend usually drives me one way, and i take the PATH ($1.50). but the PATH is the only thing that is running in manhattan today, so EVERYONE on the west side of manhattan will be trying to get a seat.

i guess i'll just work a late night, so i won't have to deal with rush hour. i get paid by the hour anyway.

9:11 a.m., December 20, 2005
laura k said...

Ever think it might be their employers' fault?

3:09 p.m., December 26, 2005
FM said...

in some labor disputes, it is the employer's fault. in this case, not so much. teachers are routinely fokked over in nyc, for example. wal-mart routinely fokks over their employees for not even allowing them to unionize. in fact, this whole brouhaha has only turned public opinion against unions, which, in many cases, are necessary in protecting workers' rights. when a union cries wolf, it reflects badly on other unions. transit workers get better benefits than those in the private sector, and everyone knows that.

8:50 a.m., December 28, 2005
emily1 said...

i've been thinking about the strike and what actually turned out to be the real sticking point behind the contract negotiation. the union didn't want a different set of rules for younger workers. their employers wanted to impose a double standard -- skimpier benefits for new hires.

i believe that this practice is something the union should fight tooth and nail. it was worth calling a strike for that. the MTA employees provide an economically necessary service. an economically necessary service is an extremely valuable service. it only becomes more valuable as new york continues to develop and change.

new MTA workers should continue to enjoy the same retirement benefits that older workers enjoy. they should be able to retire from their jobs at the same age -- fifty-five. there were other sticking points, but this one is particularly symbolic.

an MTA job is physically demanding, and the conditions are rather unhealthful. people who have comfortable office jobs tend to have little understanding of the reality that a person who has worked a physically demanding job for over two decades can hardly be expected to work that kind of job past the age of fifty-five.

retiring from the MTA does not mean that the person stops working. it means that after 25 years of service, they can retire with full benefits at 55. cops can retire after 20 years of service. many public sector workers continue to work in other jobs for years afterwards.

unions for public sector workers have a lot of clout. they set an important standard for labor protections. i understand that the strike caused a great deal of pain for a lot of people. i think it would be more productive to think of ways to gain more generous benefits for ourselves rather than engaging in the temptation to wallow in spiteful envy of it.

8:15 p.m., December 28, 2005

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)