Lunatics are running the asylum on both sides of this dispute. I'm glad I work from home, and I'm glad my girlfriend was able to catch a ride to work with a fellow teacher. Seriously, I think the union is way out of line here, but that last offer from the Authority wasn't even an offer - it was a paycut. That's ridiculous.
At least until tomorrow. Even this morning I still can't get over the fact that the city is paralyzed over $20 million. (Yeah that's an oversimplification, but the employee contribution to pensions is always a negotiation point in future contracts.) And if I were Toussaint, thinking that I'm literally a few minutes from a deal that gives me most of what I want, and then Kalikow walks in at the last minute and makes this non-negotiable demand -- well, I might have walked, too. If the Times story is right then the MTA, and Kalikow specifically, deserve as much blame for this as the TWU does. You'd almost think that Kalikow walked in at the last second with this because he wanted the TWU to strike, so that the MTA (through the courts) could break them.
I was just about to post that same thing. I have a feeling that when this is all said and done, the local 100's gonna be picking up its teeth with broken fingers.
The union doesn't want to have to increase the employee contribution to the pension plan from 2% to 6%. Boys I have to pay 9% and it's going to 10% and there is no debate about it.
I'd just like to send a big ******** you to Pataki for coming into the city to hold an outdoor press conference stating he would "leave the negotiations to the professionals." If you're not going to do ********, **************, at least stay out of the way so traffic can keep moving. Just one more reason control over the MTA should revert to the city.
I wouldn't agree about the whole MTA, but NYCT certainly should. Pataki has shown himself to be woefully incompetent in this whole process which is a pity because his first two terms were so positive and so effective. He's really going out with a thud.
do any of you guys at the big firms have a 'great' quality of life, though? my friend at Morgan Lewis is going 90 hour weeks, minimum. and an acquaintance at Deckert is looking at the same. in the consulting world, we always tell the people we're hiring that there is great work/life balance, but it really means that work will become your life.
So they should just accept whatever they are dealt, because everyone else in the corporate state of America is getting shafted? If you think it's unfair you should consider contacting a union and help organize one yourself.
Sounds like you need better union representation. The MTA also controls Metro-North and the LIRR. Those should remain state authority. But I would agree that the things that are in the city exclusively (NYC Transit and the interborough bridges & tunnels) should be run by the city. Then again, maybe I only think that because the mayor is competent and the governor is not -- if the roles were switched, I wouldn't want Pataki controlling the subways.
News articles said that the contribution would increase from 2% to 3%, not 6%, & that this was only for new employees. While I can understand the TWU opposing a 2-tier pay standard, 2-tier pension and benefits standards exist in many public unions. By comparison, NJ public employees contribute between 5%-8% of their salaries towards pensions. The higher contributors get better pensions. A lot of people also contribute to supplemental plans. The NYPD has a supplemental plan that all contribute to, which adds $12,000 to their pensions each year! http://www.nypd2.org/html/recruit/salary.html Annual $12,000 Variable Supplement Fund (Upon retirement) P.S. Based on this excerpt from a NY Daily News editorial, train operators are paid more than police officers, who max under $60,000: "transit worker salaries ... average ... $63,000 for train operators and $54,000 for conductors. The MTA proposal would have boosted those numbers to $68,000 and $59,000
Are you willing to pay $3/ride to accomodate their demands? And why should a company be responsible for your health and retirement. You work to make money, that's it. It's no coincedence that retirement funding and healthcare are two of the most pressing issues in society today. What about the local employees, the retailers that are losing business like crazy because of this strike. Aren't they getting the shaft?
The Times article Obie linked to on the previous page states that Kalikow came in with an 11th-hour proposal that would raise the pension contribution from 2% to 6%, which is where everyone is getting that number from. While even 6% would compare favorably to New Jersey and, I believe, Ct. state and municipal employees, the fact that it was presented as a last-minute, non-negotiable addition is why so many people are up in arms. Really, the Authority is either very smart or very, very dumb. If they aren't able to break the Union with this tack, the union's gonna break them.
Thanks. I'm not registered with the NYT, so couldn't access the article. However, I question the 6% number, since the 3% contribution was on the table previously. I guess we'll all find out in the long run. However, no matter how stupid the MTA was, the TWU were the ones who went out on strike. there were other things that they could have done: work-to-rule, refuse OT, etc.
Not currently. If I did, I would match on an HSA account for them and that's pretty much it. It's pretty standard in my industry for people to take care of their own pension and wellfare
Well, that's one strategy to self-select out any potential employees with children. The HSA limit for '06 is $5450, and forcing employees to choose their own health plans raises not just the cost to them (obviously) but the cost of the plan overall, since they can't have the advantage of a corporate risk-sharing pool. Why big business is not pushing for national health care at this point is something I'll never understand.
That's why the trade organization that I am a part of is lobbying for risk sharing pools. We have been for decades.
I know, it's bizarre. I think part of the answer is that, for big business, it is advantageous to have the employee so absolutely dependent on their employer, especially if he/she has a family.
Well that's an interesting idea, but I don't think that most companies consider their health care plans to be a competitive advantage in the competition for talent. And those that do (SAS comes to mind) can continue to offer health- and welfare-related programs such as child care, fitness facilities, and wellness programs that would not be covered by a national plan. GM should be in Washington with lobbyists saying that the company makes cars, not health insurance programs.
Or how about the Federal and state government restoring the funding for mass transit systems that they have cut substantially for years now? The transit system is not only important to the riders, it's important to the region, and in this part of the world, to the national economy. Not to mention the benefits for the environment and health of people in the region. And as you know, company's should be responsible for health and retirement because it is the most financially efficient way to get these benefits. But don't worry, while you lobby for your industry pooling scheme, or until we get national health I'll keep providing my employees with health benefits.
How about we don't send the money to Washington in the first place so we don't have to worry about their crap funding system. And good for you for making your employees lives comfortable but why not cut the benefits and just give them more money? BTW, why is lobbying for AHP's a scheme?
I think if there was a national healthcare system the average worker would be more likely to do things like - go back to school, start a small business, work for a small business, look for a better job (whether it's one that's better paying, less stressful, less demanding or more meaningful). All this would mean more leverage for the worker, and an empowered worker is anathema to big business.
1. Well then I guess the subway would cost $8 a ride, eh? Would that be ok? I don't think so, I think the subway should be subsidized because it's so beneficial to the region and the country not only for riders. 2. Because as an employer I can get insurance cheaper than they can. 3. Forget I said scheme.
At least he's accountable. Insurance companies are not, and if you give me some market theory, I'll simply ask "and how's that working out"... becasue it's working very, very poorly.