I’m no fan of the mismanaged MTA but the TWU is stuck in archaic 1950s mentality. Retire at 55 and pay nothing for insurance and pension…lol thats a joke!!

Given that the city claims the strike has cost hundreds of millions PER DAY to businesses, and has cost the city AT LEAST 20 million in police overtime costs alone, my question is: Why didn’t these actual, present costs of hundreds of millions, outweigh those potential future costs, described in the quote above? (Esp. given that economists say present costs should be weighted more than future costs, as those present outlays would have grown substantially in interest over 20 yrs. if they had been banked) Was the city just being stubborn on principle or because of politics? Or has the city really saved money by taking a hard line?

I’m no economist and am not sure of the answers. Genuinely wondering.

Mr. Dellaverson declined to spell out how much that proposal would save each year. “Pension changes always have small effects at the beginning and grow over time,” he said. John J. Murphy, a pension expert and former executive director of the New York City Employees’ Retirement System, said he computed that the authority’s pension proposal would have a modest saving at first: $2.25 million in the first year, $4.8 million in the second year and $7.8 million in the third year. But he said the plan would achieve significant savings, more than $160 million in the first 10 years, with some officials estimating that it would save more than $80 million a year after 20 years. Mr. Dellaverson said it was important for the authority to try to control its pension outlays even in a year when it had a surplus. The authority’s pension outlays for the transit workers have soared to $453 million this year, triple the amount in 2002.

Actually, according to that New York Times article, the MTA is holding out for what would save only $20 million over THREE years. This is less than what the city will pay for extra police overtime during the FIRST TWO DAYS OF THE STRIKE ALONE. [Link.]

Can someone explain how the MTA’s position makes sense? Seriously.

I take it that the city doesn’t want to set a precedent of paying generous pensions, because the costs could snowball down the road. But is it really worth it?

It’s extremely one-sided to say that the TWU is “holding the city hostage.” Competent MTA management and political leadership would have avoided this strike — for how long have they known that the contract would be up this month? And at this point, what the MTA is holding out for would save a paltry $20 million per year — which, pace Gothamist, is “about the amount we think they siphon just by existing.” (Adds Jen, “God, we hate the MTA’s accounting so much.”) I’m sure that on either of their two sets of books, the MTA can find that money, and in any event at this point they are costing the city considerably more in police overtime and the like.

And Pataki and Bloomberg are acting like petulant children, rather than grown-up elected officials who are paid to solve problems like this one. Responsible political leadership would be doing whatever it takes to get the parties back to the bargaining table and end the strike — instead, billion dollar Charlie and our terminally bored governor are doing whatever they can to add gasoline and fan the flames with ridiculous rhetoric that, in Pataki’s case, is probably aimed more at the New Hampshire primary than at trying to end the strike:

Governor Pataki, who is exploring a run for president, has come under fire from conservatives for some of the deals he brokered for unions while seeking their endorsements in the past. Now a number of conservative analysts have urged him to hang tough with the transit workers.

Even if they end up break this strike with brute force, using the Taylor Law as a club — probably an illegal use of that law, by the way, since “one side cannot make pensions a condition of a settlement” under that law — they will have poisoned the negotiating atmosphere for years to come with every municipal union. (And for that reason, contrary to one of the posts above, Pataki, Bloomberg, and the MTA have not “stayed within the law” any more or less than the TWU has — a fair case could be made that they are the “thuggish” ones with “no respect for the rule of law.”) But hey, as long as Grover Norquist and Stephen Moore like what they see a little bit better, I suppose that justifies making all of us walk for hours in the cold.

I agree, irrespective of what people do they deserve respect and pay and benefits. But what the TWU is asking for is unreasonable and archaic to todays changing times. There are several benefits I support and hope they manage to get but the strike is holding the city hostage and it’s extortion the way I see it.

The average MTA employee that the average communter like me comes in contact with is downright rude and unfortunately when I’m the kind of commuter who has done nothing to contribute to it it sucks to be on the receiving end of the ire.

I’m sure they deal with a lot of assholes all day but that’s part of the job. If you are in the business of customer service it’s part of the territory. Your good customers do not deserve to be treated like shit because the bad customers are getting to you. In the private sector you get fired for treating your customers like crap and pulling the stuff some of the MTA workers pull.

Forget the visible ones. Ever seen the ones who work on the infrastructure? 1 to work, 3 to watch, 2 to supervise. And they have the power to do it because of the unions.

So while you’re sitting in your nice cushy office, try taking a moment to consider that 1) you wouldn’t last a day if you had to do their job (especially during rush hour), and 2) if they’re so pathetic and useless, how come you’re missing them now?

Woah this isn’t about me vs them. LOL It’s the whole city that is inconvenienced. Frankly I was for a day but I’m a healthy person. I prefer the LIRR to the subway any day and I can work from home. But it stinks for the rest of the city who is forced to put up with this especially the old and the young. They don’t deserve it and it’s a dangerous sitution to put people in considering the weather.

Secondly I have done their job and strongly believe in the philosophy that you should be good at what you do. This ‘entitlement’ shit is passe. If it’s that bad they should go do something else.