It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NYC Jails Public Worker For Protests

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 04:36 PM
then fire them, let some one else take the job. they cant get wrongfully fired if they werent coming to work. Its your choice to either support them or have them fired and replaced, but there is no need for people to be arrested for it. thats what im saying. If you think they shouldnt be paid more, fired them, dont send them to jail.

I live in jersey and knew alot of people effected in NYC just from the 3 day strike. If you didnt like it, just tell the people to fire the entire staff if they have to. There is still NO reason to bring in criminal charges and laws against it.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 05:07 PM
Grimreaper --

If you live in New Jersey, (as you claim to), you claim to "know people" who were affected by the strike, then this would not bother you so much.

Eveyone I know who was affected by the strike, is pretty happy he's goin to jail.

Your on your own with this one.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 05:08 PM
He is being jailed for inciting a illegal strike affecting thousands of people, right before Christmas. The laws were in place before he decided to have his protest. He knew the consequences of his actions, and now he is dealing with them.

I'm sure he's happy to get sentenced to jailtime, instead of just a fine. You can't be any kind of proper martyr without a little punishment, can you?

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 05:26 PM
i do live in jersey, i do know people effected, and i do know that just because theres a law doesnt make it right. i dont agree with the patriot act, but that doesnt mean just because its been made that now its right. I know the effects that this has, but i know just as well how the opposite shoe feels. theres no need for laws against this, when the people could handle it just the same.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 05:33 PM

I don't for one minute believe you know anyone affected by this strike. Because everyone I know that had to walk across the Brooklyn Bridge, find a different way to get to the city and get around locally is happy this guy is going to jail.

Also, the union workers who have to give up 3-4 days pay to pay the fines. And, in the end, they signed almost the same deal that was offered to them in the first place.

Why don't you cut this out? You are obviously a person who cares little for the law and just someone looking for attention.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 05:56 PM
Gaining a good familiarity with the Taylor law and the reasoning behind it is a good first step to take before really considering the weight of this issue.

As some of you know, I live and work in Manhattan and before graduating college (mid-late 90s) interned for the city government. You learn a lot as an intern, especially when you have a good boss, as mine was, who understands that the point is for you to learn. One of the things I had the privelege of discussing with long time employees was labor relations in the city. At the time there were issues with the Teachers union, the Fire union, and of course the transit union.

In such a priveleged position, being able to speak to people that dealt with the city charter, labor negotiations, and emergency management I learned the true importance of the Taylor law.

Imagine if the firefighters decided to go on strike. While an apartment building burns, the firemen are out picketing. Is this a good idea? Imagine if the policemen strike? While a bank is being held up and hostages are taken, the policemen are out picketing.

They both have unions, they're just not permitted to strike because of the potential damage and danger it would cause. Transit workers fall into the same category. Your solution of "wake up earlier and get a bike" is the solution of someone who, thank goodness, does not work in public administration. When transit goes on strike, people forced to use their cars cause monstrous traffic jams that do such things as make it IMPOSSIBLE for ambulances/police/fire trucks to reach those in need. It makes it impossible for home nurses to reach their patients. It makes the elderly (who maybe can't "hop on a bike" or "stroll across a bridge") completely homebound and sometimes unable to reach doctors or pharmacies.

That is why transit is included, and will remain included in the Taylor law. It's been challenged and crushed every time, and will remain a powerful tool to keep the citizens of New York safe.

The strike was illegal according to laws that Mr. Toussaint was very familiar with. The city is permitted to keep him in jail far longer than 10 days, the city is permitted to fine every single member of his union 25,000 dollars per day that they went on strike, and the city is permitted to do this without batting an eyelid.

And so, Roger the martyr walked across the Brooklyn bridge with his two recent best friends Al Sharpton and Herb Daughtry, and will spend a cushy, short, ten day sentence due to a 3 day strike that crippled the commute 8 million people, and hurt the lives of countless numbers of them. He should consider himself lucky.

It's too bad that not everyone can just hop on a bike and "do what they gotta do", but thank goodness our lawmakers realized that correctly and did what was necessary back then.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 06:08 PM

Thank you for your well put, reasonable and logical statement. I do not work for the city and i could not have put it as elloquently as you.

Aside from this, I'd like to ask you a question.

I'm pretty new to this site, I never heard of all the 9/11 theories until I started reading the posts here.

Since you are a fellow New Yorker, you must have watched the events unfold as I did. Do you buy into any of the conspiracies? Just wondering.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 06:10 PM
tommy your assumptions that because I dont think like YOU about the issue, and that you because i dont that i obviously have no idea whats going on is completely ignorant. Just because I dont agree with you or a majority view point does not mean that i must not have any idea about whats going on, and i must not know anybody effected by it. Just because I think that a law was made in an unjust manner, does not mean that i dont respect the law.

i mean what is this the patriot act, if i dont support everything they do i must hate america and freedom? no i have the freedom to say "well the union workers are willing to not get paid at all, go on strike, they must want something" i have the freedom to say "well you know they could always just fire them, or the people could just find alternate travel. they could either give up more money, or deal with their decision to not pay more if the transit doesnt fire them." i also have the freedom to say "well since they could just fire them, theres no reason to bring criminal punishment on them. it was everyone elses choice to become so dependent on the system in the first place." and i can say that without some one telling me i must know nothing of what im talking about. Why because im granted that right. Your assumptions lead me to believe that your pretty narrow minded.

Just because we dont think the same, doesnt mean you have some sort of higher moral and logical ground over me. Just because you went through it and feel a certain way, doesnt mean everyone else will. It also means that just because its your view doesnt mean everyone else must not know anything if they dont agree.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 06:18 PM
yes well all your telling me is that, "if they strike it will do damage to the city", yet if their job is that important, why are they striking in the first place? If its that important give them what they want. If its not then dont and face the consiquences. Im sick of people complaining about taxes, yet they go out and buy a big screen TV. They want to live a consumerism lifestyle in a society that is damaged. You cant live a consumerism lifestyle when your foundations of the nation are crumbling. Paying taxes for most isnt as important as that new electronic device. Im sorry if everybody wants everything for nothing, but its time for a reality check. You have to pay the price, one way or another.

I have no problem with a consumerism lifestyle as long as the city is in fine condition and everything is running pretty smoothly. When you got people striking, a huge deficit, and people wanting lower taxes, then im sorry but something has got to change. Thats the lifestyles we are living.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 06:30 PM

In one of my posts i stated that you have the right to your own opinion.

Why don't you read some of the posts before making such an arogant statement.

Here is some further reading for you;

You may also want to read what Djarums has to say about this law.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 06:32 PM
As pointed out already, there are perfectly good reasons for this Taylor Law. It was so that essential services that millions of poeple depend on couldn't be disrupted by a small group of people.

There's nothing stopping them from going on strike if they want to, but by doing so they are breaking a law they are aware of. I have no sympathy for someone that purposely breaks a law and screws over millions of people, for their own benefit.

He knew exactly what he was doing and he got off light.

If you want to let the law of the jungle rule in these kind of situations, you are going to end up living in a jungle. A very, very expensive one, because they will raise your taxes to pay for that more expensive transit.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 06:50 PM
why jail them inside of firing them? you know how many people could be jailed if we made a law for everyone that stated "if your doing it for your own personal benefit, then we shouldnt allow it"
yea i already read the law, and i know that theres a good possiblity that the city could start to seriously get in trouble. that show just how important their jobs are. When everyone says, wed rather have our house burn down then pay these taxes, thats when you know that the pay of the workers has gotten too high. You decide when you want to cut them off of their pay.

Much like any other situation, its either you give in, which says that you feel the service is more important then the money. Or you don't give in, and say youd rather have the money then the service because it costs too much. Thats how a price is set, not by jailing people when you think they charge too much. People are lazy now, they rather say "im not giving them more money, AND i refuse to lose the service, so lets just throw them in jail and fine them" rather then sacrifice and get the message through. you want to live in a capitalistic society, dont complain when it backfires on you.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 07:15 PM
I don't pretend to know exactly how New Yorkers were affected by the transit strike as I'm from Washington but I do agree with people in essential services not being allowed to strike. I'm a Teamster but because of my job I cannot strike because of public safety. It seems reasonable and just that the transit workers be considered essential in New York and therefore should not have gone on strike. There are other ways of getting your point across short of striking.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Duzey
An illegal strike is an illegal strike.

The citizens of NYC are the ones who pay the bills and they are the ones who were harmed by this fellows actions. The whole city should be able to sue him because I'm pretty sure they didn't get a refund on the taxes they paid for transit service that wasn't provided.

Union workers in public services need to remember that many of the people who contribute to their paycheques don't earn as much as them. Unions members need to learn how to sacrifice, too.
I have to take umbrage at the Union members need tolearn how to sacrifice thing. As long time union member who has to rely on the state legislature for my raises and I'm currently over 20% below parity I know all about sacrifice our wages are currently set a just barely above poverty level and yet the public expects us to risk our lives daily that's why those of us with senioriy are looking for other employment. By the way the legislature got a 19% raise while I got 2.9 sacrifice enough for you.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 07:57 PM
how do you get heard if all you can do is protest with no action to back it up? how can you force them to give some results?

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 08:35 PM

After re-reading all the posts on this thread, it looks like your the only one who thinks this law is bad.

Your last two posts have become disjointed and meaningless. Come back when you have a reasonable thought and when you can form a coherent sentence.

The fact of the matter remains, Tousant broke the law. He goes to jail.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 08:39 PM
Umbrage away. My mother was in a union and she does too.

You did catch me making a blanket statement, which is something I try very hard not to do. I shall take this opportunity to amend it.

Not all unions need to sacrifice. They make reasonable demands. There are also unions that don't have high salaries and a worker doing the same job in the private sector can make more, on top of not having any dues to pay. The sad truth is that there is only so much money in the bag for all the public service unions and some unions get a higher priority leaving others with small to non-existant pay increases.

Up here, transit and mail are not considered essential services, so I have first-hand experience of the damage that extended strikes in those two areas can do. It's not pretty and if it goes on too long, people lose their jobs, and the elderly and poor become literally homebound. In the case of a postal strike, you have small businesses go under because their cash flow is beyond screwed up.

I will also point out that I am giving an outsiders perspective on this. I come from a province in Canada where the unions seem to have more power than the government and unions are striking for 30% wage increases. Perhaps the situation between the government and the unions is a little uglier up here.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 08:42 PM
still didnt answer my question, how do you apply force to make people act and hear you at, when you have nothing to enforce what you say? when any action you will take other then talking is against the law.

o yea and a nice immortal technique will answer your "your the only one" stuff.
"truth isnt measured in mass appeal"
just because some people think that its ok, doesnt mean that its necessarily OK for everyone. just because you think its wrong doesnt hide the truth that without striking, all the unions can do is complain alot. they cant take actual action.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 08:45 PM
yes well take a look around. take a look at all the strikes and the unhappy people, and then look at all the people yelling "tax cuts! we want tax cuts!" then after that they scream "we want our transit system!" then "we want cheap gas!" then they scream "we want raises!". A spoiled nation wanting everything for nothing, thats all this country has turned into, everything for nothing.

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 08:46 PM
As a New Yorker I'm glad they jailed him, I wish they had sent more to prison and given them nice long sentences. It was rediculous, not to mention dangerous, for the decisions of a few union leaders to tie up the entire city. New Yorkers are known for growing closer so few will harbor real long term resentments but I must say that the strike was a fiasco. I'm glad they sent him to jail, I hope he enjoys hanging out with the drug dealers and rapists.

In my opinion it really seemed that he was intent on the strike from the begining, more over it seemed that the entire strike was to make us remember his reign over the transit worker's union. However, now we'll all remember him as the jailbird he was born to be.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in