It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
If I were the transit union and I wanted to make my point without disrupting traffic, I would refuse to collect fares.

You would still be providing the service, but making a rather bold statement at the same time.




posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 08:51 PM
link   
grimreaper,

Answer what question? Do you even know what your talking about anymore?

You started this thread, so yes, your the only one that thinks this law is wrong.

What is this supposed to mean? "truth isnt measured in mass appeal"

Why don't you decide exaclty what you don't like, get some supporters and go before the state legislature and try to change the law?



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
ive stated my question twice, but for you ill stated it again.

how do you make these people act on your demands when all your allowed to do is talk? your not being violent by riots, your not allowed to strike, so what?

(some one above you gave a pretty decent idea. the people wouldnt want the *strike* type thing to end because thats more free stuff. but yea they would be hurting from that. but then again they would all just be fired, but at least you wouldnt be throwing them in jail)



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Its called Collective Bargaining.

You may want to look at this link. Since you didn't look at it before, i'll give it to you again.

"just for you"

www.nysut.org...



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
ok i read it, and what pressure is applied from this to get things done? i see none, i see people being a middle man in the whole works, but i still see nothing that pressures people to get things done by a deadline.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
get a bike, get up earlier, do what you got to do. If you rely on them that much, then apparently they deserve to be treated better.


That is pretty funny. You cannot ride a bike across any of the bridges or tunnels in Manhattan south of 125th Street. And I live 22 miles from my job.

I feel no pity for transit workers who make on average $26 an hour.

No one should be allowed to strike. I don't belong to a union; if I don't show up for work I get fired. Why should it be different for these people? They knew what the job was and what the pay was and what the benefits were when they started. If they didn't like the terms they should not have taken the job.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   
the transit union has announced that they are not ruling out the possibility of a targeted slowdown. This was what I thought they should have done last time. Much more annoying and disruptive as people will be forced to wait for their buses and trains, rather than sit in traffic.

If they make the schedule sporadic and unreliable they might....wait, the schedule is sporadic and unreliable.

they own us.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
If I were the transit union and I wanted to make my point without disrupting traffic, I would refuse to collect fares.

You would still be providing the service, but making a rather bold statement at the same time.


they don't collect fares by the way. they have machines that accept metro cards which work like a debit card with purchased tokens. they don't sell metro cards either. there are machines that do that too.


assuming they did sit and take fares, letting people in for free would be like giving away shirts at the gap. It's theft and grounds for arrest.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Not collecting fares might not be the best idea, I was trying to show that there are other things the union could do to make their point.

That's interesting though, where I am, aside of the buses, our transit works on the honour system and the drivers could get away with it. The bus drivers can waive fares if they like. I get my pass checked maybe once a month on the Skytrain and I've never seen a driver refuse to let someone on because they didn't have the fare. The drivers just couldn't be bothered to argue.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
i agree they should be fired, thats something i dont have a problem with. its when they bring in legal actions against them that i get annoyed. unemployee him, fine, but dont waste a dollar of taxes by sending him to jail, giving him a court case, appointing lawyers and a judge, jury and all. no, just fire him and case closed. He wants to file a lawsuit for unreasonable termination, he has no case because he didnt show up to work and that will end quickly.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I'd just like to point out that despite what you may have heard here not every New Yorker felt that these people should have been fired. I'm not the only one either most of the people I work with although grumpy about the inconvenience understood that we shouldn't jump to reactionary conclusions and should realize that these people are striking for a reason.

I also love the elitist attitudes displayed by most of the reactionaries regarding the striking workers.
Case in point being "If you wanted to make more money, then perhaps you should have gotten an education and not a bus drivers licence". Yes apparently in America only those who go to college or work in vital industries are allowed to make more money. Vital industries wait a minute....

Isn't it funny how the MTA is so vital and important that it is required to operate under the Taylor law but not vital enough that it's workers deserve any respect. After all they're only menial uneducated scum it's not like they do anything important right? I suppose some people will say that they lost any chance at respect when they went on strike but we all know thats not true. The MTA has always been one of the least appreciated institutions in NY. People don't look at them and see the workers who get us to where we have to go 365 days a year 24 seven. They see the slackers who cause us to be late for seemingly arbitrary inscrutable reasons. Yeah their not glamorous like the NYPD or the FDNY yet they are every bit as important and worthy of ever bit as much respect. Yet most people would never even consider giving it to them.

By the way that ferry pilot wasn't drunk. He passed out due to medication and fatigue. That man has suffered enough he doesn't need to be needlessly impugned as a drunk on top of everything.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:38 PM
link   
You know what I love???

When people take statements completely out of context and call me elitist.

The quote you took out of context was in response to this quote:


Originally posted by grimreaper797
Really in all truth, if people rely on transit and work pretty far from there home, then maybe they should find an alternate way of travel or get a job closer. They put themselves in that position of dependence, then they shouldnt be surprised when they get in a jam.

But please, don't let me stop you from reading whatever you want into posts. It's easier to find what you're looking for that way.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
I'd just like to point out that despite what you may have heard here not every New Yorker felt that these people should have been fired. I'm not the only one either most of the people I work with although grumpy about the inconvenience understood that we shouldn't jump to reactionary conclusions and should realize that these people are striking for a reason.


you shouldn't fire the workers. if they break the picket line they will have a hard time working with the strikers when the strike ends.

Toussaint, however, should be held accountable for the whole mess.



Originally posted by boogyman
By the way that ferry pilot wasn't drunk. He passed out due to medication and fatigue. That man has suffered enough he doesn't need to be needlessly impugned as a drunk on top of everything.


you're right, he was on drugs and he should not have been operating the bus. He doesn't deserve any sympathy in my book, no matter how much he has been thru, the victims have been thru worse.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I don't believe these workers should have been fired.

These two statements have been copied from the link above.

Before the Taylor Law was enacted, public employees in New York had no collective bargaining rights. Under the Condon-Wadlin Act, a 1947 law that the Taylor Law replaced, striking public employees were penalized by being fired.

NYSUT is always working to win legislation to improve the provisions of the Taylor Law. For example, a 1982 amendment mandated that if a collective bargaining agreement expires, its terms and conditions continue until a new agreement takes effect. That amendment has helped thousands of members avoid hardships when negotiations are impeded by harsh economic conditions, recalcitrant employers or both. An earlier improvement eliminated the “probation penalty” (probation for one year) against tenured teachers who went on strike.


While the Taylor law is not perfect it protects all parties involved in the collective bargaining process. Isn't it better for 33,000 people to stay on the job while the negotiations go on?

In one of my former posts i stated that my spouse is a NYC teacher. She went without a contract for 3 years. Teachers did not walk off the job. The president of the teachers union did not organize and support a strike - like Toussant.

When her contract was issued, she received a retro check for back pay. No harm was done. The point - collective bargaining worked.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 06:40 PM
link   
yes but what im saying is tuff luck, they want to protest, let them. when they get fired thats their fault, then you can hire people who wont get their panties all in a bunch about their pay. There simply isnt ANY reason to bring in jail time. I could maybe understand a fine, but i think firing them and not allowing them to work in the NYC transit again should say enough to them. I definately dont believe in jail time though, thats BS. maybe you think hes worth spending some money on, but i dont. Jail isnt for people like that, and there was a time where we understood this. Jail is for people who are a danger to society. Killers and rapists go to jail, people who refused to go to work...no thats not jailable.

Those wishing he got more time, guess where the money would be coming to support him while hes in jail...thats right your pockets. Putting people like this in jail does more damage then good. Fines, more understandable, but should be talked about. Jail, no, i dont care what way you put it is uncalled for.

EDIT: duzey you quoted me but i have no idea what you were talking about since i wasnt addressing anybody when i said that. Im a bit confused, what were you trying to say?

[edit on 26-4-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 08:46 PM
link   
grimreaper,

That post just above wasn't directed to you. It was in response to this:


Originally posted by boogyman
I also love the elitist attitudes displayed by most of the reactionaries regarding the striking workers.
Case in point being "If you wanted to make more money, then perhaps you should have gotten an education and not a bus drivers licence".

I was trying to point out that taking one sentence I wrote and using it to label me as an 'elitist reactionary' is silly. When I wrote that, it was in direct response to your post, which I quoted to show the need for putting things in context.

I was perhaps trying to follow the 'no quoting the post directly above you' rule too closely, and that made the point of my last post a little unclear.

Originally, I was pointing out that if you say that people shouldn't depend on the transit and just walk, bike or move closer to work, that I could turn that around and say that the bus drivers know when they start it's not a glamourous, high-paying job and they're not allowed to strike. If you want to be paid like an engineer, go through the schooling they have to and if you want the right to strike, don't go work in an essential service. I was being a smart aleck, which i am wont to do.

Sorry if I confused you, myself and everyone else reading this.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   
i understand now, but let me remind you, just because you have a higher education doesnt necessarily mean you deserve a higher pay or your more important now. Some of it isnt about the money but just to make break throughs. Scientists are paid as much as you think(some of them), but they do it not because of its importance or pay, but because they want to excell that field. its different with transit because thats a dependence job. Though some would beg to differ, in the end transit ends up more important then the scientists. Mainly because things can function without the scientists, meanwhile if transit shut down, everyone is screwed.

Education doesnt necessarily mean more pay, it just means your in a field that requires more learning. though some would say thats wrong, in the end its true. Just because you get a major education doesnt mean your job is going to get great pay for variety of reasons. especially with fields that arent required to help the entire city. If your job was astrophysics, your doing it more for the honor and fame then the money. Your doing it do excel the field rather then pay. Now of course astrophysics takes a huge education, but the transit workers in the end still will and should get paid more because of their importance.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
You know what I love???

When people take statements completely out of context and call me elitist.

The quote you took out of context was in response to this quote:


If that wasn't your intent then I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I've heard people making statements like that before and assumed that was your intent. Labor rights are a sensitive subject to me as I work in a sector where I am denied collective bargaining rights and I hate to see how quickly modern Americans are willing to turn against unions and ignore all the benefits they have brought to our society. Many people seem to believe unions have somehow become obsolete an detrimental to society at large.

Once again I apologize.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Thank you.


I have no problem with unions, as long as they follow the rules. It's not an environment I would want to work in, however. I'll never forget my mother getting into a 'grievance fight' with a someone she supervised.

There are many rights I wouldn't enjoy as a working person if it hadn't been for unions leading the way. I think that unions started off as a great thing, but like most things involving people, it has become just another big business and about power at the higher levels. In my opinion, most unions don't serve their members very well.

Where I live, the unions have have become political entities which can make it very difficult to get anything done and that has eroded public support for them.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join