Cyan Bane's Hall Of Bouncing Souls: Three, your out.

Brainstorm it:

"The injunction, sought by the New York State attorney general's office, is allowed under the state's Taylor Law, which prohibits strikes by public employees. If transit employees do walk out, the Transport Workers Union, Local 100, faces millions of dollars in fines - and individual employees could be fined two days' pay for each day of work they miss. Striking workers could also be jailed."

The Taft-Hartley also prohibits strikes against the government. I'm not saying the gov't is right but technically it's been illegal to strike against the gov't since 1947.

# posted by Andy : 12/20/2005 04:55:00 PM

It's illegal because there is a law that states the TWU cannot strike. It's selfish because the people striking would rather negatively impact the economy and daily goings of the city than work out an agreement civily with the city. There was a time when unions and strikes were necessary... those days are over.

# posted by dpb : 12/20/2005 04:57:00 PM

The down-to-the-wire negotiations came as workers at two private bus lines in Queens walked off the job, a move meant to step up pressure on the MTA.

I am sure public workers make up the majority, but they can't touch the private companies. I guess they could sue for breach of contract (if there is one).

# posted by cyan : 12/20/2005 04:59:00 PM

Re DPB:

If it is illegal it's illegal. I honestly don't know if it would hold up in court or if the penality of $1m is nothing to the Union. (My guess is when they work it out, then the fines will become minimal). I don't see how the union is being any more uncivil by striking, than the city is by saying "here is all we are gonna give, take it or leave it, you can't disagree because it is illegal and we will fine you."

# posted by cyan : 12/20/2005 05:07:00 PM

cyan, to be fair, the penalty is $1 million per day (imposed by a judge - starting Tuesday). So it'll add up pretty quickly, I suppose.

Also, as I understand it, Unions have more tools available to them than striking.

I don't have a dog in this fight though...

# posted by Daniel : 12/20/2005 06:28:00 PM

I think a few very important distinctions should be made here. First, these people aren't getting paid while they're on strike. Now I don't know about you, but I'm not walking off the job in an act of solidarity with my co-workers unless some seriously bad shit is going down.

Second, I do not believe a union is going to walk off the job unless every bargaining resource at their disposal has been utilized. I don't think we're talking about a group that sat at the table for 30 minutes, didn't get what they wanted, then decided to strike. We're talking about a group that has struggled for months to find a middle ground, couldn't find one, and used the last weapon they could. I for one think a strike, however irritating, is a vital tool to keep corporations from screwing us.

# posted by tj : 12/20/2005 10:40:00 PM

From today's NY Times:

"Yet for all the rage and bluster that followed, this war was declared over a pension proposal that would have saved the transit authority less than $20 million over the next three years....

Indeed, not just Mr. Toussaint but some other New Yorkers are questioning whether it was worthwhile for the authority to go to war over the issue when the authority's pension demands would apparently save less over the next three years than what the New York City Police Department will spend on extra overtime during the first two days of the strike.

"What they'd be saving on pensions is a pittance," Mr. Toussaint said.

Robert Linn, a former New York City labor commissioner, questioned the transportation authority's decision - with the backing of the mayor and governor - to go to the mat over pensions with a union that can exact huge pain on the city in a year when the authority was enjoying a $1 billion surplus.

"They might have picked a union that was more willing to consider the subject," Mr. Linn said. "It not just the considerable economic power of this union, it's also the timing," just before Christmas. "It's tremendously problematic." "

Regardless of the legality of the strike, it just seems tremendously stupid for the city to force this strike at this time to save very little money. The costs incurred from the strike are already astronomically higher than any projected savings. Even if you look at the possible long-term savings of the restructured pension plan, it would have made far more sense for the city to reach a deal now and to renegotiate when the 3-year contract is up. Seems like pragmatism was sacrificed on the altar of ideology and ego.

# posted by Brett : 12/21/2005 09:26:00 AM

�There was a time when unions and strikes were necessary... those days are over.�
Workers form unions so they can stand together when fighting for better pay, hours, benefits, etc. The reasoning is that solidarity makes them more secure, and gives individuals the strength to stand up for their rights. How is this obsolete?

Especially in an age when corporations are becoming even bigger, more powerful, and their ability to whipsaw labor markets against one another is increasing? (Don't like your wages? Fine, we will just build a plant in Mexico.)

Yeah, I am late to the game.

# posted by Justin : 12/22/2005 01:48:00 PM

�There was a time when unions and strikes were necessary... those days are over.�
Workers form unions so they can stand together when fighting for better pay, hours, benefits, etc. The reasoning is that solidarity makes them more secure, and gives individuals the strength to stand up for their rights. How is this obsolete?

# posted by Justin : 12/22/2005 01:48:00 PM

Your Thoughts?