Replies

I lived on Long Island during the threat of a strike in the early 2000s. The contingency plan was buses and extra subway service from Jamaica station to Manhattan on what I believe was called the “P” train, pun intended :-)

No one wins with this. The MTA will eventually cave, the work rule changes that they want (which admittedly are expensive losses for employees) will be watered down assuming they even get any of them implemented, and the taxpayers and riders will be left holding the bag in the form of ticket increases and the pleading of the MTA for more funding.

To be fair the MTA inherited nearly all of these crazy work rules when they acquired the LIRR out of bankruptcy in the 50s or 60s - as it made much better financial sense to buy the LIRR instead of building another maze of a road network to replace it. But where other transit agencies have been able to eliminate them over time, the LIRR has not. Even Metro-North doesn’t have these work rules.

The big rule changes they’re asking for:
*penalty payment changes. If you’re an engineer and you work electric and diesel service? A day’s pay as a penalty. Yard and passenger service in the same day? Penalty payment - a day’s pay.

* Operating a train that is not on your normal schedule for the day (extra service for the Mets game? They swap your assignment because another train is running late? - the engineer is effectively paid double time even though they’re within their 8 hour shift).

While the penalties are stiff, they’re counted as income for the sake of their pensions. So the MTA is effectively paying those inflated costs for years after the penalty was incurred.

They only wanted the concessions on the work rules to fund wage hikes in a 4th year of the contract, based on news reports elsewhere… and would go to arbitration on those. The Unions refused.

The public, as riders and taxpayers are continuing to pay for the MTA’s inept management. I understand the reason for these rules in the 1920s when the railroad was incentivized to hire and staff appropriately for the day’s service. But 100 years later it’s little more than a gravy train the takes advantage of weak management.

I’m not defending the MTA or the unions - just pointing out that it’s a raw deal for taxpayers.

Personally, I hope the voters on Long Island point the finger at Hochul for not managing her MTA chair (who mind you, was previously the director of Capital Programs, which included the bloated second Avenue subway extension) and vote accordingly in November.