Posted on 12/21/2005 4:39:51 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
December 21, 2005 - 07:02.
When it comes to the Transport Workers Union strike in NYC, the Today show just can't bring itself to pronounce the 'I' word, for illegal.
In contrast with his Today show appearance yesterday, this morning NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg took off the verbal gloves, repeatedly condemning the union for its illegal strike, which violates of the Taylor Law prohibiting public employees in New York from striking. Among other things, Bloomberg stated that striking union members would be fined two days pay for every day the strike lasts.
But whereas Today gave sympathetic treatment to the plight of commuters and the city's economy, and Katie made sympathetic noises in her interview of Bloomberg, the show continued its peculiar reticence when it came to reporting the undeniable fact that the strike is illegal.
The 'I' word was never uttered by any of the Today crew covering the strike.
Lester Holt came the closest, indicating that a judge had found the Transport Workers Union "in contempt" and had imposed fines on it. But in contempt of what? Holt informed us only that the union had been found in contempt "of court". For all we knew from Holt, it could have been for picket lines too close to schools. No mention of the strike's illegality, no word of the Taylor Law.
When Katie concluded the coverage by observing: "it is really a difficult situation," she probably had in mind the plight of the city.
But her comment aptly applied to Today itself, as the show tiptoes around the intractable fact that a union is blatantly violating the law in a way that causes hundreds of millions of dollars of damage daily, with much of the brunt being borne by lower-income New Yorkers suddenly without jobs or unable to get to them.
Still no pic posted?
You raise a straw main when you speak of jail. Have you heard Bloomberg or any government official mention jail? We're speaking of fines and potential firing/replacement.
LOL. I'm with you. Another few weeks of 'fair & balanced' at Today and I'd have been out of a 'job' here!
I don't know if Bloomberg has the authority to fire them.
Allison just delivered the bus load to Fox & Friends! Free donuts & coffee.
I caught the end of the segment, with the hosts giving away calendars and the nice lady saying she'd love her husband anyway if he gave her an automatic car starter instead of jewelry for Christmas. But I'm unfamiliar with the reference to Allison and the bus. Could you explain? Thanks.
F&F's had Allison with a camera crew on board the bus before the bus departed - with a free ride to the studios.
She was doing some spot interviews with some of the passengers before it departed.
I hope I didnt imply that Allison was driving the bus....
If you take a look at the plight of US auto manufacturers due to the cost of labor and the strength of the United Auto Workers (UAW), you may see my point.
I understand this time, the union wanted more than an annual 3% raise, and didn't want to fork over 1% of their salary to contribute to health care benbefits...they currently don't contribute one dime toward the premiums, and wanted to increase the retirement age on new hires from 55 to 62.
Personally, I think the city has had a lot of time to reach an agreement and declined to bargain.
What I don't like is that everyone...every business suffers, but the acrimony should be targeted toward BOTH sides, IMO.
By the way, I dont know where FNC got the doubledecker bus - but they had it & offered a bus ride for pedestrians.
I dont know where it's starting point was - probably somewhere in lower Manhattan.
But why the should they have? These people make a good salary for not a lot of skills. They can't pay 1% toward health care? Let 'em go pound the pavement for comparable pay. They won't find it. The city should stand firm and fire anyone who doesn't show up to work tomorrow. End of story.
What would President Reagan do?
"On 3 August 1981, President Reagan fired more than 11000 air traffic controllers who had gone on strike."
http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/renka/Modern_Presidents/reagan.htm
Why not? The system is shut down, anyway. Maybe this will give some of the employees the opportunity to get out from under the death grip of the union? But it may also result in lots of broken kneecaps. ;)
Just this morning I heard that lawyers for the MTA may seek today to have union leaders thrown in jail for contempt.
Wrong. The TWU members knew when they took their jobs that they had a legal obligation to fulfill the terms of their contract.
If you steal from your employer, you're going to jail.
What a painfully stupid statement.
No one likes a strike...Employer, or employees...
The employees obviously feel the issues disputed are worth losing their jobs over...And the media rarely informs the public what labor issues are really at stake...
What we know is the employer wants concessions...In my view, if the economy is doing as well as Bush says it is (which I don't believe for a minute), I don't see any reason for any concessions to the employees...
I suspect their contract is 'expired'...This is not a 'wildcat' strike...
Wrong.
Every private sector worker contributes to their own health insurance, usually about 6% of each paycheck.
The TWU worker pays nothing. The city suggested that new hires, and only new hires, pay 1%.
The TWU's response: "We want increased benefits with no contribution from any worker."
The city wanted to shift retirement age from 55 to 62 for full pension benefits.
The TWU's response: "Not only do we reject a retirement age increase, we demand a reduction in retirement age to 50 will full pension."
The city suggested that future wage increases be tied to inflation.
The TWU's response: "Not only do we reject wage increases indexed to inflation, we demand a wage increase 8 times the current inflation rate."
The city was more than reasonable, but the TWU are unreasonable, disgusting, greedy, lazy, scummy bastards.
Period.
No rational person can possibly think otherwise.
A lot of silliness in one sentence.
Let's unpack it:
What we know is the employer wants concessions...
No, the employer wants minor adjustments in timing of costs and the union wants major concessions from the employer, including a 25% wage hike over 3 years, full pension at age 50 instead of the current 55 and expanded health benefits with zero contributions from employees.
In my view, if the economy is doing as well as Bush says it is
It's not what Bush says that matters - it's the hard economic facts. Our economy is growing rapidly, the dollar is strengthening and the average median income US household now has a net worth in excess of $100,000.
Ah, I see. You're in the "Bush lied!" camp. What's your next brilliant comment? "No blood for oil!"? How about "Workers of the world unite!"?
I don't see any reason for any concessions to the employees...
Nor do I, but I assume you meant "employers."
The fact is that as people live longer and more complex treatments become available, healthcare becomes more expensive and pension benefits become more expensive.
Most Americans, not being lazy handout-seeking bastards, realize that they need to contribute toward their own health and their own retirement.
No matter how good the economy becomes, healthcare and pension benefits still cost real money and someone has to pay for them.
Why should the subway rider, who is paying for his own benefits and pension pick up the full tab for these transit scrubs?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.