The 'I' Word: Today Still Can't Bring Itself to Call NYC Strike Illegal

Today Show/NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[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.

[wideawake]

I suspect their contract is 'expired'...This is not a 'wildcat' strike...

It is illegal for transit workers to stage a strike under the NYS Taylor law.

It is a wildcat strike and an illegal strike and the union is currently being fined millions of dollars a day for this illegal action.

[wideawake]

Think again. They don't have a contract right now. That's why they are not working. There are no terms of a contract to fulfill.

i am not talking about their wage and benefit contract with the MTA.

I am talking about their contract with the state of NY to provide transit service.

It's a well-known fact taht this strike is completely illegal and in total violation of state law.

[Right Cal Gal]

Reminds me of the threatened BART strike here in the S.F. Bay Area last year. The Union put out ads of "money for political influence, no money for safety, etc., etc." and the BART officials simply put out news stories saying exactly what BART drivers earned, what their benefits were and what the officials were offering. It worked. When the commuters found out that BART workers got health care and transit passes for free for them AND their families, had higher wages than most of the people using the system, the commute crowd sided with management. Everyone said the same thing - "I'm quitting my job and working for BART!" Only exception of course, were the socialists from the People's Republic of Berkeley.

I heard on Glenn Beck yesterday that the N.Y. Transit Workers also want an 8% raise, but are willing to settle for a 6% raise and a 25% reduction in disciplinary actions. Nice. My salary hasn't gone up 8% in three years.

[BikerNYC]

No rational person can possibly think otherwise.

Rational people can think otherwise.

This is how the NYT is reporting it today.

On the final day of intense negotiations, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, it turns out, greatly altered what it had called its final offer, to address many of the objections of the transit workers' union. The authority improved its earlier wage proposals, dropped its demand for concessions on health benefits and stopped calling for an increase in the retirement age, to 62 from 55.

But then, just hours before the strike deadline, the authority's chairman, Peter S. Kalikow, put forward a surprise demand that stunned the union. Seeking to rein in the authority's soaring pension costs, he asked that all new transit workers contribute 6 percent of their wages toward their pensions, up from the 2 percent that current workers pay. The union balked, and then shut down the nation's largest transit system for the first time in a quarter-century.

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.

[BikerNYC]

I am talking about their contract with the state of NY to provide transit service.

What contract is that?

It's a well-known fact taht this strike is completely illegal and in total violation of state law.

It should no be illegal to withhold one's work from an employer. People have the right not to work. The MTA's remedy is to fire the workers who do not show up for work.

[wideawake]

What contract is that?

Same contract you signed when you agreed to pay your state taxes.

It should no be illegal to withhold one's work from an employer.

Not when your refusal to work injures a third party.

[BikerNYC]

Oh, for god's sake. When my doorman strikes, it injures me.

You tolerate far too much government control over the lives of people then I prefer. But, that's your right.

This is a matter between the MTA and its workers. Workers don't show up, they get fired. End of story. No interference by the heavy hand of the courts. It's really not that difficult.

[wideawake]

this war was declared over a pension proposal that would have saved the transit authority less than $20 million over the next three years

LOL!

So, in other words, it's the MTA's fault?

LOLOLOLOL!

The MTA caves on every proposal but one - namely that the pension needs to be readjusted - and they even cave on that one by asking for a cheaper-to-the-employees upfront contribution instead of a seven-year benefit delay and it's their fault?

Not only is it hilarious that you cite the NYT's account as authoritative - which is a ridiculous notion on its face - but you can't even read through the spin!

[BikerNYC]

The NYT is hardly authoritative.

It just goes to show you what hard heads will do in these kind of negotiations.

[wideawake]

This is a matter between the MTA and its workers.

Wrong.

MTA riders are involved as well.

The MTA is a public utility, not a private corporation.

I can't get on the competing uptown 4 train.

The TWU are criminals.

You tolerate far too much government control over the lives of people then I prefer.

Because I oppose the establishment of an anarchosyndicalist workers' state of the kind you apparently prefer?

You work a public job, you have a public responsibility. Period.

[wideawake]

It just goes to show you what hard heads will do in these kind of negotiations.

The only hard heads here are the TWU's - the MTA caved in on almost every demand, but the TWU insisted on getting absolutely everything they wanted without any sort of compromise.

[BikerNYC]

I prefer workers to be able to freely alienate their labor. That is capitalism. That means refusing to alienate it at times.

You are obviously no capitalist.

[wideawake]

Interesting stuff. Thanks.

NYC transit workers are paid a princely sum to do jobs that plenty of people would be happy to do for half the wages and half the benefits.

[wideawake]

You are obviously no capitalist.

I'm a stone capitalist, and being a capitalist means honoring the obligations you freely took on.

No one forced them to take a transit job that carried with it the legal obligation to show up for work.

If I were offered a job under those conditions I might have said no. But they didn't. That's life.

"Capitalism" does not mean "a fantasy world in which no one has any responsibilities or obligations, only privileges and benefits."

[RightWingNilla]

Just this morning I heard that lawyers for the MTA may seek today to have union leaders thrown in jail for contempt.

I hope this is correct. It would make my year.

They can make a reality show with Toussaint and Sharpton sharing the same filthy jail cell.

[proud American in Canada]

with much of the brunt being borne by lower-income New Yorkers suddenly without jobs or unable to get to them.

Exactly. Ottawa recently came close to a bus strike and managed to avoid it because the media made it clear that such a strike would disproportionately affect lower-income people.

For a group like a union, which supposedly has the interests of "the common man" at heart, they oftentimes do a good job of hurting regular people who live paycheck-to-paycheck.

[proud American in Canada]

I wonder, though, how many times the word illegal was used in the discussion on the NSA electonic intelligence gathering.

I'm just jumping in very late here, but I did see a thread yesterday that said that the President actually did have authority for this program. In other words, it was not illegal.

[tom paine 2]

I don't think any of those turds have ever used words like illegal, wrong, amoral, unethical or any other word that would imply that they were making a value judgement.