http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4544650.stm
It always makes me happy seeing the working/producing/active classes rising up and fighting for their rights.
And just listen to the shite they have to put up with:
MTA (Metropolitan Transit Authority) said it had put a fair offer on the table and chairman Peter Kalikow called the union strike a "slap in the face" to all New Yorkers.
and:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg is to put into effect contingency measures, but says the city's first strike in 25 years could cost up to $400m a day.
He has asked some seven million commuters to make car pool arrangements, cycle or walk to work, or work from home.
"We cannot let inconveniences, as massive as they are, stop our economy, shut down our schools or jeopardise public safety," he said.
Just look at how the powers at be (the bosses) and the politicians come out viciously attacking and assaulting anyone who dares stand up for their rights.
Christ, you wouldn't want that sort of disobedience spreading to underpaid teachers, health staff and garbage delivery now, would you?
No! Just imagine people doing important work demanding better pay for the services they offer. Pffffft....hell no! That's the bosses domain.
Oh wait. The union wasn't even demanding better pay...they just wanted to stop cut backs in benefits because the MTA has a 1 billion $ surplus and therefor doesn't need to enforce cutbacks.
Obviously they do though. Bosses (who don't do anything) and shareholders (if there are any...who do even less) want that money. They need that money.
It's not right to have to give it to the people who actually DO something.
Originally posted by WajomaWhy?
Here's a right the poor down trodden workers have: They can piss off and find another job.
Why not get what they want and the bosses and shareholders can piss off and find themselves a proper job.
After all...the poor down trodden workers are the ones actually WORKING/PRODUCING/DRIVING?etc...
"MTA (Metropolitan Transit Authority) said it had put a fair offer on the table and chairman Peter Kalikow called the union strike a "slap in the face" to all New Yorkers."
I agree this statement is bollox, it implies the drivers etc go to work primarily for "all New Yorkers" when they actually go to work primarily for themselves.
Originally posted by WajomaSupply and demand can be successfully fought via restricting the supply in the form of strike action. It does work in some cases!
There's this thing called supply and demand and fighting it is like fighting gravity.
There is an abundance of people that can do such mundane work as speed the choo choo up and slow the choo choo down.
To just leave and find another job is not always a solution. What if there are no better paying jobs for your particulars level of skill / education? And dont tell me that pay is related to how hard you work because that is definately not always the case. It is a general trend that people higher up in an organisation get paid more regardless of education level / skill / or amount of work done. If management is not your strong point then you get paid less.
Many countries have strong workers unions which have successfully increased the average wage of the lower paid workers. This often results in less jobs and higher unimployment though.
Originally posted by WajomaPersonally, I'd rather have well-paid, properly trained and fully motivated workers driving trains.
There's this thing called supply and demand and fighting it is like fighting gravity.
There is an abundance of people that can do such mundane work as speed the choo choo up and slow the choo choo down.
Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.
Which was the Australian city where the transport workers took action by operating as normal but with the exception of not taking any fares. Protest made, both sides aware of it, yet not actually annoying the public - greater sympathy for their cause.
Instead providing another reason to use private transport. Having had a similar thing happen over here when I didn't have my own car, it didn't do my impression of the service any good whatsoever.
Originally posted by WajomaThat's all fine and good until YOU are that worker, and YOU have YOUR mortgage to pay and YOUR children to feed. Wanna reconsider that? How many people do things in your life that you can't or won't do yourself? Don't they deserve a decent wage too?
Here's a right the poor down trodden workers have: They can piss off and find another job.
Originally posted by RedmikeI come from Zambia but currently live and work in South Africa. there is a strong contrast between the two. When I lived in Zambia I employed a maid and a gardener every week day. In South Africa the minimum wage is much higher (due to strong unions) and although I am better off I can only afford to have a maid one day a week. The result is that in Zambia there are 10 maid type jobs available for every 1 such job in South Africa. The same applies in business. I worked for a company in Zambia in which about 1 third of the employees got next to nothing in wages but did next to nothing as well. In South Africa, due to higher wages brought about by strong Unions there tend to be less employees carrying out a particular task.
Which countries have higher unemplyment because they have strong unions?
Originally posted by twhiteheadOh, you poor, down-trodden thing!
I come from Zambia but currently live and work in South Africa. there is a strong contrast between the two. When I lived in Zambia I employed a maid and a gardener every week day. In South Africa the minimum wage is much higher (due to strong unions) and although I am better off I can only afford to have a maid one day a week. The result is that in Zambia ...[text shortened]... s brought about by strong Unions there tend to be less employees carrying out a particular task.
Fancy only having a maid one day a week.
However do you cope, luvvie?
Originally posted by WajomaIf this is true, then the strike shouldn't affect New York City at all. The employer
There is an abundance of people that can do such mundane work as speed the choo choo up and slow the choo choo down.
always has the right to fire an employee for going on strike and replace that employee
with another body. If there are plenty of people willing to do such mundane work at
the prices offered, then the employers -- and the Big Apple -- have nothing to worry
about. The strike will be broken by the new employees.
That is, if the employers are actually giving fair wages and benefits, I'm sure that,
drawing on the abundance you mentioned, anyone with the capacity will apply for
the newly opened positions.
However, I suspect that it is not true, given what Mayor Bloomberg is asking
his constituency to do. That is, I bet that the wages and benefits are not enticing
enough to get people to apply for those jobs which leave them unfilled and the strike
will hold.
A business will always seek to break the strike by filling it in with new employees.
Let's see if this so-called abundance actually does exist.
Nemesio
Originally posted by WajomaI assume you mean the increased minimum wage which allows a person
What you should be asking is how do all those that no longer have the opportunity to work (thanks to high min) cope.
to earn about $20,000 a year on a full-time workload.
This allows people to work a single job for fewer hours, creating greater
stability in the home and permits them to support the economy more
fully by having a bit of money to spend and time to spend it. It is clear
that employment rates have not suffered from any statistically significant
standpoint. What it has done is decreased the number of people with
multiple part-time jobs.
You may think it is menial, but without trash removal, your life would suck.
We can discuss whether or not trash removal should be a governmental
duty (taxable) or whether it should be privatized, but the fact of the matter
is, you certainly don't want to do it (take your trash to the dump on a
regular basis). Similarly, the guy 'speeding the choo choo up and slowing
it down' clearly performs a vital function for the city (otherwise, it wouldn't
be concerned about losing 400m a day). A group of people who control such
economic factors can command a fair salary.
You were right about one thing: it is supply and demand. There is a
strong demand for 'choo choo drivers.' If the suppliers of such a commodity
are in short supply (as I am sure we will find), then we can expect that their
contractual requests will be met.
Nemesio