HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 3:58 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Exhale solutions.
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spaceship Earth
Posts: 4,671
So fucking over your workforce = money bags ?
__________________
You slip me the cash and I'll slip you the wiener.

For me it can be reduced to this: For every personal freedom we gained from the automobile, we lost in social cohesion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jan 9, 2018, 4:34 PM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West Palm Beach/ Stuart, FL
Posts: 3,092
Seems like it will be next to impossible to update the Subway.
__________________
There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.
-Aldous Huxley

Continue improving until the end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2018, 7:44 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
I am the son of a union machinist and from what I know from growing up is that with every new bargained contract the union laborers voluntarily agreed to lower wages to help the companies "competitiveness" and were left with lower purchasing power that most certainly did not keep up with inflation and agreed to a two tier system where skilled workers make little more than a custodian with no benefits for several years as a way to placate the company from pulling out all together and moving to some blood sucker anti-union "right to work" state. This coincided with the company making hand over fist obscene profits for their shareholders. Most labor unions are not the greed festering rackets that the right-wing paints them to be and in the case of the MTA may be close to being. Those are outliers. and from my experience, the majority of American union laborers are honest hardworking people that with the existence of a union have secured a middle-class quality of life, but one that with every year becomes more threatened. And lets not forgot who brought you the weekend.
Unions brought us the weekend? You have some pretty vile things to say about the Right, as you seem to know them very well, but I think to say Unions "brought you(us) the weekend" is rather absurd. In the West, Christianity brought us a day off, Sunday. So even if Unions are solely responsible for the having Saturday off, they only get 50% of the weekend off.

Also Public Unions are incredibly dangerous. Lets say Walmart employees start a Union. They bargain with corporate. If they ask for too much and Walmart caves in for any reason, and then profits plunge, you have a failed business. Who does a Public Union even bargain with? Politicians? The same people THEY as a group back? So youre telling me it seems perfectly legit for this to happen? Being 100% behind all Unions just because you think that makes you progressive over those redneck Republicans, isn't exactly smart when you look at the results on the ground.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jan 27, 2018, 5:53 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 3,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
^I think everyone is in agreement that the union needs to be curtailed and reformed in both it's work rules and financial expectations in a top to bottom shake-up, but the way you are taking it to the extreme by talking "union busting" just makes you sound like a right-wing asshole.
Quote:
The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”

Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic – a fact that unions once recognized.

George Meany was not alone. Up through the 1950s, unions widely agreed that collective bargaining had no place in government . . . .
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...-sector-unions

Public employee unions in a democracy make no sense. The wages and work conditions of public employees should ultimately be up to the voters, not to politicans who form a symbiotic relationship with the unions trading higher compensation for election-time contributions and support: "Help get me elected and Ill raise your pay (and send the bill to taxpayers or subway riders)". It may often be unspoken, but that's the bargain nearly everywhere and it robs the public.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2018, 4:32 PM
Eightball's Avatar
Eightball Eightball is online now
life is good
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Historic Core
Posts: 2,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...-sector-unions

Public employee unions in a democracy make no sense. The wages and work conditions of public employees should ultimately be up to the voters, not to politicans who form a symbiotic relationship with the unions trading higher compensation for election-time contributions and support: "Help get me elected and Ill raise your pay (and send the bill to taxpayers or subway riders)". It may often be unspoken, but that's the bargain nearly everywhere and it robs the public.
This is true and they have destroyed transit, public works (water companies etc) and much more across the whole US. It is really out of control
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2018, 4:44 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
Unions brought us the weekend? You have some pretty vile things to say about the Right, as you seem to know them very well, but I think to say Unions "brought you(us) the weekend" is rather absurd. In the West, Christianity brought us a day off, Sunday. So even if Unions are solely responsible for the having Saturday off, they only get 50% of the weekend off.

Also Public Unions are incredibly dangerous. Lets say Walmart employees start a Union. They bargain with corporate. If they ask for too much and Walmart caves in for any reason, and then profits plunge, you have a failed business. Who does a Public Union even bargain with? Politicians? The same people THEY as a group back? So youre telling me it seems perfectly legit for this to happen? Being 100% behind all Unions just because you think that makes you progressive over those redneck Republicans, isn't exactly smart when you look at the results on the ground.
you are kidding me. there were no public unions until relatively recently. they were illegal.

also, do you know what happens when they get cut out in our current era? ask wisconsin teachers. they have lost $10k annual pay since their public unions were destroyed around five years ago. that sure didnt take as long as it did for public unions to get 'bad' did it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2018, 5:50 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
you are kidding me. there were no public unions until relatively recently. they were illegal.

also, do you know what happens when they get cut out in our current era? ask wisconsin teachers. they have lost $10k annual pay since their public unions were destroyed around five years ago. that sure didnt take as long as it did for public unions to get 'bad' did it?
I actually don't even know what you were responding to to say "there were no public unions until relatively recently." I never said they were here for a long time or anything regarding their longevity. So I guess I am not kidding until I figure out what I could be kidding about.

You're last point, I never said Public Unions are dangerous to their members. I said they are dangerous to the public, since they are bargaining with the very people who they support for election.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2018, 9:32 PM
White Pine White Pine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by pizzaguy View Post
Every time a conservative speaks, you can be sure that "the slaves didn't even have it that bad!" is right around the corner.
I'm not sure that this is what you were arguing about, but I don't think that the post was trying to argue that slavery was not bad. The poster was using the example of slaves having a day "off" as evidence of the universality of the sunday holiday at that time, rather than to defend slavery itself. As far as I can tell, that post had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery istelf


As I haven't researched this much, I can't comment further other to say that Wikipedia seems to suggest that Sundays off pre-date Saturdays off. However wikipedia isn't infallible, so...

Also, Pleeease everyone be careful with the name calling. It's wrong to counter an argument by looking for something they say that can be made to sound racist, or mean, or whatever. Take the above conversation:

Person A: We had no weekends until unions pushed for it.
Person B: Sundays were already off before unions. Even slaves had it off.
Person C: So you're saying slaves had cushy jobs? lolz typical conservative

There is no logical way of reaching person C's conclusion. It's a lazy attempt to discredit person B's opinion by creating a reprehensible person out of him/her. Maybe C just didn't read it wrong, but even so, the "Lotta Fascists" comment is in the same spirit.

It doesn't follow that everyone who has issues with unions is a fascist. IMO it is pretty easy to defend unions without resorting to these tactics. There is a certain appeal in having a two day weekend, living wages, protection from unreasonable employers, and good working conditions in general. Just stop the rhetoric before we end up killing each other!

Sorry to derail a subway thread, I'm out now lol.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2018, 9:45 PM
Khantilever Khantilever is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 162
.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2018, 9:59 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Pine View Post
I'm not sure that this is what you were arguing about, but I don't think that the post was trying to argue that slavery was not bad. The poster was using the example of slaves having a day "off" as evidence of the universality of the sunday holiday at that time, rather than to defend slavery itself. As far as I can tell, that post had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery istelf


As I haven't researched this much, I can't comment further other to say that Wikipedia seems to suggest that Sundays off pre-date Saturdays off. However wikipedia isn't infallible, so...

Also, Pleeease everyone be careful with the name calling. It's wrong to counter an argument by looking for something they say that can be made to sound racist, or mean, or whatever. Take the above conversation:

Person A: We had no weekends until unions pushed for it.
Person B: Sundays were already off before unions. Even slaves had it off.
Person C: So you're saying slaves had cushy jobs? lolz typical conservative

There is no logical way of reaching person C's conclusion. It's a lazy attempt to discredit person B's opinion by creating a reprehensible person out of him/her. Maybe C just didn't read it wrong, but even so, the "Lotta Fascists" comment is in the same spirit.

It doesn't follow that everyone who has issues with unions is a fascist. IMO it is pretty easy to defend unions without resorting to these tactics. There is a certain appeal in having a two day weekend, living wages, protection from unreasonable employers, and good working conditions in general. Just stop the rhetoric before we end up killing each other!

Sorry to derail a subway thread, I'm out now lol.
Thank you, and yes,I of course wasn't supporting slavery, jesus lol I literally focused my grad school research into slavery for the very reason it interests me probably more than any other subject because it [I]is[I]so abhorrent and the fact that humans think they could own other humans fascinates me incredibly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2018, 10:00 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Pine View Post
I'm not sure that this is what you were arguing about, but I don't think that the post was trying to argue that slavery was not bad. The poster was using the example of slaves having a day "off" as evidence of the universality of the sunday holiday at that time, rather than to defend slavery itself. As far as I can tell, that post had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery istelf


As I haven't researched this much, I can't comment further other to say that Wikipedia seems to suggest that Sundays off pre-date Saturdays off. However wikipedia isn't infallible, so...

Also, Pleeease everyone be careful with the name calling. It's wrong to counter an argument by looking for something they say that can be made to sound racist, or mean, or whatever. Take the above conversation:

Person A: We had no weekends until unions pushed for it.
Person B: Sundays were already off before unions. Even slaves had it off.
Person C: So you're saying slaves had cushy jobs? lolz typical conservative

There is no logical way of reaching person C's conclusion. It's a lazy attempt to discredit person B's opinion by creating a reprehensible person out of him/her. Maybe C just didn't read it wrong, but even so, the "Lotta Fascists" comment is in the same spirit.

It doesn't follow that everyone who has issues with unions is a fascist. IMO it is pretty easy to defend unions without resorting to these tactics. There is a certain appeal in having a two day weekend, living wages, protection from unreasonable employers, and good working conditions in general. Just stop the rhetoric before we end up killing each other!

Sorry to derail a subway thread, I'm out now lol.
Thank you, and yes,I of course wasn't supporting slavery, jesus lol I literally focused my grad school research into slavery for the very reason it interests me probably more than any other subject because it *is*so abhorrent and the fact that humans think they could own other humans fascinates me incredibly.

In this day and age how is it someone is having to defend their support or nonsupport for SLAVERY based on making a point slaves had Sunday off or had holiday routines? lol this is getting crazy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2018, 10:08 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 3,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
Unions brought us the weekend?
The labor movement definitely brought us weekends. During the Industrial Revolution, when people started working in factories, people often worked 7 days a week. Some factory owners gave Sunday off for Sabbath/worship, but it wasn't uncommon to have to work 7 days a week.

Henry Ford gave his factory workers both Saturday and Sunday off (the Saturday was for his Jewish workers), but again, that was his choice, a 2-day weekend wasn't standard. It wasn't until the FDR era that 2-day weekends and a 40-hour work week were established in the US.

This can all be looked up on da internets.
__________________
Patriotism is an inflated assertion of imaginary superiority.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 12:35 AM
mrnyc mrnyc is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
I actually don't even know what you were responding to to say "there were no public unions until relatively recently." I never said they were here for a long time or anything regarding their longevity. So I guess I am not kidding until I figure out what I could be kidding about.

You're last point, I never said Public Unions are dangerous to their members. I said they are dangerous to the public, since they are bargaining with the very people who they support for election.

of course you had no idea of the history of public unions, that was obvious, but thats an aside. you are totally dodging the point, which is what happens when public unions are gained, which was in the 1960s in the example, and what happens when the rug is pulled out from under them and they are lost. $10k/yr evaporates in 5yrs thats what. so obviously losing the public union bargaining strength is much more dangerous than having one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 12:41 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrnyc View Post
of course you had no idea of the history of public unions, that was obvious, but thats an aside. you are totally dodging the point, which is what happens when public unions are gained, which was in the 1960s in the example, and what happens when the rug is pulled out from under them and they are lost. $10k/yr evaporates in 5yrs thats what. so obviously losing the public union bargaining strength is much more dangerous than having one.
You're assuming a lot. But ok, im gonna assume your number of 10k is correct.

Is that a large amount of money for a teacher? No doubt. Its probably 15-20% reduction in income. Huge.

But what is the opposite of this, Public Unions having all the control? Then you have two teachers per classroom, you could have schools being built when the old schools were just fine. You could have it become incredibly hard to fire bad teachers, which happens today in many districts. You could have teachers incomes inflate so much with income and pensions etc that a state goes bankrupt.

Its sounds heartless, but if a teacher losing 10% keeps a state from bankruptcy, its worth it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 4:05 AM
White Pine White Pine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
You're assuming a lot. But ok, im gonna assume your number of 10k is correct.

Is that a large amount of money for a teacher? No doubt. Its probably 15-20% reduction in income. Huge.

But what is the opposite of this, Public Unions having all the control? Then you have two teachers per classroom, you could have schools being built when the old schools were just fine. You could have it become incredibly hard to fire bad teachers, which happens today in many districts. You could have teachers incomes inflate so much with income and pensions etc that a state goes bankrupt.

Its sounds heartless, but if a teacher losing 10% keeps a state from bankruptcy, its worth it.
It can also work the other way. In Ontario, the school system is being squeezed hard with limited funding. There are few enough staff in some places that staff have a hard time managing students (though this depends on the school. Is it the union making it hard for itself by causing more money to be spent, or is the union what is keeping this job doable? Hard to say. A lack of union intervention also would protect bad management at the same time it leaves bad teachers in the lurch.

Anyways, I'm getting carried away. The easy win is getting rid of redundant jobs, do unions prevent this from happening? I'm looking forward to see how much impact new subway management can make. Probably not a huge amount. How often do subways run at night in NYC? would a significant frequency reduction at night be a good compromise?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 4:47 AM
Eightball's Avatar
Eightball Eightball is online now
life is good
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Historic Core
Posts: 2,146
Wait I'm so confused a poster named nycman focused on Wisconsin teachers when his highly respected hometown paper had a huge takedown on MTA unions. How they dictated to have 4x the number of laborers for transit construction projects as they do in Europe. Why? Why do MTA employees make 155k or more when they don't in Europe? Euope has this way more figured out than us and they are far more unionized than us they just don't abide by fools
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2018, 12:21 AM
Eightball's Avatar
Eightball Eightball is online now
life is good
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Historic Core
Posts: 2,146
Oh look more unions stealing from us. We could actually house the homeless if we didn't do dumb ass shit like this
http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...htmlstory.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Feb 4, 2018, 1:43 AM
dc_denizen's Avatar
dc_denizen dc_denizen is online now
Selfie-stick vendor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 4,980
I'm confused, didn't the Times just expose the colossal incompetence, waste, graft, and mismanagement of the New York subway? eg, 2500 managers making more than 300k per year (the union is so proud of this) while major stations rot and the system continues to run on 1930s technology?
__________________
Joined the bus on the 33rd seat
By the doo-doo room with the reek replete
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:18 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.