JDK Posted December 21, 2005 Report Share Posted December 21, 2005 I was hoping to hear an Objectivist's view on the NYC transit union strike. I am new to the philosophy and was hoping to get some insight into your views. Are all union's immoral? If not, what makes one immoral? It seems the workers are in a bad spot. You have this union that is controlling the workers actions and a city trying to force the worker's back. Can the workers break line and just go back to work and just tell the union to go away? If they did this I believe they would lose their pension along with any other benefits the union provided. If a worker woke up this morning fully enlightened in O'ism, what would he/she do? Thanks for your insight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groovenstein Posted December 21, 2005 Report Share Posted December 21, 2005 Are all union's immoral? If not, what makes one immoral? Welcome to the site. Please know that I do not speak for Objectivism. These are only my own views. In an society governed by objective law, all unions are not immoral. There is nothing wrong per se with joining a voluntary organization. Whether a specific union was immoral would depend on its specific policies, reasons for forming, etc. In today's society, it's a much more difficult question because unions are forced down many employers' throats. (Find the National Labor Relations Act and peruse it.) Basically, you've got two issues. A union is immoral if it uses force against an employer. If it does not use force, it could still be immoral because of bad philosophy. As to the particulars of the NYC situation, I don't know, but I'm sure you'll get plenty of insight from others on this board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 21, 2005 Report Share Posted December 21, 2005 For a related discussion, see AisA's post (link). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 21, 2005 Report Share Posted December 21, 2005 Some updates on this: CNBC just showed a clip from a press-conference by the NY Transit Workers Union. The union representative said that the main sticking point was: pensions. Not even that they could not reach an agreement about pensions. Their demand is that they do not want to discuss it. He said: if the mayor and his team agree not to mention pensions, the workers will go back to work. Companies like GM, IBM etc. have moved away from pensions. They've moved away from "defined benefit" retirement plans and toward "defined-contribution" plans. The company makes a contribution, and that's it. They aren't making promises to cover some expense that is going to be incurred 20 years hence. The government sector still has a lot of defined-benefit plans. The strikers don't seem to be getting much sympathy from New Yorkers interviewed on the street. A judge has fined the union $1 million a day for going on an illegal strike. The parent organization (Transport Workers International) does not support the New York strike, probably due to some internal union politics. So, there appears to be a good chance that the strike will be called off without taking pensions completely off the table. The net effect would be positive. After showing the press conference, CNBC had two commentators on. One was from the Heritage Foundation. The other was Tom Bowden, on behalf of ARI. Yippee! Mr. Bowden basically made a short comment about allowing the workers to strike, hiring replacements, and getting things running again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guru Kid Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 Strikes in general aren't immoral but don't always lead to a positive result unless the workers force the employer by not letting him hire other workers or damaging property etc. If this whole thing was with a private organization, not only would workers get paid according to the demand for workers but also the strike would be short lived because the employer would just start firing a few leaders and hiring new ones to work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 ...a private organization, ...would just start firing a few leaders and hiring new ones to work.Not with the laws as they are today. I'm guessing you'll find the reasons in the law that Groovenstein referenced. As for the New York strike, they're going back to work. Instead of taking pensions off the table altogether, the government agreed to start negotiations with a position (on pensions) that is closer to the current system. In all this, there was one thing that I found particularly troubling. It was a news-story yesterday, saying that the union leaders have been threatened with jail-time. To the extent that union-members use physical force to stop people from crossing picket-lines, the threat of jail is fine. However, threatening to send them to jail for being on strike crosses the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skap35 Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 However, threatening to send them to jail for being on strike crosses the line. I disagree with this. In a "normal" union strike I would agree, however it is against the law for public workers to go on strike. When these people applied for their jobs they knew this and agreed that not going on strike was part of their employment contract. They violated that contract, and cost the city millions in doing so. If they wanted to have the ability to go on strike they should have found another job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 I understand the parameters within which they took their job. I'm glad the judged fined the union a million dollars a day. If you think they deserve jail-time, that's fine. I won't argue it. I think it crosses the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skap35 Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 I understand the parameters within which they took their job. I'm glad the judged fined the union a million dollars a day. If you think they deserve jail-time, that's fine. I won't argue it. I think it crosses the line. I just wanted to add one thing I forgot in my original post. The reason I think that jail time might be acceptable in this particular strike (aside from the fact that they agreed not to strike) is that they wasted millions of dollars for the city. So effectively the union, in a sense, stole tax dollars from the people. I personally don't like income tax as it is, but when it is thrown down the toilet because of some union complaints I feel like I've been ripped off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 29, 2005 Report Share Posted December 29, 2005 The strike ended, with the union agreeing to about a pay raise of under 4% per year for the next three years and also agreeing that workers will contribute a little over 1% of their pay toward health-premiums. This episode got me interested in finding out if MTA loses money. It does. The part that runs the New York subway+bus system runs an operating deficit of about $1.5 billion a year. That's about $200 per year for each New York resident. This does not count another (approx) $4 billion a year in MTA capital expenditures. It would follow that fare must be increased about 400% (5 times today's level) for the system to pay for itself! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yes Posted December 31, 2005 Report Share Posted December 31, 2005 The strike ended, with the union agreeing to about a pay raise of under 4% per year for the next three years and also agreeing that workers will contribute a little over 1% of their pay toward health-premiums. This episode got me interested in finding out if MTA loses money. It does. The part that runs the New York subway+bus system runs an operating deficit of about $1.5 billion a year. That's about $200 per year for each New York resident. This does not count another (approx) $4 billion a year in MTA capital expenditures. It would follow that fare must be increased about 400% (5 times today's level) for the system to pay for itself! Now, keeping those hard facts in mind, how is it that the employees and their union can share in this loss? After all, the unions demand profit-sharing and to share in cash surpluses, right? My thoughts- the MTA should seek to lay off a multitude of these employees! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted December 31, 2005 Report Share Posted December 31, 2005 I agree. In fact, I would have fired the strikers when they staged their illegal walkout. They could have been replaced by the National Guard while replacements were trained. This strike is a harbinger of difficult times to come with public employee unions and retirement benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groovenstein Posted January 1, 2006 Report Share Posted January 1, 2006 Link to NLRA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.