3 ms·

> You seem to think the TWU has power that it really does not have. All the TWU can do is stop the MTA from eliminating jobs, they cannot stop the MTA's plans t

> You seem to think the TWU has power that it really does not have. All the TWU can do is stop the MTA from eliminating jobs, they cannot stop the MTA's plans to install new equipment. I don't think you understand how much power the TWU does have. Not only do they have the power to stop projects altogether, like automating the trains (which they did, as noted in the article), but they do have the ability to either delay or stonewall projects that they oppose by framing them as issues of labor allocation. Even if they can't unilaterally kill the project outright, they can make it expensive and painful enough that nobody will ever pursue it. There's a symbiotic relationship between the TWU and MTA leadership (and one that's parasitic with respect to the state). Other aspects of this have already been described elsewhere in this thread and the linked article, and it's not possible to understand the way public transit infrastructure projects happen (or, more commonly, don't happen) in New York without accounting for this massive force.

betterunix2 9y ago
The article says the union did exactly what I said the union can do: prevent the MTA from cutting jobs. That does not prevent the MTA from modernizing the signal system -- the entire context of the dispute over the L line was the MTA's effort to reduce trains to a one-man crew, from the current two-man crew, after a modern signal system was installed and operational. The MTA is busy installing that same modern system on two lines in Queens. The TWU is not a massive force in transit projects. At worst, they block cost-cutting measures that modern technology can enable through automation. CBTC has benefits beyond automated trains -- it allows trains to run closer together and it allows more flexible usage of the tracks (the current block system does not allow track directions to change as needed, for example). Like I said, the reason this was not deployed in the 90s is that the MTA wasted 15 years trying to build a single tower to control the entire system; things are proceeding now because the MTA went back to its previous approach of consolidation. The TWU had nothing to do with it and continues to have nothing to do with it.
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > The TWU had nothing to do with it and continues to have nothing to do with it. It sounds like you're treating the TWU and MTA as two separate entities. Legally, yes, that's true, but in practice, more often than not, the TWU and MTA act in tandem. If you just look at one and not the other, or the interplay between the two, you miss out on the broader picture. (In this specific case, I don't see a particularly significance in the distinction between "blocking the project from happening" and "blocking them from realizing a major cost-saving benefit that motivates and funds the project".)
  - fjsolwmv 9y ago
    The point is that as long as MTA budgets labor pay at an upward trending rate, TWU has no reason to oppose. The should love new signals that let workers sit in cushy control center desk jobs or get paid to be station attendants (sorely lacking in MTA) instead of train/signal operators. There's plenty of labor to do at MTA, there's no risk of losing demand for jobs.

betterunix2 9y ago

The article says the union did exactly what I said the union can do: prevent the MTA from cutting jobs. That does not prevent the MTA from modernizing the signal system -- the entire context of the dispute over the L line was the MTA's effort to reduce trains to a one-man crew, from the current two-man crew, after a modern signal system was installed and operational. The MTA is busy installing that same modern system on two lines in Queens. The TWU is not a massive force in transit projects. At worst, they block cost-cutting measures that modern technology can enable through automation. CBTC has benefits beyond automated trains -- it allows trains to run closer together and it allows more flexible usage of the tracks (the current block system does not allow track directions to change as needed, for example). Like I said, the reason this was not deployed in the 90s is that the MTA wasted 15 years trying to build a single tower to control the entire system; things are proceeding now because the MTA went back to its previous approach of consolidation. The TWU had nothing to do with it and continues to have nothing to do with it.

chimeracoder 9y ago
> The TWU had nothing to do with it and continues to have nothing to do with it. It sounds like you're treating the TWU and MTA as two separate entities. Legally, yes, that's true, but in practice, more often than not, the TWU and MTA act in tandem. If you just look at one and not the other, or the interplay between the two, you miss out on the broader picture. (In this specific case, I don't see a particularly significance in the distinction between "blocking the project from happening" and "blocking them from realizing a major cost-saving benefit that motivates and funds the project".)
- fjsolwmv 9y ago
  The point is that as long as MTA budgets labor pay at an upward trending rate, TWU has no reason to oppose. The should love new signals that let workers sit in cushy control center desk jobs or get paid to be station attendants (sorely lacking in MTA) instead of train/signal operators. There's plenty of labor to do at MTA, there's no risk of losing demand for jobs.