-

November 02, 2003

MTA Strike Debate

The LA Times Sunday Opinon features dueling artciles by Zev Yaroslavsky for the MTA Board, and Neil Silver, president of the mechanic's union. A number of things stand out.

First is that the mechanic's union "offer" to submit the last MTA proposal to binding arbitration is a sham -- they can only gain ground by splitting the difference up from the final offer.

Second is that the mechanics have, already, some of the best benefits of any public employees. Better than, say, police or firemen (who cannot strike). Example:

Mechanics can retire with a full pension after only 23 years of work. One of the most generous benefits given to MTA employees is the "23 and out" provision, which allows an employee who begins work at age 20 to retire at age 43 with a full pension. These retired MTA veterans can then start a second career with the MTA or elsewhere while drawing a full pension...
They are squabbling partly about whether these retired 43-year-olds get lifetime full medical guaranteed.

Third is that the health benefit trust fund, managed by the union and funded by the MTA, which is at the heart of the strike, is, in part, underfunded because the union has been transferring funds from the medical trust fund into its operating account.

The MTA has now made a fifth and final offer, ended negotiations, and threatens to hire replacement workers if the strike continues. I'd go further: they need to fire anyone who does not report for work on a day certain. Reagan's firing of PATCO air traffic controllers in 1981 ended the long series of strikes like this against the federal government. Let this be our PATCO.

Posted by Kevin Murphy at November 2, 2003 07:54 AM | TrackBack