There's another option: disband the MTA Union, the primary driver of operations costs. They have blocked technology and safety upgrades for decades to keep 'those darn computers and robots from taking jobs from poor workers just trying to make a living'.
Paying conductors a living wage isn't nearly as expensive to the agency (and the state, and we the taxpayers and riders) as mismanaged and corruptly nepotistic multi-billion dollar contracts for construction.
* Unionized workers make very good money in New York.
* Unions are a primary political driver behind those expensive contracts.
* There's more to unions than conductors. Construction and maintenance, for example.
* The unions routinely put up strong opposition to any meaningful expense or quality control. They also strongly oppose any modernization attempts that might threaten their jobs. They've opposed electronic signaling and control for decades. The worse the subways are, the better it is for them.
* Unions are politically untouchable. No matter what the consequences for the public, people are willing to leap to the defense of the noble workingman. Actually, the noble workingman who needs a "living wage" is riding the subways, not maintaining them. The poor and desperate are found among the five million people who ride the subway every day. Transportation is a public good. It shouldn't be beholden to a small group of highly paid laborers.
The only reason the union is untouchable is because anti-union legislation entrenched old unions by making new unions impossible. Get rid of anti-union laws, watch as people can now join a competing different union or make their own union under the same job. Then unions actually have to work to exist, rather than being co-opted by business managers who are only seeking to earn a profit for themselves with the actual workers making up the union having no choice other than pay or completely abandon unions altogether.
Additionally, if we brought back meta-unions like the IWW, which were able to negotiate multiple industries in parallel and cause policy changes, then unions wouldn't have to resort to holding on to unnecessary jobs to protect the livelihoods of their workers. They could just make sure that an allied union is ready to take them instead.
* Unionized workers make very good money in New York.
I didn't believe a friend of mine who only finish college was making $218,000 a year basically for early morning train track cleanups (device to pickup trash, stay away from 3rd rail), until I saw his bi-weekly paycheck with my own eyes. He's been doing that for last 5 years and they hire more people to do the same. What an insult to anyone with MBA, PhD., anyone pretty much who doesn't work for Union.
Can you imagine the bargaining power that tech workers would have if they unionized? Our industry relies on tech workers for training and hiring, so hiring scabs during a strike would be basically impossible.
That's the funny part, he is really the bottom of the food chain. Super anti-social he does his job and goes home period. Its just he has been there all these years and seen raise after raise when union got bigger chunks of money to spend. There is nothing more to the story I'm afraid.
Employee costs are 60% of the expenses for the MTA [1] and employees are making $30/hr + generous pension and medical benefits[2], I'm not sure how you can possibly justify your position.
That being said, paying union construction workers $1k/day (!) to do nothing is pretty egregious as well [3]
On the other hand, paying living wages to thousands of unnecessary workers is quite expensive, regardless if they are employees or contractors.
Unions work on both goals simultaneously, increasing wages but also providing job security to their base, inserting strong restrictions on who can perform certain labors etc. The more employees, the higher the power of the union, it's not like a competitor could spring up and kill their host.
It's not a white/black issue, laborers need protection but should not use a privileged position in the economy to seek a rent at the expense of everybody else.
The MTA's union has kept unneeded workers employed. One of the main issues is having two people per train employed when almost every other transit system in the world uses only one person per train.
On top of this, but actively lobbying against having driverless trains and other cost-saving technologies leaves NYC with the most expensive and antiquated system in the world
But isn't this exactly what you're supposed to do in capitalism? Use your privileged position in economy to earn money (by definition at the expense of other people)?
Now, I agree that it's not a very moral position, but we don't expect property owners in SF to keep rents reasonable. They should charge as much as they can, that's the only thing that makes sense from a business perspective!
The thing about this is that the MTA and NYC Subway are NOT for-profit businesses. They're part of the public sector and shouldn't be held to a profit motive. Similarly, the Unions connected to City transportation should recognize that the system they're vampirically draining isn't about profit, and working for it should be in the mindset of a public service, not a 'get rich quick' scheme.
Capitalism (idealized) is when you use get an advantage by selling superior goods or services, while competing with others, without leveraging any state-given privilege.
We need (even) more capitalism in the US, if anything.
Yes, L line in NYC is automatic train control system. If one is to walk to the end of every L train platform, one would see a sign that says "Automated Train Control System is in Effect"
It requires conductors because of the union contract requires them. Not only it requires an engineer "driving" the train (aka pushing a button "I'm here") but also the second one looking to make sure that the train doors can be closed ( or closing them on the person )
So just on the L train MTA can cut 50% of the conductors by fully engaging automated train control and merging door checker engineer duties with the "I'm here" engineer duties.
"disband" a union without considering the consequences or alternative ways of ameliorating a problem is unfortunately what I've come to expect on highly up-voted, top-level comment here when it comes to matters of public policy. This is a more complicated issue than you presume.
You have a source for any of that? It's one thing to say labor costs are a primary driver of costs. It's quite another so say Labor Union costs are the primary driver.
The transit union is pretty notorious and well documented in NYC.
There’s also some arcane areas of NY law that drive labor costs dramatically in NYC versus other places. I think a tunnel boring machine in Paris (hardly corporate paradise) operates with something like 80% less manpower than the NYC equivalent.
Salaries are a huge contributor to the budget, and there are many roles, starting with conductors, that are unnecessary or could be modified/retrained.
Unions are definitely the primary driver. Construction unions in New York are using current contracts to pay for their pension liabilities. In other words, taxpayers today are paying for work that was done 30 years ago. This guy is sort of irritating if you have to read him for more than a few hours, but his blog is full of evidence and analysis on this topic.
This article is about capital costs, not labor costs.
>One point construction experts are making, however, is that taxpayers are paying premiums for these public projects since they aren’t being done open shop. The Empire Center report calculated that the government ends up paying 25 percent more for public projects in New York City because of the high prevailing wages.
This is the cost no one wants to talk about.
Good! Living in NYC costs more than living just about anywhere in the USA. Well over 25% more than where I live, a top 50 metro.
i think that's literally ones of the objectives of under-funding. then privatise. then monopoly rents for those that can own shares. while still under-investing - who cares about trains? just uber a private jet/helicopter.
There's another option: disband the MTA Union, the primary driver of operations costs. They have blocked technology and safety upgrades for decades to keep 'those darn computers and robots from taking jobs from poor workers just trying to make a living'.