Talk:2005 New York City transit strike

message: Ok this is really absurd. Here is the first sentence:
"The 2005 New York City transit strike was a strike against the New York City commuters by several greedy unions, representing the bulk of the Authority's work force."
I mean WOAH thats POV if I've ever seen it, but I suspect that someone was just vandalizing the entry. I'm going to fix this right now. Originalexplorer 20:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV/borderline vandalism

message: "The TWU wants a 9 percent raise for all employees, who currently earn, on average, over $60,000 for what is seen as relatively unskilled labor."  -Firstly the union conceded to an 8% raise, and said that they would accept less in return for other concessions such as reducing discipline incidents.  I also dispute the accuracy of the $60,000 average figure--most MTA employees make significantly less than this.  Also this whole article ("what is seen as relatively unskilled labor") reeks of anti-union sentiment.  Most transit workers require significant training and would qualify at least as semi-skilled.  Certainly any MTA workers making $60,000 likely have specialized skills such as bus or electric repair/maintenance, or are bus-drivers (also at least semi-skilled) with lots of seniority.  149.68.73.15 14:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: MTA's final offer left retirement age in place but required a 6% pension contribution from new hires for 10 years, and also retained the healthcare contribution. 149.68.73.19 16:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: accuracy

message: As of reading this article in its current form (subject to change of course) I think its tone etc. is neutral. --Nycmstar 16:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for removing the NPOV tag, Radagast! D.valued 23:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed neutrality 

message: I was under the impression that the TWU demands 8% per year, for each of three years.  Consider this from a recent news article:
:The union said the latest MTA offer included annual raises of 3 percent, 4 percent and 3.5 percent; the previous proposal included 3 percent raises each year.  I am now editing the page to reflect this. --Magoon 17:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salary Problems 

message: Is there a NYC Wikipedian who can take some photos of affected areas?  Perhaps an image of the strike notice or of workers on the picket line or maybe the road blocks where non-carpool vehicles are getting turned around?  AdThanksVance.  Slambo (Speak) 18:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a picture. Not much, but it's something. uFu 21:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once we get a better picture for the lead, we could move the one I added down to the "contingency plans" section. Prolly fits better there. uFu 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have my father bring a camera to the strike tomorrow if it's still going on. Sky 21:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images? 

message: The TWU also asks that holes be installed in subway engineer cabs so they may defecate onto the tracks whilst operating the train.
Deleted, that's just a bit ridiculous and completely non-factual. --Sky 21:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, 141.154.58.89 keeps sticking that back in. I'm about to go see about getting the IP blocked.... uFu 21:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's full of... sorry, couldn't resist the bad joke ;) (On the back-side, though, I'm thoroughly amused that the Contingency Plan section, which I wrote (shameless - hey, what can I say ;) hasn't been touched since I put it up.) D.valued 21:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The block log shows that he was blocked at 15:47, December 20, 2005, (the log doesn't say what time zone) by RoySmith for 24 hours.  The user tried to appeal the block but the block was sustained by HappyCamper.  Slambo (Speak) 01:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, somebody beat me to it ;-)  That's some nerve, huh? "Aw, c'mon, I wanna keep vandalizing!" uFu 04:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Also added some info about conditions for the track workers/skilled labor in Transit. Basically what I hear from my father, an electrician on the A line in Queens. Obviously he tells it POV but I cleaned it up in my head. --Sky 21:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he/she's back, now as 141.154.217.188. --Aude 15:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick whois lookup shows that both IP addresses belong to Verizon DSL accounts, so it is entirely possible that they may be the same person.  However,  has joined the POV discussion below.  I am hopeful for a peaceful resolution soon.  Slambo (Speak) 18:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup 

message: I just removed a POV link to some sort of columnist page from hte wages section. the link led to . It didn't even have anything (that i could find) pertaining to the strike.\
--Arcaynn 00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wages POV Link 

message: Can everybody who keeps on making these biased edits to the page please stop. I understand your fustration as I live and New York City and have to go through all of this crap too, but Wikipedia is neutral when it comes to the strike and is not a battleground/speech post. May I suggest a blog or something of that Nature? Thanks, --I Am Ri¢h! 00:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's okay, as long as you don't make edits that show this in the article. It's over anyway --I Am Ri¢h! 00:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Edits 

message: Can anyone find links to surveys done on public support for the strike? One blog puts it at 52% in favor but gives no info other than that.--Wasabe3543 08:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Through several blogs, I found this article in the Daily News:
In a WWRL poll, 71% of respondents blamed the MTA and only 14% blamed the transit workers, which Bishop said he found "a little surprising. I would have thought it would have been more even."
Almost every station that took calls found support for the transit workers. "I've used the transit system for years," said Margaret, a caller to WOR, "and I've talked with many workers about the horrible conditions. We need to support them."
"Perhaps surprisingly, there's a lot of support for the strike," said WOR news director Joe Bartlett. He suggested residents were coping with the strike "because this is a city that doesn't cave under pressure. New Yorkers thrive on adversity." 
Perhaps we should add a section on public reaction? There's a lot there. Steve Gilliard has said a lot on his blog about the racial dimensions to this (the TWU is heavily minority, the most of all the city's unions). Can anybody find something other than a blog on that? Daniel Case 17:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Some New Yorkers getting on for fifty were surprised at the demand for retirement with full benefits at fifty! --Wetman 19:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Support? 

message: If the judge ruled the strike is illegal, why isn't the governor using the national guard to establish a public transport system with military trucks? Why doesn't president Dumbya acting strongly like Ronnie Raygun did, when the air traffic controllers refused to smarten up?
In any normal european country, including the EU, the government would use such judgement ruling as a basis for forciby conscripting those employees who are on strike and assing them to their regular duties as army privates (without any pay), so they could not abandon their workplace without threat of court martial. That solves the matter faster than nitric acid.
Osama mus be laughing his ass off seeing how the infidels are crippling their own lives without any terror. No need for hijacked planes or blown up high-tension power networks, New York can stop itelf dead.
:A few points from the deletomatic. 
# SIGN YER POSTS! ~~~~ (Four tildes) ain't hard to type, dammit! Be proud of your talk contributions!
# NYC has more than half its population move via public transport. It's the most extensive public transport network in the country, and the most necessary. Buses couldn't do the job; there simply isn't enough road to go around! On top of that, would you want to ride the back of an open air military vehicle? And that's assuming there were enough NGs to do the job, what with Bush's fetish for using them as nonnac reddof.
# The US != EU. US does not have forced conscription without act of Congress, which is currently snuggling up under the sheets for a long winter's nap. Beyond that, "including the EU" is redundant. EU is part of Europe. 
# (profanity warning) Osama most likely doesn't give half a shit about what's happening.  
# Is it too much to ask that people spellcheck? Granted, this is the talk page, but jeez.. (Yes, I see the irony. The typo's a joke.) 
# And no, I'm not in NYC. I love Manhattan to death, and I'll be there next summer, but I definately have a neutral POV. D.valued 13:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron fist 

message: As far as I can tell, the strike is not yet over, yet this article is already referring to it in the past tense.  The NY Times is reporting that the union's executive board still has to vote.  Until then, it's all just assumptions based on sketchy soundbites.  Why the mania to edit this article every few minutes to keep up with every tidbit of breaking news?  Let the damn thing happen and then write an encyclopedia article about it.  If you want to play TV news reporter trying to scoop the competition on the big story by 3 minutes, this isn't the place.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  We're an encyclopedia, dammit, not the TV news 

message: the strike is now officaly over, so we should start talking about it in past tense and also we should take the current event thing off. -- unsigned comment by User:Jakewater
*Does that mean they settled and gave those greedy bastard what they wanted? I hope the MTA fires them all for breech of contract the second the strike is over -- unsigned comment by User:205.188.116.71
**They did not settle, but twu local 100 has asked their members to return to work immediately . Further negotiations are ongoing under a media backout. --Chris 20:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why the MTA should have replacement workers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I.M. Rich (talk • contribs) .
Driving a bus requires more skill than driving a car, you need a special license in fact, not to mention familiarizing ones self with the vaguries of how to handle a Orion V-CNG or NovaBUS RTS-06 and use their handicap lifts. You can't just put any old truck driver behind the wheel. 
Learning how to drive a train is even more complicated since you not only have to learn how to say use adequate brake pressure to bring the train to a smooth stop from 30 mph in 600 feet with out knocking down the passengers but how to start it in the first place, learn the railroad signaling system, what speeds to take with certain turnouts etc. Also just like the buses you will have to learn the quirks and differences in handling an R-40 and a R-46. You can't just plop a body in the motorman's cab. Hunter2005 19:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE STRIKE IS NOW OFFICIALY OVER 

message: It is a pity that the NY1 poll, while giving approve/disapprove numbers for the governor and the mayor, did not report -- or perhaps did not solicit -- similar numbers for the TWU leadership.  JHCC  (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Public response

message: Are polls appropriate for an encyclopedia entry? Polls can be spun either way, and may not represent the true mood of the city. I say this with the disclosure that I am in favor of the strike, and that the poll listed here said the MTA was more the blame for the strike, so this one actually supports my opinion. But I'm wondering what people think here. Should we keep it or not? Colby Peterson 22:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the poll information to be treated just as that, a poll. I do not endorse the poll as an "end-all-be-all" representation of the city. On the other hand, I do happen to agree with the overall result of that poll and removing it will censor some important issues that it brings up. --Howrealisreal 22:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, if they are in their proper historical context. For instance in an article about Isolationism in the United States during World War II, let's say that a 1940 Gallup Poll said such and such percentage of Americans wanted to stay out of the European War and only send aid to Britain. Perfectly legitimate to include such a poll. It however, has to be understood that a poll is a snap shot in time, like a still picture as opposed to a movie. Another Gallup poll taken on December 4, 1941 could be included for comparison. Polls like that included here would be valid six months from now when this strike is history and not a current event. It would be valid 60 years from now. Perhaps a subsequent poll can be added to this article measuring public opinion over time, like a year from now to mark any change. Hunter2005 07:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Polls Appropriate for this Encyclopedia? 

message: This section gives the salaries of four MTA job descriptions, and an average that assumes that there are equal proportions of each ($52,000 being a simple average of the four values listed.)  Not having statistics for this I am not going to change what is there, but I don't believe it's accurate.  The average should be weighted by the number of each type of employee, not the average of the employee salaries, otherwise you could throw a highly paid management role in there and get an amusingly large average.  At best this is misleading. 203.132.65.32 06:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average MTA Salaries 

message: Being French, I have a question about the following sentence :
: Citing the rising cost of health care, the MTA wants new employees to contribute 1% of their salary to pay for health insurance. Transit workers currently pay nothing for health insurance.
Does this mean that the MTA already pays a health insurance for their employees, and that the raise of this insurance will be subtracted from the wage ? Or something else ?
cdang|write me 11:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It means that the MTA already pays for health insurance for their employees, and that it wants new employees to pay 1% of their salaries for health coverage (deducted from their paychecks, as opposed to paying nothing, like the current employees). None of the MTA's proposals would affect current employees. - 00:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about health insurance 

message: Regarding the statement "TWU also asks that holes be installed in subway engineer cabs for defecatation purposes" that keeps being added, this tone isn't appropriate for Wikipedia and consensus from editors is not to include it.
However, there is some truth to the fact that workers feel "Little Dignity on the Job" , including :
:"Many workers said their jobs failed to provide for essential needs. For example, 78 percent said they lacked access to bathroom facilities at least once a month; 51 percent of bus drivers said they had problems finding a bathroom one or more times a day.".
I'll go ahead and add mention of this in an appropriate tone, but please stop adding "TWU also asks that holes be installed in subway engineer cabs for defecatation purposes".  I haven't yet seen any sources that verify that, and it just sounds silly. --Aude 15:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I tried the link and I don't see how it's relevant.  It's not a news source and had no mention of the NYC transit strike.  Though, I think the NY times article is a good reference and mentions other working conditions, too. --Aude 15:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restroom facilities 

message: Something should be done to illustrate cost of living in NYC.  There are places in the US where making $40k a year can buy you a mansion on a large plot of land, while in places like NYC where even movie tickets are often $10+, the Cost of Living is higher.  This is related to NPOV. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.248.135.94 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Salary Comparison

message: From my recollection, Green was NOT on strike. it was even on the MTA website. Not only that, it was featured on WNBC's evening newscast. The limited strike only affected Triboro Coach, and Jamaica Buses. See here , here  and .Pacific Coast Highway 00:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right! I screwed up, twice!  I reinserted it after it was edited out. Thanks for correcting my double gaffe. At least I did not make it worse by including Command Bus Line. I didn't even know they belonged to a different Union! Shame on me: 
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/nyc-bus1216,0,6029415.story
Hunter2005 05:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green Lines? 

message: Right now we have two photos that depict basically the same thing. There's a picture of Fifth Avenue empty and a picture of Madison Avenue empty; the picture of Madison Avenue even alludes to the picture of Fifth. I believe we should get rid of the Fifth Avenue picture since it's of lesser quality. joturner 03:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree --ДрakюлaTalk 15:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty Street Photos 

message: There *was* a 12-day strike in 1966 that was just as disruptive as in 1980 and 2005, more disruptive than in 2005 in fact. It was in winter to boot just like in 2005. The reason we have a Taylor Law is directly due to that strike, so that strike impacted the 1980 and the 2005 strike, making it very relevant. Leaving out any mention of the 1966 strike would be like not mentioning World War I as the setup for World War II. I am sure that my bad prose can be cleaned up without editing this crucial fact out. Hunter2005 17:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. For those of us who were in New York at that time, it was an event on the magnitured of the JFK assassination. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How come any references to the 1966 transit strike are being omitted?  

message: Someone might want to have a look at The New York City Transit Strike: It's About Respect...and Solidarity by Michael Hirsch, from Z magazine. It's a pretty good summary from the pro-labor side, written just before the strike was settled. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A pro-labor source 

message: The article says 
:"The second was the 11-day 1980 strike. This strike, which took place during the busiest shopping week of the year, greatly affected the local economy as many people chose to either shop online or postpone purchases."
Weren't there very few internet users in 1980, and even fewer online stores? -JFingers88
: First off, don't forget to sign your posts for four tildes (~~~~); I've added a temporary signature for you. Second, "this strike" refers to the 2005 strike, not the 1980 strike. I will remove the ambiguity though. joturner 03:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Also thanks for not biting me, newbie that I was. Jimbo (not THE Jimbo) 21:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronism? 

message: Can anyone provide a citation that the MTA violated the Taylor Law as well.  By looking at the text of the law at a glance, I cannot find any language to support this.  If there is no data on this, it should be removed from the indroductory paragraphs. —the preceding unsigned comment is by CoolGuy (talk • contribs) 05:24, 26 December 2005
: I agree, I cannot find a source for that either. I took it out for the time being. --Howrealisreal 01:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MTA reponsible too? 

message: Currently the contents of this article is in this order:
 
Contents
1 General
2 Pre-strike negotiations
3 Demands and counteroffers
 
4 Average MTA Salaries
 
5 Strike consequences
 
6 Contingency plans
 
7 Public response
 
8 Resolution 
9 See also 
10 Sources  
I believe it would make more sense if we put the "Strike consequences" After "Public Response" and before "Resolution", or even better after "Resolution".
Thus:
Contents
 
1 General 
2 Pre-strike negotiations 
3 Demands and counteroffers 
4 Average MTA Salaries 
5 Contingency plans 
6 Public response 
7 Strike consequences 
8 Resolution 
9 See also 
10 Sources  
or even better:
Contents
 
1 General 
2 Pre-strike negotiations 
3 Demands and counteroffers 
4 Average MTA Salaries 
5 Contingency plans 
6 Public response 
7 Resolution
8 Strike consequences 
9 See also 
10 Sources  
I prefer the second order but the first reorder would work too IMHO It is just sounds better and I think it would flow more logically if we have "Strike consequences" at least before "Resolution" if not after.
Hunter2005 01:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed reorder of sections. 

message: Anyone of our British contributors/editors want to take a stab at it? I'm in New York so cannot comment with first hand knowledge and I haven't perused any of the English newspaper sites yet. Does London have an equivalent of New York State's Taylor Law? :-) Happy New Year! Hunter2005 00:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The equivalent of the Taylor Law does not exist in London.  In fact, these one day transit strikes are quite common, and are planned for weeks in advance.  (This was already planned during teh NY strike). CoolGuy 01:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your answer. I guess they don't want to really piss off anyone by striking for longer periods of time. In return, London does not want to take away their right to strike. I think it is an agreeable unofficial compromise. Oh and to be clear, I meant write an article about it just like we have for the New York strikes. Hunter2005 04:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a note to the news section of Portal:Trains yesterday based on a reference in the Globe and Mail (linked there), but didn't start an article for it.  Slambo (Speak) 17:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  London Undergound Strike (12/31/05) 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_5600.htm#b53-0000
** In 2005 New York City transit strike on 2011-05-25 08:02:50, 404 Object Not Found
** In 2005 New York City transit strike on 2011-06-12 02:20:21, 404 Object Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://nyc.gov/html/transitinfo/html/home.shtml
** In 2005 New York City transit strike on 2011-05-25 08:02:52, 404 Not found
** In 2005 New York City transit strike on 2011-06-12 02:20:29, 404 Not found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 2005 New York City transit strike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930194323/http://www.stjohns.edu/campus/publicsafety/transit to http://www.stjohns.edu/campus/publicsafety/transit
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 2005 New York City transit strike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080403044734/http://www.ny1.com:80/ny1/NY1ToGo/Story/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=55772 to http://www.ny1.com/ny1/NY1ToGo/Story/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=55772
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080205002910/http://www.ny1.com:80/ny1/NY1ToGo/Story/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=55816 to http://ny1.com/ny1/NY1ToGo/Story/index.jsp?stid=1&aid=55816
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified