NYC Transit Strike
- Started
- Last post
- 40 Responses
- ldww0
how much do they make?
i heard that starting pay for a bus driver was 55K, is that true?
- adamfinger0
I'm not sure, but so what if they start out making 55k? I started out making considerably less and my job isn't coupled with the responsibility of SAFELY transporting passengers. Even if driving a bus is easy, so what?
What designers don't realize, and what most younger people seem to be ignorant of is that the middle-class's income has remained stagnant for the last 20+ years.
Those in non-union jobs, particularly those that require college educations and are deemed "professions," are resentful of those paid more for seemingly simple or easy tasks as if those other workers (in this case, transit workers) are somehow stealing money that they haven't earned. Designers are generally UNDERPAID and OVERWORKED.
We work hours that our great grandparents did, but because we don't work in factories, we think its okay. We should be working, at most, 8 hour days, having long vacations, and being sufficiently paid.
Unions have fought hard for their earnings. Transit workers, unlike car manufacturers and designers, can't have their jobs outsourced. For us to see comparable (or better) benefits, we have to fight for them....which means actually aligning ourselves with other designers and other workers instead of competing against them.
I realize such concepts are foreign to designers.
- ldww0
so you are saying that because designers are "underpaid" we should try to get people in the service industry more money?
so i went to school, and worked my way up the corporate ladder acumulating alot of skills and they drive a subway and pick up the trash i drop on the floor and should be able to just because they all belong to a group that can threten to not work if they do not get paid what they want to get a raise?
- taskew0
ldww sounds like a seriously compassionate guy...
wish we had more of those
- ldww0
i am not as much of an ass as i sound. i just have a problem with people (like unions) who think they should get more money out of force rather then working hard to deserve it.
- adamfinger0
You've misinterpreted what I said. I said transit workers, garbage collectors, teachers, nurses, designers, EVERYONE should be entitled to a decent standard of living. That standard of living obviously exists within a social framework and should be determined by what we can feasibly provide people. We have the resources to provide people with decent housing, decent wages, shorter working hours, etc provided that we are interested in other human beings.
But it also depends on what we value and what we deem necessary. I think picking up our trash is necessary. Don't you? I think public transportation is important, don' you?
And if people NEED to fill those positions, why shouldn't they be entitled to basic and otherwise easily-fulfilled necessities and luxuries. Because it's not rocket-science? Give me a break. What's design then?
What your saying, then, is that there are certain groups of individuals who should always be provided less than others.
- adamfinger0
I think you have very little understanding of unions.
Unions have, to varying degres, become bureaucratic nightmares run by corrupt leaders. This is not always the case nor should it be the case. But that corruption stems more from leaders screwing over their own rank-and-file rather than them screwing over their employers. In fact, I can't think of any example, in the history of unionism, whereby a union has wielded more power than the employer.
Look at the auto-industry. As soon as it become cost effective, manufacturing jobs were shipped down to Mexico, despite efforts by unions. Why? Because the unions didn't have any power. Same with apparal manufacturing, IT work, etc.
I don't know what fantasy-world you live in in which unions have accumulated vast amounts of power that they can hold over people.
But I'd like to live there because I don't think employers should have any power.
- ldww0
i think "if you do not give us what we want, and we will not accept such a measley amount as a 9% raise, or we will not show up and render the entire city without public transit" is alot of power.
- adamfinger0
Funny, they were offered a much smaller raise coupled with givebacks (giving back already earned luxuries such as secure pensions and healthcare).
Why don't you read their side of things, rather than what the media is reporting.
- ldww0
i heard that on a press conference thursday night.
also, i think the heathcare givebacks are not applied to people currently working for them, only new people would get less heathcare.
- adamfinger0
Yeah, which means that a future generation of transit workers will be worse-off than the current crop of workers. How is that fair? Why shouldn't they fight that? Imagine, caring about other people?
And in regards to your point about the transit workers being selfish in that they are willing to cripple the city just to get a few extra bucks, well, why not vent that frustration towards the MTA. It's ultimately them that's not providing the workers with what they deserve. To me it seems like they are at fault.
- ldww0
i guess i would have to know exactly what they are currently getting to form an opinion on who is at fault.
but do you think if i told my boss if i did not get a raiase i would stop workin they would give me one?
- visualplane0
this guy might be able to help
- adamfinger0
No. Your boss would laugh at you and hire someone else? Why, because as designers, we are forced into a position whereby decent jobs are scarce and people take what they can get. Even the most talented of individuals have to make those sorts of concessions.
A union is there to protect your interests. It's to make it so that a wage increase is guarenteed and that your boss can't simply hire someone else who is willing to work for less. To me that sounds more than reasonable. Anyone whose a worker (rather than an employer) should have or fight for a union to offset that balance.
I'm writing a piece right now for unionization in the graphic design field. Whether or not its met with any sort of consideration is a different story, but I think its worth it--especially considering the lack of job stability, lack of decent hours, lack of retirement, etc...
- ldww0
not just designers. anyone not in a union wold get replace.d
- adamfinger0
Yeah, I realize what your saying, but I'm not sure where your going with it.
- ldww0
i am saying i do not support unions
- adamfinger0
The owners that you are employed by make up a very organized class. Because they own the business and pay your salary, you are indebted to them. Are you okay with having to conform to their every whim? If they want, they can have you work long hours? Why, because if you don't, someone else will--that is, if they want to work. So you are forced to take what they have to offer. A union is there to offset that balance. It's to make it so that employers can't take advantage of you. It's there so that you start setting the rules, not them.
If you are not an owner, a union is the best method of preserving and promoting your interests (ie, increasing standard of living).
Or you can be perpetually at the mercy of your employer and deemed scab if you get in the way of a union forming.
- tkmeister0
life isn't fair. we live in a cut throat and a competitive market. a union sounds like a old school idea to me.
i have no problem getting fired by a employer. it's just a nature of biz. everyone is disposal, we just have to have the edge to survive.
i also have a freedom to quit my job and go work for another one because they offer more money and better benefits.
it's just what it is.
- adamfinger0
tkmesiter,
you just rattled off a list of cliches. "Life isn't fair," "we just have to have the edge to survive," "it's just what it is."
None of those statements make any sense. We live in a cut-throat environment because that's what an ownership class would like--one in which we are at their mercy and one where we have to play by their rules.
We constantly serve THEIR needs, not ours. Why? With what sense that make? Unions aren't "old school." They weren't rendered obsolete, they were forced out by a system that would rather have us compete for jobs than have us work together for higher wages and a better living standard. And in the process, they've convinced us (with a lot of help from designers actually), that an improved life comes from buying more stuff.
Should someone's cut-throat attitude permit them to obtain better healthcare than someone else? Better education for their children? Better retirement?--a retirement for that matter?
With what purpose does it serve to work so many hours? So that we can produce more stuff, open up more markets, and make fewer and fewer people richer off our labor.