Talk:2005 New York City transit strike

POV/borderline vandalism

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)

Ok someone fixed the most grevious stuff before I could, but I still think the first sentence should NOT say it was "a strike against commuters." Perhaps you could say a strike that effected commuters, but this was a strike against the MTA over the negotiation of a new contractOriginalexplorer 20:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

OK I think someone is deliberately sabatoging this pageOriginalexplorer 20:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Most of that vandalism goes back several pages, and seems to be mixed in with current version [1]--Revert van 21:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone posted a pic of male genitalia when I came in. Thanks to the editor who removed it before myself. STrRedWolf 22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

accuracy

"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)

Fixed the demands. its obvious someone who is anti-union put up the false numbers.

According to 1010wins.com: Pension issues have been a major sticking point in the talks. The MTA wants to raise the age at which new employees become eligible for full pension from 55 to 62, which the union says is unfair.207.237.194.247 15:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Alternate methods of transportation

Personal stories may not be appropriate on the accompanying article, i.e. (a true story), it took me 2 hours to go 3 miles from Queens to Manhattan. But there will undoubtedly be stories and a good summary would be nice at the end of the day when we get a good idea of what went on.

Disputed neutrality

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)

Thanks for removing the NPOV tag, Radagast! D.valued 23:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Salary Problems

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. [2] I am now editing the page to reflect this. --Magoon 17:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Are we certain of the numbers in the average salary table? Those look a little high... looked at the source, which is an anti-labor op-ed piece, and they cite the numbers as coming from the MTA. Is this before or after overtime? If we don't know, maybe we should remove the numbers or replace them with more easily verifiable ones? --Sky 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Images?

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)

I added a picture. Not much, but it's something. uFu 21:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

Article cleanup

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think he/she's back, now as 141.154.217.188. --Aude 15:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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, 141.154.217.188 (talk · contribs) has joined the POV discussion below. I am hopeful for a peaceful resolution soon. Slambo (Speak) 18:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Money question?

In the article, Bloomie is alleged to say $400M per day, $1.6B per week. But that just doesn't track. Can someone dredge it up as a quote, or otherwise fix it to proper amounts (probably $2.5B per week, since NYC is a 24-hour town)? D.valued 21:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think those two figures come from different sources. I think the $400M number came from Hizzoner, not the 1.6B number. If no one can find an attribution for the 1.6B number, we should probably remove it (although I do remember seeing it somewhere last night). uFu 22:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I entered those amounts. I got them from 1010wins.com. Nearly any article about the strike has those numbers as a quote by Mayor Mike.207.237.194.247 05:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Breakdown came out to $400 MM for day 1, $900 MM for days 2-4, $100 MM for days 5-6 (Christmas eve and Christmas day,) and $200 MM for day 7. This estimate came from the NYC Comptroller William Thompson. --Plop123 06:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Jee-zus.. and I thought Bush Administration numbers were screwy... D.valued 08:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

-- why would you say something like this? It makes sense to me that less income and sales taxes would be collected on Christmas Day vs. the days leading up to it. --24.129.43.214 11:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Gimme a break. NYC is not a 24-hour town. It's more like 20 hours.

Hell, it's much better than anywhere else I've been. Boston, London, Tokyo, are all much more solidly 20-hr towns. NYC at least pretends to run transit service (and latenight restaurants, shops, etc) through the night. LordAmeth 21:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

(don't know why this is here but..) Yeah, "the city that never sleeps" is like much of the rhetoric, BS. My guess is that it is a hold over from earlier years, 1900-1950s when most people lived either in cities or more rural. Then it probably seemed and prbobably was more of a 24hr city. Today, it's no different than LA. At least in LA, you can go to a grocery store in the middle of the night. NO WAY IS IT 24hrs.

$$$$ - I would love to see more details on the fines and what. The previous week, I was seeing these reports of fines, $25k per striker..and then they would double daily. I thought that was incredible, 25k * 30k stikers..and then doubling. Obviously that hasn't been the case. Nonetheless, there are apparently all kinds of suits being filed: enabling all kinds of potential damages.

To me these are some of the most important aspects of this "current event" because without the retribution, the strike could continue: one, the union has a $60m building that they have been wanting to sell that would give them increased funds to sustain fines (potentially) and two, the union sees a billion dollar kitty, the '05 MTA surplus.

Neutrality

141.154.217.188 keeps adding inappropriate statements such as "money doesn't grow on trees", and has at least twice stuck a {pov} tag on the page. It seems to me that this person has a strong opinion on the subject matter, and feels that anyone who does not want his opinions posted here is biased. I don't want to take it upon myself to say that this article is neutral, but that is my opinion. Can we try to build a consensus on this? uFu 16:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The article is not neutral. The statements that you vulgarly mischaracterized were in fact to shed some light on the opposite side of the equation, namely that any salary or wage increase will have to be paid for by someone. The consistent removal of these valid statements is bias. 141.154.217.188`

Thanks for joining the discussion. If you feel the article is biased (as opposed to a single editor (me) being biased), the best place to start would be the NPOV Dispute page. Since you seem willing to discuss the matter, I won't remove the {pov} tag again.

BTW, I was not the only one to revert your edits -- at least two other editors apparently felt they were inappropriate. I think we may have been a little quick to revert, because there was clear vandalism yesterday from someone with an IP address very similar to yours (see discussion above). If you're not the same person, then I apologize for that.

However, I will point out that statements like "money doesn't grow on trees" are not appropriate (IMO) for an encyclopedia article. Statements like "On the other hand, the money has to come from somewhere: Passengers will feel any salary increase as a fare increase" should not be included unless they are verifiable -- do you know that the MTA would fund the salary increases with fare increases? You also reverted at least one copyedit that I made, removed a (presumably verifiable) statement of fact that someone else had made, and removed edits that the other reverters had made. This does not suggest a spirit of cooperative editing.

FWIW, I agree with you that the union is dead wrong here, and I understand your point that any increase in wages and benifits will need funding. If you have hard information on things like where that money would come from, what the impact to riders would be, etc., then I think that would be useful. Can we agree to keep things factual and verifiable? Thanks, uFu 17:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

141, yes, the money for the proposed salary increases does need to come from somewhere, and it is entirely possible that it will trickle out to passenger fare increases. However, statements like "money does not grow on trees" are not encyclopedic and should not be included in the article itself. A better approach would be to provide a reference discussing the source of the funds for the proposed increase, and to summarize what both MTA and the unions have suggested to provide funding for the wage increases. Slambo (Speak) 18:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The anonymous user who tagged this article POV hasn't responded, and I haven't seen any indication that anyone else feels this way. Frankly, I think everyone's done a pretty good job of keeping this even. I'd like to remove the tag, but for me to do so would risk running afoul of the 3RR. But if somone else wanted to do it.... uFu 22:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

God, I wish that an article like this could be sprotected.. D.valued 23:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Just got here from the Main Page; a good look over everything suggests it's fine to me. I took the tag off. Radagast 23:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wages POV Link

I just removed a POV link to some sort of columnist page from hte wages section. the link led to [3]. It didn't even have anything (that i could find) pertaining to the strike.\ --Arcaynn 00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

POV Edits

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)

• I would think that more hostility would be directed at the MTA, seeing as how they've been screwing over just about everybody(not just their workers) oh since long before there was any strike--1 use 17:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Public Support?

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)

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)

From the context of the article, I think the WWRL thing is just a "radio poll" of voters calling in to that station; that would hardly be a scientific measure of public opinion.--Pharos 17:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That's just simply not possible. These numbers must be wrong. I live in the city, I work in the city, and 14% does not reflect the current attitute felt on the street against the Union. The NY Post (with a large minority subscription base) labeled the Union as "RATS" on its front page today. Please identify the source of this poll.Dragonlord kfb 19:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, just realized this was on the Daily News...which, along the Post, are written by anything but neutral (might even add professional) journalists.Dragonlord kfb 19:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

NY1 news had an interesting segment earlier about the race and class divide over who is supporting who. Apparently, they claim, most white New Yorkers were siding with Bloomberg, Pataki, and the MTA leadership, while most Hispanics and blacks were siding with the transit union. The Mayor did call the transit workers as a bunch of "thugs". --Howrealisreal 20:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Iron fist

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.

1. SIGN YER POSTS! ~~~~ (Four tildes) ain't hard to type, dammit! Be proud of your talk contributions!
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. (profanity warning) Osama most likely doesn't give half a shit about what's happening.
5. 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.)
6. 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)

We're an encyclopedia, dammit, not the TV news

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)

• The TWU Local 100 website posted a notice at 3 pm. This included a return to work notice.[4] ERcheck 20:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Good, now FIRE THEM ALL
    • Amen. Mustaqbal 10:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The MTA is also reporting that it is over. [5] --Chris 20:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree! We should be more like the TV News, Dammit! Wikipedia can do a much better job reporting than the news: One, the news you have to wait for and two, every news channel only has a portion of the picture. Yeah, I was here as often as I could to get the details. Great Reporting!

THE STRIKE IS NOW OFFICIALY OVER

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 [6]. Further negotiations are ongoing under a media backout. --Chris 20:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• • Erm, you might like to noticed the fact that part of the problem is they can't agree on a new contract, and are currently out of contract. Like to see you replace all the workers you fire. ;) -- KTC 00:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Public response

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)

Are Polls Appropriate for this Encyclopedia?

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)

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)

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)

Average MTA Salaries

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)

Question about health insurance

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)

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)

Restroom facilities

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" [7], 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)

A link was provided for verification. Was it even accessed? - bobby —the preceding unsigned comment is by Bobbydoop (talk • contribs) 15:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Please read further there were direct interviews and statements stating the need for holes in subway cabs.- bobby —the preceding unsigned comment is by Bobbydoop (talk • contribs) 15:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Salary Comparison

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)

Green Lines?

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 [8], here [9] and [10].Pacific Coast Highway 00:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Empty Street Photos

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)

Agree --Дрakюлa^Talk 15:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

How come any references to the 1966 transit strike are being omitted?

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)

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)

A pro-labor source

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)

Anachronism?

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)

Thanks. Also thanks for not biting me, newbie that I was. Jimbo (not THE Jimbo) 21:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

MTA reponsible too?

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)

Proposed reorder of sections.

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)

Be bold. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

London Undergound Strike (12/31/05)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Dead link

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)

Dead link 2

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2005 New York City transit strike. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)