A few of our stories and columns are now in front of the paywall. We at The Chief-Leader remain committed to independent reporting on labor and civil service. It's been our mission since 1897. You can have a hand in ensuring that our reporting remains relevant in the decades to come. Consider supporting The Chief, which you can do for as little as $3.20 a month.
To the editor:
I'm glad to see that TWU Local 100's president, Richard Davis, is calling for the end of the Taylor’s Law’s strike prohibition for city and state workers. In 1966, then-TWU President Michael Quill defied the then prohibition against strikes. He went to jail and refused to settle the strike until he got his workers a good contract. The toll it took on his health resulted in his death from a heart attack shortly after.
Unfortunately, surviving union leaders did not put up much of a fight against the Taylor Law when it was enacted the following year.
I'm glad to see there's finally a union leader who's willing to take it on. I'm also glad to see two politicians, Brooklyn State Senator Jessica Ramos and Queens Assemblywoman Stacey Pheffer Amato, willing to introduce legislation to end the strike prohibition.
Davis explains his opposition to the strike prohibition, saying "This is a democracy." That's why I have called the Taylor Law a fascist law. But the only time I have read the mainstream media criticize a prohibition against strikes was in the 1980s, when it came from the then-communist Polish government. The media felt that only capitalists were allowed to tell workers they can't strike.
Decades of workers' real money pay cuts are the result of less unionization and less strikes. It is no coincidence that President Ronald Reagan's busting of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization, carried out by Assistant Attorney General Rudolph Giuliani, accelerated salaries falling behind inflation.
Cornell University Professor Harry Katz claims that workers would be better served with binding arbitration than strikes. But arbitrators have not provided workers with good contracts under the Taylor Law.
Yes, strikes inconvenience the public. That's why they work. If strikes were harmless, they would not be a weapon.
Richard Warren
1 comment on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
I believe strikes are necessary if all else fails and negations, when Pension, medical job security are key and if it take months , years with no end in site. I believe a strike is something not to take likely. I’ve been in a strike.I stayed out with my union and watched . Study the positive and Negative effects of strikes. I witness many craving to strike for some of the most unrealistic demands and childish requests by coworkers who never felt any economic pain , damage strikes do or participate actively on areas of the union. When a strike happens and the lost of pay, medical, etc they cry , first group to break the strike that they pushed for. So it’s not a great thing when those strike breakers take it as a party or vengeance for personal gain but don’t take into account lively hoods , expenses and economic damage to both sides. Now Govt is supporting strikes something is wrong they know technology and robotic systems are here and will be in many areas that WILL replace humans at high levels. Strikes won’t be as effective as some may think. Transit Bus and subway will eventually be all automated in-the near future. Transit wants a strike to push faster automation. Maybe depends on Taylor law changes that benefits , pay stop immediately when a contract is up careful what you wish for!!!!!!
Thursday, April 6, 2023 Report this