First, it's a state law. Second, it's the _same_ state law that permitted public employees to have unions in the first place. Prior to that, the state would not recognize public employee unions.
There's no slavery involved, because nobody has said the employees can't just _quit_. What they aren't allowed to do is (1) not work and (2) keep their jobs.
That's right; they can quit any time they want.
Oh, and Bloomberg has little to do with it. The Transit Authority is a _state_ agency.
Does it matter whether or not they're overpaid? Or that nobody is losing any pension, but rather *new hires* will get less generous benefit?
The ones on strike now?
You mean, the inefficiency required by the union?
And the judge didn't immediately issue a Court Order freezing the union's bank accounts? Why not?
Besides, a judgment doesn't disappear just because the defendant has no money at the time. The fine could be collected at any future time, including taking union dues as they're paid by the TA (withheld from employees' paychecks, turned over directly in payment of the fine).
Seth
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: For someone who has no control over the matter (as you claim about Bloomberg) he sure does a lot of talking about the strike and taking credit for ending it Thursday afternoon. Why don't we hear him saying, "Sorry, that's not my department, you will need to talk to the transit workers and their managers."?And yes, I _know_ the one is a state agency and the other is a municipal government ... duh! But you should know that when Bloomberg says 'jump' everyone asks 'how high?', etc. Things like the difference between a 'state agency' and a 'municipal government' in this instance is just thinly veilled bullshit, just as with Chicago Transit Authority. That was how the politicians years ago wanted to set it up, I have no idea why.
The union does not require ineffeciency, or no more so than the government bosses. And why didn't the court immediatly freeze the union's bank account? Obviously you did _not_ do your homework assignment yesterday (read the transcripts of the 1960's court proceeding when the union was last on strike.) At that point in time, the reason the strike lasted eleven days instead of only two or three was because the judge was a total blowhard, a real jerk with his fines and punishments, etc. Yes, the 1960's judge did threaten to freeze the treasury, freeze the employee's salaries, etc. _But the union warned him against continuing that approach_, teling him in effect "freeze our members wages to collect your silly fine, I'll tell everyone of them not present now to hear me say it in person, "resign your employment and walk off the job permanently as of now. See how soon you have a transit system running again." The union in those days was _tough_ and the judge sort of wishy-washy and very much inclined to only please the people who put him in office who wanted the strike to end. Once cooler heads prevailed, he agreed to forgive the fine, etc.
I think the same thing will happen in this case when the court reconvenes on January 20 after the requested adjournment today. All the fines and the nasty language will be forgotten about. My competitor the New York Times and the other newspapers will print a tiny little one paragraph thing on page 79 announcing that the court agreed to forgive all the fines.
You know, Seth, your cute little distinction between 'state agency' versus municipal government and how, oh boo hoo, Bloomberg had no control over it, etc sort of reminds me of how when I call ICANN to task around here, invariably one or more readers will conveniently forget how although damn near everyone considers ICANN to be in control of the net, they will say the opposite, that ICANN 'has no control, they are just an agency to (fill in the blank.)' And although technically, that is true, there are many people further up the line who tell ICANN how to march and sing. Ditto the transit agency and Bloomberg I suspect. Let's deal with realities, not theoreticals if you don't mind. PAT]