If anyone was sending packages via UPS that may have transited through Idaho, check your tracking numbers.

DON'T SAY THAT . I have books somewhere between Portland and Alabama and I have no idea WHERE between those two states.

Well it is not true that current members have no problems:

[link]

Also it is very much in the interest of current members not to have a two tier system. Cause that can be used to weaken their pay and benefits in the future.

Lastly as to pay and benefits being good, yeah compared to the average because wages and benefits for most Americans have been weakened. Essentially most people no longer get much in the way of raises, and have benefits lowered. Frankly I would like to see that reversed; and that means when someone is in a position to fight back and not put up with take backs I'm for it. The "be grateful for what you have" argument is used against just about any strike. There is almost always someone worse off than the strikers out there. I will note that argument is never used as an argument for management making cuts on their end , or in profit earning businesses for owners to take a hit to profits. I guess it is only wage earners who are supposed to be happy not be a street person. "Greed is good" is reserved for owners.

Not the same situation here, but a similar one - rememver the one billion dollars is not a planned surplus; it is one billion over what is projected. Asking that it be used to avoid benefit cuts is not unreasonable.

They want me to get dedicated hosting for provocateuse! I don't know what to do...

Future employees have free will-- if the MTA is not competitive, they will have trouble hiring people.

Isn't that the argument they always make for abolishing the minimum wage?

It's a variant of every regulatory/government intervention/collective bargaining vs. free market argument. I'm not going to say that one should always choose the same side in that argument-- it should be dependent on a balancing of harms. In this case, there appears to me to be a fairly free market for future MTA employees. It's not like they have to make an investment in education, or have some special skill. In other words, people don't *have* to work for the MTA. Whereas in the minimum wage context, one could argue that everyone has to work for someone with or without a minimum wage obligation.

Future hires may have a serious problem with pension obligations meaning that the MTA can't hire them in the first place, let alone what happens to them after 25 years there.

That's not a small problem, though.

I don't understand this. The new hire will know when the pension kicks in, and he might go somewhere with a better pension plan or maybe find the MTA's position (lesser pension obligation might mean better job security) sweeter. On the other hand, overly increasing the pension obligation means that more people have to work somewhere else. They might not find a job with a pension at all.

Also, the MTA is being (no shock) weasely. They need to go to the state labor board to change the retirement parameters, doing it with the contract is back-handed.

What would you say if they went to Albany first, instead of contracting with the workers? They're going to Albany anyway. I suspect you'd find legislative approval of the new age limit before union agreement more weaselly.

But the teachers just went three years without a contract, I can't blame the TWU for thinking the city won't negotiate in good faith without being leaned on.

The city is not in this negotiation. The MTA is a state org.

That's not a small problem, though.

I don't understand this.

I was actually agreeing with you there.

I am getting several gift cards for Christmas, and I know where they are from because they came in the mail in those unmistakeable envelopes. So I am browsing the relevant web sites trying to pick things I want.

I find gift cards a little depressing, actually. I mean, if you get a present you may get bizarrely wrong things, but I don't like trying to pick out my own present. I always feel the need to buy things on sale, or practical things I actually need, and I always have to chip in some of my own cash to cover the ridiculous shipping.

Am I alone in this?

I was actually agreeing with you there.

Oh, ok.

You're not alone, flea. I'm actually fine with getting a check, and don't mind picking for myself if I have some real choice, but I get weirdly anxious and cranky about the feeling of "I have to get something from *this* store" (even if it's not a store I especially like).

Am I alone in this?

Nope. Unless it's for books, which I love to shop for. And even then, I try to make the gift certificate go as far as possible, but it's kind of fun for me -- how many books can I get with X dollars?

I don't like gift cards so much. To me, it seems like, the thought is, "get your own damn gift!" If someone doesn't know what to get me and doesn't care enough about the process to find out, I'd rather they not get me anything (being gifted makes me uncomfortable anyway) or give cash.

I did get a gift card for my dad, once, for Borders, because he loooves hanging out in bookstores and doesn't really have the cash to spend on books. Also, if it's a gift card for something like Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts or someplace that someone knows I go to a lot, those are OK. So I am kind of a hypocrite.