CT To Pay More For Metro-North Service?

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut ... 8939.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Fair use quote:

The state pays $71 million a year to Metro-North to make up costs that aren't covered by ticket sales.

But that could rise steeply, largely because of a labor settlement in New York State. Connecticut won't pay anything directly for the deal with powerful unions at the Long Island Rail Road, but the MTA anticipates giving a roughly comparable contact to Metro-North workers — and that will cost money for either all of Connecticut's taxpayers, its commuters or both.

I have said this before but I will say again, New York State, Connecticut and in fact much of the entire area has probably close to the highest cost of living of any place in the US. If the operation was let's say in Burlington, Vermont or maybe Portland, Maine then yes you can pay the help a bit less but not in New York. Connecticut has not handled their transportation dollars very well anyway as witness the total waste of money for the busway and the messy job with the signal system on the Danbury Branch. Connecticut should not have any say in whatever contract Metro-North ends up with their employess, it will simply be a cost of operation affair. Raise the fares as necessary to pay the cost of providing the service and be done with it. You can't expect the employees to support the farebox.
Noel Weaver

Noel Weaver wrote:I have said this before but I will say again, New York State, Connecticut and in fact much of the entire area has probably close to the highest cost of living of any place in the US. If the operation was let's say in Burlington, Vermont or maybe Portland, Maine then yes you can pay the help a bit less but not in New York. Connecticut has not handled their transportation dollars very well anyway as witness the total waste of money for the busway and the messy job with the signal system on the Danbury Branch. Connecticut should not have any say in whatever contract Metro-North ends up with their employess, it will simply be a cost of operation affair. Raise the fares as necessary to pay the cost of providing the service and be done with it. You can't expect the employees to support the farebox.
Noel Weaver

Yes, have fares pay for the costs of service as much as possible, but don't incur sky-high compensation costs.

Gov. Cuomo gave in to a generous contract for LIRR employees in part because he didn't want to alienate unions and other Democrats in an election year. LIRR employees already made more ($80K + overtime, on average) than Long Island residents, on average. Enough is enough; we taxpayers should not have bear excessive compensation costs. There are tons of unemployed people; hire them at market rates rather than giving into unions' demands for above-market compensation.

no Cuomo gave in to Unions cause of federal recommendations .
now as for one term Molloy is concerned , welcome to world of inflation Governor, you are so out of touch you never get re-elected.
Grandma gets same raises the PED recommended just by social security COLA's, we expect workers to get at least the same.

DutchRailnut wrote:no Cuomo gave in to Unions cause of federal recommendations .
now as for one term Molloy is concerned , welcome to world of inflation Governor, you are so out of touch you never get re-elected.
Grandma gets same raises the PED recommended just by social security COLA's, we expect workers to get at least the same.

Yes, the feds (other Democrats) did recommend that the LIRR unions' contract demands be accepted; you are correct.

I have taken all sorts of pay cuts in the last 7 years despite being a faithful employee of my employer (including a 20% cut one year), so unfortunately those of us in the private sector don't expect a raise- or even a stable paycheck- every year.

The arbitraries have nothing to do with what political party is in place, they are federal employees and not picked on party affiliation.

as for your situation, consider joining a union.

A federal mediation panel is from the executive branch (Democrats); federal mediation panel members are likely lawyers like me (and most lawyers are Democrats); government workers are disproportionately Democrats, and so even if the panel members were not political appointees, they're probably Democrats.

I would think that all of us are in favor of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work (not above-market pay for a fair day's work, and not below-market pay for a fair day's work, and not an onerous day's work), and a railroad that provides the best service possible.

Dutch Railnut, also, you are definitely one of my favorite posters and I highly value you and your points of view. I'm definitely not viewing this as an argument or anything, so please don't take it that way.

I would think that all of us are in favor of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work (not above-market pay for a fair day's work, and not below-market pay for a fair day's work, and not an onerous day's work), and a railroad that provides the best service possible.

I would like to think at least most of the general public (aka the "common man", "working class", even "middle class", etc.) wholeheartedly agree on that. Unfortunately the gap between the working man/woman and the powers at be can be as wide as [insert here]