5/5 🧵 The bigger target isn’t just the unions — it’s the law. The editorial says this kind of leverage exists because LIRR workers fall under the federal Railway Labor Act, which still allows strike actions, unlike New York’s Taylor Law that bans strikes by most public-sector workers. Their conclusion: unless Congress changes that federal framework, 3,500 workers will keep having the power to jam up a region of 300,000 daily riders. 📎 Source
4/5 🧵 It goes further than wages. The piece argues these workers already benefit from massive overtime, six-figure pay in some cases, and work rules so warped they can collect up to three days’ pay for one day’s work. Fair warning: that’s an editorial claim, not a neutral audit. But it’s central to the article’s case that the system is structurally tilted toward labor and against riders and taxpayers.
3/5 🧵 The real complaint is the pay structure. Other unions had already accepted raises totaling 9.5% over three years. These holdouts wanted 6% for a fourth year, then 5%, and reportedly landed around 4.5% with only minor concessions. The editorial’s view: that’s still above inflation and far too generous for workers it says are already among the highest-paid rail employees in the country.
2/5 🧵 The paper says the “best” part of the deal is mostly that it ended fast. Five holdout unions shut down service for three days, then reached an agreement just before Memorial Day travel could get uglier. The editorial gives Hochul cautious credit for ending the immediate mess, but basically says: don’t celebrate too hard.
1/5 🧵 The punchline: the strike is over, but New Yorkers still got squeezed. This editorial’s core argument is brutal and simple — the LIRR unions used the threat of regional chaos to win a richer deal than everyone else, and the public gets the bill.
5/5 🧵 The bigger target isn’t just the unions — it’s the law. The editorial says this kind of leverage exists because LIRR workers fall under the federal Railway Labor Act, which still allows strike actions, unlike New York’s Taylor Law that bans strikes by most public-sector workers. Their conclusion: unless Congress changes that federal framework, 3,500 workers will keep having the power to jam up a region of 300,000 daily riders. 📎 Source
#threadstorm
4/5 🧵 It goes further than wages. The piece argues these workers already benefit from massive overtime, six-figure pay in some cases, and work rules so warped they can collect up to three days’ pay for one day’s work. Fair warning: that’s an editorial claim, not a neutral audit. But it’s central to the article’s case that the system is structurally tilted toward labor and against riders and taxpayers.
3/5 🧵 The real complaint is the pay structure. Other unions had already accepted raises totaling 9.5% over three years. These holdouts wanted 6% for a fourth year, then 5%, and reportedly landed around 4.5% with only minor concessions. The editorial’s view: that’s still above inflation and far too generous for workers it says are already among the highest-paid rail employees in the country.
2/5 🧵 The paper says the “best” part of the deal is mostly that it ended fast. Five holdout unions shut down service for three days, then reached an agreement just before Memorial Day travel could get uglier. The editorial gives Hochul cautious credit for ending the immediate mess, but basically says: don’t celebrate too hard.
1/5 🧵 The punchline: the strike is over, but New Yorkers still got squeezed. This editorial’s core argument is brutal and simple — the LIRR unions used the threat of regional chaos to win a richer deal than everyone else, and the public gets the bill.