Pensions are the issue — NYT

According to this NY Times article, the union got everything it wanted except for pensions. It’s not benefits that they’re fighting over as I mistakenly posted earlier, but pensions. So they got closer to their wage increase as well as securing their health benefits and retirement age for future workers. So what are they striking over? Pension plans for their “unborn” workers. New workers – who are being unaffected by this whole strike because, well, they don’t exist yet – are being asked to contribute 6% towards their pension plan as opposed to the 2% that current workers contribute. From my earlier post I already expressed how unreasonable I feel the union is being by striking over health benefits – a problem that is afflicting everyone in the United States. So what about striking over pensions? It’s something that deserves even less support. Public pensions will be bankrupting cities and states in the next decade if nothing is done about them. The MTA is trying to do something about them now, to prevent problems in the near future. And the union is failing to see that. Maybe they should read this [www.businessweek.com] first before doing something moronic. Like striking.