|
|
| Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate? (322478) | |
 |
|
| Home > BusChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (322479) | |
Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate? |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jan 29 21:28:17 2017, in response to Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate?, posted by gbs on Sun Jan 29 21:22:17 2017. That is a little strange. At the state level the same civil service exam applies for the same job title, regardless of what union the positions are for (CSEA, PEF, M/C). Seniority also transfers when you take a position which requires changing unions. |
|
|
| (322481) | |
Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate? |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Sun Jan 29 23:04:13 2017, in response to Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate?, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Jan 29 21:28:17 2017. I thought the new contract brought Bus Company and NYCT together... |
|
|
| (322482) | |
Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate? |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jan 29 23:25:46 2017, in response to Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate?, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sun Jan 29 23:04:13 2017. Same contract terms and expiration date of the contract.The NYCT is subsidized by MTA. MTA bus is subsidized by NYCDOT. Seniority books seperate. |
|
|
| (322484) | |
Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate? |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Mon Jan 30 01:26:04 2017, in response to Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate?, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Jan 29 23:25:46 2017. Taking it one step further, the MTA has the right to stop operating MTA Bus Company if the City does not pay the full subsidy, and the City could contract with some other operator (much like NICE).As to NYCTA and MaBSTOA, there is a lease (but not a full subsidy) from the City, and if there were a desire, the City could recall the service and resume direct operation as it was prior to 1953 (or perhaps even contract it out to some other operator). Overall, given the contract and lease provisions, there's probably slightly greater job security at NYCTA and MaBSTOA. |
|
|
| (322485) | |
Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jan 30 02:25:12 2017, in response to Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate?, posted by BusMgr on Mon Jan 30 01:26:04 2017. I recall a few years ago, the MTA/TWU contract called for the complete elimination of MABSTOA and the agency completely absorbed by the NYCTA. It doesn’t seem to have happened and I never found out why. |
|
|
| (322486) | |
Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate? |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Jan 30 07:05:45 2017, in response to Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate?, posted by randyo on Mon Jan 30 02:25:12 2017. More than likely something that requires the state legislature to actually do something. Killing off a public authority, once created, is something they always find excuses not to do, no matter how redundant the authority has become. Many of them provide a pool of patronage jobs that would go away. |
|
|
| (322490) | |
Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate? |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Mon Jan 30 11:15:39 2017, in response to Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate?, posted by pragmatist on Mon Jan 30 07:05:45 2017. It is separate legislation, and there would need to be a corporate merger for NYCTA to absorb its subsidiary. I understand that MaBSTROA was created as a separate entity so that it could quickly, and more easily, be returned to the private sector as a whole."A public benefit corporation entitled Manhattan and Bronx surface transit operating authority . . . is hereby created. The purpose of said subsidiary corporation shall be to operate, pursuant to the powers conferred hereunder and for a temporary period, the omnibus lines hereafter acquired by the city, until the said omnibus lines shall be sold or otherwise disposed of to private or public operation." New York Public Authorities Law § 1203-a(2). |
|
|
| (322491) | |
Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate? |
|
|
Posted by pragmatist on Mon Jan 30 11:23:07 2017, in response to Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate?, posted by BusMgr on Mon Jan 30 11:15:39 2017. I believe it also saved the gov't the efforts and time involved in negotiating merged collective bargaining units, full civil service integration, and merged seniority lists. Some things have taken place over time, but not 100%. |
|
|
| (322492) | |
Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate? |
|
|
Posted by Q4 on Mon Jan 30 12:43:44 2017, in response to Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate?, posted by pragmatist on Mon Jan 30 11:23:07 2017. Under NYCTA, Bus operator is a New York City Civil Service title and requires a NYC Civil Service exam given by DCAS. NYC civil service rules apply and you can't use that list for a non-civil service position.Employees of MaBSTOA and MTA Bus do not have Civil Service positions. I don't know why these two couldn't have the same filing and exam dates but it could be due to how they were initially set up or the MaBSTOA legislation. While it doesn't have anything to do with the test, the pensions are also different as MaBSTOA and MTA Bus are private pensions while NYCT comes under the NYCLERS. |
|
|
| (322494) | |
Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Jan 30 15:37:28 2017, in response to Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate?, posted by Q4 on Mon Jan 30 12:43:44 2017. Actually, the main reason why mABSTOA was created was because it took several years for the legal wrangling over the seizure of FACCO and STS properties by the city (which was the actual entity that seized the assets) to clear the courts. Interestingly, despite the separation of the two agencies, MABSTOA B/Os are allowed to pick NYCTA depots and NYCTA B/Os are allowed to pick MABSTOA depots all without loss of system seniority. Contrast the loss of seniority if NYCTA B/Os from Manhattan/ Bkln Qns or SI pick outside their respective boroughs. |
|
|
| (322495) | |
Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate? |
|
|
Posted by MR RT on Mon Jan 30 15:48:04 2017, in response to Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate?, posted by BusMgr on Mon Jan 30 01:26:04 2017. Benefits packages & salaries are different also :-( |
|
|
| (322498) | |
Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jan 30 18:09:38 2017, in response to Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate?, posted by Q4 on Mon Jan 30 12:43:44 2017. MaBSTOA pensions are also paid out of farebox revenues. Don't know about MTA bus. NYCTA , definitely not. |
|
|
| (322499) | |
Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate? |
|
|
Posted by BrooklynBus on Mon Jan 30 18:16:57 2017, in response to Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate?, posted by gbs on Sun Jan 29 21:22:17 2017. It doesn't have anything to do with the unions. Anything that didn't involve something legal was combined, I.e except for Operations Planning which is still separate for MTA Bus.They originally said that eventually all the legal differences would be resolved, but I guess there are more problems than they orginally thought so stone parts may always be separate. In reality, the MTA has been filling MaBSTOA positions for over thirty years with employees whose job descriptions have nothing to do with buses. I agree that paying fir multiple tests is very unfair. But ever since they started charging for tests around the early 80s, the city has considered these fees as a cash cow and keep raising them. Fairness is not in their vocabulary. |
|
|
| (322506) | |
Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate? |
|
|
Posted by BusMgr on Tue Jan 31 12:39:30 2017, in response to Re: Why are MTA-TA, MTA-Mabstoa, and MTA-Bus still separate?, posted by randyo on Mon Jan 30 15:37:28 2017. But the years of litigation that followed related to the value of the property seized by the City, and due to be paid to to the former owners. The question as to the legitimacy of the seizure was not an issue; the doctrine of eminent domain was not seriously questioned. Perhaps it might have been used as an excuse, but litigation between the City (not MaBSTOA itself) and the former owners should not have been a basis for MaBSTOA's internal management. |
|
|