It's already been averted as of 3pm today. Deal was reached.
44
no_one_likes_u2 days ago
+56
I’m really impressed that these workers have found a way to unionize. I would never have guessed that would even be possible with how many different companies must be paying them.
Good for them, hope they get what they deserve to be paid.
56
AudibleNod2 days ago
+116
>A strike would be the first in 35 years and would affect 1.5 million renters, co-op owners and condo dwellers across the city, according to the workers’ union, called 32BJ SEIU. Residents could have to take on such tasks as staffing doors, sorting packages, mopping hallways, sweeping sidewalks and hauling trash to the curb.
I kind of want to watch rich people mop hallways and haul trash to the curb.
116
TheThebanProphet2 days ago
+56
as peak as that may be this also effects working class people who are in these buildings as well. that said im not here to be a scab for the bourgeoisie and i hope that the union can get a favorable contract without a strike being necessary
56
[deleted]1 day ago
+15
As much as I'd love to see it, not a single one of those landlords will bother. They'll just make the renters "go the extra mile in these troubling times".
15
michoudi1 day ago
+7
As with most things in life, the extent of suffering by the rich will be an added cost to pay someone to perform the missing services. As always, the poorer with less resources are the ones who will suffer by having to dedicate their limited time and or money.
7
blue_sidd1 day ago
+2
They haven’t and woukdnt.
2
Pave_Low1 day ago
+17
I live in a doorman building in NYC. If they go on strike, it will obviously be a terrible nuisance and inconvenience for me. If they do go on strike to get the money and healthcare they need, that's them doing what they need to do. So if they have to strike, they should strike. Capitalism cuts both ways. I'm much happier knowing the folks that work to maintain my building are getting the income and dignity they deserve.
17
[deleted]2 days ago
+10
[removed]
10
Pave_Low1 day ago
+2
That's akin to saying an auto mechanic should be able to afford every car they can repair. . .
2
Pave_Low1 day ago
+2
Agreement has been reached and there will be no strike. Four year contract is in the works. This happens every time these agreements end. The union and RAB take it to the final days for as much leverage as possible.
2
UnionsUnionsUnions1 day ago
+1
It's weird that you said every time but the article says not in 35 years.
1
Pave_Low1 day ago
+2
They haven't gone on strike in 35 years, but the agreements last about four years each. So every four years we get a notice that the building staff could go on strike. Then we, the building residents, go through the process of getting ready to have an unstaffed building. Finally, about 48 hours before the strike is supposed to happen, they reach an agreement and nothing happens. This has happened at least four or five times since the mid 2000s.
2
UnionsUnionsUnions1 day ago
-1
And have you told the building association to make fair proposals in the first place to avoid this happening? Or you're just mad at the people whose health insurance is on the line?
-1
Gwenog_Jones1 day ago
+2
Where did they say they were mad?
2
i_sell_you_lies18 hr ago
+1
In my mind damn the man
1
achtbaan661 day ago
+2
I hope the deal goes through. Our doormen say that our building voted to resolve the dispute, but the guys would still be obligated to join a called strike, which would absolutely suck for people who have full-time jobs and child care to worry about. Not every doorman building is a “luxury property” full of rich people. It’s a lot of middle class folks here in my co-op building in Queens.
2
UnionsUnionsUnions1 day ago
-2
Oh no, you'd have to clean your own house for two weeks! F*** their health insurance, right?
-2
b1argg1 day ago
+1
They said their building agreed to the terms though.
1
UnionsUnionsUnions1 day ago
-1
No, he didn't. He said that building did not vote to strike.
-1
b1argg1 day ago
+1
I guess it could be interpreted either way.
1
UnionsUnionsUnions1 day ago
-1
No, it can't. That's not how bargaining works.
-1
b1argg23 hr ago
+1
It's possible the workers at that building voted to accept the deal/not strike, but the union as a whole voted against.
Honesty, a union where everyone has different employers sounds a lot more complicated than collective bargaining with one employer. Unless all the employers are also collective bargaining, but that is still complicated.
1
UnionsUnionsUnions23 hr ago
+1
>It's possible the workers at that building voted to accept the deal/not strike, but the union as a whole voted against.
That's what I said.
>Honesty, a union where everyone has different employers sounds a lot more complicated than collective bargaining with one employer. Unless all the employers are also collective bargaining, but that is still complicated.
I totally understand how you would think that, but the employers are on one team and still just have one spokesperson so it's fundamentally the same in terms of logistics. They're all on one side of the table and you're all on the other.
1
b1argg23 hr ago
+1
But the building owners would also have to vote on accepting the contract, correct? It's a unique situation.
1
UnionsUnionsUnions22 hr ago
+1
If the building owners are directly employing the workers, then they are the people on the team making the proposals. There's no need for them to vote.
If contractors are employing the workers, then the building owners don't get any say at all. Instead, their "vote" is to choose from the companies who bid for the work, with those bids being based on these contract negotiations
It's not a unique situation at all. It is very normal. It happens in every city every year in all kinds of different industries.
1
Low_Pickle_1121 day ago
+3
Hmm, but I was assured by the economics understanders that it is the Lords of the Land who create and maintain housing, not those credit stealing laborers. Just look at our illustrious landlord-in-chief, he has clearly created many buildings with his own hands and definitely knows what a screwdriver is. If the buildings start to decay without labor maintaining them, than it simply means those buildings don't understand basic economics, much like how our ignorant planet believes in climate change despite infinite growth making perfect economic sense.
Could you imagine seriously believing that sort of c***? Bet you'll hear some new excuses that exonerate the owners and condemn the workers anyway. Best of luck to the workers.
>Building owners, represented by an umbrella group called the Realty Advisory Board on Labor Relations, say they are facing financial pressures themselves. They want the workers to start paying health insurance premiums and want new hires to come in under a new job classification that the union says would be lower-paying.
>The Realty Advisory Board says building owners also face rising expenses — and Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s push to freeze rent on the city’s roughly 1 million rent-stabilized apartments. Mamdani, a Democrat, joined the building workers’ rally Wednesday, saluting “those who maintain
And there it is. These people are the raising prices, demanding ever more rent than acting surprised when people need more money to live, and so now they're going to throw a temper tantrum and try to scapegoat the guy who says they should back off some. And despite how transparent and obvious it is, I have no doubt that some boot connoisseurs will eat it up hook line and sinker.
3
LumberBitch1 day ago
+6
They already folded. Looks like they could afford it after all who woulda thunk it
6
[deleted]2 days ago
-6
[deleted]
-6
AudibleNod2 days ago
+2
Hey buddy. Did you hit the right thread? Maybe a strike is tragic.
30 Comments