Skip to main content

The Transport Workers Union, among the first unions to support the Occupy Wall Street protesters, is going to court to prevent the city from forcing its members to drive buses carrying arrested protesters. Several empty buses were commandeered Saturday during the mass arrests at the Brooklyn Bridge and MTA supervisors ordered drivers to drive them:

But that violates the contract between Local 100 and the MTA, Samuelsen said.

"Our mission is to provide transit service to the riding public, not transport people who were arrested," he said.

David Waldman puts it in perspective:

if pharmacists then TWU

But as we know, depriving women of medical care is different and pharmacists have a God-given right to refuse to fill some of the most common prescriptions there are. Whereas union bus drivers should certainly expect to have to transport people lured into law-breaking by the police and then arrested while engaged in a protest said bus drivers support.

How the TWU fares in court will presumably depend on the exact language of its contract, but this has to be likely to boost attendance at Wednesday's rally as incensed transit workers show their support.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 06:58 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos and Occupy Wall Street.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I'd say it would be a bad thing to rile up TWU. (24+ / 0-)

    Especially after this statement:

    Just Sayin'

    I've become re-radicalized. Thanks a lot you bunch of oligarchical fascist sons-of-bitches. But once again, I have no choice. Bring it the fuck on.

    by mdmslle on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 07:11:55 AM PDT

  •  Great news. This legal action by the unions is the (17+ / 0-)

    exact type of spinoff action that needs to happen.  Its how we grew the civil rights movement in this country.

    •  Oh yeah, that'll go a long way. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I can see the spin now:

      "Government employees decide to do their job only when it suits them."

      Driving a bus is driving a bus.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:30:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nice wingnut sounding comment there, podna. (5+ / 0-)

        You must be new to the world of contract llabor law, and how we have developed worker's rights over the years?

      •  I think Kagro X had it right (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        smarty jones, chimpy

        We have an easy parallel to draw here, so I'm not sure why you would want to be so negative. What would you propose instead?

        "You try to vote or participate in the government/ and the muh'fuckin' Democrats is actin' like Republicans" ~ Kweli -8.00, -6.56

        by joey c on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:49:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Since when do bus drivers transport dangerous (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Treg, dinotrac, catfood, chimpy, Vinnie Vegas

        criminals who are not properly escorted by trained professional police workers.

        An entire bus load of dangerous criminals who are being transported to jail because they have committed serious crimes on the street that require their detention.

        Since when have city bus drivers had the training and physical security to do this job.

        Do they get hazard pay?

        . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

        by 88kathy on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:00:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I see - so the claim is that the protestors are (4+ / 0-)

          dangerous criminals?

          Interesting, because I don't think the union leaders who are supporting the protest would agree with you.

          That would, however, be a proper basis for opposing the duty in question and might be sufficient to avoid bad PR -- at least for the bus drivers.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:04:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes when the bus drivers are collecting hazard pay (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shakludanto, white blitz, maf1029, Justus

            it is not their job to make that call.  It is police work.

            The police have made the call that these loiterers are a public safety risk and need to be removed from the street.  The bus drivers have been pressed into service.  The bus drivers cannot make the call, but when the call is made, they deserve hazard pay.

            Do I make myself clear?

            Be calm, be cool, and be collected.

            . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

            by 88kathy on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:15:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Does their contract call for hazard pay? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              •  probably not. (0+ / 0-)

                I doubt they are expected to drive their bus under any circumstance that might be considered hazardous.

                . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

                by 88kathy on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:35:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I think the question is what is in the contract (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dinotrac, 88kathy

                  Also, is transporting handcuffed prisoners with police guards really hazardous?  Who decides?

                  •  That is the question, absolutely (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    88kathy, Wham Bam

                    If the contract does not allow them to be pressed into this kind of duty, then they are right to refuse.  if it does, they aren't.  Jobs are jobs and free expression tends not to be part of the deal.

                    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                    by dinotrac on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:43:46 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Once my company went ape shit and wanted (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    drivers to do all kinds of tests under the hood.  All fluid levels and many more.  The union said OK but they would have to pay drivers mechanic's wages.  You can't just make stuff as you go along.  Every contract has a job description and I really, really doubt back up for the police department is covered in the bus driver's contract.

                    Do police have to drive buses when more drivers are needed for regular routes?

                    . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

                    by 88kathy on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:53:06 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Most likely the contract requires them to drive (0+ / 0-)

                      buses from and to any location requested with any passengers requested.

                      After all, the city does sometimes have new routes or special buses and sometimes they will use a bus to move city staff instead of paying passengers.

                      In that case the question is whether there is an exclusion for transporting prisoners.

          •  That has to be the assumption. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dinotrac, white blitz

            If someone is in handcuffs, the only excuse is that they are potentially dangerous. By putting them in handcuffs, the NYPD has represented the protestors are potentially dangerous.

            Groups: Toolbox and Trolls... to preserve the best & the worst of DailyKos.

            by opendna on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:44:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The next question is whether they are then (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              put on buses without adequate police security.


              As somebody mentioned earlier in the thread, the biggest question is whether the drivers' contract even allows for such duty.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:55:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Right (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Justanothernyer, dinotrac

        The only thing that matters here is the language of the contract, not non-sequitur analogies with pharmacists. If their contract requires them to drive the bus, they drive the bus. It's their job. They can do it or be fired. It isn't up to bus drivers to be the legal system in NY.

        Same for the pharmacists, for that matter, but the argument "it's ok for me to shirk my responsibilities if some other group does too" is a bankrupt idea.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:08:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Classic! Only 4 comments from top (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        and we've got a dkos poster telling us we should pre-concede defeat on yet another winning issue in the war of ideas. What possible value did you see in making your comment?

        If you are an attorney and have already gone through the TWU's contract line-by-line and determined that they are unlikely to prevail in court on this issue, then it might make sense to advocate caution with this tactic - otherwise, WTF are you trying to do?

        •  Concede what? (0+ / 0-)

          Look, if their contract forbids them to drive those prisoners, more power to them.

          As a PR thing, though, it's hard to see a win there.  it amounts to people with jobs -- at a time when lots of people don't -- turning up their noses at honest work and doing so under what might be deemed emergency conditions.

          Although --

          There would be a win there if the bus drivers are taking work away from people who would ordinarily transport prisoners.

          It's all in the details.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:48:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What it amounts to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Diebold Hacker

            is an organized group of workers making a public declaration of resistance against the demand that they help end a legitimate protest by fellow rank-and-file Americans who are taking concrete action to support the economic interests of 99% of our population - including every member of the TWU.

            In other words, these workers are fighting back against being used as tools by the wealthiest and most powerful in our society to perpetuate an economic order which is in very real terms hurting these same workers, along with their families, friends, and neighbors.

            I believe that a substantial segment of the working population of this country is capable of making this connection.  

            I also believe that this type of resistance is the only available non-violent path back toward a more fair and just society.

            •  Feel free to tell youreself that. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              smarty jones

              Most of the working population also understands the meaning of employment, and the difference between work and home.

              If you're waiting for a Marxist revolution in the US, I suspect you'll be waiting a very long time.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 11:51:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Let me back up a little... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dinotrac, Justus

                First off: I apologize for my tone and for calling you out in my response to your original comment - I'm sure we agree on far more than we disagree on, and my taking an adversarial tone in that initial response wasn't the way to foster effective dialogue on this site.

                I think the reason I responded as I did is that I believe strongly that this nascent movement has great potential to get more people talking and thinking about the increasingly undeniable damage that adherence to simplistic right-wing economic dogma is doing to our country - and hopefully eventually voting against the insanity of continuing these destructive policies. As a result, I'm sensitive to anything that seems like an attempt to throw a wet blanket on these positive unfolding developments.

                I have no interest in seeing a Marxist revolution in the US - merely a move toward sanely-regulated capitalism (per most of the developed world), and a return to the far more equitable tax-structure which helped make possible the unprecedented gains of the post-WWII middle-class.

                Our mainstream media and two-party political system has shown little or no willingness to talk about - or even allow discussion of - either the real underlying causes of or any actual solutions to our increasingly dire problems. Instead, huge amounts of money and effort are poured into fomenting divisions and conflict between different factions whose underlying economic interests are shared (and thus all equally in jeopardy if the status quo is allowed to continue).

                The result of the failure to talk honestly about or seek to address our problems is that some find refuge in willfully ignorant and hate-based movements like the tea party, while many more have disengaged entirely from the political process. And the bottom line is that the necessary changes seem unlikely to come without direct, credible pressure on our elected officials by an organized populace.

                It is an ongoing tragedy that 1% (or even 5%, or whatever - in any case a tiny minority) of our population has had so much success in dictating economic policies which benefit them at the expense of the vast majority of Americans. Overhyped and/or downright false divisions among the remaining 95+% are the sole reason this tragedy is able to continue.  

                What's different and significant about this movement (vs. say the anti-war movement of the late-60s) is that it is bringing together rather than tearing apart disparate factions such as organized labor and young social liberals (both of whom are REALLY feeling the consequences of 30+ years of GOP economic policies).

                Fear of jeopardizing ones employment is a powerful force for the status quo during better economic times, but when employment at living wages is already either in jeopardy or increasingly unavailable for large swaths of the population, there is a huge opportunity to replace this fear with a shared desire to make positive changes - and that, in short, is what I hope we may start to see happening as a result of this movement.

                I know that I for one will be a proud participant in OccupyPortland this Thursday 10/6!  


                •  It's the internet -- no aplogies required (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  smarty jones

                  I say that as somebody who has gone back and read more than a few of my own posts and said, "Gee -- I didn't really mean to come off that way.

                  I'm not sure how I feel about the Occupy Wall Street thing.

                  I took part in **ahem** a few *ahem* demonstrations in my younger days -- Vietnam, United Farm Workers, Impeach Nixon, and assorted things I can't remember any more.

                  They're not a bad way to express anger and try to get a little attention.  Frankly, I'd much rather see the wrath aimed at Washington than Wall Street, but that's neither here nor there.

                  The demonstration is fine.
                  Working people refusing to do their jobs?
                  That can be fine, too, but...

                  We're not talking about soviet soldiers refusing to fire on their countrymen.  We're talking about bus drivers not doing their job in support of fellow city employees charged with maintaining public safety and enforcing the law.

                  More to the point, protesters who get arrested often want to get arrested.  It was that way back 40 years ago and it's that way now.  That means the bus drivers (presuming, of course, that their contracts permitted them to be pressed into such duty) are turning their backs on their fellow civil servants in favor of people who knowingly break the law with fully knowledge and acceptance of the consequences.

                  Doesn't sound like "Vive la huelga!" stuff to me.

                  What I like a lot better is the SEIU providing food and medical support for demonstrators.  That strikes me as a positive move in every way that I can imagine.

                  LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

                  by dinotrac on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:53:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I see their resistance as a very good sign! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              smarty jones

              When we get the police to realize that they are also a part of the 99%, then we'll have something.

              (proposal: anyone who says the word "bank" these days without coupling it with a vulgarity should have to pay a fine)

              by Diebold Hacker on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 11:53:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Of course they're "taking work away". (0+ / 0-)

            2.3 million people in prison right now in the US, and you think they got there without prisoner transportation being made a law enforcement specialization? Come on. The INS alone had an entire class of officer which did nothing but prisoner transportation, and they only touched foreigners.

            Given the size of the NYPD, they're supposed to have the buses and drivers ready to go.

            Groups: Toolbox and Trolls... to preserve the best & the worst of DailyKos.

            by opendna on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:51:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  When is driving a bus not driving a bus? (0+ / 0-)

        When the bus is filled with criminals.

        If the NYPD wants to arrest bus-loads of people, they need to train their own drivers or cut a contract with BOP. Expecting unarmed, untrained civilians to do dangerous police work is unreasonable and, frankly, unbelievably stupid.

        Groups: Toolbox and Trolls... to preserve the best & the worst of DailyKos.

        by opendna on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 02:41:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  There's a good diary here re psy-ops. This (4+ / 0-)

    is a coordinated attempt to fracture unity among this nascent movement.

    All problems contain the seeds of their own solutions and all solutions contain the seeds of the next set of problem. - Jonas Salk

    by the fan man on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 07:59:41 AM PDT

  •  Great Tweet but it's obv a contract issue only. nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gsbadj, Justanothernyer

    Justified anger does not grant you unrestricted license.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:03:00 AM PDT

    •  Point is... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...this is more "government by emergency," i.e. attempted justification of clearly illegal acts by declaring that an emergency exists.  Works for Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping, Guantanomo, etc.

      "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

      by gsbadj on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:24:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is more than a contract issue ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JG in MD, antirove

      this is a move designed to drive a wedge between the TWU and the protesters at OccupyWallStreet.  

      If the drivers see the protesters as criminals, they're less likely to join them.  Making the TWU drivers transport the arrested protesters is designed to do exactly that.

      Which side are YOU on?

      by ryanmcleod on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:28:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with you, but was it a contractual (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        88kathy, Sparhawk

        obligation for them to transport the arrested for the police? That's the question.

        Justified anger does not grant you unrestricted license.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:40:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Right (0+ / 0-)

          That's really the only question here. Does their contract allow the city to ask the bus drivers to operate in this manner? If the answer is "yes", the bus drivers don't have a leg to stand on here.

          As I wrote elsewhere, it is up to judges and prosecutors and defense attorneys to figure out what the law is in New York, not bus drivers. Their job is to drive buses.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:11:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hey, transporting 'dangerous criminals' for the (0+ / 0-)

        police job is not in their job description, fairly certain about that.

        No training, no physical security, no hazard pay.

        . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

        by 88kathy on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:03:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Awesome tweet. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gsbadj, mdmslle, chimpy

    Every time they crack down and do something stupid like this, it drives more and more people into sympathy with the protestors, if not actually into the street.

    Insanity, they say, is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results. Maybe, someday, our public servants will come to understand this and do our bidding instead of that of the corporations that line their pockets.

    -5.38 -4.72 T. Atlas shrugged. Jesus wept.

    by trevzb on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:05:13 AM PDT

  •  It builds... slowly at first....then it becomes so (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    googie, beltane, smarty jones, chimpy

    big, it can't be ignored!!!!

    Keep fighting #OWS......

  •  I don't think that the tweet is really (17+ / 0-)

    accurate. Pharmacists SHOULD have to fill birth control prescriptions. City bus drivers SHOULD NOT have to transport prisoners. They are essentially deputizing bus drivers to work for law enforcement, and that just strikes me as wrong. But if the union can point to a contract provision, then to me it is an airtight case that they cannot be forced to do this.

    NYPD can use its own damn buses with NYPD officers at the wheel.

    "As the madmen play on words, and make us all dance to their song / to the tune of starving millions, to make a better kind of gun..." -- Iron Maiden

    by Lost Left Coaster on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:09:46 AM PDT

  •  Solidarity!! (4+ / 0-)

    We are all in this together. We don't have Red states and Blue states, we have the rich and we have the 99%.

    If the fall of the house of Murdoch is a tragedy, it is the feel-good tragedy of the century-James Wolcot

    by beltane on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:11:05 AM PDT

  •  Thank tou Transport Workers! (6+ / 0-)

    If you can play the cowbell, thank a sheet metal worker.

    by ruleoflaw on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:13:31 AM PDT

  •  As transporting prisoners is arguably a higher (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Linda in Ohio, gsbadj, tb mare, 88kathy, chimpy

    risk job, I would be surprised if their contract requires them to do it.

    •  Of course it is (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tb mare

      Assume the prisoners were violent.

      If you want a job transporting prisoners, you apply at the police force, not the TWU.

      "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

      by gsbadj on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:20:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  if the contract says the city CAN use those buses (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      white blitz, JG in MD

      for transport in emergency cases than I would bet the union demanded that the buses be driven by UNION drivers

      will be interesting to see how this one goes

       my money is on the UNIONS

      especially the TWU

      I am still waiting for the teamsters to 'show up"

      "Orwell was an optimist"

      by KnotIookin on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:49:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That Tweet was great! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JG in MD

    How satisfying to watch the right get hoisted on its own petard!

    •  The tweet was wrong. Contract obligates Birth (0+ / 0-)

      Control.  Contract does not authorize transport of 'dangerous criminals' to the city jail.

      I am not a lawyer, but I play one on the intertubes.

      . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

      by 88kathy on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:06:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Who said this was a post-partisan world!? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marjmar, smarty jones

    Stand up and FIGHT for your principals!

    Do NOT compromise them away.

    Land of the propagandized; home of the ignorant.

    by Lavocat on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:21:24 AM PDT

  •  You bet. It offends their sense of morality. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Let Wall Street hire and pay somebody else to do it.

    Yes we can, but he won't.

    by dkmich on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:24:30 AM PDT

    •  It's a contract matter. You can't be expected (0+ / 0-)

      to sign up to be a city bus driver and be expected to transport pre-convicted felons to the city jail.  Especially without hazard pay.  The police are supposed to protect bus drivers from people to dangerous to remain on the street, not fill buses with them.

      . . . from Julie, Julia. "Oh, well. Boo-hoo. Now what?"

      by 88kathy on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 09:09:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh, c'mon, use a little logical judo on this (7+ / 0-)

    If those people had to be arrested then they must be some sort of threat to public safety, right?

    It's a safety issue. Normal bus drivers are not trained to deal with hordes - hordes, I tell you! - of dirty unwashed hippie menaces to public safety!

    Clearly they cannot be ordered to do this.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:25:18 AM PDT

  •  Talk about a strained comparison... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nextstep, 88kathy

    Private business people and employees are not remotely the same thing.

    Here's a good bet for you: a pharmacist who is employed by a pharmacy instead of owning it would not have the privilege to say "no, I won't do this.".  By the same token, the city can't tell a private bus line to start transporting protesters.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:29:22 AM PDT

  •  Posse comitatus? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    white blitz

    Not sure if it's forbidden by statute in NY, but otherwise you'd think the actions of the officers would be legally covered.

  •  stupid tweet (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nextstep, 88kathy, elmo, Justanothernyer

    Are we saying we'd rather pharmacists not fill medical prescriptions.  Apples and oranges.  

    But hey, "It was Tweeted!" so it must be right.

    knuckle-dragging Neanderthals

    by Deadicated Marxist on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:40:48 AM PDT

  •  It Would Be A Shame If Drivers Got Sick (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smarty jones, catfood

    Especially if it was all of a sudden when asked to drive arrested protesters.

    This head movie makes my eyes rain.

    by The Lone Apple on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:46:16 AM PDT

  •  Excellant catch, Laura. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This is a contract issue.

    And an issue of principle.

    I hope you will follow the case and keep us informed.

    Peace and Courage

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 08:47:08 AM PDT

  •  KagroX has my favorite tweet of the season (0+ / 0-)

    ...and I don't know nuthin' about Twitter.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:00:50 AM PDT

  •  Any news about (0+ / 0-)

    the expected ruling date? The temporary status until then?

  •  Exhibit #1 of why the powerful hate unions! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    catfood, Justus, goblue72

    What all of the naysayers in this thread are missing is the fact that, whether the union prevails in court on this issue or not, what is happening is that a group representing 10's of thousands of working Americans is standing up and fighting to support their economic brothers and sisters instead of buying into artificial divisions sewn by the elite and being frightened into working against their own economic interests.

    I guarantee that this action by the union - along with every new positive act of solidarity we've seen so far as this movement gains traction - has gotten the attention of the wealthiest and most powerful in this country. And you can bet they don't like what they see.

    Frightening, fooling, and/or bribing various factions of rank-and-file Americans into fighting against each other instead of uniting to support their common economic well-being is the foundation that supports the entire edifice of economic injustice that the GOP (and others)have worked so hard to prop up. When working Americans recognize that their common interests greatly outweigh the false divisions sewn by their would-be masters, the carefully-constructed foundations of oppression are revealed for what they are: feet of clay.

    I'm actually sort of shocked that any generally supportive member of dKos would fail to grasp this!  

  •  Please change 'than' to 'then' in the title. :-) (0+ / 0-)
  •  I'm sure the union of Corrections Officers... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    opendna, white blitz

    ...whose job is to transport prisoners are thrilled about this.

    They're about as happy as line police officers at being hit by whiteshirts' pepper spray.

    9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

    by varro on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 01:29:51 PM PDT

  •  the new paddy wagon (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This has apparently become standard operating procedure.  I got arrested last year for playing a drum at the Atlantic Yards groundbreaking, and was stowed on a bus (by myself - they didn't arrest anyone else).  

    The bus driver said that the cops pulled her over, and all of the passengers were told to get off in the middle of Atlantic Avenue, all because the NYPD wasn't organized enough to have a paddy wagon available.  Like they didn't know we'd be protesting the groundbreaking of a development that the entire community had been opposing and protesting for 6 years.

    Green is more than an ad slogan. Live Green, vote Green.

    by green in brooklyn on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 10:15:38 PM PDT

  •  I've been reading some accounts (0+ / 0-)

    on theGuardian about the arrests. Here are some relevant quotes that make it seem like it is common practice.

    "The driver remarks that we smell better than typical inmates."
    - Eric Hart, 32, props manager, Queens, NY

    "We stood in line for about forty minutes or so and then were loaded onto the MTA bus. We were driven to the 75th Precinct in Brooklyn--On the way, the bus we were in actually picked up a pedestrian and took her to her next stop! "
    -Julia Danner, Stony Point, NY

  •  temporary injunction denied (0+ / 0-)

    New York Police May Use City Buses for Protest Arrests While Suit Proceeds

    The judge hasn't ruled on the request for a permanent injunction.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site