Ahem.

The reason rules like this exist is to prevent employers from intentionally understaffing and making people do extra work outside their job description. If you've ever waited tables and been asked to clean the bathroom, you know why unions bargain for these punitive measures.

April 08, 2026 - 22:01 UTC

11
7
777
its called job creep, babyyyy
0
0
7
yup. hire enough people to fully staff each train instead of pulling motormen from one type of train to another. obviously at some point in history the mta got cute and did this and now they pay for it.
0
0
6
I've watched the company I work for lay off a full time clerical person then turn to a salaried employee and say "eh, you can do their job in your spare time" more than once.
1
0
37
exactly why this clause is on my academic admin contract! its actually the issue that comes up the most (after illegally withholding pay as a matter of course)
0
0
13
I’m not sure that’s entirely comparable but I’m open to further arguments.

If you’re qualified to drive both trains it doesn’t sound the same as ‘you have to drive trains but also clean the seats.’
1
0
18
Let's walk through the bargaining process.

The union: We know you've been trying to cut back on the diesel crew, since they serve a different geographic location that gets fewer riders, but we want to ensure that diesel workers maintain their jobs. A lot of our membership lives in those...
3
3
55
What you describe is no different from a pilot taking the first leg of a 2hr flight on B737 but then feeling entitled for a second day of pay just because its return leg is on A320. This is another example of how unions turned into rent seekers, and at some point we should abolish them.
1
0
2
I say this with all sincerity:

Unless we're willing to abolish dividends, and tax capital gains at 100% - along with taxing loans against unrealized capital gains as capital gains - whatever inequity you believe unions are contributing to the economy is a match next to the Dresden firebombing.
1
0
24
These measures aren’t punitive. They allow the employer to make a choice: staff the operation correctly, or pay more to under staff.

It’s cheaper to pay as much as 75% extra rather than hire an additional employee, so these terms aren’t out of line.
1
0
16
they literally get double pay for flipping a switch in the locomotive to switch it from diesel to electric, its an outdated item from when they were two completely different operations that required a lot of different training, but now they dont and its stupid to pay people this way
1
0
11
i’ve waited tables and been asked to clean the bathroom, and i am active in my public sector union, but these are all just “driving a train”
2
0
7
Diesel trains are geographically distinct from electric trains on the LIRR. The rails are only electrified ~25 miles out from Manhattan. Anything further than that (all the way to Montauk, 180 miles away) is diesel. Having an electric crew on a diesel train means you've understaffed and cut...
1
0
31
“Just”
1
0
3
Having a penalty/bonus that recurs every time management asks the employee to do a certain task sounds extremely cumbersome, if nothing else. Surely, it would be easier for everyone involved to simply include the extra duties in the employment contract and adjust the employee's wages accordingly.
0
0
0
Do workers take advantage of rules like this to get triple pay? Of course! Who wouldn't?

Could the employer avoid this entirely by just ensuring they had proper staffing levels so this wasn't needed? Absolutely! But they don't.

Don't blame workers for employers' failure to do their job correctly.
7
0
190
This seems like a logical fallacy because it's assuming a lot of things.

Given the regulations around rail, if an engineer is qualified for both diesel and electric locomotives, it's hardly outside their job description.

And your rule would require unnecessary staffing.
1
0
3
Why is needing one person to drive diesel in the morning and electric in the afternoon a staffing problem?
1
0
1
For clarity: I'm a seventh generation New Yorker who's been riding the NYC subway since age 6 and the LIRR since maybe age 8. I'm a labor union activist and employment attorney. I do not represent any LIRR workers that I'm aware of, but I represent ~10,000 NYC employees in wage lawsuits.
2
0
110
I love to be told that companies should be bailed out of their bugnuts terrible personnel management by punishing the workers.
1
0
11
If it's such a problem that the MTA is noticing a 15% salary raise in connection with it perhaps the issue is more w a management team that keeps violating the contract more than with labor?
1
0
13
3 days pay for 1 day of work sounds like the work of 3 employees or am I missing something?
1
0
4
My Dad was an LIRR conductor when this came in. It was a big deal because they had dual mode trains so engineers were getting the two days pay WITHOUT actually switching equipment. But rather if their train switched modes.
1
0
6
its it intentional understaffing on metro north?
1
0
4
With the notable exception of the NYPD, the City and metro- area municipal corporations intentionally understaff ~everywhere~ and yet instead of getting mad at that people get mad at the only group of workers who's been able to keep their employers' feet to the fire.
1
0
30
100%

I’m not understanding the “grift” comments. It was bargained for, therefore not a grift. The comments focus on one set of bargained for benefits favorable to the Union. I’m going to bet (guarantee) there are many MTA-friendly clauses throughout. That’s how the bargaining process works.
0
0
2