Should the MTA give transit workers the 11.3% raise they previously agreed on, even though we are in a recession?

Doesn't binding arbitration mean just that? What part of "binding" does the MTA not understand? Underneath the laws of binding arbitration, both parties must abide by the decision of the arbitrator or arbitration panel. The transit workers are abiding by the decision, and they did not get all they wanted in the contract. Why does the MTA feel they are entitled to a do-over?Why do they feel they have the right to change the rules for their convenience? Are they above the law? If the decision had been more in the MTA's favor, the transit workers would not be taking it to court.

Doesn't binding arbitration mean just that? What part of "binding" does the MTA not understand? Underneath the laws of binding arbitration, both parties must abide by the decision of the arbitrator or arbitration panel. The transit workers are abiding by the decision, and they did not get all they wanted in the contract. Why does the MTA feel they are entitled to a do-over?Why do they feel they have the right to change the rules for their convenience? Are they above the law? If the decision had been more in the MTA's favor, the transit workers would not be taking it to court.

Police, firemen, even sanitation recieved a 17.5% raise over 5 years, why not support nyc transit? then we wonder why people go on strike. They (mta) lost in arbitration, so let it be!

The MTA has always given NYC transit workers the short end of the stick. When decisions are made in favor of the MTA through binding arbitration, there is a mad rush to put those decisions into effect. Why must the workers, who have been without a contract for 8 months, wait while the MTA fight against a decision-making process that was accepted by them in the past?