Unions representing about half of the Long Island Rail Road’s workforce are threatening to walk off the job on Thursday if their demands are not met, an opinion column in the New York Post said Sunday, and urged Gov. Kathy Hochul to disclose the terms being sought at the bargaining table.
The Post column, written by Manhattan Institute fellow Ken Girardin, frames the potential strike as a public-policy problem rooted in the railroad’s status as a state-owned system operating under legacy rules and in labor contracts that the columnist calls inefficient and costly for taxpayers and riders.
The Long Island Rail Road is the nation’s busiest commuter railroad, moving more than a quarter-million riders on a typical weekday. The system is owned and operated by the state and, the column notes, continues to operate under a set of federal and contractual work rules that date back to earlier eras of private railroading.
The opinion piece recounts a series of problems that it says illustrate the stakes: high overtime spending, examples of pay tied to specific crew tasks rather than time worked, and past criminal probes into improper overtime. Citing 2023 figures, the column said LIRR employees averaged more than $26,000 each in overtime, that a few hundred workers received over $100,000 in overtime that year and that a small number received more than $200,000 in overtime. It also references an overtime fraud investigation that led to prosecutions and the installation — and later sabotage — of time clocks intended to curb abuse.
Girardin’s column singles out so-called "union work rules" as a key driver of costs and operational inflexibility. The column gives as examples contractual provisions that call for extra pay when an engineer operates multiple types of locomotives during a single shift and restrictions on reassigning ticket clerks as demand declines due to mobile ticketing. The column also said LIRR employees contribute about 2% of pay for health insurance, a share it contrasted with higher contributions by most other state workers.
LIRR management, the column said, has offered raises that would outpace inflation but has sought changes to work rules in exchange. The major union groups identified in the column include the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, the Brotherhood of Railway Signalmen, the International Association of Machinists, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the Transportation Communications Union.
The column urges Gov. Hochul to "shame" the unions by publicly revealing the unions’ specific demands, arguing that such transparency would help riders and taxpayers judge the merits of the unions’ positions. It also called on downstate Republicans to back the governor and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and LIRR leadership in pressing for contract changes.
The Manhattan Institute fellow framed the governor’s own background — citing her father’s union-organizing work — as making her well positioned to explain differences between private-sector strikes and actions by public-employee unions whose settlements are ultimately funded by taxpayers.
A representative for Gov. Hochul and spokespeople for the MTA and LIRR did not provide statements in the column. The unions named in the column did not comment in the piece.
Labor leaders and transit advocates have in other forums argued that wages, benefits and working conditions for transit employees reflect difficult, essential work and that sweeping demands to change contracts can undermine workers’ bargaining power. The Post opinion piece presents a contrasting view that emphasizes fiscal pressures on taxpayers and commuters.
The Long Island Rail Road’s labor relations history includes federal and state oversight at different times, restructurings and episodes of financial distress. The railroad entered bankruptcy proceedings beginning in 1949 and received state assistance before the state took ownership in the 1960s, an arc the column cites to explain why the system still operates under older rules and protections for rail employees.
As bargaining continues, riders and state lawmakers have raised concerns about service disruptions and the financial implications of any settlement. The MTA and LIRR have previously said they seek agreements that preserve service and safety while addressing cost pressures; union leaders have emphasized job protections, pay and benefits.
The dispute illustrates tensions that can arise when public transit systems are subject both to collective bargaining and to political oversight. The Post column calls for greater public disclosure of union demands as a way to inform debate; it remains unclear whether Gov. Hochul or MTA leadership will make bargaining positions public ahead of any threatened work action.
Developments in the negotiations and any statements from the governor, the MTA or the unions will be closely watched by commuters who rely on the LIRR for daily service and by lawmakers concerned with the fiscal impacts of large contract settlements.