[quote]Professor X wrote:
Hey, maybe I can slip in the middle here and stir things up?
First, why can’t the workers demand whatever the hell they want? It’s not like anyone is forced to give it to them. Do we all have the “right” not to be inconvenienced while contract negotiations are taking place? Do we all have the “right” to public transportation?
Second, these workers are taking a risk. They might be fired. They might be replaced – similar to being fired depending on if they can return. The public may end up hating them and backing the city when it denies them anything for decades to come.
Third, is it the workers fault if they are able to ass-rape the city and get unreasonable wage or pension benefits? I mean, who is going to turn down getting plenty of wages and pension benefits? You’d have to be crazy not to ask for that, wouldn’t you?
Haven’t we heard people arguing that anything legal, within the law, is a perfectly valid activity until and unless there is PROOF of wrongdoing? How come it is different in this case because a union is involved instead of some politician?
Isn’t your hatred of unions forcing you to be hypocritical in this respect?
Finally, yes, I understand that unwise capitulations on behalf of company management can lead to failure of the entire company in the years down the road, or bankrupt the city. Why is the fault of the union if the city or company is stupid enough to go for that, or unable to convince people of the reality of the situation?
So, I’m just stirring the pot, don’t be trying to assume I’m particularly pro-union. I just see people arguing against what their normal stance is because unions are involved here.
I mean, it’s a tough world right? If somebody comes along and takes advantage of your poor management skills, that’s just th way it works right?
Good point. I would expect everyone cheering on gas companies for gouging the hell out of prices to be for union workers getting paid more. Why the love of money only for the already rich?[/quote]
Think you’re both way off. You’re comparing private companies with a public (quasi-governmental) agency.
The MTA has complete control over the subway lines. There are no competitors. Remember several years ago when phone and utility companies were federally regulated? What if
they had done the same thing. We want more money or we’re shutting down all services.
Would you say they have the right to do so? Hmmm…how much do soldiers make? Maybe they should form a union and strike also. I mean, we don’t have to say ‘yes’ but they should all have the option, right?
If I think Exxon is gouging customers then I’ll go to Shell or Mobil or BP. Notice that there are competitors in that industry. Also, if a gas company needs to raise money they don’t issue
try to pass a referendum in a local election and then issue muni bonds.
If the subway lines were rented out to various companies then I would be perfectly fine with one of those companies striking. I would go to a competitor. Unfortunately this is not an option. That’s why (what they’re doing) is illegal.