i've been thinking about the strike and what actually turned out to be the real sticking point behind the contract negotiation. the union didn't want a different set of rules for younger workers. their employers wanted to impose a double standard -- skimpier benefits for new hires. i believe that this practice is something the union should fight tooth and nail. it was worth calling a strike for that. the MTA employees provide an economically necessary service. an economically necessary service is an extremely valuable service. it only becomes more valuable as new york continues to develop and change.
new MTA workers should continue to enjoy the same retirement benefits that older workers enjoy. they should be able to retire from their jobs at the same age. an MTA job is physically demanding, and the conditions are rather unhealthful. people who have comfortable office jobs tend to have little understanding of the reality that a person who has worked a physically demanding job for over two decades can hardly be expected to work that kind of job past the age of fifty-five. retiring from the MTA does not mean that the person stops working. it means that after 25 years of service, they can retire with full benefits at 55. cops can retire after 20 years of service. many public sector workers continue to work in other jobs for years afterwards.
unions for public sector workers have a lot of clout. they set an important standard for labor protections. i understand that the strike caused a great deal of pain for a lot of people. i think it would be more productive to think of ways to gain more generous benefits for ourselves rather than engaging in the temptation to wallow in spiteful envy of them. instead of pointing out how awful low wage service workers have it, we should pressure their employers to provide better benefits, or provide those benefits through the public sector.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Thoughts On the Transit Union Strike
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
when stories like this start appearing on the daily kos, it makes me wonder if we all entered a bizarre black hole. :)
seriously though, i guess i take issue with the word "inconvenience," like the strike was merely a nuisance. okay, granted, it could have been worse. and it did turn out to be, for most people, merely a nuisance - only because it went on for three days. however, for many people who live paycheck to paycheck, it was potentially a livelihood crushing event. had the strike continued, the most vulnerable people would have been on the streets or even in life threatening situations. and i have no problem allowing them to sue the twu and get compensated.
(remember, i actually profited off the strike. besides long lines at penn station, the strike didn't affect me personally. in fact, because some of my co-workers were unable to show up, i got more work and was able to work more hours. and i was encouraged to avoid penn station, which also led to more hours and ultimately, $150 more for the week. so this isn't just selfish bitching.)
many of the people i work with are not making my cushy hourly lawyer rate. they are making low temp rate - $12-14 an hour. some of them live paycheck to paycheck and have kids to support. more than a missed week of work isn't just an "inconvenience." please tell them that their mortgage company closing in on them is merely an "inconvenience." or if a landlord is particularly asshole-ish and wishes to evict - just an "inconvenience." (my mother would be one of these assholes by the way. i'm not just making this up.)
a lot of support staff are expected to show up, rain or shine or strike. if they don't show up, they are fired. after all, they are simply commodities. there is another worker who can type 60+ wpm just around the corner. tell those people that losing their job is merely an "inconvenience."
my girlfriend's mother is disabled. she cannot walk more than three blocks. tell similarly situated people who rely on city buses (which are equipped with cool as shit wheelchair-lifting doodads) that the strike is merely an "inconvenience."
or the elderly man on dialysis treatment. he can't get to the hospital: oh, "inconvenience." try "life threatening." i saw a post on craigslist by a man with kidney disease who was quite frightened by the prospect of a long strike and was literally afraid for his life.
pregnant? in labor? hey, we just popped 'em out in prehistoric times. just take a sip of bourbon, and push, woman!
the mom and pop shopkeeper who relies on holiday retail sales to stay afloat. oh, right... "inconvenience."
striking is a "last resort," and i believe that there was much more headway that could have been made. the twu was given the option of arbitration, and they turned that down. furthermore, yes, mta workers *do* make more and have better benefits than most workers in the metro area. the regular temps here don't have health insurance. hell, *i* don't get health insurance through my job.
i just thank the stars that the strike didn't go on for very long. the people who were most vulnerable seemed to get out of this okay.
with that being said, i do think that the employers could have helped move things along by capitulating to some of the demands. however, the twu ultimately held the gun, and chose to press the trigger. unfortunately, the gun didn't just harm the mta, the gun also harmed 7 million people, most of whom aren't upper class executives who could work from home with blackberries and webconferencing hardware.
the mta's reluctance to give in might have been a contributory factor to the suffering of new yorkers, but the proximate cause was the twu's decision to strike. pressing the trigger shold be a last resort, not a macho bullying tactic.
Post a Comment