Pro Union = Anti-NYC Strike

Thanks to everyone for weighing in on my post yesterday. Here are just a few follow-ups to some of the comments.

First, there is a good argument that it is pro-union to be anti-NYC transit strike: the union, TWU International, Local 100's parent, opposes the strike.

Second, transit workers, police and firefighters have special power over our community. That is why there are special laws that forbid them from striking. Arguing that the New York State Public Employees Fair Employment Act should be enforced is not the same as saying that no workers have the right to strike.

Third, those who support the poorest and least well off should oppose the strike. Transit workers are reasonably paid relative to most people in New York, and well off compared to many, including for example police, especially when job security and benefits are considered. More to the point, however, those with the fewest economic options are most dependent on public transportation.

Fourth, the reason to consider privatization is because it might improve the system. The privately owned transit system in Hong Kong, for example, is significantly better, in the judgment of some, than the New York system. This idea should be considered on its merits -- not simply shouted down, as some did yesterday. Intolerance is a sign of weakness.

It appears that Local 100 is about to accept binding arbitration. They should have done it in the first place.