STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

I'm the opposite - I'm counting on it not happening. Maybe that's silly but there hasn't been a MTA strike since 1980 and the last time the contract was up everyone was freaking out and saying there would be a strike and at the last minute they reached an agreement. I guess there's also not much point in me worrying about it since it's not like I can make alternative transport plans - it's either walk everywhere or stay home. Technically I can walk to work (20 blocks and 7 avenues) but I don't know how I'll manage that in this weather.

Although I have started getting upset because I have people coming from out of town this weekend too. My friend and I are going shopping tomorrow and I thought the strike would start at midnight Friday night for some reason so I guess our plans will be ruined if they strike tonight. And my boyfriend is back from France and staying with his parents in Jersey so while at least he can get into the city on NJ Transit it's such a long walk to my apartment from Penn Station.

yeah I'm counting on it not happening, too... apparently they threaten to strike every time their contract is up but haven't actually done it in ages. I mean, it's illegal, and it's illegal for a good reason. The whole situation pisses me off. You don't get to paralyze a city of eight million people just because you want better benefits and a sweeter raise.

I see your point, but I just feel that what will happen to NYC if the subways don't run for a few days goes way beyond the scale of "inconvenience," and therefore is an outrageous tactic to pressure the MTA into meeting the union's requirements. Mind you, I think the MTA also bears a lot of responsibility for the situation, as well. I think strikes can be powerful and effective and I don't have a problem with them in general, but the scale of the problem here would just be so immense that I feel it would be morally wrong for the transit workers to go ahead with it. And that, I assume, is the basis of the law that bars public employees from striking--they are too essential, too many people depend on them for their well-being. I mean, how would everyone who lives in the outer boroughs but doesn't have a car, or know anyone with a car, get back and forth to work? All the car services would be booked solid, and walking twelve or fifteen miles round-trip in the bitter cold is more than an inconvenient alternative. Maybe I'm exaggerating, but I could even see a transit strike putting people in increased danger: streets would be clogged with cars, traffic would be incredibly heavy, making it harder for ambulances and fire trucks to get back and forth. Someone who felt ill enough to go to the ER but not in such bad shape as to need an ambulance might have no choice but to call an ambulance, because every cab and car would be full, and thus there would be an even greater strain on the city's ambulances. I definitely think the MTA workers have every right to demand better working conditions, but not at the cost of other people's well-being.

this is just a sympathy post. im went through a week of a transit strike in october and it's yucky. i can't believe what would happen for you girls if this happens, it's cold and icy as hell. at least i got to walk my 33 blocks (that's one way, mind you) in beautiful fall weather. we actually had to have ed rendell (this is philly), the gov, come in and settle stuff. hopefully this won't happen but if it does, i really feel for you. all i can tell you is to wear your boots, and bundle up.

i've got my fingers crossed for you guys.

I'm very pro-union. I think it's very important for the transit workers to take their decision to strike seriously, and I think they do. The beauty of the union is that they can actually make a difference. The transit workers are NEEDED, especially in places like NYC. Striking not only shoes the people in charge how much they're needed but also the people using the facilities. If the government (by the people) gets enough calls and complaints by the people who are being put out/punished by the strike, then maybe something will change. How else is a group of workers supposed to get the attention and bargaining position they not only so desperately need but also deserve?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-strike. I think it should be used as a last resort absolutely, but I understand why the threat of strike (and potential strike itself) is necessary.

It's completely difference, of course, but a couple of years ago the transit workers went on strike for very legitimate issues. The bus companies hired workers to drive the bigger routes anyway. I flatly refused to ride the bus. I always rode the bus to school but that day I walked. (Luckily the strike only lasted a day.) I refused to ride a bus that was driven by a scab, for lack of a better word. (Forgive my semantics.) Obviously the money the bus companies lost in one day was enough to bring them back to the bargaining table. Of course it wasn't icy cold when it happened (as if it ever is in Austin) and I had a car if I needed it.

I feel the pain of all you NYC girls but I also understand a union's desire to strike.

Ugh. I can't believe this. Luckily I don't have to be at work until 11 so I am going to call a little after 9 and see what's going on. Often when there has been a major event our firm will not count it as a vacation day if people don't show up so I might be ok with skipping work today but if the strike continues I don't want to start using banked vacation time. I really wouldn't mind if this happened during another season but my asthma is so bad during the winter that I often wheeze just doing my daily walk to the subway.

I'm also upset because my mom is having surgery at NYU on 34th st. today and my parents live in the Bronx. My dad said he thinks they are going to take Metro North but I don't think my mom will be able to walk back to Grand Central after the surgery so I hope they can get a taxi or the hospital will have some sort of car they can take.

i don't think this whole situation would piss me off quite as much if someone would just accept some responsibility. I blame both the MTA and the union and all they can do is point the finger at each other. The union in particular disgusts me, because their president's whole line to the public is, "we had no choice, this is not our fault," which is a load of shit. In all the press coverage I have watched and read over the past few days, at no point has anyone from the union expressed any regret over the ungodly amount of money and time of MILLIONS of people that is being wasted because what should be the private labor dispute of 30,000 people. And it also infuriates me that they have no accountability--they have the city, and the public, by the balls, and they know it--that's what this is all about. And we the public have no recourse against them, no way to boycott them, no alternatives for this service in the future, which makes me see this as just an egregious abuse of power. Despite the fact that no one is involved in the union's dispute except the MTA, every single business in the city is losing money, the city itself is losing money, and every person in the city is, at the very least, losing several cold, exhausting hours out of their day during the busiest time of the year. And it drives me insane that these assholes will not even apologize for taking out their fight on a city full of people and businesses who haven't got a damn thing to do with it.

blubirde wrote:

---

Really? Isn't it the city and the union that are having issues? Isn't the city the government we elect? It seems like we have a lot to do with it, or at least we should.

---

That's the problem--it isn't the city. The transit workers are not employed by the city but by the Metropolitan Transit Authority, which is a separate, independent entity not controlled by the city. That's what I mean when I say they have no accountability--Bloomberg has been doing a lot of blustering, and he's filed a lawsuit against the union on behalf of the city, but ultimately he can't get involved at all--it's strictly between the MTA and the union. So another big part of the problem, too, is that since the MTA is independent, we can't do anything about it even if they are ripping off their employees, because they aren't supervised by any bureau or agency that I know of. Like Erin said in an earlier post, they had a huge budget surplus this year, which is why it's so shady that they're insisting they need to slash their pension costs; their financial information is, at least at the moment, not available to any higher authority who can look at the data and say, "what the hell are you doing, you have more than enough money to pay for this," or "your capital improvements are eating up your surplus so yes you are still in the hole and you are legitimized in seeking to cut costs." We have no idea what the story is. But if you accept what's been said at face value, the MTA, like many many other companies these days, is striving to cut their benefits costs and the union is refusing to accept it, and new york city as a legal/political entity is not involved at all.

I think most of the union's demands are fair, although I think it's lame that they're balking at paying 1% of their insurance costs instead of getting the insurance completely free. I mean, come on, what is that, a couple of bucks a month? But I just think the strike is too drastic, given what it's doing to the city. And it's worth noting that both the American and international parent unions have disavowed this strike.