So it looks like the strike will end soon. And I'm sure Roger Toussaint will claim victory over the MTA, because -- well, he's a pugnacious bully. But that pronouncement will ring just as hollow as his other claims. The TWU is really the loser here, and not least because of its fatally flawed PR strategy.
Labor unions in general have royally screwed up in terms of their approach to the public, historically choosing to declaim, hector, threaten, and make rah-rah speeches rather than actually communicate why their demands are reasonable extensions of their membership's interests. Most of their intended audience aren't affiliated with organized labor -- or even necessarily sympathetic to the cause -- and it's amazing that labor unions don't seem to have recognized that.
Case in point: breaking the law, shutting down the New York transit system, and subsequently pissing off seven million people (most of whom make, I'm sure, less than transit workers) in subfreezing weather the week before Christmas. The strike has already cost the city a billion dollars in lost economic activity...does this mean that in order to protect worker solidarity, we have to lay off or not pay those making the least?
In the contract negotiations, the union was being intransigent. The MTA was not. It's unrealistic to enter into negotiations and expect to get exactly what you want. Aside from this, the union won concessions from the MTA: they asked for wage increases, and the MTA offered them 3%-4%-3.5%. (Never mind that that's bigger than what most working-class workers can expect over the next three years.) The union wanted the retirement age to go lower, and the MTA changed their offered retirement age from 62 to the status-quo 55. The union asked for increased disaster and terrorism training, and the MTA has agreed. The union asked for another holiday for workers, and the MTA gave them Martin Luther King Day.
The union asked for concessions, the MTA granted them...and the union walked out anyway.
The TWU has failed to articulate any coherent rationale for going on a systemwide strike. It's an extreme step, and they should at least be able to justify their action. (Or inaction.) They should be able to make the case to transit riders and say why they should support the union. They should be able to say why they're walking a picket line, rather than doing their jobs. None of that happened...just bellyaching about "respect." If you perceive that you don't get sufficient respect and react to that perception with the most extreme, destructive measures, then there's a word for that. It's "tantrum", and if you throw one, you're using the tactics of a two-year-old in the candy aisle of the grocery store.
The union is advising its members to "hold your head high" as they return to work. They should hang their heads in shame that they are effectively forced to pay dues to such an infantile, selfish, and yes, thuggish group of extortionists.
Oh, and between you and me, Roger? Comparing yourself to Rosa Parks usually doesn't work when you're refusing to drive the damn buses in the first place.
Scumbag is already taking credit. From the Thug Local 100 site:
Amazing how many lies you can get into such a short paragraph.
Posted by: Vinny | December 22, 2005 at 04:39 PM
Wow. Even from halfway across the country, I can tell that's a big steaming load of crap.
Posted by: czeltic girl | December 23, 2005 at 03:47 PM