I'm a writer, publishing both as SJ Rozan and, with Carlos Dews, as Sam Cabot. (I'm Sam, he's Cabot.) Here you can find links to my almost-daily blog posts, including the Saturday haiku I've been doing for years. BUT the blog itself has moved to my website. If you go on over there you can subscribe and you'll never miss a post. (Miss a post! A scary thought!) Also, I'll be teaching a writing workshop in Italy this summer -- come join us!
Read/Post Comments (2)
Transit strike again
So, you ask, what happened to bring this strike on?
The MTA negotiators put a new demand on the table at literally the eleventh hour. It involved pensions. The law specifically forbids the MTA from including certain pension discussions in TWU contract negotiations. The TWU says that law refers to exactly the kind of thing the MTA dropped on them two hours before the strike deadline. The MTA lawyers say no, this kind of thing is permissible, though other pension discussions aren't. The MTA is probably right, or at least I'm sure they can make a reasonable case -- kind of like the one you make to the IRS when you're audited. (You mean all those kung fu movies aren't deductible? I thought, because my character's Chinese -- no? My goodness, I'm so sorry, here, let me pay the taxes on that, oh what a mistake, I'm such a dummy.)
But this is clear: by hitting the TWU leadership with this demand so close to the deadline, the MTA guaranteed they'd have no chance to review its legality or even its acceptability to the membership, and so forced the TWU into a strike. There is, additionally, within the TWU, a very vocal militant minority who think the leadership is too soft. They've been pushing for less compromise for a long time now. The strike pressure on the TWU leadership was too great to resist.
And if you were to tell me that militant minority was financed by the MTA, I wouldn't be surprised. The MTA board wanted this strike. The courts have levied fines of a million dollars a day on the union. The union's fighting that in court but if they lose they'll be bankrupt. Additionally, the city's considering fining individual strikers $25,000 A DAY as long as they're not at work. The whole point is to destroy this union.
Why? For a lot of reasons, but one is this: they're the only serious roadblock in the MTA's plan to automate subway trains and stations. The MTA wants to eliminate conductors, and eventually drivers, and close token booths, selling Metrocards from machines. Technically, of course, this is easy, and would save them a fortune. Is it a good idea? In a system of this age, complexity, and vulnerability, I don't think so. But it could be discussed. It could be implemented in part. There could be safeguards.
But as long as the arrogant, lying bastards who make up the MTA board have as their first priority their own wealthy, power-wielding asses, and, as their second, the wealthy, power-wielding ass of the governor who appointed them, nothing that has any relation to the actual good of New Yorkers will be on the agenda.
The MTA negotiators put a new demand on the table at literally the eleventh hour. It involved pensions. The law specifically forbids the MTA from including certain pension discussions in TWU contract negotiations. The TWU says that law refers to exactly the kind of thing the MTA dropped on them two hours before the strike deadline. The MTA lawyers say no, this kind of thing is permissible, though other pension discussions aren't. The MTA is probably right, or at least I'm sure they can make a reasonable case -- kind of like the one you make to the IRS when you're audited. (You mean all those kung fu movies aren't deductible? I thought, because my character's Chinese -- no? My goodness, I'm so sorry, here, let me pay the taxes on that, oh what a mistake, I'm such a dummy.)
But this is clear: by hitting the TWU leadership with this demand so close to the deadline, the MTA guaranteed they'd have no chance to review its legality or even its acceptability to the membership, and so forced the TWU into a strike. There is, additionally, within the TWU, a very vocal militant minority who think the leadership is too soft. They've been pushing for less compromise for a long time now. The strike pressure on the TWU leadership was too great to resist.
And if you were to tell me that militant minority was financed by the MTA, I wouldn't be surprised. The MTA board wanted this strike. The courts have levied fines of a million dollars a day on the union. The union's fighting that in court but if they lose they'll be bankrupt. Additionally, the city's considering fining individual strikers $25,000 A DAY as long as they're not at work. The whole point is to destroy this union.
Why? For a lot of reasons, but one is this: they're the only serious roadblock in the MTA's plan to automate subway trains and stations. The MTA wants to eliminate conductors, and eventually drivers, and close token booths, selling Metrocards from machines. Technically, of course, this is easy, and would save them a fortune. Is it a good idea? In a system of this age, complexity, and vulnerability, I don't think so. But it could be discussed. It could be implemented in part. There could be safeguards.
But as long as the arrogant, lying bastards who make up the MTA board have as their first priority their own wealthy, power-wielding asses, and, as their second, the wealthy, power-wielding ass of the governor who appointed them, nothing that has any relation to the actual good of New Yorkers will be on the agenda.
Read/Post Comments (2)
Previous Entry :: Next Entry
Back to Top
