A Tale of Two Strikes

EVENT

I've wanted to write about this for some time, but it's far enough down my list and there simply isn't time. I'm more galvinized by the developments at Delphi, and I'm pretty sure they're less accounted for on the Blogosphere. So where does that leave the MTA Strike? I'll say these two things:

1) A Union that cannot and does not strike is a Union with no power. Because it's the only raw check to which they can resort, public convenience is necessarily a secondary concern when it comes to determining if and for how long a strike should take place.

2) Strikes are, nonetheless, not independent entities that only affect one company. Strikes affect anyone whose activity is dependent upon or influenced by the product being struck. For this reason, a strike must be (or seem) well-justified, in order to have fruitful results without negative long-term consequences.

In short, I support the right of MTA workers to strike at any time with the approval of their union, but I am not necessarily convinced that a strike right now is either necessary or useful to the long-term future of the MTA and its workers.

This strike, incidentally, differs from a potential Delphi strike in almost every way.
MTA has drawn a surplus for one year which workers insist part of be applied to wage increases and pension benefits.
Delphi, on the other hand, is a bankrupt corporation trying to reduce overhead among rank-and-file while putting out pay increases and incentives at the highest levels. Delphi has also suggested that most of the hourly jobs in question have a limited future nevertheless.

The MTA strike, therefore, is driven by a question of adequate compensation, while the Delphi strike is motivated by the demand for equitable negotiations, sane business sense, and basic survival.

END OF POST.