Why I was upset.
As it pertains to the previous post Qotd: Transit Strike Edition and comments posted on it.
First of all. No, Helen. You shouldn’t be ashamed of yourself…
…That was totally baseless, inappropriate and I apologize…
…However, I was surprised by your rhetoric. The reason I was so upset by the words you used was because, of course my father has worked for the MTA for about thirty years, and I have often heard firsthand some of the B.S. that they are capable of. For example:
…That was totally baseless, inappropriate and I apologize…
…However, I was surprised by your rhetoric. The reason I was so upset by the words you used was because, of course my father has worked for the MTA for about thirty years, and I have often heard firsthand some of the B.S. that they are capable of. For example:
A couple years ago my father broke his hand in an accident in one of the train yards. For hours he and my house were bombarded by phone calls from supervisors. Why? …because they were concerned for his well being? …because they wanted to know what happened? NO! They wanted to make sure that he was in work the next day. THE NEXT DAY! Because, if he was, then the accident would be recorded as a “no loss time accident.” So my tolerance for MTA crap is minimal.
Second, I was surprised by the fact that you like many others seem so eager to blame Toussaint. I have heard a lot of people say. “OHHH, but Ben the strike was illegal.”
Here is what I have to say about that:
The section of the “Taylor Law” that bans public employees from striking is immoral. If you are going to make it illegal for someone to strike you are going to have to pay through the nose to justify such a law. Not just a satisfactory salary, but through the nose. Also, it is understandable that there would be such a law for police officers or firefighters. Without them on duty lives are put at risk. It is just plain wrong to have a law that sacrifices the rights of any individual in effort to maintain the status quo. I know that the economic impact of the strike was significant, but it didn’t put lives in danger. Any striking worker was specifically instructed by the Union to finish their routes. So it wasn’t as if people were left in trains abandoned between stops.
Finally, the right to strike is an imperative for unions. It is necessary to have a strike as a bargaining chip when dealing with employers. Otherwise unions are weak and toothless. When that happens workers are taken advantage of; and that I think we could all agree must not be allowed to pass.
Here is what I have to say about that:
The section of the “Taylor Law” that bans public employees from striking is immoral. If you are going to make it illegal for someone to strike you are going to have to pay through the nose to justify such a law. Not just a satisfactory salary, but through the nose. Also, it is understandable that there would be such a law for police officers or firefighters. Without them on duty lives are put at risk. It is just plain wrong to have a law that sacrifices the rights of any individual in effort to maintain the status quo. I know that the economic impact of the strike was significant, but it didn’t put lives in danger. Any striking worker was specifically instructed by the Union to finish their routes. So it wasn’t as if people were left in trains abandoned between stops.
Finally, the right to strike is an imperative for unions. It is necessary to have a strike as a bargaining chip when dealing with employers. Otherwise unions are weak and toothless. When that happens workers are taken advantage of; and that I think we could all agree must not be allowed to pass.
posted by null at 12:44 AM
1 Shpeils
<$BlogDateHeaderDate$>
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home