There is a transit strike looming in NYC.
There are 34,000 workers represented by the Union.
There have been two strikes previously in recent memory. 12 days in 1966 and 11 days in 1980.
The current average salary of an MTA employee is $ 44,000
Here is a link to the average salaries of other industries in NYC as presented by a Business Week survey in 2000. (2000 salaries are unreasonable to use as they have dropped, however it’s an useful gauge)
http://netscape.businessweek.com/smallbiz/salary/sb_nyork.htm
From the above NY Times article:
What are the far reaching implications of this? At first glance to me I would have to say my reaction is “Fuck those bastards” (the transit workers) but, that is obviously an unfair reaction since I have so little information.
Do the workers have a legitimate grievance? Salaries have been dropping in the private sector, and the city is 4 billion in debt. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect them not to take a raise for one year?
And then, is it reasonable for them to strike and cripple an already beleaguered city?
How “average” is the 44,000 average REALLY? Is it safe to assume that they are pretty much all making 30,000 or more?
My reaction is anger immediately, because this will hurt ME as a contractor. If I can’t make it to work, I don’t get paid at all. I certainly DO NOT make 44,000 a year. Is it worth the potential loss of 60,000 jobs and 100m+ per day loss to raise the wages of 34,000 workers 24% over three years, when the wage is being paid out by a fiscally broken city and there is already an 18% property tax increase coming our way?
My reaction is that they are completely unreasonable. Please, anyone with more information on the subject, correct me or confirm my suspicions. I am definitely not anti-labor. However, in this particular instance I really don’t see that the benefit outweighs the cost, or is even in league with the cost.
Erek