transit strike day 2
according to Democracy Now today, the "Deal-Breaking MTA Demand Would Have Saved Only $20M."
remember, the MTA admitted that it raised the subway fare the last time unnecessarily and had cooked their books! they said the only reason they couldn't lower the fares again was because it would be more expensive to reprogram the turnstiles. remember that?! the MTA admits that they are a bunch of crooked liars, and we are supposed to believe them that they can't afford to give these workers what they're asking for?
posted by chartreuse velour @ 12:31 PM
7 Comments:
Well, thing is, the MTA are a bunch of crooked liars who are actually looking good in this whole thing because of the corrupt, insane union. Even the parent union is looking to disavow this strike. I hate the MTA and I hate that the TWU is making the MTA look efficient and normal in comparison with their behavior.
Sorry for being all political when I realize you don't have a very political blog but I just don't see the difference between unions and the mob. I've been around both and they have all the same properties. I wouldn't celebrate either one.
"all the same properties"? *all* of them? how can i argue with something as vague and clearly hyperbolic as that? plus, i was in a union for six years, and it was awesome! the film editors' guild, which is part of IATSE. i had free healthcare; i was paid really well; they were reasonable, for example they didn't make low budget indy films pay the same rates as big budget hollywood films, and there was a true sense of solidarity between editors, and we had regular meetings in which people participated and had a say.
i'm confused. you said here that you wouldn't celebrate unions, but in yr comment on my previous post you said you do celebrate them. i guess you were being sarcastic. i guess if you hadn't said that your comment would have just said that you hoped that they were all fired and bankrupt, which might have sounded more mean than you wanted to sound.
in terms of being political, only like five people a day read this blog, and not even read probably so much as click on it, so i don't know how much of a political effect you're going to have, but you have sent so many people to my blog, i welcome your comments and wish i could return the favor somehow.
No, really, both the mob and unions exist for the same reason, to get 'their' people work at an unreasonably high rate at the expense of everyone else. There's places you can't work without first sitting down with the mob boss, and there's certainly jobs you can't have if you're not in a union. Both use strongarm tactics when they don't get what they want. I'm not saying being 'in' a union isn't aweseome. I'm sure people get treated well in the mob too. It doesn't make what they do right.
And my previous comment was definitely mean, but I meant it. I do hope they get fired (but they won't) and I do hope the union goes bankrupt (which it might). That'll learn 'em.
you've "been around" unions, so this makes your generalizations expert opinion?
so now you're against strong arming?
what is an "unreasonable" rate?
i don't particularly see the "point or purpose" of your comments (i'm quoting from your comment on the last post about the korean farmers in which you said you liked things that had a point or purpose), or find them "constructive". you just admitted that your first comment about the transit workers was meant to be mean, i guess you just wanted to rain on my little parade i was having for them, or draw me into an endless debate about unions in general, so i'll let you have the last word.
Ok, I'll leave. Sorry for disagreeing.
Post a Comment
<< Home