Monday, December 19, 2005
oh what a lovely war
The MTA isn't exactly a generous kind or admirable organization. Please understand up front that I know that. These are the guys who acknowledged keeping two sets of books, two years in a row, and a judge even ruled to that effect, and yet they went ahead and got away with increasing fares as much as 25%. It's not as if they've used all that money to clean the bathrooms or repair ripped seats, either, believe me. They're bad managers and they lie and distort with ease and impugnity. My favorite example is that trains are considered on time as long as they're no more than five minutes and fifty-nine seconds late. Huh? But they rule the commuting roost unless you're willing to drive and park, so we suck it up at least for now.
If I'm missing something, I'm more than glad to change my mind, but from what I know now I don't get why we should sympathize with people who inconvenience others because they want salaries higher than their current average of $60,000, plus 8% annual increases (!) and retirement at 55 with full benefits. Hey, why not go straight for half a million a year and retirement at 35? A WNBC article on the strike quotes one stranded worker as saying "I read their wages in the newspaper. They make like triple what I make." And yet the union says riders are in sympathy with them. Ha. Okay, maybe they only asked their friends. That would explain it because everyone I've heard expresses irritation and disgust. And it's not just getting to work that's hard; some people can't even get there at all so it might turn into a question of keeping jobs. It's unlikely that every employer will be understanding about people missing work or being really late, isn't it?
Why can they disrupt millions of others just to get attention? Oh, that's right: they can't, technically. They're being fined but they'll strike anyway. It sounds as if they want the moon and the stars and if they don't get them both, then the heck with everyone else.
If I'm missing something, I'm more than glad to change my mind, but from what I know now I don't get why we should sympathize with people who inconvenience others because they want salaries higher than their current average of $60,000, plus 8% annual increases (!) and retirement at 55 with full benefits. Hey, why not go straight for half a million a year and retirement at 35? A WNBC article on the strike quotes one stranded worker as saying "I read their wages in the newspaper. They make like triple what I make." And yet the union says riders are in sympathy with them. Ha. Okay, maybe they only asked their friends. That would explain it because everyone I've heard expresses irritation and disgust. And it's not just getting to work that's hard; some people can't even get there at all so it might turn into a question of keeping jobs. It's unlikely that every employer will be understanding about people missing work or being really late, isn't it?
Why can they disrupt millions of others just to get attention? Oh, that's right: they can't, technically. They're being fined but they'll strike anyway. It sounds as if they want the moon and the stars and if they don't get them both, then the heck with everyone else.
Labels: politics
And must you slide down every slippery slope that appears? The fact that they ask for a raise means they may as well ask for 500K? Who are you to say that their requests are unreasonable? Maybe we should ask them if they think your salary and raises are warranted?
Have you never been in a job or other situation where you felt someone with a lot of power who was maybe somewhat corrupt was not giving you something that you really deserved? Have you never taken somewhat extreme measures because you just didn't feel there was any other way? (Nevermind on that last one, I know the answer!)
< home >