New York Transit Strike

[timmae]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i'm heavily in favor of privatizing the transit union. it needs to be run by the private sector, and by competing companies.

I have 2 examples that pretty much make this argument ironclad... Commonwealth Edison and MWRD (Metropolitan Water Reclamation District). I'd venture a guess more than a few poeple don't earn those salaries and benefits...

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i'm heavily in favor of privatizing the transit union. it needs to be run by the private sector, and by competing companies. multiple companies competing to make a profit will churn out a more efficient product and prices will be kept in check. for important services like transit and perhaps sanitation - we need private companies. strikes can't be permitted. as a worker you can't impose your perceived value on yourself. the marketplace determines your value. don't have a college education and have a job with non-challenging tasks that require little to no training? be happy with what you get.

I think that most large utilities need to be run either as public entities or as quasi-public entities because of the infrastructure costs. How would competiting subways work? Would you have dozens of "start-up" subway stations popping up all over Manhattan? That would waste a lot of space and money.

Also, while I make no representations as to the strike in this case, what is "anti-marketplace" about letting workers collectively bargain? The market is still setting the price. The company just does not get to play employees off each other.

These things should never come to a strike, and the main reason that they do is because labor and management negotiators always turn it into a pissing match and try to see who is going to blink first. Of course, you have to be a bulldog type personality to become a labor/management negotiator, so it is somewhat self perpetuating.

In this case, though, everyone is saying that the strike is illegal. So normal rules may not apply.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I think that most large utilities need to be run either as public entities or as quasi-public entities because of the infrastructure costs. How would competiting subways work? Would you have dozens of "start-up" subway stations popping up all over Manhattan? That would waste a lot of space and money.

Also, while I make no representations as to the strike in this case, what is "anti-marketplace" about letting workers collectively bargain? The market is still setting the price. The company just does not get to play employees off each other.

These things should never come to a strike, and the main reason that they do is because labor and management negotiators always turn it into a pissing match and try to see who is going to blink first. Of course, you have to be a bulldog type personality to become a labor/management negotiator, so it is somewhat self perpetuating.

In this case, though, everyone is saying that the strike is illegal. So normal rules may not apply.

for years there were competing phone companies using the very same phone lines owned by Ma Bell.