The strike may be over, but the conflict at stake still remain. I pretty much agree with Bob at Blue Mass, but also wonder if something bigger is being left out of the picture. People on the left side of the blogosphere are huffing that we need to stick up for unions, but isn’t the point of that choosing sides in the battle betwen capital and labor? In the private sector, owners and to a less extent management will have every desire to pay as little as possible in wages in order to protect capital and ultimately profit. For the public sector, however, there may be times when that battle plays out - underpaying public employees in order for taxpayers to reduce their tax burden - but ultimately, public sector strikes are not against profit, but are a battle between worker and taxpayer. In transit strikes, they’re between the workers on one hand and taxpayers and riders (fare payers) on the other hand. Wage increases necessarily come from some combination of tax raises and fare increases. If the public proletarian employee salary was below what the "average" (i.e. median) worker made, some expropriation might be in order. However, MTA transit workers make on average in the low to mid $50Ks, whereas the median New York City salary is $48,050. They receive funded pensions whereas most workers have to contribute part of their earnings toward retirement. The question supporters of the strike should ask is at what point does employee compensation become excessive given the wages of taxpayers and fare-payers?
No comments have been added to this post yet.