[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
Are a lot of union leaders stupid as [censored], of course. I'd say most today are. My mother and fathers unions are completely incompetent.

Does that mean it should be against the law for them to strike? No. You and I have no way of evaluating the working conditions, compensation, or fairness of the MTA-TWU contract. We aren't equiped, and we should stop pretending we are. Unless you've actually worked for the MTA and truly understand the issues, your opinion is meaningless, as is mine and everyone else's.

If the unions demands are too aggressive the MTA will replace them with scabs. If they aren't they will have a hard time finding replacement workers, and they will have to renogotiate with the union. Some strikes are smart, some are stupid. Either way it is self-corrective, you don't need government intervention.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming government intervention here refers to the anti-strike laws, which I find to be helpful - it means that the strike will be short. I believe in most labor negotiations there reaches a point very quickly where either labor or management cannot possibly benefit - where the lost wages or producitivity go beyond the contract demands of either side. In this strike it will come much sooner. The law is a deterrent against strikes but not a law against striking (e.g. jail time).

I'm not quite sure about your position on this one, lehigh. You're trying to take the side of 'Well, we don't know anything about the negotiations, but the workers have dangerous conditions.' Their demands appear unreasonable - but that's the nature of a demand in a collective bargaining situation.