There have been quite a few very high-profile transit strikes in the last couple of years. We had a big one here in NYC and there was another large one in Los Angeles at the RTD. Marta also had a strike and Atlanta was out for over a week. When these strikes occur it throws a loop in the economy and cheats people out of getting to work and earning a living. The taxpayers take it in the shorts and the lost tax revenues to many government agencies are also hurt. If air-traffic controllers, transit workers or truck drivers strike the flows of transportation are severely hurt and everyone ends up losing? Or do they? What people often do not realize is when strikes occur in public transportation the Agency saves enough money in fuel costs in a weeks time to actually pay the strikers the difference in the money they want. But unfortunately the "people" get the shaft. It seems to me this system is messed up when government agencies are rewarded when they fail to stay on budget and fail to pay proper wages and it is always the taxpayer who takes it in the shorts. The Unions also know this and use this leverage to get what they want. The only victim is the user of the transit system, and if they are considered expendable and victims, instead of passengers, why have the system in the first place? Debate me on this someone, I would like an honest answer to this dilemma not the general bull. Consider all this in 2006. |
