Can an old labor dog re-learn some old tricks?

I've collected here some news on the NYC transit workers strike. Several interesting articles have turned up. As is widely reported, State Supreme Court Justice Theodore Jones has ordered the president of 100 of the Transport Workers Union to appear in court, where he may face jail for continuing the illegal strike. Mayor Bloomberg, ranked by Forbes as the 34th and 94th richest person in the country and world, respectively, is outraged by the audacity of transit workers. Remember this is the billionaire mayor "who once spent $2 million on a 'seven deadly sins' party for his company, complete with a 'gluttony bar' and entertainers who repeated the phrase 'Money, ain't it gorgeous?'

Bloomberg, perhaps motivated by the steep rise in limo rates, rushed - as always - to the defense of New York's working class, said this in a recent Guardian article:

Working people are the ones who are being hurt. The busboy is getting hurt, the garment industry worker is getting hurt, the owners of mom and pop businesses ... The ones getting hurt the most are the ones who can least afford it. If they don't get paid, they don't eat.

Surely, New Yorkers seem divided on the strike, which the National Association of Manufacturers blog called "dumb on so many levels," characterizing the unions demands as a "letter to Santa."

They now contribute not a cent to their health care (know anybody with this perk?) and are rejecting the MTA's "outrageous request that they contribute a whopping 1% (Yes, you read that right: one percent) to their health care. They want the retirement age lowered to 50. (You'd have to say that's moving in the opposite direction from the rest of the civilized world, no?) and they want to put a cap on how much discipline the MTA can mete out to its members.

Not surprisingly, NAM has been on the wrong side of almost every issue, recently endorsing Alito for the Supreme Court and pushing for ANWR drilling. But a bunch of wealthy factory owners complaining about the generosity of workers benefit packages, while not unexpected, certainly reeks of hypocrisy. Generous packages, work autonomy and pensions are worth defending.

But the effects of the strike are not so clear - and certainly not evenly shared. The Wall Street Journal reported

For some on Wall Street, the transit strike has a silver lining: An early vacation. "During the week before Christmas, you get a lot of vacations already. Throw the strike on top of it, and it gives people so many more reasons not to come to work," said Lundy Wright, head Treasurys and agencies trader at Nomura Securities in New York.

In the article "Technology helps companies, commuters work around transit strike," the Associated Press quoted Merrill Lynch & Co spokeswoman Selena Morris saying, "We're open for business as usual. It makes it a lot easier for people to function when you have a crisis like this, just to log in from wherever you are. It's inconvenient, obviously, but I think we've been able to work around it."

Professor of economics at Columbia Business School Frank Lichtenberg also remarked on technology's role in insulating the elite from the effects of the strike. The strike, he said, "does still represent a significant disruption," but "clearly this information technology has reduced the cost of this kind of disruption and made it somewhat easier to bear."

In a report from the AP, we learn that

Homeless advocates and city officials say the walkout that has closed the nation's largest transit system has also potentially displaced hundreds of homeless people who use the subway's trains, stations and tunnels for shelter, especially during winter.

Local shelters claim they can handle any increase in residents that results. AFP reports that the strike has contributed to a blood shortage in the city.

In his attacks on the union, Bloomberg has been throwing out some pretty large numbers - $400 million or more dollars a day - as the economic cost of the strike. But do the numbers really add up? The Wall Street Journal takes a look at them and concludes that

forecasting economic impact is easier when a local event is less diffuse, like a major sporting event or political event, when organizers know how many guests to expect. Yet even these forecasts are dicey and often more useful to boosters than economists... The higher estimate on transit-strike costs, of $440 million to $660 million, is more nebulous.

The author reports that

[s]everal economists I spoke to questioned the methods behind the estimates, and some called the numbers inflated. What's more, a lack of day-by-day economic stats from the city, coupled with the difficulty of accounting for economic activity that was shifted to before or after the strike, will make it impossible to verify, after the fact, whether the projections were correct.

Yet the media has repeated Bloomberg's unreliable claim uncritically, sometimes even citing higher figures.

And speaking of the media, the strike has been like an early Christmas present. As the New York Times reported, "For television, this transit strike is a G-rated disaster: full crisis coverage without death or destruction, just inconvenience."

News choppers lovingly hovered over stalled traffic on the Queensboro Bridge while on-the-scene reporters hunted for stranded commuters they could assist. On Tuesday morning, a Fox 5 news team joyfully stumbled on a young woman in labor stalled in traffic on her way to the hospital. A Fox promo made the most of the incident, urging viewers to "see how a Fox Five crew helped her out." (The crew alerted a police officer.) The pregnant woman looked a little less thrilled by the moment. When the reporter asked her if she was expecting her first child, she replied, "And my last."

The local Fox affiliate ran a value-laden banner graphic with its coverage: "Illegal Transit Strike."

Most interesting, perhaps, are three facts: One, the union has engaged in an illegal action; Two, the international leadership has denounced the strike; And, three, the Transport Workers Union has some rocky relationships with many of the other New York Unions.

How this will all play out remains to be seen, but the fact that strike is already illegal opens the door for militant action, like sabotage and occupation. In addition, it's aggressively defending against the imposition of the two-tier benefit system. Defending the pension system is important, a point made even more clear by an AP article today revealing that more and more employers are freezing their pension plans. Aside from the fact that the Transit Authority, reeling from corruption scandals and flush with more than a billion dollar surplus, could certainly afford the demands being made of it, a two-tier system is a death-blow for a union. It undermines solidarity amongst workers and also provides leverage for the boss to subvert wages and benefits in the future, as well as inviting attacks by management on senior employees nearing retirement. Will other New York unions come to the transit workers defense when things heat up?

Further, not much coverage has been given to workers non-pension complaints, such as

the closing of toll booths and the reassignment of workers to cleaning and other chores, the large number of disciplinary actions against workers, and the proposal to eliminate the conductor on trains who is there to monitor what is happening with the train and the passengers.

And

Train operators complain about the fear of driving through tunnels filled with debris; female workers recently went public with descriptions of the rusted, filthy, freezing bathrooms provided for them.

Clearly there is more at stake than just pensions. And the union has shown a pro-active and aggressive stand so far, which bodes well for them. They know that if they don't go after the MTA now, they might be forced to take them on under less advantageous circumstances. And going out against the wishes of the international, while maybe not preferable in all cases, is another good sign in terms of the likelihood that local workers will have a say in the direction and goals of the strike. Democratic control is obviously vital to a militant workers movement.

Not much attention has been paid to the president of local 100. It's worth checking out the article Newsday ran about him today. There is some criticism in the article of his dictatorial management style, but it is encouraging that he seems to have some understanding of the stakes and a bias towards militant action.

Of course, sectarian, authoritarian leftists are sneaking around, hoping to go for a ride at workers expense. If we're lucky, this strike foreshadows a renewed militancy and pro-active orientation for American workers. According to the recent Newsday article above,

[t]he strike could... inspire other unions to become more militant, particularly on employee benefits issues. Or it could be a disaster.

"I think it could have a lot of influence," said Freeman, a labor historian at City University of New York's Graduate Center. "Employers all across the country are trying to roll back benefits such as pensions and health care, and it could be very influential elsewhere if it succeeds in stopping or diminishing these efforts."

Time will tell.