3 ms·
> The TWU had nothing to do with it and continues to have nothing to do with it. It sounds like you're treating the TWU and MTA as two separate entities. Lega
by chimeracoder 9y ago
> The TWU had nothing to do with it and continues to have nothing to do with it.
It sounds like you're treating the TWU and MTA as two separate entities. Legally, yes, that's true, but in practice, more often than not, the TWU and MTA act in tandem. If you just look at one and not the other, or the interplay between the two, you miss out on the broader picture.
(In this specific case, I don't see a particularly significance in the distinction between "blocking the project from happening" and "blocking them from realizing a major cost-saving benefit that motivates and funds the project".)
- fjsolwmv 9y agoThe point is that as long as MTA budgets labor pay at an upward trending rate, TWU has no reason to oppose. The should love new signals that let workers sit in cushy control center desk jobs or get paid to be station attendants (sorely lacking in MTA) instead of train/signal operators. There's plenty of labor to do at MTA, there's no risk of losing demand for jobs.