Tuesday, December 20, 2005
In The News - Not Even A Slap
A story linked from Drudge revealed that New York Transit workers are striking, and that there is legal action taken against them. A New York Court has even issued a fine against them. The story reports:
Now, a million dollars is a lot of money, if you are a single individual. If you're the government, it's one of those little squares of toilet paper, and that's if you get it on sale. So for the union, which is multiple people, it's a little more. How much?
In case you are useless enough to not be able to do simple division, here's the easy way to think about it:
33,000 x $30.30 = $999,900
and
$100 / 33,000 = $1 /330 < $0.01
which tells you that each union member was fined $30.30 per day for striking, because unions get money from their members. The union workers were already being fined 2 days pay for each day of striking. A little bit of detective work (called reading the article) reveals:
Let's assume $35,000 for 50 weeks, which give us $700 per week, which is $140 per day. This means union workers are already being fined $280 per day for striking by the MTA (not to mention not getting paid $140), and this article would have us believe that $420 won't stop them, but $450.30 will.
It's not the fine, but the fact that the court would not ignore state law against transit strikes that is discouraging the unions. Strikes are actually useless tactics, whereas they cost the individual members far more than the protested party, who can easily close up, and cut down on electrical and other expenses, as well as not pay striking workers. The only power that a strike possibly has is to gain public support, which is easy when it does not affect them. When people are affected, though, they don't like strikes, and that is why transit strikes are counterproductive, and why in London, transit strikes only last one day.
Why would people do something like that, then? If transit strikes are so bad, why bother? Call it what you will. Clifford Geertz term would be "deep play," but I wouldn't label this as such, since it is such a rare incident and not really part of a cultural force. I think it's human nature.
Economists often state that voting is irrational since the expected impact is 0 whereas the expected cost is time and other activities (and being registered to vote means being eligible for jury duty). In attempting to resolve the economic implications with observed results, I would argue that anger breeds irrationality, particularly in small acts of irrationality. Examples of this include one-day strikes, mass voter turnout in the 2004 US Presidential election, and young children throwing temper tanturms when they can't get the candy bar in the checkout line. This is essentially an act of negative reciprocity, which will end when they come to their senses.
A judge promptly slapped the union with a $1 million-a-day fine. State Justice
Theodore Jones leveled the sanction against the Transport Workers Union for
violating a state law that bars public employees from going on strike.
Now, a million dollars is a lot of money, if you are a single individual. If you're the government, it's one of those little squares of toilet paper, and that's if you get it on sale. So for the union, which is multiple people, it's a little more. How much?
The heavy penalty could force the union off the picket lines and back on the
job. Its 33,000 members are already facing individual fines of two days' pay for
every day they are on strike.
In case you are useless enough to not be able to do simple division, here's the easy way to think about it:
33,000 x $30.30 = $999,900
and
$100 / 33,000 = $1 /330 < $0.01
which tells you that each union member was fined $30.30 per day for striking, because unions get money from their members. The union workers were already being fined 2 days pay for each day of striking. A little bit of detective work (called reading the article) reveals:
MTA workers typically earn from $35,000 as a starting salary to about $55,000
annually.
Let's assume $35,000 for 50 weeks, which give us $700 per week, which is $140 per day. This means union workers are already being fined $280 per day for striking by the MTA (not to mention not getting paid $140), and this article would have us believe that $420 won't stop them, but $450.30 will.
It's not the fine, but the fact that the court would not ignore state law against transit strikes that is discouraging the unions. Strikes are actually useless tactics, whereas they cost the individual members far more than the protested party, who can easily close up, and cut down on electrical and other expenses, as well as not pay striking workers. The only power that a strike possibly has is to gain public support, which is easy when it does not affect them. When people are affected, though, they don't like strikes, and that is why transit strikes are counterproductive, and why in London, transit strikes only last one day.
Why would people do something like that, then? If transit strikes are so bad, why bother? Call it what you will. Clifford Geertz term would be "deep play," but I wouldn't label this as such, since it is such a rare incident and not really part of a cultural force. I think it's human nature.
Economists often state that voting is irrational since the expected impact is 0 whereas the expected cost is time and other activities (and being registered to vote means being eligible for jury duty). In attempting to resolve the economic implications with observed results, I would argue that anger breeds irrationality, particularly in small acts of irrationality. Examples of this include one-day strikes, mass voter turnout in the 2004 US Presidential election, and young children throwing temper tanturms when they can't get the candy bar in the checkout line. This is essentially an act of negative reciprocity, which will end when they come to their senses.
Labels: Politics
# posted by StolenMonkey86 @ 4:26 PM 
