You have these transit workers, people earning $20,000 or $30,000 a year, and they're being denied a fair wage by city bureaucrats earning $70,000, $80,000, $100,000 a year...it's shameful.

And to see these wealthy Republicans like Bloomberg and Pataki come out and denounce these workers--these people who are exercising their basic right as Americans to strike, who are just trying to make ends meet and put food on their tables--it burns me up.  Once again, it's the wealthy Republicans at the top versus the working-class Americans trying to earn a fair wage.

Yeah, this is a big inconveiniance.  But I blame the city bureaucrats, not the transit workers. They haven't gone on strike in 25 years, and for each day they strike, the lose two days' pay; you know they wouldn't strike unless they had to.  

I back the transit workers 100%.  I'll walk in the cold if it means tens of thousands of working-class New Yorkers get a fair deal from the city.

It's on the news now that talks are started again, sure this polling is going to push the MTA a little!

Having a homogenous press corps really makes it difficult for the average transit-using NY'er to appreciate why the union's doing this.  I put one union demand to a coworker this way: "In our office, we have access to a clean, heated, functioning bathroom any time we feel like it. Transit workers (20% of whom are women) often have to use cold, partially-functioning, seldom-cleaned bathrooms during their shifts, when they can manage the time.  Heck, some bus drivers go 4+ hours without managing a break!"

Other strikes that have occurred are usually at some specific factory in the midwest and the work stoppage doesn't affect, and isn't seen by, anyone out of the region. In point of fact people, when polled, usually state they would like to join a union if given the chance. The positive number is about 70%. The news media seldom gives much time to  airing the worker's viewpoint thus leaving the impression that labor support is smaller than in reality.

As for the disparity in wealth between the working class and the owning class in the US, I gathered these statistics (with charts):
Debt vs Wealth

The bottom line is that the workers have stagnated or had a drop in standard of living over the past several decades compared with the super rich.

The libertarian arguments about the workers earning too much, or not working hard enough, or union corruption just boggle the mind. Coming from a group that claims that each person should be free to maximize their wealth it is the height of hypocrisy.

Lastly, if a person is not free to withhold their labor they are commonly called a slave. It wasn't too long ago that all strikes in the US were "illegal". There is no reason for the Taylor Law and the workers didn't "agree" to it as part of a contractural relationship. They were coerced.

Transit strikes by their nature are different from strikes against corporations where you inflict pain on corp execs and stockholders. The idea of a transit strike is to inflict pain on the populace as a whole until they put enough pressure on elected officials to settle it.  The working class generally gets hammered.

To put this in perspective, think about a person living in the Bronx who has had their commuting costs rise from $2 to $20 one way to work which is what cabs and car services are charging during this strike.  To a wealthy Manhattanite, the strike is an annoyance and the extra cost means you go out to dinner less.  To a working class person that $10 per day adds up fast and may mean the difference b/w making a bill payment and missing it.

I am not opposed to the strike but I wish people in blogosphere would stop referring this as the great fight for justice.  It's not - real people are being hurt badly in the collateral damage.  This fight is more like David v David with Golliath laughing on the side.

And keep in mind that the power to strike is a double edged sword - this strike will have a dramatic financial impact on the city government, the workers, and the people of New York generally.  Study after study shows that strikes have nothing but a negative short-term and medium term impact on all the parties involved.  The real benefit comes much later when the threat of a strike during the next round of bargaining causes the parties to reach an agreement to avoid the disaster of the earlier strike.  That has always been the real benefit of strikes.  Anyone living through a strike knows that - financially speaking - it's a raw deal.  But the ultimate payoff down the road makes it more than worth it.

Why is wrong to desire to live a better life? Maybe they want to afford a canal boat holiday for their children or maybe for themselves... Now you tell me: what is wrong with that?