>In any case, I just have just one question - why is not this and similar
>editiorial broadcasted all over NYC and the nation in labor friendly
>*POPULAR* press. I understand that expecting the WSJ or Murdoch rags do it
>is unreasonable, but why is not there an equivalent of "The Guardian" in
>NYC? If publications targeting much small audiences - like The Nation,
>Mother Jones, Dollars and Sense, and yes, LBO, can survive, why not a
>labor-friendly daily targeting broader audiences?
There are a lot of financial and logistical obstacles to this sort of thing, but it's also the case that unions in NYC are braindead about building public support. As I recall Mark Maier's book City Unions, the NYC government has long made it a point to prevent any kind of union alliance with the public over the quality and quantity of public services, but 40 years after the fact, I don't understand why the unions should continue to play along. I suppose it's because the leadership likes its role as a very junior partner of the ruling elite and doesn't want to rock the boat. But it's stupid politics over the long term.
The TWU has done nothing to present its case to either the riding public or the broad working class. I was surprised to read in a Reuters story moments ago that:
>A WNBC/Marist poll published late on Wednesday showed 55 percent of
>New Yorkers opposed the transit workers' decision to strike, while
>38 percent supported it.
Surprised in the sense that the gap was only 17 points. Imagine if the union had spent the last six months building support.
Doug