I think Doug makes 2 important points. 1) Apparently, there WAS an untapped residual level of support for the transit workers that was not reflected at the time in the media. For example today, a local cable channel's poll showed a third blamed ONLY management while only a quarter blamed only the workers - and a very large percentage were unhappy with the Governor. The numbers were particularly pro-union among the black and latino respondents - which in NYC is a strong proxy for class. Even in places like Western Europe it is hard to get public support for a transit strike.
2) I think the point about agitprop/communications strategy/political outreach deserves some thought - it has wider implications. In the past (in the US) such an outreach capacity has emerged more from links to movements larger than the union itself - often even from activist supporters outside the rank and file. That was certainly my own experience with unions that used to be considered good at this, such as the Textile Workers, the ILGWU, the Farmworkers and elements of the Teamsters. And from what I have read about the 30's and the CIO much of the impetus (and sheer human capacity) for the public outreach campaigns also came from the larger political activist community.
In the past the NYC Transit Workers got their organizing and mobilizing skills directly from their historical links to the Irish Republican movement (this union had good skills for internal mobilization and discipline and also had links to machine politics, but was weaker when it came to mass political outreach).
This is now long gone (but surprisingly not forgotten) and today's NYC transit workers leadership are VERY mindful and receptive to developing some such outreach (AFAIK, the local chapter NOT the national union). But like many other cases today's rank and file lack a background of experience in this. They have made serious efforts to "buy" such a capacity, for example starting in 1999 they hired the country's preeminent pro-union public support campaigners (Ray Rogers and his Corporate Campaign) and devoted (for a local union chapter) considerable resources to developing a mass outreach. They also spent (mis-spent?) what they could on TV ads, etc.
But such capacity can not be bought 'off the shelf'. And today's union efforts do not draw in a larger circle of cadre/skilled activists (labor journalists, devoted labor lawyers, industrial relations specialists to provide 'talking heads', etc). And the coup de grace is that although NYC can produce sizable demonstrations for many causes, today's demonstrators are not at all tuned into labor struggles. There has not been a public pro-union demonstration in NYC in over 50 years (in contrast there have even been sizable NYC public struggles *perceived* by the participants as protesting against some municipal workers such as teachers and police).
In short, we are seeing a tangible example of the cost of the much-discussed divide between organized labor and the activist movements. *Some* unions (including TWU a bit) provided *some* organized support to last years RNC and anti-war demonstrations. AFAIK there was no such reciprocal support in this strike or previously. But both sides are suffering terribly and will not succeed unless this gap is bridged. It would seem to me that the impulse for change will have to come from the activists. This week we missed a chance.
Paul