Transit Union Squelches Angry Bloggers

The Transport Workers Union Local 100 has a blog. The Blog had comments. But no longer. Fortunately the comments were cached before the union tried to make all those angry New Yorkers go away. Bloggers wrote a lot about the strike, but the comments on the union site really seemed to catch the enmity of a lot of New Yorkers towards the union.

Sample Quote: "You guys really have a lot of balls. All you do is drive around in circles. Your job isn't hard at all. You get paid as much as cops and firemen, while much more as teachers. Something is wrong. You're asking for way too much here. Back down and know your roll. You guys aren't as high and as mighty as you think."

Thanks to Bill for finding this cache!

Hey, Local 100: you guys weighed the options, asked for support and chose to go on strike. So you ought to own and acknowledge citizen's reaction. Censorship is so lame.

The fact that your leadership---which wrapped itself in Rosa Parks, dignity, and Dr. Martin Luther King--- also embraces censorship and revisionism says more than a little bit about their openness and ethics.

Comments

[rts]

They should "own" new yorkers' reaction? Before posting, you should "own" a few facts, like the difference between analytical and anectdotal evidence. Question: which is more valid: some freeper rantings on a website, or a statistically sound poll. Obviously, you think the former. The correct answer is the latter. Here's a post by someone who "owns" a few facts. You should check it out, learn something from your betters.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/12/21/234335/69

[Al]

RTS, I don't know who this guy is but he didn't delete your comment. I thought censorship was bad!

[ny4]

in the post RTS refers to, the author implies that the reaction of NY'ers was negative to the union (as the author's clearly is). But it's not true. NY'ers, in the only valid poll done, overwhelmingly support the union. Clearly the author doesn't, and just doesn't have the balls to say so. To present oneself as a fan of transparancey and not come down against the MTA is to announce that you're either dishonest, or you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Lack of transparency is what defines the MTA. It's one of the defining issues of this strike (the MTA, to cite on example, hiding evidence of a one billion dollar surplus). To act as if what you care about is transparency, and pick the issue in question as the frame on which to talk about this issue is absurd. You care about transparency? Then ask the MTA to open its fucking books. That would be a bigger step toward transparency than the comment policy on the TWU's blog. But, then, that would mean saying something anti-MTA, which the author clearly doesn't want to do. He wants to be anti-union, but doesn't have the balls to do it any other way than through this sham blog comment issue. How about "owning' your own anti-union sentiment?

[peter hirshberg]

I just caught up with the comments on my transit strike post. I hardly think the MTA is blameless. They deserve to get blasted for the whole "we're poor...no oops we have a surplus...no we're poor" routine. And as one of the commenters points out, they too are not transparent.

The point of my post is that the union was prety poorly behaved as wel, and they clearly elicited a lot of ire. And the bit about taking down all the comments was totally lame. I never claimed that comments on their site were a poll of all new yorkers. But it is prety apparent that most of the comments on the TWU site were overwhelimgly negative.

[Jamsona]

Hello friends! i new on your forum!
see ya:))

[Jamsona]

Hello friends! i new on your forum!
see ya:))