Who's a Thug?

In an article on townhall.com, John Stossel declares the government, in this case, the New York City government, to be thugs, for their handling of the recent transit strike. And on his terms, he's right, but there are complexities to the issue.

When workers strike a large public utility, city residents are adversely affected; in some cases, catastrophically so. There will be those who are unable to get to work, unable to visit family in hospital, etc. So clearly, a harm is done.

But the notion that the two sides in this are the workers and the management is incorrect. The management, in this case city government, is a surrogate for the public citizens whose lives are affected. These citizens have no voice unless the managers take action.

Stossel suggests that there's something not right in government passing laws to protect themselves against strikes by workers. Perhaps he is right, but as government is the source of laws protecting workers, where is the justification for a union of public workers in the first place? To his credit, Stossel points out that as there are about 30 applicants for each open transit job, it's hard to argue that the workers are oppressed. Indeed.

Government employees have, for many years, enjoyed benefits not available to the citizens on whose backs they ride. Among these are higher wages than in private sector jobs, better pensions, better benefits, and so on. Since it is axiomatic that these workers have greater compensation for their labors than they would if the transit operations were run by private enterprise, why is it that we should have sympathy for the workers?

Stossel's reasoning is curious, and his position a bit odd, though he eventually reaches the right conclusion: these transit operations should be privatized. Then the role of a union would be appropriate (if you're a fan of such things -- I'm not), and there would be no conflict in the notion of government as an arbiter of final resolution, since it would be a 3rd party to a strike, not a participant.

I am normally a fan of John Stossel, and while he reaches a conclusion I support, I cannot let his contorted logic in this case go without comment. In his statement about a privatized alternative, he assumes facts not in evidence:

"If private enterprise ran a city's buses, there would be many different bus companies..."

The transit system is now a single entity. For there to be competing providers would necessitate not only a privatization, but a division of the current single entity into competing private companies. That means not only privatization, but a complete withdrawal of the currently bumbling government from the field of play: no government ownership, no licensing of operators or service providing companies, etc.

An interesting dream, but in what city any of us might name is there currently a similar solution in place? Where can you find private bus companies operating overlapping territories? Nice as it might be, it's pure fantasy.

As to the original question, both the workers and the government are in this case thugs, as there is no alternative available to the consumer in this case, either to the government-run transit system or to the government management team. Both groups harmed the public, and both will continue to do so. His conclusion, however, is on the money:

"The New York transit strike illustrated two of the dangers of an overgrown government. When you let government monopolize something, you invite stifling disruption when government fails, and you invite it to try to force people to work -- and call them thugs for acting on their freedom."

Privatize now. In New York and elsewhere. There is no better solution. And remove governmental interference in allocation of territories, licensing, and any other aspect that leads to reduced competition.