To this libertarian, the recent bus strike was truly a tragi-comedy. It's an infrequent chance to see an all-government battle in action.

We had Metro Transit (the bus folks), a government organization who has a complete monopoly on that sort of transportation, but who can't come close to breaking even.

We had the Met Council, who runs Metro Transit, and an ever-increasing variety of programs most of us know nothing about. Mostly, they seem to throw a lot of weight and money around to twist the rest of into living patterns they prefer.

We had the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1005, a union of government workers... drivers, mechanics, and clerical workers.

Three organizations (plus the Governor) who are all, in the broad sense, "public servants" whose sole purpose is to serve those of us who they claim are in need of service.

It's a given that the subsidized bus system is there primarily to serve those who are too poor to own cars. That is the justification for running the system at the expense of the rest of us who don't use it.

So... it's for the poor folks. It's charity? We should all support it because it's our responsibility? Well... those of us in the huge majority who don't use the bus system have been supporting it for a very long time, yet for 6 weeks, the poor folks were screwed... through no fault of theirs... or ours.

Shouldn't we all understand that the bus system exists only as a charitable endeavor? Shouldn't we all understand that charities typically operate on a lean budget, using as much volunteer effort as possible, and having employees who consider their work special because it's a charity?

We're talking about workers who have jobs... more than adequate jobs, with plentiful benefits of all kinds - life, health, dental, retirement, etc. They also have more job security than almost anyone in the private sector, yet they were dissatisfied with their lot. Rather than  quitting their unsatisfactory jobs and finding a better one (like the rest of us), they chose to go "on strike" en masse, leaving all of their customers to find other means of transportation... customers who, we're told, have no other means available. If what we're told is correct, bus service is an "essential service" for the poor.

Take a look at what the striking workers were being offered (and accepted), and then decide whether this endeavor has anything to do with charity, or whether there is any concern for poor riders.

Proposed hourly wage schedule:

as of 8/1/2003    $21.80
as of 8/1/2004    $22.02
as of 2/1/2005    $22.13

Time and a half is paid for over 8 hours/day or 40 hours/week. In addition, full-timers will get an $1100 "signing bonus". Part-timers will get $600.

Single employees get health coverage with no monthly premium. For family coverage, Metro Transit will pay $632.28/month and will pay half of any premium over that. Starting next January, Metro Transit will pay $758.07/month and half of any premium over that.

Without putting any value on retirement benefits, for a 40-hour work week, that's $880.80 gross ($45,801 annually)... PLUS health coverage.

Under the tentative agreement, employees hired before October 1995 must have worked 10 years to receive retiree insurance benefits. Those hired after that date must work 15 years to get benefits. Employees must be at least 55 years old to retire. Compare that against your benefits.

For current retirees, 2/3 of the retiree's health premium will be paid. For future retirees, there is a complex chart of benefits, depending on the health plan chosen, years of service, Medicare, etc.

There will also be a tax-free medical savings plan that employees can contribute to in order to cover out-of-pocket health expenses.

Then we have the "opposition"... Metro Transit and Met Council (and don't forget the governor). They were in a real fix. They wanted to get the buses running again, but they also needed to keep their outrageous costs down, lest the paying-but-not-riding voters rise up in anger. They can't be mean to the union, since it's a government employee union... "one of their own". They can't claim that union demands will cost them profit (for they have none) or drive them into bankruptcy (because they can't bankrupt). They couldn't hire new people to replace those who weren't working (they could have but it might hurt them politically).

There are only 2 groups of people who were directly hurt by this contract dispute:

1. The dumb suckers who pay for it (yep, thee and me).
2. The poor suckers who depend on the system for transportation.

I wonder how many of the "poor suckers" lost their jobs because of the strike? Those that did undoubtedly lost jobs that paid far less than what the striking workers tossed away. Then there are all the people still looking for work. If they depended on buses, how have they conducted job searches? What have they done for income? Do strike funds and signing bonuses help them?

What this strike illustrates very well is how the use of force backfires on everyone involved. The Transit system was forced on us, keeping other means from developing privately. I hope you're all aware that there are a lot of poor folks with cars or vans who would love to pick up some extra money hauling people around during a strike, but that's against the law... that's what the bus system is for. Of course, we know that a lot of people were doing illegal hauling during the strike, but it will again be illegal. That the bus system is down is just tough cookies.

Poor folks are forced to rely on buses. If bus service was private and competitive, and one service stopped, others would jump in quickly to get the business. Unfortunately, there are no private bus services any longer... they're either out of business or subsidized as part of the "transit system". If competing against the bus company wasn't illegal, nobody would NEED Metro Transit or the transit workers.

The transit system has to deal with the transit workers' demands because they're forced to... no real alternative.

The "dumb suckers" in this equation... the taxpayers... are forced to pay for all of this nonsense. If we weren't forced, none of this would be happening, and we would all be better off, including the union workers, who would then be living by the sensible rules of competition, and the opportunities the rest of us live with.

This is a great time to reconsider whether the transit system should play a role in your life. If they forced you to get along without "absolutely critical public transportation" for over 6 weeks, why go back to it just because they're ready to play again? Why not just KEEP the arrangements you made during the strike? They've done it before, and they'll do it again... why put up with something so undependable? Maybe if enough of us just ignore it, it'll go away... and give some real transportation systems a chance to compete.