[chimeracoder]

> TFA mentions train operators will preemptively slow down to keep their job. Nothing to do with a union, but keep trying to shoe horn that in.

As alluded to in the article, the TWU has been fighting very aggressively against the reforms for most of the issues documented in this article.

[electricEmu]

Who need allusion? TFA explicitly states TWU wants to keep safety improvements. That's literally the job I would expect for a union.

Safety is already worse in NYC than other areas.

It all hinges on if the safety concerns are valid.

[chimeracoder]

> TFA explicitly states TWU wants to keep safety improvements. That's literally the job I would expect for a union. Safety is already worse in NYC than other areas.

You're actually going to accept the reasoning they give uncritically and at face value?

Of course they'll frame nearly everything in rhetoric of safety, because politically that's the equivalent "but think of the kids".

Of course, when you actually look at it, it's obvious that the TWU has spent the last several decades fighting actual safety improvements (including those that are SOP at the other Big Four systems), because their only interest is in protecting their members' jobs.

As linked elsewhere in this article, if the MTA tries to introduce newer and safer machinery, the TWU actually extracts a "technological advancement" fee to compensate them for the missed job opportunities, in an attempt to disincentive them from adopting new technology.

The TWU is literally putting passengers' lives at risk because their only goal is to extract as much money as possible from the MTA, and they don't actually care about the end state of the subway system.

[electricEmu]

> You're actually going to accept the reasoning they give uncritically and at face value?

That question should be directed at you. It should be obvious this is a nuanced and complex issue.

Why would anyone trust an internet-rando and a single article?

You accept what appears to be a one-sided view. Do you believe that should increase or decrease your trustworthiness?

I'd like to know what's actually wrong in NYC so I can prevent the same in my own city.

[chimeracoder]

> That question should be directed at you. It should be obvious this is a nuanced and complex issue. You accept what appears to be a one-sided view. Do you believe that should increase or decrease your trustworthiness?

I don't know where you get "one-sided" out of any of this. I responded to a claim that the problems in this article have nothing to do with unions, pointing out that the union for MTA workers has been the main driving force against solving the problems described in the article. Between the information in the article, the other information linked elsewhere in the comments here, and some basic Googling, that's all pretty easy to verify.

If anything is "one-sided", it's the original claim that I refuted.

> I'd like to know what's actually wrong in NYC so I can prevent the same in my own city.

Rampant corruption. The TWU isn't the only source of that corruption, but it's foolish to pretend they're not a significant part of it.

[electricEmu]

Corruption isn't the only logical conclusion. It's foolish to pretend otherwise.

[chimeracoder]

> Corruption isn't the only logical conclusion. It's foolish to pretend otherwise.

Instead of blindly speculating on what could be true, when you've already said that you're not familiar with the topic, how about doing your research on the facts and learning why this is what's actually true.

You started off with a claim that was directly debunked by actually reading the article. Then you pivoted to speculating (but not substantiating) the existence of information that could hypothetically make your original statement a little less incorrect.

At this point, the only foolish thing is pretending that you're contributing to the discussion in any meaningful way.