All the news that's fit to print...eventually

There's so much we at the Show would like to say about the NYC transit workers strike, but unfortunately I only have time for one post. One thing that has frustrated me about the coverage is that it has focused so much on personalities and name calling and not so much on the actual sticking point. As most of you probably know by now, the official sticking point was "pensions". Now, while it was reported fairly heavily early on, none of the current stories bother to mention what the MTA's and union's original positions were on pensions. The MTA wanted to raise the retirement age for NEW workers to 62. The union wanted it lowered to 50 (it is currently at 55). Remember, this is for new workers. I bet most of you out in Alan and Paul land would never conceive of having a job where you could retire at 55. 62 is young even. But 50? Doesn't that offend your sensibilities? I think that's part of the reason the press doesn't report it so much; it's too blatantly ridiculous and in trying to be unbiased, or, as is more likely the case, put a good face on what the union is doing, the press can't actually present the facts or discuss them too much because the average person would see the strike for what it is: a shakedown.

Now the "final" MTA offer that initiated the strike lowered the age back to 55, but required NEW workers to start contributing 6% instead of 2% into the pension fund. Again, put the thought of a young 20 year old starting work and having a pre-set retirement at 55 in this day of life expectancy around 80. Let's focus on this issue of 2% vs. 6%...is it fair? Is it even worthwhile? Who can help us resolve this question. Why, the New York Times.

For the cover story on the strike yesterday, the NYT ran the headline "In Final Hours, MTA Took Big Pension Risk." Let's look at the first few paragraphs.

On the final day of intense negotiations, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, it turns out, greatly altered what it had called its final offer, to address many of the objections of the transit workers' union. The authority improved its earlier wage proposals, dropped its demand for concessions on health benefits and stopped calling for an increase in the retirement age, to 62 from 55.

Already, let's note they didn't mention the crazy-ass union demand of lowering the age to 50, which is shoddy reporting in my book and a hint to where this reporter's bias lies. Okay, next two paragraphs (it's worth it, keep reading):

But then, just hours before the strike deadline, the authority's chairman, Peter S. Kalikow, put forward a surprise demand that stunned the union. Seeking to rein in the authority's soaring pension costs, he asked that all new transit workers contribute 6 percent of their wages toward their pensions, up from the 2 percent that current workers pay. The union balked, and then shut down the nation's largest transit system for the first time in a quarter-century.

Yet for all the rage and bluster that followed, this war was declared over a pension proposal that would have saved the transit authority less than $20 million over the next three years.

What!? The MTA caused all this trouble for $20 million dollars? Case closed, the MTA is being petty. Thanks NYTimes! As Stephen Greenhouse, the author, helpfully points out in the next sentence: "It seemed a small figure, considering that the city says that every day of the strike will cost its businesses hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues."

If you stopped there, you might think the MTA was, as suggested, insane. The next few paragraphs are strike boilerplate stuff, followed by this statement, confirming the readers' suspicions that the MTA was in the wrong:

"Indeed, not just Mr. Toussaint but some other New Yorkers are questioning whether it was worthwhile for the authority to go to war over the issue when the authority's pension demands would apparently save less over the next three years than what the New York City Police Department will spend on extra overtime during the first two days of the strike."

To support this claim that people OTHER than Mr. Toussaint, the union boss, felt the offer was misguided, the reporter quotes...get ready for it, wait for it:

Mr. Toussaint.

Now, I only took journalism in 9th grade, but something seems off about that. According to Mr. Toussaint "What they'd be saving on pensions is a pittance." The next quote after that suggests that the MTA strategy was off, but not that the money was not worthwhile. In fact, there is absolutely no support in the article for the claim that anyone other than Mr. Toussaint, whose bias should even be obvious to a NYT reporter, thought that the MTA did not have a real financial stake in this offer. But so far, all the evidence suggests that they don't, doesn't it? Only 20 million?

Well, only in the first three years. If you get through all the unsupported editoralizing and make it through 17 paragraphs, to the second page on the weblink, you'd find out:

John J. Murphy, a pension expert and former executive director of the New York City Employees' Retirement System, said he computed that the authority's pension proposal would have a modest saving at first: $2.25 million in the first year, $4.8 million in the second year and $7.8 million in the third year.

But he said the plan would achieve significant savings, more than $160 million in the first 10 years, with some officials estimating that it would save more than $80 million a year after 20 years.

That's some pretty relevant information, for a whole story ostensibly about the motivation for the MTA to ask for a change in pension contributions. In fact, I think it would be the key piece of information, certainly more important than the unsupported musings of the reporter that got prominence several paragraphs up.

A couple more paragraphs down we find out:"Mr. Dellaverson said it was important for the authority to try to control its pension outlays even in a year when it had a surplus. The authority's pension outlays for the transit workers have soared to $453 million this year, triple the amount in 2002." The MTA also apparently predicts a deficit of $1 billion in pensions by 2009. See, it's that kind of info that I think should be front and center and not the ramblings of Mr. Toussaint. Or at least side by side with the ramblings and not some 20 paragraphs down. It's this kind of reporting that makes people suspicious of the NYT to begin with and suggest that there is a liberal media bias. I always thought conservatives sounded paranoid when they said things like that and, to the reporter's credit, eventually the key facts were presented in the story. But the order of facts matters, because often times people don't turn the page and they assume the important facts are presented first (we learned that in 9th grade too). Apparently Greenhouse and his editors thought the important part of this story was: MTA to save small amount in first three years, union boss righteously angry. The same facts could be arranged: MTA tries to dramatically improve the solvency of its pensions; union boss continues to offer no legitimate alternative.