The MTA Union Strike

I don't have a whole lot of input that can be added to the MTA Union strike. However i do have some. First, the MTA has in its collective bargaining agreement from before, and i all contracts given, that the union will not strike because it is such an important part of the city. I don't know but would suspect that the union got concessions from the MTA to make it this way. So its illegal.

Also I think the problem is that the union is not understanding the situation. They are pointing the budget surplus and saying well, you have all this extra money, how are you going to ask us to cut benefits for all future employees? On the surface, thats a reasonable question. But the MTA is offering a 10% increase in pay over the next 3 years; they are worried about the long term situation of rising benefits and healthcare costs. Its a problem that is occuring in many sectors because people are living longer and healthcare costs are exponentially increasing. Earning has not kept near pace with retirement costs in the past 30 years.

A similar situation is occuring at GM. Many of my professors used to work there and still know many of the current engineers and they are convinced that the only way to right the ship is a massive total firing with new contracts.

So not really sure what the best answer is. If people live longer and more things are treatable (making them live even longer) then retirement is gonna cost more and more every year, assuming retirement age isn't pushed outward. Is it reasonable that companies are expected to keep paying for these costs? Where does that money come from?

Update:
The MTA has a website if you want to read what their position is, check it out here
Not to be outdone, here is the unoffical webblog of the Union here