Monday, March 19, 2012

Technology cannot substitute station agents


For most goods the technology of production allows at least some room for choice in the  exact proportion of capital and labor that is used in production. In some cases however technology is such that capital and labor must be used in strict proportion to each other allowing one and only one capital/labor ratio in production. Examples include airplanes which require a fixed crew size or a bus, or train, or station booth which all require a fixed number of labor.
We are also aware of the MTA’s goal of substitution of the station agents with technology however we know there are constraints. We will use an excellent example between the difference in the ease of substitution in both capital and labor. MTA operates almost like a firm that wants to maximize profits. The principle of a private firm is that a firm will never pay workers a wage that is higher than the minimum necessary to attract a sufficient supply of labor since doing so would raise labor costs and reduce profits. This motivation to maximize profit is reinforced by the quest of gain on the part of the owners of the firm, therefore one wonders why the current management operates in this fashion. 
Since capital and labor are required in fixed proportions, it is impossible to produce a given level of output with more of one but less of the other. Second if one factor is held in constant, adding more of the other will not increase output at all, maybe Joseph Lhota is aware of those principles. There are less station agents thus it is impossible to produce at given level. We recommend rehiring the laid off station agents to bring the production at the given level.

1 comment:

  1. No one really knows what the MTA plans are but it is easy to guess that some kind of change in the job of Station AGnet will be done.

    To that end, the current administration in STations has essentially said to the MTA , if you plan on changing our job, the Union wants a say in it.

    Which is exactly what must be done for future people in this title or for that matter, any title that will be undergoing job description changes.

    This is not re-inventing the wheel by any means, other Local 100 administrations have done the same thing: but it is responsible Union representation.

    I would like however to add that when one speaks of production that does not necessarily mean adding duties to a title: it can also mean defining responsibilities or retraining in newer technologies.

    The important part is the Union being able to have a voice in the changes that lie ahead for all of us.



    Local 100

    ReplyDelete