It is Wednesday, December 21, 2005. As we move into the third day of the New York City Transit Strike of the winter of 2005, I'd like to offer the following thoughts to help you keep things in perspective. They are based on my heartfelt position that you don't need a law degree or experience in labor relations to subject the current situation to dispassionate objective analysis. By dispassionate, I mean one without political agendas, fiscal perversion or emotional taint. Here are some tips to remain above the fray.

First of all, in regards to the strike: accept that it is. It is happening. No "could haves" "should haves" or "would haves" will reverse time. Given that it is, therefore, the next step is to live your life as best as you can given the options available to you. Make the best of it.

Next, don't get caught in the blame game. Blame won't solve your challenges. Blame merely identifies a designated scapegoat. Scapegoats are provided to offer victims a focus for their rage and frustration, and someone to punish. But punishment is not justice. As anyone who's ever sought justice in our legal system has found out, punishment doesn't bring back a loved one, cure an incurable disease or really balance injustice. So don't get sucked into polls or conversations asking who's to blame for the strike, for at the end of the day, your feet are still cold.

Next, is to understand what a strike is, and why it happens. In any negotiation, be it between husband and wife, or parent and child, there are only two options of response. You either withhold or you acquiesce, (i.e. give in). If Labor wants something, Management can either withhold it or give in. Similarly, if Management wants something, Labor can either withhold it, or give in.

Ultimately, each side's power in any negotiation boils down to being able to withhold or give the one thing each brings to the table that the other wants or needs. Management brings money. Labor brings, well their labor to the table. That's the simple equation at the basis of all this.

The only thing being traded here is labor's presence for management's money. I show up and work for you, you pay me. For a negotiation to be fair, therefore, each party to the negotiation must have the equivalent right to withhold their "thing" as well as give in. If it's legal for management to withhold their "thing" (i.e. money), then it should also be legal for labor to withhold their "thing" (presence). That's called a level playing field. Anything short of that is inherently unfair. Labor has no power if they're not allowed to exercise their bargaining chip.

Think about it.

It doesn't make a strike an evil, bad or ethically wrong thing to do. It is merely a strategy. It is a means to an end. And, remember, in the dynamic of negotiation, it is a response. Labor's response of last resort. It is the response to a perceived impasse in order to further their goals. It is no more or less valid than the actions management takes to advance their goals. A decision to withhold money (in the form of salaries or benefits) is an exercise of management's power. A decision to withhold their presence in the form of a strike is an exercise of labor's power.

Now what should happen next is that each party suffers, and based on the relative degree of each side's suffering, they come back to the table to a new agreement. I really want what you offer, so I'm willing to give in here and here to get it. That's how it should work, all things being equal. However, management (with the assistance of courts, judges and the Taylor Law) has the upper hand. The Taylor Law has the effect of unbalancing the natural scales of the negotiation.

Next, in determining your personal position, don't confuse morals and ethics. Morals and ethics are not the same thing. Morals are constructs for survival. Morals are whatever a society or group decides are in the interest of survival of the society or that group. What's morally right in one culture or situation, therefore, can be completely unacceptableÑimmoralÑin another. Ethics, on the other hand, are what the individual decides in his or her mind is allowable for his or her own survival.

For example, a person who is starving and destitute can justify and rationalize the act of stealingÑa socially moral wrongÑon the grounds of his own or his family's survival. So, a person can commit a morally offensive act, but with ethically excusable or at least personally justifiable reasons. Our prisons are filled with individuals who felt perfectly justified in doing the deed for which they've been incarcerated to right some wrong, balance the scales of justice, feed their families, and so on.

If you can remember that, then you'll realize that the word "illegal" is not synonymous with either right and wrong. What's "legal" in our society, therefore, changes from day to day. Remember, it was once illegal for Blacks to sit at certain counters. It was illegal for women to vote or own property. Law is a moral construct. Ethics and morals are different things.

Next thing to do to remain free of manipulation is to ask the right questions. And make sure you ask them yourself. Every good salesperson knows that the person who asks the questions controls the conversation. Interviews with people walking the bridge, questions about how expensive transportation is and what shoes to wear, while helpful, are a gross underutilization of the potential power of media. More appropriate questions might be: What are the conditions the workers are subjected to that made striking an option? What are the terms of the negotiation? What would need to happen to make both labor and management feel respected? How can we make this a win-win situation for all concerned?

Next, don't let the news reports sway your opinion. News reports tell stories. Stories need characters. Characters fill roles. There will always be the role of villain sought. News reports seek villains. The most likely character to be cast in the role of villain in this story is TWU President Roger Toussaint. This does not mean it's true. It merely means it's convenient. We have to believe that the man could not be totally insaneÑprone to striking and crippling the greatest city in the world willy nilly. There must be more we are not hearing. There always is.

Next pay careful attention to who is being interviewed. In every crowd of people, there will always be dissenters, supporters, the angry, the calm, the easy-going, the rebellious, the victim and so on. Again, these are all rolls people are made to fill. Therefore, no ONE individual chosen at random for interview lfrom a crowd of strikers, pedestrians or taxi-drivers, represents the collective consciousness of a borough, a community, an ethnicity, or a social stratum. It's simply a news stations choice of character to tell a story.

And finally, remember that social change doesn't always look that way from the inside. Change is often a bitter (or in this case, bitterly cold) pill to swallow. It's not always going to be comfortable. Yes, it's cold. Yes, it's a hassle. Yes, people will get sick. Yes, businesses will lose money. Yes, your holiday will probably be affected. Deal with it. Where perceived injustice is identified, change comes at a price. And yes, I said injustice.

In a society such as ours, with its checkered past, there is systemic, institutionalized injustice. Anyone who debates you on this is living a fantasy. There is injustice. It's the nature of the beast of capitalism, imperialism, and the basic social fabric of America.

To quote from a great little book called The Ageless Adept, "In laws were lies are king, the truth tends to subvert. But all you need to change the world is one man to convert." The one man the author is referring to is the individual observer. That means you.

Now, whether you support him or not, what you are watching is a man without the society's moral law on his side act in defiance of that law in the furtherance of an ideal in which he believes strongly. That takes courage. It takes the same courage that did sit-ins, boycotts, revolutions and social upheavals of the past. Sure, given the grand scale of consequences, it is "playing hardball," so to speak. But that's only because it's been a while since we've seen average men act with above-average courage. Don't let the name-calling distract you. This is all par for the course in any revolution. Whatever the outcome, this is a tale you will be able to share with your children.

By virtue of your humanity, you have the gift of your own senses, your reason, your feelings and your intuition as ways of interpreting the world. Don't let your senses be dulled, your reason co-opted your feelings swayed, or your intuition be nullified by other people's agendas. You need no one to help you form your opinion, or assign your support. (Yes, I know the very nature of this piece you are reading presumes my opinion is of some merit in the formulation of your own, but having said thatÉ)

I suggest to you that in similar vane to the Adept's quote, that in lands where fear is king, courage tends to subvert. What you are observing is subversive courage in action. It is a courage not seen in mice, rarely seen in men, but today has been brought center stage in the MTA drama that unfolds into it's third day.

The great thing about life in America is that you have the freedom to dissent, the freedom to support whomever you wish, and the freedom to form your opinion without the bias of media, mogul, politician or pundit. The real question is will YOU have the courage to do so?