To the Editor:
. . . How did it happen that in the home of creative editing an article on the transit strike went through without the editors' noticing its failure to mention something as important as Lindsay's promise to make the final agreement retroactive to January 1 if the men would continue to work during the negotiations—which, as labor leaders conceded, left the union with no justification for a strike [“Lindsay, Quill, and the Transit Strike,” by Thomas R. Brooks, March]?
B. H. Haggin
New York City
Mr. Brooks writes:
The fault is mine, Mr. Haggin, and I suspect I overlooked Mayor Lindsay's offer of retroactivity for much the same reason the transit workers did: it was offered late in the game. Given the players, I suspect it would merely have postponed the inevitable. Moreover, on January 1, the union leaders and the members clearly believed that they would gain more through a strike than through protracted negotiations.