Demetrius Freeman/The New York Times
While some people have the privilege of being tucked away in their apartments or houses, many individuals must leave their homes regularly to ensure NYC keeps running. In the period leading up to quarantine, city workers were greatly put at risk since they were advised to continue to report to work if they had been exposed to the virus but were displaying no symptoms (Mays and Goodman). Additionally, city employees continued to use hand scanners to punch in and out of work until March 15th, three days after New York declared a state of emergency (Mays and Goodman). As reported on May 3rd, 245 city workers have died due to COVID-19 related reasons including workers from the Education Department, Parks Department, Police Department, Buildings Department, Fire Department, and city hospitals (Goldenberg).The growing number of deaths among city employees can be explained by the significant percentage of full-time workers within these departments who are deemed essential, with 75 percent of Parks Department workers required to report to work to maintain green spaces and enforce social distancing rules, and 40 percent of Buildings Department workers required to work in the field or office. (Mays and Goodman)/ Such fatalities have raised ethical dilemmas regarding whether such workers died because they were required to come to work during this pandemic and the kind responsibility the government has towards surviving families of coronavirus victims (Goldenberg). Believing that the city is responsible for incurring the costs of being susceptible to contracting the virus due to the demands of their work politicians and union are seeking to provide benefits to the surviving families of essential employees in both city departments and private sectors, including grocery clerks and delivery workers, along with granting deceased workers a “line of duty” status (Goldenberg). Additionally, the New York City Council recently introduced a bill that will “provide hazard pay” to “hospital, grocery store, and other essential business workers” (Shapiro). One specific agency whose employees have suffered greatly from a delayed response to the growing number of cases in New York City is the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). The MTA “was late to distribute disinfectants to clean shared workspaces, struggled to keep track of sick workers, and failed to inform their colleagues about possible exposure to the virus” (Goldbaum). On March 4th, MTA staff were instructed not to wear masks “since a mask is not part of the authorized uniform and not medically recommended at this time, they may not be worn by uniformed MTA employees’” (Sainato and Caulderwood). The lack of protective measures initially taken prompted many workers to take their measures like using duct tape to distance drivers from riders or their masks and disinfectant. Personal protective equipment was not mandated until March 30, following the death of multiple workers, transit workers weren’t provided with the highest-quality N95 masks until April 4th, and the public was not instructed to wear face covers in public until April 15th (Sainato and Caulderwood; Beckett). Despite the implementation of protective measures, 2,400 transit workers have tested positive for the coronavirus, 4,000 are or have been in quarantine, and 68 are now dead, as reported on April 21st (Sainato and Caulderwood).To mitigate the spread of the virus among transit staff and essential workers who utilize mass transit, it was recently announced that for four hours, 472 subways stations will close every night for disinfection (Guse and Sommerfeldt). Sporting hazmat suits, MTA employees will use a misting device to disinfect every surface of every train, given that the death toll remains high and many essential workers continued to rely on public transportation (Guse and Sommerfeldt; Dwyer). Though New York City government is increasing the maintenance of mass transit and offering generous benefits to the families of deceased MTA employees, the lives of transit staff continue to be put at risk as many are required to show up for work to ensure essential workers may commute to work and those who may face worsening economic hardship from staying at home, have no option but to expose themselves to the virus as they commute alongside other essential workers (Sainato and Caulderwood; Goldbaum and Cook). In fact, in New York City, low-wage workers are “as twice as likely to commute on mass transit than higher-paid workers” (Zahn). Current ridership also exemplifies the divide between hourly works who must continue to work to “preserve meager livelihoods” and “those with the means to safely shelter at home” (Goldbaum and Cook). With plummeting ridership, staffing shortages, and a decrease in service, buses, and trains remain crowded, thus increasing the susceptibility of contracting the virus for both riders and transit staff. In considering public transportation, where both transit staff and essential workers rely on the commute for economic sustenance, it reveals the intersection of infrastructure, sociopolitical economies, and health vulnerability. The immense number of coronavirus cases and deaths among essential city employees, both in the public and private sector and many of whom earn low wages, is representative of New York City’s inequality across socioeconomic lines and racial lines and how it’s magnified in light of the current pandemic.
Comments