I think it is obvious that some folks have taken thier lessons in rhetoric and debate from modern cable news. The man was making a simple point about this being a society of laws and contracts. To accuse him of not caring for the lives of commuters is nothing more than a canard.
"You don't support more money for police and fire fighters? What would the victims of 9/11 think?"
This dude should not be employed any more. I don't think anyone is saying he should. If, and I don't think any of us know his contract well enough to say so definitively, his contract is written in such a manner that the arbitration process is binding, then we should be focusing on how to better structure future contract negotiations.
The union has a legal obligation to stand up fir its members within the confines of its contract. If it doesn't, the MLRB can take them to task, fine them, perhaps even disband or deauthorize them. Should they risk that? Heck, if they don't stand up for this a--hole, he will have grounds to turn around and sue them. Would we be happier if he were to walk away with a few million in his pocket from the agency and the union for wrongful termination? Nope. Then the same people complaining about this would be complaining about that. Sometimes it is tasteless, but it is a union's job to protect its workers.
Be well. Do good work.
Semperfidelis