Fair enough that it doesn't add to the debate. But, you cannot say the public is holding them hostage. Any one of them can quit their job and look for another at will. The "public" can hardly look for replacement labor.
(1) The public can look for replacement labor, they are called scabs. Or they can outright fire the strikers.
(2) The public can look for replacement transportation.
(1) There are usually fairly strong legal restrictions against hiring scabs. Especially for public sector unions.
(2) True, but the public cannot use the infrastructure that they paid dearly to build and have some claim of ownership to.
(1) The SCOTUS ruled in NLRB v Mackay Radio that hiring scabs was legal. To the best of my knowledge there are no additional restrictions specific to public sector unions. You are requested to provide documentation for your claim.
(2) It isn't the union stopping them from using that infrastructure, it is the government and their own lack of skills in its operation.
I have to strongly disagree with that representation, you could just as well say that the "public" is holding their livelihoods hostage. Labor disputes are a characteristic of our economic system and are essentially morally neutral.
The question that matters is, "Does including their names add any new insight to the debate?" I do not think it does.