The only way the clock would reduce cost is if you believe that the crews were fabricating the arrival times on their deadheads. The only difference is some crews now cant commute when traffic is light or will be less likely to hang out for a one way.The company isn't worried about costs its worried about image and explaining what it does. When the company goes before the IG, MTA, Governors office and media, they have to explain why they pay employees to different terminals but the employees dont have to actually go there. When the biometric timeclock system is in place, they can blame the union agreements for having to pay employees back to the terminals and further explain how they compel the employee to do so in order to clock out and be paid. The company then passes the blame to the unions that everyone hates and shines like a new penny for anyone that asks because the employee has to actually be on the property, clock out and then get paid. Its a winning scenario for the company and the MTA. If the unions that represent the current employees that do not clock in and out, fight the new biometric system and win then the company can blame the union agreements for paying back to terminals and the inability to force employees to use a timeclock. The company can blame the unions that everyone loves to hate. The backup plan to losing on the time clock issue is for employees to be required to report to a designated manager when they deadhead back. If the unions fight this, they will not win.