• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Time for another BART strike? (Contract rejected)

Elmer, you're comparing apples and oranges. The 128 million is a cost savings over several years, and represents the board signing a contract for an expense that was likely known well before the labor negotiations began.

Seems they're earning their money while the workers are just looking for more ways to get out of work.
 
mlm said:
Elmer, you're comparing apples and oranges. The 128 million is a cost savings over several years, and represents the board signing a contract for an expense that was likely known well before the labor negotiations began.

Seems they're earning their money while the workers are just looking for more ways to get out of work.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously trying to have fact based discussion with Elmer?:rofl
 
byke said:
From the article linked in the original post, it doesn't sound like it's 6 weeks of sick time like most of us in the private sector would understand it. In quotes it says "six weeks of paid time off to take care of a seriously ill child, spouse, parent or domestic partner or to bond with a new child". Unless it's universally abused, it doesn't read like something where it's acceptable to call in and say "I don't feel well today, so I'm using my emergency sick relative paid time off". Sounds like a union perk-addendum to FMLA. I'm not a fan of unions, but if it's used how it's written, it doesn't seems quite as gluttonous as having "6 weeks of sick time".
Click to expand...

I had an employee do intermittent FMLA (it as legitimate) had to track there FMLA time by the minute! It was unpaid leave. BUT yes it can be abused.


"Employees may take FMLA leave intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule (that is, in blocks of time less than the full amount of the entitlement) when medically necessary or when the leave is due to a qualifying exigency. Taking intermittent leave for the placement for adoption or foster care of a child is subject to the employer's approval. Intermittent leave taken for the birth of a child is also subject to the employer's approval. However, employer approval is not required for intermittent or reduced schedule leave that is medically necessary due to pregnancy, a serious health condition, or the serious illness or injury of a covered servicemember. Employer approval also is not required when intermittent or reduced schedule leave is necessary due to a qualifying exigency."
 
Eldritch said:
Close enough to compare training standards.
Click to expand...

However, the emergency mitigation knowledge and requirements are completely different. And you've failed to provide salary and benefits examples.

Eldritch said:
Do you even understand how private business works?
Click to expand...

When one has little left to debate, they often turn to attacking the opponent rather than the opponents position.

Oceansides said:
Pretty sure they both haul filthy cattle.
Click to expand...


Funny cattle comment is funny.
 
Last edited:
MrIncredible said:
If we put the drunken firefighters on the bart trains we'd have people who were both well trained for emergencies and less motorcycles run over. Total win-win.
Click to expand...

Now that's thinking outside of the box.:thumbup
 
boney said:
However, the emergency mitigation knowledge and requirements are completely different. And you've failed to provide salary and benefits examples.

When one has little left to debate, they often turn to attacking the opponent rather than the opponents position.

Funny cattle comment is funny.
Click to expand...

Why the fuck is that my responsibility? I didn't make a statement about what they should be paid, I made a statement about how the value of their work should be qualified. Pay is simply a reflection of the actual value of work done. That is the point. Workers are assets to be used to provide labor for a typical market bearing cost. That fundamental business principal is NOT being applied here, that is my point.
 
BART is not a business. It's structure is not to make money but to provide a service who's cost is subsided by the tax payer and offset by fare collection. There is no business of running passenger trains because it would be too expensive and nobody would ride it. So instead their wages are compared to similar systems nationwide and adjusted for whatever the cost if living locally is, plus maybe some extra if they're able to bargain it. If you've looked at the Chronicle link that's been posted a few times in this thread, you can see that they make a bit more than average.
 
BART station agent seems similar to a gas station attendant but gets paid at least 4 times more.
 
mlm said:
BART station agent seems similar to a gas station attendant but gets paid at least 4 times more.
Click to expand...

They mirrored the glass at one of the booths at Civic Center. You can't even see them sleeping in there. Must be part of the new $afety measure$. :laughing
 
mlm said:
BART station agent seems similar to a gas station attendant but gets paid at least 4 times more.
Click to expand...

Disagree, the gas station guy is actually helpful most of the time, while BART guy is busy reading the paper or dicking around on the phone
 
boney said:
BART is not a business. It's structure is not to make money but to provide a service who's cost is subsided by the tax payer and offset by fare collection. There is no business of running passenger trains because it would be too expensive and nobody would ride it. So instead their wages are compared to similar systems nationwide and adjusted for whatever the cost if living locally is, plus maybe some extra if they're able to bargain it. If you've looked at the Chronicle link that's been posted a few times in this thread, you can see that they make a bit more than average.
Click to expand...

That is a fundamentally flawed system. That is my point. Fare collection could EASILY cover the cost of operating the service. The only cost that makes a private service like this prohibitive is the cost of building the infrastructure. Start paying actual fair market rates for labor and materials to run the service, there is no reason this service should cost the Tax Payer anything, similarly to the way the Post Office Operated for a significant % of its existence.
 
Eldritch said:
Fare collection could EASILY cover the cost of operating the service.
Click to expand...

the obvious explanation why bart isn't self-sustaining (ie profitable) is because there is no competition, and there is no incentive to run efficiently.

unions feeling entitled to wage increases just because they want one.
not because service has improved or any other performance metric has been met.

union members are unable to see that the system is unprofitable because of the high operating costs (eg large part being employee compensation).
 
boney said:
There is no business of running passenger trains because it would be too expensive and nobody would ride it. So instead their wages are compared to similar systems nationwide and adjusted for whatever the cost if living locally is, plus maybe some extra if they're able to bargain it. If you've looked at the Chronicle link that's been posted a few times in this thread, you can see that they make a bit more than average.
Click to expand...

So they're similar to say, a Greyhound bus driver. How much do they cost? How much is a ticket to LA? Sorry Boney, private transportation does a far better job when given the chance.

I joked to my GF the other day when riding BART that the only way to fix BART would be to lease 1 train and the tracks per hour to a few different private firms and allow the state to compete with their own 1 train per hour. Deregulate those tracks…and then see what happens. You'd get low end riders and high end riders, each paying different fares and getting a different class of service. Pretty simple to see that public transport makes sense when ran by private firms who compete with one another.
 
When it's not THEIR money, it's easy to spend and THEY always need more.

San Ramon Fire Dept. apparently has asked for more funds to pay for a gardener and increase flowers around their building. :wtf I'm not bashing firefigthers but you're telling me they can't maintain a garden and do their own landscaping?
 
Holeshot said:
So they're similar to say, a Greyhound bus driver. How much do they cost? How much is a ticket to LA? Sorry Boney, private transportation does a far better job when given the chance.

I joked to my GF the other day when riding BART that the only way to fix BART would be to lease 1 train and the tracks per hour to a few different private firms and allow the state to compete with their own 1 train per hour. Deregulate those tracks…and then see what happens. You'd get low end riders and high end riders, each paying different fares and getting a different class of service. Pretty simple to see that public transport makes sense when ran by private firms who compete with one another.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because it's worked so smashingly well for the airline industry :thumbdown
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top