If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SFGate)   BART unions, the highest-paid transit 'workers' in the country are going on strike tomorrow because, F--- you Bay Area, that's why   (sfgate.com) divider line 222
    More: Asinine, BART, Bay Area  
•       •       •

5552 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Oct 2013 at 8:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



222 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-17 08:06:44 PM  
Went to a big rave in Oakland once during a BART strike. Got to see (and meet) Moby and BT in a non-cattlecar environment. It was awesome.

/csb
 
2013-10-17 08:16:32 PM  
3% raise for the next 4 years. I think BART can do better than that.
 
2013-10-17 08:23:11 PM  
They could be the highest paid transit workers in the country, but how much is that?
 
2013-10-17 08:28:00 PM  
Remember kids, while the middle class was busy getting "rich" from 401K's and making income a "fark you, I got mine" game, those silly unions decided to opt out of the obvious riches that are sure to befall the rest of the middle class any day now.  And, when it becomes glaringly obvious that the boom-and-bust business cycle is actively damaging our economy, wages are in fact further apart than they were 100 years ago, and lack of social mobility and hyperinflated education costs are stifling economic innovation, you'll know who to blame:

THOSE DARN UNIONS!
 
2013-10-17 08:28:36 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: They could be the highest paid transit workers in the country, but how much is that?


And SF is right up there with NYC and Honolulu for highest cost of living in the US, so it could make some sense.
 
2013-10-17 08:33:42 PM  
Fire them and hire people who want jobs.

Really, "Pensions"?

Most working stiffs don't retire and get paid for having once worked somewhere. I mean sure, if it's part of the deal you made when you got the job, you get it, but then do your F'ing job.

Most people get 0% raises, no pensions and actually have to think when they are at work. As opposed to pressing the "Make train go" and "make train not-go" buttons
 
2013-10-17 08:33:56 PM  
As a daily BART user, I'm fine with it.
 
2013-10-17 08:34:03 PM  
SF is also one of the highest cost of livings cities in the country.
 
2013-10-17 08:35:13 PM  

you_idiot: Most working stiffs don't retire and get paid for having once worked somewhere. I mean sure, if it's part of the deal you made when you got the job, you get it, but then do your F'ing job.


Well that's how it used to work until we started the "race to the bottom" and blamed unions for everything wrong in the world.
 
2013-10-17 08:35:47 PM  

you_idiot: Fire them and hire people who want jobs.

Really, "Pensions"?

Most working stiffs don't retire and get paid for having once worked somewhere. I mean sure, if it's part of the deal you made when you got the job, you get it, but then do your F'ing job.

Most people get 0% raises, no pensions and actually have to think when they are at work. As opposed to pressing the "Make train go" and "make train not-go" buttons


Yes. Because button pushers are all BART employs.

It hurts when you think, doesn't it?
 
2013-10-17 08:37:00 PM  

you_idiot: Fire them and hire people who want jobs.

Really, "Pensions"?

Most working stiffs don't retire and get paid for having once worked somewhere. I mean sure, if it's part of the deal you made when you got the job, you get it, but then do your F'ing job.

Most people get 0% raises, no pensions and actually have to think when they are at work. As opposed to pressing the "Make train go" and "make train not-go" buttons


This is the apotheosis of the classic parable:

A rich guy and a working poor guy are sitting in a bakery. A waitress brings them a plate with a dozen cookies. The rich guy takes eleven cookies, then leans toward the working poor guy and points around the room. "Better watch out for that woman, that black guy, that Hispanic, that union worker," the rich guy says. "They want  your cookie."
 
2013-10-17 08:37:59 PM  

you_idiot: Fire them and hire people who want jobs.

Really, "Pensions"?

Most working stiffs don't retire and get paid for having once worked somewhere. I mean sure, if it's part of the deal you made when you got the job, you get it, but then do your F'ing job.

Most people get 0% raises, no pensions and actually have to think when they are at work. As opposed to pressing the "Make train go" and "make train not-go" buttons


Here let me say what you are saying in graph form:
www.washingtonpost.com

Basically you believe that employees should be paid less and less because they are becoming more productive.
 
2013-10-17 08:38:08 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: 3% raise for the next 4 years. I think BART can do better than that.


The offer was 12%.
 
2013-10-17 08:41:28 PM  
A relative of mine worked for a major insurance company out in SF and while she was able to get an apartment, she could barely afford it and had almost no furniture.  Her standard of living went up significantly when she left SF and moved to Florida because the cost of living went down drastically.
 
2013-10-17 08:41:49 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: They could be the highest paid transit workers in the country, but how much is that?


So the numbers I heard were:

Average Salary is ~$70K + bennies + pension
Request is to be at ~$85-90K + bennies + pension within 4 years.

Of course:

TuteTibiImperes: And SF is right up there with NYC and Honolulu for highest cost of living in the US, so it could make some sense.


http://priceonomics.com/the-san-francisco-rent-explosion/

So $70K will let you be poor to middle class as the sole income for your family with 4 kids and live-in grandparents somewhere in the Greater SF Area, or destitute in SF proper (unless you like having an hour-long commute to BART from the Richmond neighborhood.  SF-area mass transit is punitive at best).  Of course, if you're single, if you move out into the Central Valley, or if you then couple it with a second income putting you well into 6 figures making ~60-65% of that after the various taxes, then you're solidly middle class.  You're not driving a Porsche and jumping up to Tahoe every weekend, but you're not broke either.

/I'm at $74.5K, and I'm living with a roommate while tens of thousands in debt, FWIW.  Mind you, I'm not the best with money, and I'm $12K less in debt than I was 9 months ago, but still.
//General rule of thumb when I'm talking to people back home in Michigan is "Divide income by 3, costs by 2 and housing by 7, and you'll have a fairly decent idea of where I am."
///The reply to that pricenomics link is the only time I've ever seen my father swear in an email to me (He makes $30K, and he's richer than me because fark cost of living).
 
2013-10-17 08:42:36 PM  

craigmoz: A relative of mine worked for a major insurance company out in SF and while she was able to get an apartment, she could barely afford it and had almost no furniture.  Her standard of living went up significantly when she left SF and moved to Florida because the cost of living went down drastically.


Yes, unfortunately living in the best big city in America is a little expensive.
 
2013-10-17 08:43:12 PM  

meyerkev: Average Salary is ~$70K + bennies + pension
Request is to be at ~$85-90K + bennies + pension within 4 years.


Can you cite this? I find it hard to believe they are asking for an immediate 20-30% raise.
 
2013-10-17 08:43:35 PM  

Corvus: you_idiot: Most working stiffs don't retire and get paid for having once worked somewhere. I mean sure, if it's part of the deal you made when you got the job, you get it, but then do your F'ing job.

Well that's how it used to work until we started the "race to the bottom" and blamed unions for everything wrong in the world.


As a moderately conservative person I have no problems with unions going for a living wage, I just dislike that all workers (good and bad) are entitled to the yearly raises. If it was where the whole got the 3% and it was distributed along a bell curve or something it would be more palatable. Why should the worst employees get the same as the best? I think that just encourages mediocrity. Of course that raises problems with how do you judge best from worst but I have to believe there is still a good BART employee vs. a bad one.
 
2013-10-17 08:43:56 PM  
A strike is supposed to hurt the employer who is expecting unreasonable labor. A bart strike largely affects people who have no say in answering the unions demands. The people who run bart have cars and sallaries. Theyre getting paid anyways so they have no real reason to give the unions what they want. Both sides are hoping negative public opinion will force the other side to cave in and in that respect they are both equally culpable and wrong
 
2013-10-17 08:44:52 PM  
I've lived lots of places and seen lots of unions go on strike before. I have never seen a union so disliked with almost no public support like these unions.
 
2013-10-17 08:45:16 PM  

you_idiot: Most people get 0% raises, no pensions and actually have to think when they are at work. As opposed to pressing the "Make train go" and "make train not-go" buttons


What two buttons manned by unthinking labor may look like:

farm4.static.flickr.com

www.bart.gov
 
2013-10-17 08:45:43 PM  

Corvus: SF is also one of the highest cost of livings cities in the country.


People who work for BART don't live in SF.  Luckily, there is this mass transit system that people use but I can't think of the name right now
 
2013-10-17 08:45:50 PM  
They were offered a 12% raise but walked over "management" issues.

Who else is getting 12% raises these days?

/aside from me, but I DESERVE it
 
2013-10-17 08:46:05 PM  

hellfrozeover: Corvus: you_idiot: Most working stiffs don't retire and get paid for having once worked somewhere. I mean sure, if it's part of the deal you made when you got the job, you get it, but then do your F'ing job.

Well that's how it used to work until we started the "race to the bottom" and blamed unions for everything wrong in the world.

As a moderately conservative person I have no problems with unions going for a living wage, I just dislike that all workers (good and bad) are entitled to the yearly raises. If it was where the whole got the 3% and it was distributed along a bell curve or something it would be more palatable. Why should the worst employees get the same as the best? I think that just encourages mediocrity. Of course that raises problems with how do you judge best from worst but I have to believe there is still a good BART employee vs. a bad one.


Don't most jobs work this way? I can tell you they do in the white collar world I work in; every associate lawyer's and banker's salary goes up every year, in lockstep.
 
2013-10-17 08:47:09 PM  

arbitterm: Both sides are hoping negative public opinion will force the other side to cave in and in that respect they are both equally culpable and wrong


Both sides are bad, so vote  Republicanwith the bosses!
 
2013-10-17 08:47:26 PM  
The fact that they're agreed on pay and benefits but are now arguing about things like being able to call in sick on Monday and get paid overtime to work that Saturday is ridiculous.

/supported the strike 6 months ago.

/both sides suck.
 
2013-10-17 08:48:14 PM  

DamnYankees: meyerkev: Average Salary is ~$70K + bennies + pension
Request is to be at ~$85-90K + bennies + pension within 4 years.

Can you cite this? I find it hard to believe they are asking for an immediate 20-30% raise.


The article clearly states this isn't about money, they agreed to 12% over four years.
 
2013-10-17 08:48:40 PM  

DamnYankees: meyerkev: Average Salary is ~$70K + bennies + pension
Request is to be at ~$85-90K + bennies + pension within 4 years.

Can you cite this? I find it hard to believe they are asking for an immediate 20-30% raise.


But they argued that unless the unions are willing to relent on their request for a 21.5 percent raise over three years, there's no reason to rush back to the bargaining table.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-unions-remain-far-apart-o n- contract-4790762.php

There are lots of sources on it.
 
2013-10-17 08:48:50 PM  

CruJones: They were offered a 12% raise but walked over "management" issues.

Who else is getting 12% raises these days?

/aside from me, but I DESERVE it


Chicago teachers

They laughed at the 16% increase the city offered and were the highest paid teachers in the nation at the time.
 
2013-10-17 08:49:18 PM  
Reading the article, it seems to imply that the pay was agreed upon.

What working condition changes is the union asking for?
 
2013-10-17 08:49:27 PM  

Corvus: you_idiot: Fire them and hire people who want jobs.

Really, "Pensions"?

Most working stiffs don't retire and get paid for having once worked somewhere. I mean sure, if it's part of the deal you made when you got the job, you get it, but then do your F'ing job.

Most people get 0% raises, no pensions and actually have to think when they are at work. As opposed to pressing the "Make train go" and "make train not-go" buttons

Here let me say what you are saying in graph form:
[www.washingtonpost.com image 652x363]

Basically you believe that employees should be paid less and less because they are becoming more productive.


Which has what to do with a government employer?
 
2013-10-17 08:49:41 PM  

bulldg4life: Reading the article, it seems to imply that the pay was agreed upon.

What working condition changes is the union asking for?


See my comment above
 
2013-10-17 08:50:07 PM  

CruJones: The article clearly states this isn't about money, they agreed to 12% over four years.


Ok, that's not really very much though. If you keep in mind that NGDP growth last year was 4%, a 3% raise is below average.
 
2013-10-17 08:50:43 PM  

Corvus: you_idiot: Fire them and hire people who want jobs.

Really, "Pensions"?

Most working stiffs don't retire and get paid for having once worked somewhere. I mean sure, if it's part of the deal you made when you got the job, you get it, but then do your F'ing job.

Most people get 0% raises, no pensions and actually have to think when they are at work. As opposed to pressing the "Make train go" and "make train not-go" buttons

Here let me say what you are saying in graph form:
[www.washingtonpost.com image 652x363]

Basically you believe that employees should be paid less and less because they are becoming more productive.



Your chart does not apply in this case.  These are already  overcompensated government workers employees demanding a bigger piece of the tax payer's money  not private sector workers demanding a bigger share of corporate profits.


With California's high unemployment rate and illegal alien friendly polices the strikers should be easy to replace.
 
2013-10-17 08:51:20 PM  

Corvus: you_idiot: Fire them and hire people who want jobs.

Really, "Pensions"?

Most working stiffs don't retire and get paid for having once worked somewhere. I mean sure, if it's part of the deal you made when you got the job, you get it, but then do your F'ing job.

Most people get 0% raises, no pensions and actually have to think when they are at work. As opposed to pressing the "Make train go" and "make train not-go" buttons

Here let me say what you are saying in graph form:
[www.washingtonpost.com image 652x363]

Basically you believe that employees should be paid less and less because they are becoming more productive.


.. Buy stock?


Why would you expect your wage to go up if you have no ownership position?  I haven't seen one single picture of a scrubby simple laborer here in these pictures that looks like they should be earning more than $15 an hour.

Do you honestly think you should earn as much as someone who went to school and got a degree?  You don't get the nice car.  You don't get the big tits on the trophy wife.  Not everybody does.  It's ok.
 
2013-10-17 08:51:33 PM  

arbitterm: A strike is supposed to hurt the employer who is expecting unreasonable labor. A bart strike largely affects people who have no say in answering the unions demands. The people who run bart have cars and sallaries. Theyre getting paid anyways so they have no real reason to give the unions what they want. Both sides are hoping negative public opinion will force the other side to cave in and in that respect they are both equally culpable and wrong


The people who are riding the rails ARE the employer.  It's a government entity.
 
2013-10-17 08:52:30 PM  

hellfrozeover: Corvus: you_idiot: Most working stiffs don't retire and get paid for having once worked somewhere. I mean sure, if it's part of the deal you made when you got the job, you get it, but then do your F'ing job.

Well that's how it used to work until we started the "race to the bottom" and blamed unions for everything wrong in the world.

As a moderately conservative person I have no problems with unions going for a living wage, I just dislike that all workers (good and bad) are entitled to the yearly raises. If it was where the whole got the 3% and it was distributed along a bell curve or something it would be more palatable. Why should the worst employees get the same as the best? I think that just encourages mediocrity. Of course that raises problems with how do you judge best from worst but I have to believe there is still a good BART employee vs. a bad one.


I just want a raise to match inflation. Anything less than that is a pay cut in real buying power.

/Federal worker.
/No raise since 2010.
 
2013-10-17 08:52:39 PM  

Etchy333: Remember kids, while the middle class was busy getting "rich" from 401K's and making income a "fark you, I got mine" game, those silly unions decided to opt out of the obvious riches that are sure to befall the rest of the middle class any day now.  And, when it becomes glaringly obvious that the boom-and-bust business cycle is actively damaging our economy, wages are in fact further apart than they were 100 years ago, and lack of social mobility and hyperinflated education costs are stifling economic innovation, you'll know who to blame:

THOSE DARN UNIONS!


gocomics.typepad.com
 
2013-10-17 08:52:49 PM  

ZzeusS: Why would you expect your wage to go up if you have no ownership position?


Is this a serious comment?

ZzeusS: Do you honestly think you should earn as much as someone who went to school and got a degree?


Who are you to say who "should" make a given salary? People make what they can bargain for.
 
2013-10-17 08:53:02 PM  

DamnYankees: CruJones: The article clearly states this isn't about money, they agreed to 12% over four years.

Ok, that's not really very much though. If you keep in mind that NGDP growth last year was 4%, a 3% raise is below average.


Yeah, they finally accepted the lower raise. I don't know about benefits. They were demanding to not have an increase in their monthly health insurance cost which was $90/month for the family with no copays.

And they don't want to have to contribute anything to their pensions.

Earlier this week they were down to demanding 18% over 3 years.

Not sure what their sticking point demands are now. It was kind of ambiguous in what I read.
 
2013-10-17 08:53:27 PM  

Whistling Kitty Chaser: I just want a raise to match inflation.


Raises should match NGDP ideally, not just inflation.
 
2013-10-17 08:54:58 PM  
I'm not really in favor of unions, but I'm all for Friscans getting farked over, so go BART!
 
2013-10-17 08:55:33 PM  

DamnYankees: Whistling Kitty Chaser: I just want a raise to match inflation.

Raises should match NGDP ideally, not just inflation.


I want my income to match the growth curve of the federal government spending. That way I won't ever have to worry about not being ahead of the inflation curve.
 
2013-10-17 08:56:00 PM  

DamnYankees: meyerkev: Average Salary is ~$70K + bennies + pension
Request is to be at ~$85-90K + bennies + pension within 4 years.

Can you cite this? I find it hard to believe they are asking for an immediate 20-30% raise.


http://www.mercurynews.com/bart/ci_23742276/bart-workers-paychecks-a lr eady-outpace-their-peers

Had it wrong.

They're at $76,551, asking to get to $92,991 by 2016, city is countering with $82,861 by 2017.

Mind you, read that article about SF rents that I mentioned, and keep in mind that the average is probably some guy in his late 30's, early 40's with a couple of kids and a wife (who may or may not have a second income).

Rent is too high because there's too many people crammed into too small of a space with lots of mountains and water and the infrastructure that could let you add people to the North Bay or the Central Valley and have them commute in just doesn't exist (and Prop 13 + rent control doesn't help).  Meanwhile, you've got just enough crazy software engineers becoming overnight millionaires to drive everything completely out of whack.
 
2013-10-17 08:57:21 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: 3% raise for the next 4 years. I think BART can do better than that.


They are already paying them too much.  Plus, there's pension things going on that make their demands much more unafforable.  And BART is actually a bit on the broke side.
 
2013-10-17 08:57:51 PM  

DamnYankees: Whistling Kitty Chaser: I just want a raise to match inflation.

Raises should match NGDP ideally, not just inflation.


What if only one sector is creating the increase?

Should defense contractors all get an increase in their contracts if McDonalds burgers are supporting the economy?


What sectors are driving the increase in GDP?  Wall Street?

How is that record DJIA affecting fry cooks and burger flippers?
 
2013-10-17 08:57:57 PM  

leevis: Soup4Bonnie: 3% raise for the next 4 years. I think BART can do better than that.

The offer was 12%.


Math is hard...
 
2013-10-17 08:58:07 PM  
fark em!  Fire every one of those nasty, rude, pretentious, lazy fark wads.  Every time you walk up to one for help, they act like you bothering them.  Most sit in booth all day doing nothing but being rude to anyone who needs help.

The Conductors, do nothing but act like high and mighty pricks when you have a question, and over the loud speaker their contempt for paying passengers is outrageous!

They make more in Benefits then 70% of the worlds population just makes in salary.  They can all DIAF!
 
2013-10-17 08:58:09 PM  

meyerkev: DamnYankees: meyerkev: Average Salary is ~$70K + bennies + pension
Request is to be at ~$85-90K + bennies + pension within 4 years.

Can you cite this? I find it hard to believe they are asking for an immediate 20-30% raise.

http://www.mercurynews.com/bart/ci_23742276/bart-workers-paychecks-a lr eady-outpace-their-peers

Had it wrong.

They're at $76,551, asking to get to $92,991 by 2016, city is countering with $82,861 by 2017.

Mind you, read that article about SF rents that I mentioned, and keep in mind that the average is probably some guy in his late 30's, early 40's with a couple of kids and a wife (who may or may not have a second income).

Rent is too high because there's too many people crammed into too small of a space with lots of mountains and water and the infrastructure that could let you add people to the North Bay or the Central Valley and have them commute in just doesn't exist (and Prop 13 + rent control doesn't help).  Meanwhile, you've got just enough crazy software engineers becoming overnight millionaires to drive everything completely out of whack.


Which is what I came here to say.

I don't care if some SF area transit driver is making 100K to drive people around, since the Cost of Living in that area is completely out of whack.
 
2013-10-17 08:58:42 PM  
You ever try to pay for housing in the Bay Area, subs?
 
Displayed 50 of 222 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report