|
User loginNavigationRecent comments
PollWould you all be happy with Configuration C or Configuration B for the new BART Cars?
1. Concept C http://bart.gov/docs/cars/interiorConepage.pdf
83%
2. Concept B http://bart.gov/docs/cars/interiorBonepage.pdf
17%
3. Concept D http://bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120112.aspx
0%
Total votes: 6
Active forum topicsWho's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 1 guest online.
Recent blog posts
|
Let the HATERS be the MOTIVATORS!The public can be as mad as they want about BART employee benefits. The publics disdain of BART wages only supports the "crab in a bucket" mentality. Hate them all you want as they stand together in solidarity. And at the end of the day, they will still be standing with their dignity, respect..... WAGES and BENEFITS too! |
|
|
The offer on the table does
The offer on the table does not include any cuts to your salaries. It preserves medical benefits @$82 for the whole family with a Kaiser plan. You guys will have to contribute your share to the pension plan. You were getting a free ride till now, doesn't mean it will continue on for ever. You will still be making as much as you were before. The only difference is you will have to work for it.
"The offer on the table
"The offer on the table does..."-BartHater
Legally won grievances are moot to BartHater and those who view the issues at BART the way he does. If BART has no intention of violating the contract (and pay for it), then why include language that denies the Unions the ability to protect themselves in the "unlikely situation"-sarcasm- of a contract violation? Again, grievances that are legal and resolved via an unbiased arbitrator. I guess BART is not so concerned with closing the projected deficit as they dismissed the Unions' proposal, which BartHater, incidentally, laughed at.
Obviously, BartHater believes Linton's statements. Please note that BartHater is at a loss-BartHater's own admission in other posts-with the ambiguity presented by Linton. Then BartHater wants the Unions to explain what Linton meant. When the Unions respond that most likely the issue is legal grievances that cost BART money when the contract is violated, BartHater disregards and opens a new sarcastic comment.
A $760 million proposal does not materialize out of thin air, it involves Union concessions. If that is not sufficient proof to BartHater that the Unions are willing to do their part, then I guess there is nothing the Unions can offer to satisfy him.
Taking away the 6% money
Taking away the 6% money purchase contribution, and adding a 7% payment to pension (which now means BART workers will pay *more* than the private sector equivalent of Social Security/Medicare), and sticking everyone on a bad medical plan is a significant salary cut. I'd rather take furlough days which can be rescinded when the economy improves. Committing to a four year contract at this point would be insanity (past contracts were always three years max, this four year contract thing just started a couple contracts ago). I'm voting no.
Ok Linton Jr. lol
Ok Linton Jr. lol
I was thinking the exact same
I was thinking the exact same thing. lol.
I appreciate the sense of
I appreciate the sense of humor. We should not lose it even when the topics get hot.
As long as that definition of
As long as that definition of dignity includes the certain knowledge that you are part of the problem.
AMEN! The Unions act like the
AMEN!
The Unions act like the fault lies entirely with Management.
The Management acts like the fault lies entirely with the Unions.
In reality, BOTH GROUPS are equally responsible for the problems at BART, and BOTH GROUPS need to make significant concessions.
Too bad they're both so damn busy blaming each other that nothing will get done.
Kinda says it all: BART
Kinda says it all:
BART Executives Reject Unions’ $760 Million Savings Offer
Friday, July 10, 2009
(Oakland, CA) – BART executives last night left an offer on the table by employee unions that would save $760 million by requiring, among other things, that employees and executives work for longer periods of time to be eligible for the transit system’s retirement medical benefits plan. After weeks of claims that the agency was in chronic budget trouble, union representatives were stunned when their offer to triple the number of years required to work at BART before being eligible for retirement benefits was left on the table.
Currently, employees and executives are eligible after only five years. The unions proposed increasing that to fifteen. The unions believe BART executives left the offer on the table because the change would impact them as well.
“For all their talk of shared sacrifice it seems that the executives are ultimately unwilling to wait more than five years before they start collecting retirement medical benefits,” said Jean E. Hamilton, president of AFSCME Local 3993. “Our offers represent savings well above their projected shortfall. I don’t understand how they can leave $760 million in savings on the table and I don’t think the riders will understand either.”
A list of union cost-saving offers that were left on the table by the District after management realized it would impact them include:
* Increasing the eligibility period for medical benefits from 5 years to 15 years, at an estimated savings of $700 million over 25 years.
* $60 million in savings over two years
* A one year wage and benefits freeze.
“Executives in the private and public sectors are making billion dollar mistakes and continue to stick average Americans with the bill,” said Jesse Hunt, president of ATU Local 1555. “The executives who run BART are no exception to this trend. After four years of record ridership and rising revenues, they find themselves in the hole and they want the riders and the employees to pay for it.”
The record ridership part is
The record ridership part is true. I remember four years ago and eight years ago when everyone would gripe that BART employees should only get raises if they produced results. Well, the results are in: on-time performance is up, and ridership is up, even with an all-time low work force.
I know,they are NOW
I know,they are NOW predicting ridership to fall over the next four years. But back in May, when they were trying to justify buying new cars, thier graph showed ridership increasing steadily over the next 20 years. Linton Johnson even told the media that the reason they needed new cars was because of the expected increase in ridership.
Did BART station agents,
Did BART station agents, train operators, and cleaners ruin the American economy?
Because BART's ridership is increasing because PEOPLE ARE TOO FUCKING POOR TO OWN CARS AND DRIVE THEM ALL THE FUCKING TIME, not because BART is running better than it was a year ago.
I think the employees deserve moderate raises (or at least some public recognition) for improving on-time performance, but the increased ridership happening right now has nothing to do with BART employee performance.
Not true. While there might
Not true. While there might be a moderate increase in ridership due to the economy, the record ridership levels we see would not happen if the system wasn't reliable. If eveyone riding BART knew that it was hit or miss if they got to work on time, they simply would find a more reliable way to get to work. How else are we to be judged then?
Sooo. Management Asks for
Sooo. Management Asks for $100 Million in cuts
and the Union offers over $700 MILLION in cuts.
Please explain why the Unions are the bad guys?
v/r
Neither side is releasing the
Neither side is releasing the full documents of their proposal.
We have no accurate way of understanding what the details of each proposal are.
The most prudent course of action is for us to assume that BOTH proposals are hopelessly flawed, and that both sides are lying.
Could also be that Linton
Could also be that Linton Johnson gets all the air time.
Why do folks believe him more than us?
Thats actually a somewhat serious question.
v/r
When I say that I think both
When I say that I think both sides are lying, why would you think that I believe Linton more than you?
I'm sorry I'm such a cynical son-of-a-bitch, but I figure that if either of these proposals was really any good the party that was offering it would have released the full text of the proposal by now.
I honestly can not tell you
I honestly can not tell you why the union hasn't publicly released the full details of thier proposal. That being said, I do know that management is asking us to vote on a proposal that is vauge and has very little detail. If management really wanted us to vote for thier proposal, why not release the full text of the offer and fill in all the details. They tout to the media about how great thier proposal is and that we should vote for it but how can I vote for something I don't understand. Seriously, looking at that sheet, which is the same sheet us workers got, could you vote for that?
Seems like this is the kind
Seems like this is the kind of complaint you would want to take up with your union representative, not a bunch of random internet people.
I have. And if you don't
I have. And if you don't want to hear my point of view then don't comment.
They are not allowed to talk
They are not allowed to talk about it, period. Management violated this by going public with some of the things in their proposal as well as the union's. It's not meant for the public.
Sorry but both union and
Sorry but both union and management are not playing fair here and the only ones who are getting screwed are the ridership. I don't listen to either side but it's ridiculous that after all these months neither side can get their act together or "bargain in good faith." Sad situation.