UNION AGREEMENT REACHED
No info on the contract yet but it is for 4 years.
|
|
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
|
UNION AGREEMENT REACHEDNo info on the contract yet but it is for 4 years. |
|
|
I hope this deal is good for
I hope this deal is good for all parties concerned, incl the riders.
BartHater-"I hope this deal
BartHater-"I hope this deal is a good..."
The riding public never got a good deal. Management's fare increase was planned before contract negotiations even began. Again, if you have been following the news you probably already know it.
I posted a link to the New York Times in this forum where you learn that other transit agencies in the nation have used the federal stimulus package to rollback fare increases and maintain infrastructure, not for wage increases for their workforces. And what is BART doing? Going ahead with the OAK extension.
If you put as much passion to prevent that extension from materializing as you do with your posts here, maybe BART would put that money to good use. For what is worth, the Unions you despise at BART disagree with the extension because as everyone knows, it's a complete waste of money.
No strike.....good for
No strike.....good for everyone....even all you union haters.
No a reference to the last
No a reference to the last poster (I don't know you're feelings toward the unions.
I am just glad that this is
I am just glad that this is over. It felt like a hellish limbo for the last month.
BART put a blurb on its news
BART put a blurb on its news site about the updated contract. Here's hoping this works out.
No mention about the details
No mention about the details of the agreement. Wonder what happened to "Beneficial Past Practices"/"Wasteful Work rules". This was the main sticking point in the negotiations.
BartHater-"No mention about
BartHater-"No mention about the details..."
Work Rules and Beneficial Past Practices can be changed as you can see on BARTs own expose and read between the lines. It's coming from management's mouth. I posted a lenghty topic on this. The sticking point is the sunset clause that limits grievances to one year, after that they disappear. BART stalled the no breaks grievance process for 20 years and wants a one year sunset clause as a time limit to conclude grievances. Huh? You tell me what is wrong with that picture.
Nothing, If I was management
Nothing, If I was management and I violated my employees rights under a contract. And have been losing the arbitrations because of it. And I had public support. I too would want to make it so if I stalled the process I would win by default.
But the unions are just as
But the unions are just as much to blame on this. The SEIU contract sets a time limit to resolve grievances unless *both* sides agree to extend that limit. So, all the Union would have to do is not agree to extend the time limit to resolve grievances.
gruntled - yet another post
gruntled - yet another post by you...
SEIU set a time limit so BART can't sit on its hands like they did with ATU.
BARTs time limit would make the grievance go away, SEIU time limit forces them to address the grievance.
Think... Wow looking through gruntleds posts is enlightening.
That was my point! If a
That was my point! If a grievance is going on for 20 years, then somewhere along the line the Union obviously agreed to extend the grievance since the contract clearly states that any grievance not resolved within xxx time is automatically considered a win for the Union. The Union should just stop agreeing to endlessly extend grievances and insist that they be resolved within the time frame specified in the contract.
Let me say this slower.. ATU
Let me say this slower..
ATU had grievances they stalled on.. ATU had no such time limit BART stalled on many grievances with ATU. ATU did NOT AGREE to wait, BART just stalled on many grievances
ATU is NOT SEIU. Different Contracts
SEIU have in their contract now that they need to address grievances in timely matters. I do not know when SEIU negotiated the time limit.
ATU may have NOW what SEIU has in terms of time limits. Not sure.
BART wants grievances to just go away after a time, or in other words if they stall, they win.
The unions DON'T want grievances stalled, the agreement part is only if they need more time to gather data or whatever.
Workers do not want stalled grievances, since grievances are due to some violation, and would like to have their money, or the situation fixed asap.
You post so much yet seem to know so little..
Is this agreement better (for
Is this agreement better (for the workers) than the agreement which was voted down by the workers, last month?
Not really
Not really
Whatever the terms of the
Whatever the terms of the contract, we can rest assured that the passengers will get screwed.
withak-"whatever the
withak-"whatever the terms..."
I disagree. Other agencies in the nation have used the federal stimulus money to rollback fares except BART. It's in the New York Times. BART's assertion that the money can only be used for expansion is not accurate. Everyone knows the OAK extension is a waste and BART needs to be stopped. Force them to redirect that money to roll back the fare increase.
What on earth does that have
What on earth does that have to do with union contracts?
Anyway, whether it is allowed or not, using one-time money to pay recurring costs (like subsidizing fares) is a terrible idea no matter how you frame it. Next year if there is no stimulus money you have to find something else to cut to keep the fares down or else deal with the PR nightmare of raising fares just a little while after you lowered them.
hum is just spamming. Ignore
hum is just spamming. Ignore him.
MC-"hum is just
MC-"hum is just spamming..."
Spamming, really? So directing traffic to an article on the NYT newspaper, in your book is now spamming. I'm curious, what do you think of the OAK extension? Though you don't agree with my posts, I think you bring up serious points on your posts. I am just curious on your thoughts regarding that extension.
I think the OAK extension
I think the OAK extension sucks.
So does everyone else I know.
BART management doesn't give a shit about what consumers want, they just want another airport extension so they can fuck over their customers with ridiculously high surcharges.
Amen to that. I was trying to
Amen to that. I was trying to figure out, in light of the fact that the funds can be used for something else. What would you have BART use them for? I was suggesting the funds could be used to rollback fares as other transit agencies in the nation have done, but apparently, you and others think is a bad idea. I thought that rolling them back for a few years, if they are used for that purpose only, would enable people to get a respite on their travel expenses until the economy gets better. I also brought it up because BART claimed that those funds could only be used for their earmarked purpose. So...?
The next thing, of course, is
The next thing, of course, is that the greedy management thugs will vote themselves a raise in a few months.
See if it doesn't happen.
Already did in Jan.. They are
Already did in Jan.. They are smart enough to do that first.
Reality Check: NY Times
Reality Check: NY Times reports a county in Alabama is preparing to lay off TWO THIRDS of its public workforce.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/us/01alabama.html?_r=1&hp
I think the threat of Layoffs
I think the threat of Layoffs by the BART management, forced the unions to agree to the terms. I am sure the workers must have thought hard about this, because nobody will know who will get laid off and its tough to get another well paying job in these times.
"I think the threat of
"I think the threat of Layoffs by the BART management, forced the unions to agree to the terms"..
Of course layoffs are bad for everyone but ATU has a clause that saves affected employees. That clause says if an employee is laid off they have reemployment rights for 4 years and they continue to accrue seniority. SO if the employee is laid off, BART cannot rehire anyone in that classification for 4 years until that affected employee is brought back. AND before the union allows anyone to be laid off... they will strike.
The threat of layoffs was on
The threat of layoffs was on the proposal that was voted NO on. If you don't believe it, feel free to ask management or the Unions from BART. In this economy, everyone is letting people go.
Um, Jefferson County in
Um, Jefferson County in Alabama with a population of under 700,000 laying off two thirds of their public workforce isn't anywhere near a reality check.
When NYC or LA, or another BIG city or urban area lays off 2/3 of it's workforce, come back and repost. THAT would be a reality check.
1/2 of those people that are gettng laid off are probably jumping for joy because they can pack up and leave Birmingham.
Doesn't SF County have a
Doesn't SF County have a population of not that much over 700,000? We're probably a little denser though.
SF has a much lower
SF has a much lower unemployment rate. And the unemployment rate for *skilled" workers is well below the overall rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco
Estimates a population of 808,976 for 2008 (and cites a Chron article), which works out to a density of 17,323 ppl/sq mi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_County,_Alabama
Estimates a population of 662,047 for 2000 (and cites Census data), which works out to a density of 595 ppl/sq mi.
I'm not quite sure what the comparison is between SF proper and Jefferson County. Consider that SF is a consolidated city and county, Jefferson County is not. In *theory* you'll see more duplication in the bureaucracy by having both city and county administration entities. In practice SF likely has more city employees per capita, but with less overlap in job duties. Cutting a similar percentage of city/county workers would likely have a bigger impact in SF than Alabama.
And, for the record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City
Pop estimate of 8,363,710 (2008 Census data), for a density of 27,440 ppl/sq mi (71,201 ppl/sq mi for Manhattan alone).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_County
Pop estimate of 9,862,049 (2008 Census data), for a density of 2,427 ppl/sq mi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland,_California
Pop est. 420,183, 7,126 ppl/sq mi (2008).
Yes, but, just like last
Yes, but, just like last contract, in 2-3 months Executive Managers will be given a 7 or 8% stealth raise by the Board, justified by "having to stay competitive in the market".
I hope the members of the
I hope the members of the union vote down the proposal, in the economy that is rebounding as we speak a 4 year no increase in wages is horrible.
Inflation should make them
Inflation should make them suffer (for all the BART Haters)
Rebounding? LOL! Just wait
Rebounding? LOL!
Just wait until the backdraft bites you optimists in the ass.
Competitive pay for an
Competitive pay for an executive manager is significantly higher than competitive pay for someone with a GED who sits behind a glass window and re-magnetizes BART cards.
I think the managers are overpaid, but let's stop pretending that there's any similarity at all between the two classes of workers.
These workers (i am talking
These workers (i am talking about the SOs, TOs, cleaners etc and not the skilled ones like Mechanics and electricians) don't want to understand what a good life they have in BART. Workers doing similar jobs elsewhere are getting much less without these protections they have.
I wonder why they keep talking about the management salaries? Is there any SO who thinks he/she is qualified enough to be the GM of BART?
Well, the GM of BART is an
Well, the GM of BART is an idiot, so a homeless guy who was half brain dead could probably do the job.
But it's stupid to focus so heavily on management salaries when they make up such a small fraction of the work force.
And of course just because management is overpaid doesn't mean that the workers aren't overpaid too.
BartHater, Please read the
BartHater, Please read the reply to master chief. Your definition of "skilled" is limited so I will keep this simple for you. You ask if there are station agents qualified enough to be GM at BART. I cannot answer that except to tell you that there are many agents and train operators who are more qualified than Dorothy Dugger. Ms. Dugger has a college degree from an expensive but not quite ivy league school. Her transportation experience prior to BART
was in positions similar to that of Linton Johnson. The SA/TO with a college degree also has hands on experience
that Ms.Dugger, with only a history degree and spokesperson background lacks.
Hey Master Chief you might
Hey Master Chief you might want to get your facts straight, Some Station Agents not only have their BA but also their Masters. It's a way to get into BART and work your way into another job within BART. Unlike the Managers who hire their friends and family with little or no education to run a department. You always shoot your mouth but never with anything to back it up. I guess that you're the one that is not educated as people with any sort of education know that they need to follow up a comment with some sort of proof. Even a 8 year old can make a comment, I guess there is no difference between you and a 8 year old.
I am done replying to your comments as your comments make less sense every time you post. Now I know why the people running this site keep deleting your comments over and over. Most people learn from their mistakes but not a 8 year old. Anyway, good luck with your post back to me but you will not get any post back, not worth my time
That's true only of SEIU and
That's true only of SEIU and ATU, i.e. once you're in the door in SEIU or ATU, you can bid for better jobs if you qualify. In AFSCME all jobs are fair game and management can, and usually does, bring in outsiders.
In that case, its even worse.
In that case, its even worse. BART should not be hiring over-qualified people for low skilled jobs. This will result in either the worker moving on to a different higher job at BART, leave BART for other companies or stay back as a Station Agent with being forever grumpy about pay, work environment, etc etc.
Are you being sarcastic or
Are you being sarcastic or trying to make some kind of joke?
Your pal Art just said, and I quote, "About 30-50% of station agents have a four year college degree."
Since I'm sure your basic math skills are adequate you can most likely deduce that means that roughly 70% of SAs do not have a 4-year degree, which means that the MAJORITY of Station Agents do not have a real college education.
And need I point out the delicious irony in a poster calling me "uneducated" for making statements without providing "proof" and then making a post that (ho ho!) lacks any proof for what he's saying?
Thanks for the laugh.
What do you mean
What do you mean
The Bad The contract is for
The Bad
The contract is for four years. No raises in any year except, perhaps, in the final year if some formula is met (not disclosed). No raise or bonus the first year.
Health Plan payments are being capped at the Kaiser or Blue Shield rate, whichever is higher. This is a cut of about $300-$600 a month off the Calpers plan.
ATU is giving up two years of the supplemental pension ($1,800 a year) and taking 3 furlough days for 2 years. SEIU is giving up the supplemental pension for four years with no furlough days.
Numerous work rule changes, but I don't know enough about them to comment.
The Good
No layoffs
$500 bonus year 2, $1,000 year 3, and $1,500 year 4 (unless the 1% raise is triggered).
District to continue to pay main pension.
Employees who opt out of receiving health insurance get $100 a month instead. This will benefit a lot of managers who have spouses who also work for BART, i.e. one spouse opts out and goes on the others' insurance.
Domestic Partners are being given parity to spouses re bereavement leave for their parents and children.
The District is establishing some kind of "stress relief" program (I can think of some dirty jokes here, but won't let my mind go there).
SEIU is not giving up
SEIU is not giving up payments to the 401(a) plan (supplemental pension), but continuing not being paid a 1.627% payment to that plan that was bargained out in the last contract to continue not to be paid through 2011.
The Summary that I have also doesn't mention the $100 for opting out of health insurance.
"ATU is giving up two years
"ATU is giving up two years of the supplemental pension ($1,800 a year)"
NOT TRUE. ATU is giving up the 1.627 contribuition (interest) for FY 12 and FY 13. The contribution was given up in 2005 for FY 10 and FY 11. ATU gave this up in exchange for the 2% @ 55 retirement. Employees hired after 1992 have never received this contribution. Only employees hired before 1992 are affected.
I used to get atleast 3-4
I used to get atleast 3-4 Service Advisory email alerts every day of last week. Today there were none. Magically everything at BART seems to be working and no equipment failures. Wonder if this has anything to do with the tentative agreement.