10/25 Okay, why do BART workers need a 22% raise over 4 years? That's
way more than inflation. They can get away with this only because
the union perceives BART as vital to the area. In that case, we
should all boycott BART.
http://www0.mercurycenter.com/premium/local/docs/054509.htm
\_ I have no problem with BART. I have no problem with people
getting raises. I have no problem with people going on
strike. What I have a problem with is people getting
guaranteed raises over a set number of years. I have to
work for my raise. I earn it. No one should get more
money, no matter how good their work is. We are all
watching the inbreeding of laziness.
money regardless of the quality of their work. We are
all watching the inbreeding of laziness.
\_ it's extortion, as far as i'm concerned. fuck them. if
i were mayor of sf, that last strike would have ended
*very* differently.
\_ These guys, as noted below, aren't even professionaly trained.
Lots of them earn $60-$80+K for the work they do, and yet
these motherfuckers complain about not getting paid enough.
Civil engineers are the guys who should be getting this
kind of salary (mean = $40K entry), not BART people. -- jj
\_ oh come off it, geek boy. I'm sure you've gotten more than a 22%
raise over the past 4 years. -tom
\_ ya, but he has no union-protected job security. in fact, he's
probably unemployed.
\_ I don't hold a gun to anybody's head to get a raise. There
lies the difference.
\_ so you never told anyone, if I don't get this raise I walk?
actually you probably didn't have to because until recently
most tech comapnies needed oyu and gave you the raise
premtivly. But BART guys don't get to get a solo raise.
It is for everyone there or none of them.
\_ If one engineer walks, it typically won't cripple
the company. So that's not holding a gun to their head.
\_ anyone can do BART jobs. there's no professional skill
involved that needs years of training, like e.g. nursing.
they don't get a solo raise because they don't f'n deserve
one.
\_ Neither did the BART employees.
\_ And this last batch was the "professionals" and managers. Since
when do managers have a union?? Ridiculous. Next we'll have
top level corporate execs with unions bitching to the board
that they need million$ more per yer or the executive's union
is going on strike. It's pure greed. They should have all been
fired. There's *lots* of qualified unemployed people around the
\_ like any of you geek boys would deign to drive a BART train
for a living. Open your eyes. -tom
\_ Hey, if they're gonna get paid more than us, why not?
SF Bay Area these days.
\_ Exactly. Since the law allows unions to prohibit employers to
hire non-union workers or to fire union members during
strikes, why doesn't the law also set a limit on how much
raise the union can ask for? If the law is to make it a
non-free market, why doesn't the law make it non-free to both
sides?
\____\_ Now you're getting snippy and saying stupid stuff. The
low-level managers are mostly promoted up from the ranks.
They are paid less than one would expect for their level
of experience, but are willing to do the job because of
the union and their pensions. Firing them all is plain
stupidity. And because unions do vote, they help form
the laws which, oddly enough, benefit them. Sheesh.
\_ I don't know about the low-level managers, but I saw
a job posting at a station which offers up to $50k+ for
an office clark position requiring only high school
education.
\_ Maybe he has gotten more than a 22% raise over the past 4
years, but he probably did it through promotions. What the BART
workers got is 22% over 4 years at the same job positions.
\_ 22%/4yrs is what they finally got. What they were asking for was
even more. I think it was 29% over 3 years. |