| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/23 |
| 2009/7/12-24 [Transportation/PublicTransit] UID:53130 Activity:moderate |
7/12 Turns out that BART management has been lying to the public and
the press about salaries, whoops!
http://www.contracostatimes.com/danielborenstein/ci_12619817
\_ Why do the janitors make $28.09 per hour in California where
there is plenty of cheap labor and at those prices why are
the BART restrooms almost always nasty? To me that's ridiculous.
\_ unions, sinecures, and a sense of entitlement
\_ $28.09 with no danger of layoff!? Gee, why am I in software
engineering?
\_ $28.09 with no danger of layoff, plus getting paid for 40hrs/wk
while only working 37.5hrs/wk (see article)!? Gee, why am I in
software engineering?
\_ If you are making anything close to $28/hr in a real
software engineering job you need to start looking for
a new career, because you are either an idiot or
far too easilly taken advantage of. Especially when
the 28/hr includes cost of benefits (any 401k matching?
good health benefits? life/disability insurance?) and the
costs of a (oh my!) half hour lunch break.
\_ There is not plenty of cheap legal labor in California.
\_ Oh yes there is. My mom used to work in management at a bank,
both in retail and at data/call centers. They could find
plenty of labor for $14/hour and those jobs have a lot more
responsibilities than a janitor does. My niece is assistant
manager of an Old Navy while she works her way through college
and she doesn't even make $20/hour. There is no shortage of
people willing to work for $15-20/hour. Go to your local
Taco Bell and ask if any employees want a benefitted janitor
job that puts $18/hours in their pockets. This is a crime.
job that puts $18/hour in their pockets. This is a crime.
\_ I'm sure your niece would make a great janitor.
\_ For $28/hour it would really help with school costs,
despite your asinine comment.
\_ Does she live in the Bay Area? Did she apply? It is
hard to get a job you don't apply for. BART is
probably mostly interested in people who are going
to stick around though, not part timers.
\_ <DEAD>jobs.bart.gov<DEAD> says it's not currently
hiring for "Maintenance, Vehicle & Facil"
positions. Why can't she apply for a janitor
position asking for, say, $23/hr when the current
ones are costing BART $28.09/hr? Well, thanks to
the union.
positions. Why can't she get a BART janitor job
at, say, $23/hr when the current ones are costing
BART $28.09/hr? Well, thanks to the union. -- !PP
\_ You say that like it is a bad thing.
\_ It is a bad thing for taxpayers, BART
riders, and citizens and legal residents
who are willing to do the same job for less.
BTW what's the unemployment rate now?
\_ Society in general benefits from the
existence of stable decent paying jobs
with good benefits. I am sad that I even
have to point this out to you. How do
"citizens and legal residents who are
willing to do the job for less" benefit
from having salaries in their profession
decreased? What was the area unemployment
rate before the Bush Depression? Unless
you think we are in a permanent state of
10%+ unemployment, it is a bad idea to
whipsaw your employees like this. If we
are still in a deflationary depression
in another year or two, you might have
a point.
\_ Oh sorry, I didn't realize that the
janitorial profession as a whole is
making $28.09/hr on average!
\_ You know, there just might be something about
being a bank teller, or managing an Old Navy,
which means people will accept lower wages than
they could get as a janitor. Gee, I can't imagine
what those things might be.
\_ I've been a janitor, and it seems much better than
managing an Old Navy IMO.
\_ yeah, it looks great on your resume, too
\_ This article also says "It's still true - with caveats that I'll
explain - that BART wages are at or near the top in the nation, even
when adjusted for regional differences in cost of living. And the
take-away message remains the same: BART workers should make salary
concessions to help the transit district stave off future fare hikes
and service cuts." |
| 12/23 |
|
| www.contracostatimes.com/danielborenstein/ci_12619817 -> www.contracostatimes.com/danielborenstein/ci_12619817?nclick_check=1 Font Resize Daniel Borenstein: BART's pay data overstated case, but message the same By Daniel Borenstein Staff columnist Posted: 06/21/2009 12:01:00 AM PDT BART labor costs are far above the national norm, but some of the data that management has been relying on to substantiate that claim during union negotiations overstates the case. Transit district officials are in the middle of bargaining with their five labor unions. For those sessions, BART prepared a salary survey that compared its top labor pay for several jobs to the top rates in similar transit agencies across the country. The conclusion was clear: BART is at or near the highest salaries for train operators, station agents, mechanics, track equipment operators and janitors. The survey seemed solid, so much so that I highlighted it in my column last week with the salary numbers for each of the positions. It's still true -- with caveats that I'll explain -- that BART wages are at or near the top in the nation, even when adjusted for regional differences in cost of living. And the take-away message remains the same: BART workers should make salary concessions to help the transit district stave off future fare hikes and service cuts. But the numbers BART management was using require more explanation in some cases and are wrong in others. The problems with the data became clear when train operators and station agents read my column last week and started comparing their paychecks to the numbers I reported from the survey. In fact, it was data that had been adjusted for several factors, some legitimate, some erroneous. There were several reasons for the difference: First, the consultant who prepared the survey used base salary data provided by BART staff. But, for train operators and station agents, BART submitted the wrong data. As a result, the consultant started with an erroneously high number. Second, the consultant adjusted the salary data upward because these BART workers are paid for 40-hour work weeks, but work only 375 The reason for that is that the employees' eight-hour day includes a paid half-hour lunch break. BART reasoned that, since the employees work fewer hours than they get paid for, the hourly pay rate is actually more. So for the survey comparison, BART increased the hourly pay rate for its workers accordingly. It's a fair point and a factor that should be included in salary discussions, but the adjustment wasn't clear with the data I was provided. As I reported last week, BART workers don't contribute a dime to their substantial pensions. Not only does BART pay the employer's share to the pension plan, it also picks up the portion that's typically paid by the employee -- in this case, about 7 percent of salary. For the salary survey, the consultant added that 7 percent to the base salary. While it's a good idea to account for that 7 percent while doing salary comparisons, BART again should have been completely transparent about it. Finally, in my column last week, I converted the hourly wages to annual salaries to help readers more easily understand the numbers. To do so, I checked with BART's consultant, who told me to calculate using a 2,080-hour work year -- the standard multiplier for a 40-hour workweek. As a result of all these factors, I reported last week that BART's survey showed top-scale train operators and station agents make $78,520 a year in base pay. In fact, the top-scale number for base pay is about $62,545. And the correct number after the pension and lunch-period adjustments should have been $66,924. They maintain that the pension and lunch-period adjustments should be included in the figure. That's still the highest in the national survey and well above the average in each case. But, in getting there, BART management needs to be more careful about the accuracy of its data and more transparent when presenting it. |