BART Strike: Who do you stand with?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:36:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  BART Strike: Who do you stand with?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Well?
#1
Strikers (D)
 
#2
Strikers (R)
 
#3
Strikers (I/O)
 
#4
BART ('D')
 
#5
BART (R)
 
#6
BART (I/O)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 60

Author Topic: BART Strike: Who do you stand with?  (Read 3207 times)
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 21, 2013, 05:07:05 PM »

However, the real sticking point here is the "work rules" argument: should BART be allowed to upgrade to paperless systems that replace administrative jobs (yes, of course) and should BART employees be allowed to cut down their trips and still get paid the same or more (of course not)?

Ah, I was reading about the work rules thing but didn't realize what it entailed. This makes the worker's position even more illogical. I don't see how anyone can defend this.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 21, 2013, 05:33:27 PM »

BART
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2013, 05:37:58 PM »

Neither... The strikers are asking for stuff they'll never get anywhere close to, and BART are fools for not even trying in negotiations
Logged
Darth Plagueis
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 277
Kazakhstan


Political Matrix
E: 5.65, S: 1.45

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2013, 06:20:10 PM »

Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2013, 06:26:24 PM »

Strikers (I/O), if Beet's calculations are accurate. I do not know about any other provisions on the table, unfortunately. There is a chance I may be on BART's side on a least some of the matters in dispute. Like Sbane, I prefer to understand all perspectives before taking a firm stance of my own.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,875


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 21, 2013, 08:09:16 PM »


Why is siding with striking workers any more left-wing that siding with mostly poor workers who are unable to travel in the city because of the strike?
Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 21, 2013, 08:29:23 PM »

Because ensuring your wage and working conditions offer security and comfort takes precedence over temporary inconveniences of other workers. 'Leftists' opposed to strikes on the basis they'd inconvenience workers are essentially opposed to strikes full stop.

BART wants to give the workers a 12% pay raise over the next 4 years. The workers want more.

After not having a pay raise for the last 5, yes.

How much inflation was there during those 5 years though? It was the recession years and many people didn't get raises during that time.

So everyone should get f**ked? How dare the BART strikers ask to be paid what they're worth! We need more, not less, people willing to stop working until they get what they deserve.

Why don't they just get market rates then. Then they would get what they deserve.

And you accuse TNF of ridiculous posts?
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 21, 2013, 08:35:48 PM »

Because ensuring your wage and working conditions offer security and comfort takes precedence over temporary inconveniences of other workers. 'Leftists' opposed to strikes on the basis they'd inconvenience workers are essentially opposed to strikes full stop.

BART wants to give the workers a 12% pay raise over the next 4 years. The workers want more.

After not having a pay raise for the last 5, yes.

How much inflation was there during those 5 years though? It was the recession years and many people didn't get raises during that time.

So everyone should get f**ked? How dare the BART strikers ask to be paid what they're worth! We need more, not less, people willing to stop working until they get what they deserve.

Why don't they just get market rates then. Then they would get what they deserve.

And you accuse TNF of ridiculous posts?

You have a problem with the market dictating wages? That is a ridiculous position in my opinion. That is why I support greater technology advances so that BART workers can be more productive and earn greater wages. Run the train till 3 at night!
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,875


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 21, 2013, 09:00:33 PM »
« Edited: October 21, 2013, 09:24:31 PM by Lіef »

Because ensuring your wage and working conditions offer security and comfort takes precedence over temporary inconveniences of other workers. 'Leftists' opposed to strikes on the basis they'd inconvenience workers are essentially opposed to strikes full stop.

Am I not a leftist because I oppose strikes by policemen and firemen as well? Essential government services -- and for millions of people (a significant chunk of them the poor) public transportation is an essential government service -- should not be interrupted because the public employees are on strike. These strikes are hurting people. It's very different from the inconvenience of a factory or even a school being closed by a strike. People depend on these services in their day to day lives, to get to work, to buy groceries, etc.
Logged
Peter the Lefty
Peternerdman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,506
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 21, 2013, 09:15:27 PM »

Easily the strikers (D)
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 21, 2013, 09:15:55 PM »

Yeah, there's a lot of poor people in Oakland, Hayward and Richmond who depend on BART to get around. What are they supposed to do now? Take a taxi?
Logged
Redalgo
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,681
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 21, 2013, 09:59:27 PM »

For whatever it's worth, Sbane is being very sensible here, guys.
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,322
Thailand


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 21, 2013, 10:26:27 PM »

BART wants to give the workers a 12% pay raise over the next 4 years. The workers want more. I stand with BART! Hopefully cooler heads will prevail soon or I hope Governor Brown forces them back to work. And the legislature should draw up legislation preventing such strikes in the future.
Half the story hasn't been told:

After not having a pay raise for the last 5, yes.
Which is why there are not two sides/stories.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,713


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 21, 2013, 11:15:12 PM »

BART wants to give the workers a 12% pay raise over the next 4 years. The workers want more. I stand with BART! Hopefully cooler heads will prevail soon or I hope Governor Brown forces them back to work. And the legislature should draw up legislation preventing such strikes in the future.
Half the story hasn't been told:

After not having a pay raise for the last 5, yes.
Which is why there are not two sides/stories.

You're really upset that public employees didn't get pay increases during the Great Recession? If you're going to increase spending on labor in a recession, it should be to hire more people not increase wages for a few.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 22, 2013, 03:19:59 AM »

Why should everyone automatically get raises just for doing their jobs? Ideally, this practice wouldn't exist. Inflation would be minimized. Raises wouldn't be necessary. People could get paid better by working hard and earning promotions.

I know it's not an ideal world, but my God, I always sort of shake my head when workers get all up in arms over pay freezes. I know that's not what this particular strike is about, but I think back to Ontario teachers last year. A raise should be a pleasant surprise, not a dogmatic, yearly expectation. Especially in the case of the teachers—the raises they got over the last ten years have been ridiculously high compared to the raises of workers in virtually every other sector. Take the pay freeze and be thankful for what you've got.

To be clear, more and more I find myself against Right to Work policies and in favour of collective bargaining rights. But sometimes the unions just ask for too much. Maybe I'm overreacting with the BART strike, but a 12% raise is awfully generous, even in the context of four years without a hike. To hold up public transportation for the tens of tousands of people who need it just because their "raise isn't big enough" (meanwhile the busboy at Olive Garden gets nothing) is really unnecessary.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,717
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 22, 2013, 02:59:55 PM »

Wouldn't indexing the minimum wage to inflation just be like a dog chasing its tail? That's how it has often seemed to me. Same thing for cost of living adjustments.

But if there are going to be cost of living adjustments, why are additional raises necessary for the same job and the same work? Individuals are entitled to higher pay just for their seniority, but that's usually part of a fixed wage ladder. What is the point of the extra money above and beyond the COLA?

And the wage freezes only have that effect if people have come to expect raises. It will affect earnings for everyone, insofar as they will think they "deserve more" (often on the backs of taxpayers, without regard for debt and deficits). They're still being paid. Nothing is being taken away.
Logged
LastVoter
seatown
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,322
Thailand


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 22, 2013, 03:16:53 PM »

Wouldn't indexing the minimum wage to inflation just be like a dog chasing its tail? That's how it has often seemed to me. Same thing for cost of living adjustments.

But if there are going to be cost of living adjustments, why are additional raises necessary for the same job and the same work? Individuals are entitled to higher pay just for their seniority, but that's usually part of a fixed wage ladder. What is the point of the extra money above and beyond the COLA?

And the wage freezes only have that effect if people have come to expect raises. It will affect earnings for everyone, insofar as they will think they "deserve more" (often on the backs of taxpayers, without regard for debt and deficits). They're still being paid. Nothing is being taken away.
Wage freeze+ higher medical cost = Huh?
Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 22, 2013, 03:37:24 PM »

Because ensuring your wage and working conditions offer security and comfort takes precedence over temporary inconveniences of other workers. 'Leftists' opposed to strikes on the basis they'd inconvenience workers are essentially opposed to strikes full stop.

BART wants to give the workers a 12% pay raise over the next 4 years. The workers want more.

After not having a pay raise for the last 5, yes.

How much inflation was there during those 5 years though? It was the recession years and many people didn't get raises during that time.

So everyone should get f**ked? How dare the BART strikers ask to be paid what they're worth! We need more, not less, people willing to stop working until they get what they deserve.

Why don't they just get market rates then. Then they would get what they deserve.

And you accuse TNF of ridiculous posts?

You have a problem with the market dictating wages? That is a ridiculous position in my opinion. That is why I support greater technology advances so that BART workers can be more productive and earn greater wages. Run the train till 3 at night!

So you oppose minimum wage too? I think any argument starting with workers relying on the market to get what they deserve is transparently absurd. But at this point we can add the notion that they'll be the automatic beneficiaries of any increased productivity and squeezing more hours out of them, unpaid, to that heap of ridiculousness, as well.

Because ensuring your wage and working conditions offer security and comfort takes precedence over temporary inconveniences of other workers. 'Leftists' opposed to strikes on the basis they'd inconvenience workers are essentially opposed to strikes full stop.

Am I not a leftist because I oppose strikes by policemen and firemen as well? Essential government services -- and for millions of people (a significant chunk of them the poor) public transportation is an essential government service -- should not be interrupted because the public employees are on strike. These strikes are hurting people. It's very different from the inconvenience of a factory or even a school being closed by a strike. People depend on these services in their day to day lives, to get to work, to buy groceries, etc.

And part of that deal, to give up their most fundamental workers right, must surely be that their working conditions can't be steadily erroded - which freezing wages amounts to once inflation is factored in. Public transport is not an emergency service, to compare the two is not remotely credible, and how is a teacher's strike not hurting people in the same way? I suppose they can't strike, either? Workers at energy firms? Basically anywhere a strike could actually be effective? Well I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't trust you.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,463
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 22, 2013, 05:41:26 PM »

BART!
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 22, 2013, 06:11:10 PM »

The median BART worker made about $117 000 last year. Granted, that includes management, but it also includes part times I imagine that's much better than the typical BART rider.

The median BART worker is in about the 80-84th percentile of household income in the USA. Two 25th percentile workers made about $185 000 together last year, which puts our hypothetical couple in the 94th percentile of household income in the USA. Our strikers have more in common  financially with a bunch of upper middle class professionals than the downtrodden poor stuck trying to find a way to work.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 22, 2013, 06:14:50 PM »

Because ensuring your wage and working conditions offer security and comfort takes precedence over temporary inconveniences of other workers. 'Leftists' opposed to strikes on the basis they'd inconvenience workers are essentially opposed to strikes full stop.

BART wants to give the workers a 12% pay raise over the next 4 years. The workers want more.

After not having a pay raise for the last 5, yes.

How much inflation was there during those 5 years though? It was the recession years and many people didn't get raises during that time.

So everyone should get f**ked? How dare the BART strikers ask to be paid what they're worth! We need more, not less, people willing to stop working until they get what they deserve.

Why don't they just get market rates then. Then they would get what they deserve.

And you accuse TNF of ridiculous posts?

You have a problem with the market dictating wages? That is a ridiculous position in my opinion. That is why I support greater technology advances so that BART workers can be more productive and earn greater wages. Run the train till 3 at night!

So you oppose minimum wage too? I think any argument starting with workers relying on the market to get what they deserve is transparently absurd. But at this point we can add the notion that they'll be the automatic beneficiaries of any increased productivity and squeezing more hours out of them, unpaid, to that heap of ridiculousness, as well.

The minimum wage does have consequences as well. There are less jobs at the lower end of the spectrum due to the minimum wage. And prices are higher. But people will tolerate higher prices if that means workers can get enough money to survive. This situation is different. BART employees are paid fairly well. Not exceedingly well, but not too bad. And the biggest sticking point right now is that a bunch of paper pushers who could be eliminated with technology are being protected by the unions. That leads to less pay for the people running the trains, and higher costs for passengers. Why should I pay for inefficient, unnecessary jobs?
Logged
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 22, 2013, 06:25:55 PM »

BART wants to give the workers a 12% pay raise over the next 4 years. The workers want more. I stand with BART! Hopefully cooler heads will prevail soon or I hope Governor Brown forces them back to work. And the legislature should draw up legislation preventing such strikes in the future.
Half the story hasn't been told:

After not having a pay raise for the last 5, yes.
Which is why there are not two sides/stories.

You're really upset that public employees didn't get pay increases during the Great Recession? If you're going to increase spending on labor in a recession, it should be to hire more people not increase wages for a few.

Considering that many rich people increased their incomes during the Great Recession...
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,258
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 22, 2013, 07:52:51 PM »

BART union workers already make an average gross pay of $76,500 -- the best among California transit agencies -- do not contribute toward their pensions and pay $92 monthly for health care. The new contract is expected to give workers at least a 12 percent total raise, start a 4 percent pension contribution and increase the medical premiums by about $50 a month.

BART (Ind.)

That doesn't mean I don't understand why their employees want higher pay raises than what BART is offering.

But the BART employees are basically selling their labor/services to their employer. That means a raise needs to reflect at least one of three things: (1) inflation; (2) higher "input" costs (cost-of-living, in the case of workers); or (3) higher quality and/or quantity of labor from the employees.

A 12% raise more than compensates for inflation over the period being discussed. It may or may not offset COL increases, given how expensive things in SF generally are and are becoming. I'm not seeing how the employees are doing or have done anything to merit a raise in terms of the work they do. This is particularly true when you consider that in a matter of years or decades, they may themselves be obsolete, having been replaced by autonomous rolling stock operating by software and/or a technician in a remote location.

And I don't see how anyone in this era of structurally low interest rates would demand a pension with no personal contribution involved. It simply wouldn't work.
Logged
President Tyrion
TyrionTheImperialist
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 25, 2013, 01:15:37 PM »

Wouldn't indexing the minimum wage to inflation just be like a dog chasing its tail? That's how it has often seemed to me. Same thing for cost of living adjustments.

But if there are going to be cost of living adjustments, why are additional raises necessary for the same job and the same work? Individuals are entitled to higher pay just for their seniority, but that's usually part of a fixed wage ladder. What is the point of the extra money above and beyond the COLA?

And the wage freezes only have that effect if people have come to expect raises. It will affect earnings for everyone, insofar as they will think they "deserve more" (often on the backs of taxpayers, without regard for debt and deficits). They're still being paid. Nothing is being taken away.

This is a chronic misunderstanding of how inflation works. A 10 cent increase in the minimum wage will not cause a 10 cent increase in inflation. A 10 cent increase in nominal wages in any one sector will not cause a 10 cent increase in inflation in the market.

This is not a wage "increase" and it's disingenuous to refer to it as such. If anything, it's just a correction for the wage decreases of the past 4 years. Plus, the inflationary COL increases are well in excess of what the workers are asking for here.


As an aside, there's definitely a point to be made of not shutting down basic services. In the end, the total benefit that the workers will reap from this new agreement would be far outweighed by the sheer cost of shutting public transportation down, and that cost will be borne primarily by the lower classes. Let's not kid ourselves and pretend that the BART workers are doing some grand favor to society by standing their ground; the longer this strike goes, the more harmed society would be.

However, any approach that strips these basic service workers of their collective bargaining rights is one not steeped in pragmatism. Leftbehind raises the great point that there's no reason that these basic service workers should trust any entity to provide them with fair and just compensation in the absence of collective bargaining rights. In a perfect world, the government could easily maintain that these workers could not strike, provided salary increases are made quarterly to address changes in inflation and productivity. However, the US government is not prepared to do that, nor is there much consensus on how such a law would be administered if it actually were to be enacted. Thus, we're left with our only solution. The workers must exercise their collective bargaining rights, at great cost to society.
Logged
WalterMitty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,572


Political Matrix
E: 1.68, S: -2.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 25, 2013, 03:41:29 PM »

bart (normal)
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.06 seconds with 14 queries.