Skip to main content

Its scary and disgusting at the same time.
How dare workers make 60k in the Bay Area, where median home prices are over 500k- WTF is going on?

I am sick and tired of people with agendas lumping Overtime pay with base pay. It shouldn't factor into base pay, Overtime is paid because it is cheaper for BART to pay overtime rather than hire more workers.

Sure the workers get pensions, but it takes decades before you get one dime of that pension, and the way things are going nationwide, there is no guarantee that the pension will be there when they retire in decades.

Read these two articles and get back to me once things simmer down.

BART Strike: Another Instance of Media Portraying Workers as Greedy

Chris Daly was a clarion voice for progressive values while serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors from 2000-2010. Now, as political director of Service Employee International Union Local 1021, one of the BART unions, he says this standoff is about more than just the issues being discussed at the bargaining table.

"The terms and conditions of workers in the public sector is a buoy for other workers," Daly told us, explaining how everyone's wages and benefits tend to follow the gains and setbacks negotiated by unions. "The right understands this, which is why the right has been mercilessly attacking public sector workers."

Ken Jacobs, chair of the UC Berkeley Labor Center, confirmed that union contracts affect the overall labor market. "When unions improve wages and benefits, it does have a ripple effect," Jacobs said. He agreed that the outcome at BART could be a bellwether for the question, "As the economy comes back, how much will workers share in that prosperity?"

Demonizing public sector workers as greedy or lazy also serves to undercut the entire labor movement, Daly said, considering that public employees make up a far higher percentage of union members than their private sector counterparts. And during election time, it is union money and ground troops that typically contest wealthy individuals and corporations' efforts to maintain or expand power.

"Labor is one of the main checks on unbridled corporate power, and public sector unions are the backbone of labor," Daly told us.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  "Monkey brains" nt. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "If this Studebaker had anymore Atomic Space-Age Style, you'd have to be an astronaut with a geiger counter!"

    by Stude Dude on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 01:51:35 PM PDT

  •  It just seems to be (9+ / 0-)

    part of the environment of the times right now.  Witness the same kind of crap that was being spewed when the Hostess workers refused to give anymore concessions to a management team that was stealing their retirement money, and the management replied by shuttering the company.  At lot of the same types of things were being offered up then as well.

    Undecided voters are the biggest idiots on the planet. - Brian Griffin

    by Philpm on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 02:03:10 PM PDT

    •  Is that a false equivalency? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobtmn, mimi9, Sparhawk

      Or did Hostess workers have the power to shut down an entire transit system hundreds of thousands of working Joes rely on every day, a transit system built for an entire region on the premise that people should use public transportation instead of cars?

      'Slower Traffic - Keep Right!'

      by luvbrothel on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 03:03:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  is that a reason to abuse the workers? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Preston S, Risen Tree, grover

        they have agreed on economic, pension and health care issues - the rotten apple in the barrel was thrown in at the last minute by management to spoil the negotiations.

        they are trying to take away worker rights.  had they been sincere, these rule changes would have been on the table at the start - not the last day of negotiations where a settlement looked like it was going to become reality.

        bart unions stayed for three days past the deadline - negotiating well into a 33 hr stint with federal negotiators and bart upper management.  at the very end, bart put a "final offer" on the table during negotiations that was retrograde.

        the unions said no... justifiably so.

        bart management has not bargained in good faith in this.  they do not care about the commuters OR the workers!

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 07:18:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  When we lived in the Bay Area, there was a BART (0+ / 0-)

        strike. It was very simple. Folks lined up at BART stations and others who had cars picked them up and they drove in to the city (or back or to other stations) together.

        It allowed free carpools across the bridge; it allowed people to use carpool lanes; and it reduced traffic so everyone got to work faster.

        We all called it  casual carpool.

        And even after the strike was over, people still casual carpooled because drivers got free passage across the bridge and riders (passengers) got a much quicker ride.  

        (Many women limited their rides to only other women for safety's sake. That was pretty easily accepted.)

        It was a beautiful Bay Area response to what could have been a truly horrible problem.  

        If I recall correctly, the strike when I lived there lasted about a week or so. Everyone survived, including people like me who lived on one side of the bridge, worked on the other and made pretty crappy wages.

        © grover

        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 01:23:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Back on planet Earth... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radiowalla, erush1345's hard for workers who make more to find a sympathetic ear among workers who make a lot less.  That's just how it goes.  

    You know, I sometimes think if I could see, I'd be kicking a lot of ass. -Stevie Wonder at the Glastonbury Festival, 2010

    by Rich in PA on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 02:15:37 PM PDT

    •  yes. you should be angry if you make less. (6+ / 0-)

      But it isn't BART union workers fault that you make less.

      That anger needs to be directed towards raising the minimum wage, creating worker cooperatives, and on unionizing America!

      •  this is the "dog in the manger" attitude - if i (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stude Dude

        can't have "it", no one should.

        that only serves to tear apart the gains that have been made in society that can be used as a building block to bring others upward.

        i really have a hard time understanding resentment toward those who are succeeding in gaining a better wage and pension and health care - WHY would i want to take that away from someone because i don't have it.

        that is pure selfishness and envy.  i am happy these workers have been successful in building a fair workplace - that can ONLY help others do the same!

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 07:23:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  "just how it goes"? (7+ / 0-)

      There's a lot more to it than that. For starters, many BART commuters actually make more than the workers they complain about, some of them a lot more. I'm sure the attorneys and stockbrokers of Orinda and Lafayette would have trouble getting by on $60K.
      But even assuming the majority of passengers don't make that much, one reason it's hard for the BART unions to find a sympathetic ear is that our local media have been relentlessly anti-union. I have yet to see anyone quoted in print or broadcast media saying that union wages have an effect on nonunion wages, for example.

      "Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous." -- Molly Ivins

      by dumpster on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 02:35:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, when benefits and salary (6+ / 0-)

      are conflated, it certainly might render the workers' plight unsympathetic. Really, though, wouldn't it be better to redirect the angst at one's own employer for not paying one appropriately to live in the Bay Area.

      Cuz lemme tell ya, I live in the Bay Area and I ride BART. I also shop and eat food in the Bay Area, and $70K is not living luxuriously. Folks ought to be asking their bosses why they don't make a living wage as opposed to tearing BART workers down for doing so.

      Same things goes on this Website, by the way.

      •  "Appropriate" pay is part of the problem. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        edrie, Sparhawk

        Rural areas have starkly lower costs of living.  High Cost of Living areas require decisions using numbers that are outside of the experience of many Americans.

        Median home price in San Franciso: 550K.
        Median home price in Indianapolis: 135K.

        How many years of salary does that represent?

        Someone's offering to pay you 400K to move to Indy.  And you're not taking it.  Why?

        -7.75 -4.67

        "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

        There are no Christians in foxholes.

        by Odysseus on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 03:16:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I was just reading that median home (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Odysseus, raines

          Price in Silicon Valley is $1M and $524K for a condo.

          Remember when it was cheaper to live in the south end and commute up?

          Cripes. $1M for an average ole house. I almost fainted when I saw that.

          © grover

          So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

          by grover on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 01:33:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  i make a helluva lot less but i don't want to see (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grover, Stude Dude

      bart workers punished for my financial situation - they need to stay where they are and improve for that is the only way the rest of us will also improve our lot.

      taking the better jobs down to the level of the worst only means everyone loses.

      i support the bart unions 100%

      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 07:19:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Median family income for the Bay Area (5+ / 0-)

    According to HUD statistics, Median Family Income for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties is $89,200; for San Francisco, Marin and San Mateo Counties it's $101,200; for Santa Clara County it's $101,300. So basically people are whining about the salaries of folks who earn less than the median income of most of the areas served by BART (okay, BART doesn't yet enter Santa Clara County but it will begin to do so within the next five years). To be clear, of course, these figures are for households in which there is often more than one wage-earner.

    It boggles my mind that Bay Area residents begrudge the people whose job it is to get them to and from work safely an income that's barely enough for those workers to afford to live here.

    •  median FAMILY income (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mimi9, denise b, sfbob

      not individual income

      •  I did point that out (0+ / 0-)
        To be clear, of course, these figures are for households in which there is often more than one wage-earner.
        However I don't really see that as making any appreciable difference. It likely takes AT LEAST one income of $60,000 or more to bring a household in the San Francisco MSA up to the median. And that is median. Many San Francisco residents spend well over 1/2 of their income simply on housing and utilities.

        Why anyone would begrudge someone else a decent standard of living really is tough for me to grasp.

  •  The unions are shooting themselves in the foot (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Signatures are already being gathered to show support for legislation being passed OUTLAWING public transportation strikes.  Steve Glazer, a close friend of Gov. Brown is pushing hard to get this done.. and it will get done because there's a ton of really pissed off people right now.

    So, yeah, well FREAKIN' done.  Again, this country despised the government shutdown, and they're despising this just as much.  Extortion has no place in this Democratic society, where the MAJORITY is supposed to rule, NOT the minority.

    'Slower Traffic - Keep Right!'

    by luvbrothel on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 03:12:48 PM PDT

    •  The right to strike for economic power is (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Banach MacAmbrais, sfbob, Kevskos

      as democratic as it gets.

      So BART union workers should take a shit deal, just cause fox news and millionaires think they should make less.

      Got it.

      •  The rest of us have rights too (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        BART is a public utility that should be trying to get fares as low as possible to serve its (mainly) low to middle income ridership.

        You could fire all BART workers and issue open applications for their jobs at 75% of their pay. You'd have 20 qualified applicants for each open position and moreover would have a majority of the city cheering the move.

        Do you think this gives the union a good bargaining position, or not? Remember, every raise BART gets goes directly into fare increases. Maybe they should just push back from the table and call it a night.

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 03:41:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  great idea. Lets pay them fast food wages. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stude Dude, sfbob, Kevskos, grover

          and then we can BART workers for their food stamps, and welfare.

          Fast-food workers cost taxpayers nearly $7 billion in welfare costs

          Better yet. Lets pay the workers one dollar a day. Then we can pay the non union BART managers that currently make 200k and above, one million a year.

          Do i have that right- pay the workers nothing, and pay the managers 50% more?

        •  you obviously are not following these negotiations (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Stude Dude

          this strike is NOT over wages or health care or pensions.  those items were agreed to.

          it is over management rules thrown into the negotiations the last day in a deliberate attempt to derail the negotiations.

          just like the teahadists, the bart management WANTED this strike (despite what their glossy teevee ads say right now).  they are union busting.


          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 07:27:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Uh, hardly. (0+ / 0-)
          its (mainly) low to middle income ridership.
          There are lots of affluent citizens that ride BART. Do you know anything about where the East Bay stations are located as well as where some of the busiest stations downtown are located: right in the financial district?  

          That's one of the best things about BART. It's a great equalizer.

          © grover

          So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

          by grover on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 01:47:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You're condoning a tiny minority (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        wielding MASSIVE power over an entire region, affecting over 7 MILLION people.

        Democracy?  LoL, yeah, if you're a TeaPublican, it sure is.  Minority rules.

        'Slower Traffic - Keep Right!'

        by luvbrothel on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 05:44:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  do you believe in unions? (0+ / 0-)

          honest question here...

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 07:30:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are generalizing unions as a whole (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            as if a union operates itself using strict guidelines that never deviate.  Unions are a tool and only operate at the level of their operator(s), much like government is a tool, and can totally suck if you give the keys to someone like GWB.

            According to the union leadership, BART sprung work rule changes at the last moment (well, not according to George Cohen), which is basically trying to move BART logistics into the modern era, using some strange thing called a cu.. ca .. compooter or something.  Union leaders fear modifying the system to bring it into the 21st century along with everyone else COULD lead to automation and lost jobs (that Snowden effect again), and they only want partial arbitration, probably because an arbitrator looking at the contract as a whole, would see too much generosity from management.

            So, in other words, it comes down to emailed pay stubs, or stranding hundreds of thousands of commuters who are desperately trying to get to work so they can make ends meet.

            Its wrong and unfair on SO MANY LEVELS.

            'Slower Traffic - Keep Right!'

            by luvbrothel on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 10:09:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  you have been listening to the bart propaganda. (0+ / 0-)

              i also heard that - it is NOT the reason - it is the "reasons" that bart is trying to push.

              the unions were willing to go into interest arbitration over the management rules - bart was not.

              who is intransigent here?

              i'll be back shortly - will go pull up the actual sticking points - NOT the bart propaganda version.

              EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

              by edrie on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 10:19:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  this is from three hours ago - the union is once (0+ / 0-)

              again willing to compromise - and go to binding arbitration over the balance of the rules.

              who is pushing this shutdown?  bart, that's who.

              the real question is "why".


              EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

              by edrie on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 10:22:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Honestly (0+ / 0-)

                who would be stupid enough to entire partial arbitration??

                'Slower Traffic - Keep Right!'

                by luvbrothel on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 10:39:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  and who would be stupid enough to start over from (0+ / 0-)


                  there are settled issues - to open them again goes back to the drawing board!  

                  my question is WHY are you defending bart management?

                  i really don't get it.

                  the unions have gone out of their way repeatedly in this negotiations to get a settlement - yet bart management is the intransigent one - yet you continually defend bart.


                  EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                  by edrie on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 11:45:50 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  because the unions don't have enough sense (0+ / 0-)

                    to go to the public and clearly explain their case, that's why.

                    Management may be lying through their teeth but they are doing much better on the PR battle.

                    And even though the public is about ready to tar and feather them, the unions still aren't explaining their case well.

                    The other issue that nobody is talking about is:  what is a fair wage? and what is a fair wage for people who are public employees?  

                    Traditionally, public employees traded lower pay for better benefits.  Is that still appropriate today? and since public employees are paid by the taxpayers, is there a limit as to what pay and benefits they should be allowed to have?  and at a time when raising taxes is hard, the economy is still depressed and the state of California is still having problems because of Prop. 13, does that change the answer to these questions? Why or why not?


                    •  the unions DID go to the public as soon as (0+ / 0-)

                      negotiations broke down.  there was a GAG order, in case you missed that!

                      no, the public is NOT ready to tar and feather the unions - you should hear how many people here in MY area (yes, i live in the bay area) actually support the unions!

                      omigod - i really don't believe your last paragraph!  

                      you DO know that the productivity of bart is at its highest with fewer employees than ever, don't you?  the on-time rate is the highest?

                      the people who work for bart are doing their JOBS and doing them well - yet you seem to think that we should talk about what a "fair" wage is?  do you mean it should be lowered because they make "too much"?  

                      do you have ANY idea the cost of living in the bay area?  

                      the issue of wage has been settled - the unions gave and bart gave and that issue is resolved.  what is at issue is the spoiler that bart threw in at the last minute - changing work rules that have been long settled.

                      perhaps you are unfamiliar with "work rules" - those that don't allow an employer to take unfair advantage of the employee or put them in a dangerous situation?

                      really - instead of being a champion of the employer and anti-union, you should find out what this dispute is over and who the villains are in this case.

                      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                      by edrie on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 03:51:40 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I will let Beyond Chron,which sides with the union (0+ / 0-)

                        explain what I mean. The union didn't prepare the public ahead of time and could have:  


                        Other people have stated that the work rule issues were not thrown in at the last minute.  Perhaps BART management got hard nosed at the end---but unions usually know what the issues are going to because they are brought up again and again.

                        That's nice that you hear people supporting the unions.   I haven't heard much of that.  You don't even hear much of it around DailyKos.

                        And, of course I have an idea of the cost of living in the Bay Area.  I live here too.  I was born here and have been living in SF since 1986.  

                        •  exactly HOW do you suppose the "union" could have (0+ / 0-)

                          "prepared" the public?

                          BOTH sides were under gag orders during the negotiations.  they could NOT say anything more than the management was not bargaining in good faith.

                          that the "rules" change came at the last minute shows that bad faith.  also, the bart management threw out a "last offer" that even the federal negotiator said was not in the spirit of negotiations as it was a retrograde offer and the negotiator (IMPARTIAL, btw) asked them to remove it.  they did not.

                          the union stayed the strike for three additional days when it looked like there was progress - UNTIL these management "rule" changes that had nothing to do with hours or overtime were thrown in the mix.

                          don't you find it ironic that as the union has repeated stated that this is about safety - several hours later two non-union employees at bart were struck and killed by a train that was either maintenance or a "training run" to teach non-union members how to run the damned thing?

                          beyondcron is NOT the only source of news - nor is it accurate:

                          The Strike’s Impact

                          The unions believed that the strike threat was the only leverage that could get them a better contract. But we cannot know what binding arbitration would have brought, or whether a campaign that built public support by foregoing a strike threat would have forced BART Board members to offer a better deal.

                          We do know that the strike threat strategy brought the vast majority of riders to side with a previously unpopular public employers against two unions whose members have effectively operated a major urban transit system. That result, more than the final contract terms, should lead BART unions to pursue a more public-centered strategy during the next contract fight.

                          the bolded statement (mine) is directly contrary to what actually happened.  the UNIONS asked that the differences remaining be sent to binding arbitration - that meant that neither side had a guarantee of getting their way - and, in binding arbitration, usually BOTH sides are left unhappy.  but the unions were willing to let an impartial arbitrator resolve the issue.

                          it was bart management that refused.  how do you turn that into the unions choosing to strike?  the process of binding arbitration on the remaining differences would have immediately prevented a strike and, even after the initial strike, the unions renewed their commitment to submitting the remainder of the items to that arbitration.

                          sounds pretty damned reasonable to me.

                          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                          by edrie on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 07:19:25 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  the article points out (0+ / 0-)

                            that there was time long before the contract expired and negotiations began that the BART workers could have explained to the public what they were going to ask for and why.  It isn't as though they didn't know what they wanted at least in general terms.

                            Also the article is dated the 17th---before negotiations were broken off.  

                            Nobody believes that safety is the main issue.  Even the unions are not using that now as an explanation for the strike.  

                            Which isn't to say that the deaths today were not a tragedy.

                  •  Again, who would be stupid enough (0+ / 0-)

                    to enter partial arbitration?  Look at what the Unions are balking at:  They want to keep long forms instead of computer entries, they want to keep paper pay stubs instead of email stubs, and they want to keep station managers from reassigning work duties in case people call in sick, because workers should always know what their schedule is and should never deviate from that.

                    Wages/salaries/benefits/healthcare were all hammered out.  The Unions got their pay hikes, which also covers the 4% pension contribution and 9% healthcare rate hike.  A sweet deal.. which is why they don't want arbitration on the contract itself.

                    In the end, they're just hurting hundreds of thousands of commuters.  Minority rules.  Republicanism.

                    'Slower Traffic - Keep Right!'

                    by luvbrothel on Mon Oct 21, 2013 at 08:49:20 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  extortion? by whom? by management that wants (0+ / 0-)

      to refuse to settle?  by management that threw a last minute set of work rules KNOWING that they would never be approved?  by management that refuses to go to binding arbitration as offered by the unions (who could, btw, lose in that situation).

      don't blame the unions - blame the union busters!  we need to stand behind the few unions that remain - or...

      we could go back to the 1920s where workers had few choices.


      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 07:26:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Unions have been rendered (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    csainvestor, Kevskos

    to the state of being pretty much of an endangered species in most of the private sector. Now the battle has been launched to accomplish the same thing in the public sector. You can see by the low level of public support for strikes like this that it is making considerable progress.

    The Bay Area was once close to being the strongest bastion of unions and their supporters in the country. Those days are long gone.

    •  It is the fault of the public sector union (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erush1345, Balto, Sparhawk, denise b

      Private sector unions risk their job every time they strike, because their employer can go broke.

      Public sector workers do not have an employer who suffers.   Their strength relies on their unique ability to cause harm to the innocent.

      That does not EVER happen in the private sector.    Whether it is a grocery workers strike , a janitor strike a trucker strike or a bakers strike, they ASK the public for support.  

      Public unions force the public to participate by withholding services that the society has decided are worth subsidizing.   When public workers use that leverage to gain more for themselves, it is no surprise that people resent it.

      The sad thing is that the public feelings have harmed the private sector unions so much.  Even the public union members blame us for NOT having a union.

      •  Oh my (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        you have certainly been drinking deeply of the neoliberal Kool-Aid.

      •  did you know that housing costs went up 30% last (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kevskos, raines

        year in the bay area?

        BART is also running at a surplus. What other recourse do these people have but to strike when the other side is playing hardball? Management at BART drove the workers to strike. I haven't seen one union basher blame management for the conditions that led to a strike.

        Does management not care about the riders?

        •  Make bart cheaper for the riders then (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mimi9, Sparhawk

          and have your spouse work too. The rest of us do.

          •  That assumes a spouse... (0+ / 0-)

            It also assumes that CA unemployment rate is lower than its current 8.9%.

            © grover

            So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

            by grover on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 01:54:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

              being a single parent is difficult. But that is not really something that your job needs to compensate for.

              •  A job should provide the ability to support (0+ / 0-)

                Oneself, and a family at least modestly.  At least, that's generally what progressives believe.

                And your comment simply assumed a spouse exists. You might wish to check your worldview when you're dictating how others are supposed to get by economically. I won't call it "privilege" because I don't know you at all.

                But I will tell you, that's exactly what it sounds like to me. Some people aren't married. Some people have small children at home. Infants, special needs children: the chances of finding affordable quality child are for them are quite low. Some people have spouses that can't work due to their own disabilities. And the unemployment rate is quite high, especially for certain demographics.

                But sure, since YOUR spouse works, let's just dictate that everyone's must.

                Progressive values are supposed to include a bit of empathy which isn't that you drag people into your shoes to see what the world looks like, but that you go stand in theirs.

                © grover

                So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

                by grover on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 12:08:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  70K + bennys provides plenty of support. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  If you expect me to waste my boo hoos over that in order to be called progressive, then you must be constantly crying because most people are seriously worse off in the Bay Area and elsewhere.

                  I can think of about 100 local issues that are more deserving than a bart worker that only makes slightly more than median income.

                  Thanks for the lecture, though. I can't tell you how charming that is.

                •  Glad you did not call me priviledged (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mimi9, bobtmn

                  because neither me nor my spouse make anywhere near what BART workers get.

                  Probably because they have a great union, which I support. I think it's great that they make what they do. I just don't get why they aren't satisfied, so I don't support this particular strike.

                  I think, furthermore, that they may be burning up opportunities for those of us who don't have it as good to get better conditions through our own unions, since public opinion matters. Is it worth it in this case to risk the loss of the right to strike if you are a public union?

                  I have heard NOTHING to suggest that this strike is worth the reputational damage and potential negative legislative outcomes. Nor do I think it's worth the potential loss of ridership resulting in increased car use and GHG emissions.

                  If someone in the media (or even here at kos) actually tells me what the "work rules" are exactly and why they are worth it, I may change my mind. So far I am only finding vague descriptions.

  •  I Live In San Francisco and... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    let me tell you $100,000 and excellent health insurance for someone who never went to college. We should all have it so rough. Who are the people who have to suffer because of these stunts? Who are the people who are going to have to pay for these guys to get another raise? The working class/poorer people in the Bay Area.

    •  are you an elitist snob? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kevskos, edrie, grover

      cause you certainly sound like one.

      oh dear, the uneducated rabble, what has the world come to- they are actually demanding better than a living wage. tsk tsk.

      how the hell do you know they didn't go to college?
      and if they did, or they did not, it doesn't matter.

      i don't think that people who maintain millions of dollars in equipment, and also safeguard the lives of millions of commuters deserve to be paid slave wages.

  •  FWIW (6+ / 0-)

    This strike came down to issues of work rules, including whistleblower protection and how to deal with sexual harassment. EVERYTHING ELSE was agreed upon. When Management said no dice to the union's work rules, the union proposed taking it to binding arbitration. Management said no.

    And that's the strike, ladies and gentlemen.

    I'm actually in favor of requiring BART to handle contracts through binding arbitration. Muni (SF) has a no-strike clause and arbitration. Many other major city transit systems and other essential services do, too.

    And because I'm lazy, the rest of my thoughts about this are in this earlier comment from before the strike.

    Yeah. It's complicated.

    "I like to go into Marshall Field's in Chicago just to see all the things there are in the world that I do not want." M. Madeleva, C.S.C.

    by paxpdx on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 03:59:35 PM PDT

  •  today on the radio, bart is spending megabucks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Stude Dude

    to try to twist the facts - something the union can't do.  bart is lying, misrepresenting facts, distorting, etc. (in other words, acting like republican union busters always do).

    the union has repeatedly offered to go to binding arbitration over the last minute management rules thrown into the contract.  bart seems determined to blow up the negotiations (duh - what better way to villainize the union) - even when the union has stated (today) it will be back tomorrow IF management will submit to arbitration.

    the unions could lose on that tactic - they are willing to take the chance.  who wants this strike?  bart.

    they want legislation to prevent future strikes and if they make it painful enough for commuters, they think they can get it.

    cynicism and dishonest tactics that smack republican - that is the bart management behavior!

    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

    by edrie on Fri Oct 18, 2013 at 07:15:06 PM PDT

  •  well, for all those so critical of the bart (0+ / 0-)

    workers, two of them just got hit and killed by a train.  they were non-union employees - may have been management.

    this now has taken a tragic turn.

    it is so damned unnecessary!

    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

    by edrie on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 04:03:52 PM PDT

    •  walnut creek - either a training exercise or (0+ / 0-)

      maintenance.  the bart union will not picket tomorrow out of respect for the two workers who were killed.

      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Sat Oct 19, 2013 at 04:05:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site