[JayCT]

Originally Posted by MrGompers

You took my reply too seriously, I wrote "most people here" (which doesn't include me.) think conductors make 150k+ per year and get 100% or better pensions after only 10 years. I know they don't get that, but try to convince others here they don't. Even when given them links to the data they will deny it.

The topic comes up so much I think state employee and teacher pension plans should be stickied at the top of this forum. I think another forum does that (Long Island maybe)?

I also think the busway funding should be stickied as well. CAn't stand it when people continually cry that CT paid 100% of the busway's construction costs.

I know. I was not directing my comment toward you but to the "most people here" you mentioned. I just wanted to give people the facts rather than perpetuate the fiction that people feed on. Sorry that was not clear. Jay

[Henry10]

The first step is to privatize trains. Run them like the airline model. Maybe some regional authority can run the "control tower" but I think the Govt-owned and operated trains (whether local or federal) is at the wits' end. They had their run, things are getting worse, not better. Some oversight (public safety, etc) is where Govt's role on this should extend.

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by JayCT

I know. I was not directing my comment toward you but to the "most people here" you mentioned. I just wanted to give people the facts rather than perpetuate the fiction that people feed on. Sorry that was not clear. Jay

11 conductors and over 40 engineers pulled down in excess of $150,000 back in 2012. The numbers are significantly higher today.

https://www.newsday.com/news/region-...bill-1.5205164

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by Henry10

The first step is to privatize trains. Run them like the airline model. Maybe some regional authority can run the "control tower" but I think the Govt-owned and operated trains (whether local or federal) is at the wits' end. They had their run, things are getting worse, not better. Some oversight (public safety, etc) is where Govt's role on this should extend.

Well they are run by a private contractor. Employees are not state employees. Mass transit requires subsidies. So owning the equipment doesn't seem to be the issue. As long as capital improvements require state money it's the same issue.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

11 conductors and over 40 engineers pulled down in excess of $150,000 back in 2012. The numbers are significantly higher today.

https://www.newsday.com/news/region-...bill-1.5205164

That's not salary thou. They were getting an average of 26 hours of overtime a week.

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by East of the River

That's not salary thou. They were getting an average of 26 hours of overtime a week.

Are taxpayers and riders not responsible for total compensation. I wasn’t aware we only paid salaries. I also didn’t specify salary.

[East of the River]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

Are taxpayers and riders not responsible for total compensation. I wasn’t aware we only paid salaries. I also didn’t specify salary.

True but were paying by the hour. If they made less overtime in theory that money would still have to be paid it would just be paid to someone else. Once you add in benefit costs paying time and half or paying 2 people for the job likely comes out in favor of paying time and a half.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by East of the River

True but were paying by the hour. If they made less overtime in theory that money would still have to be paid it would just be paid to someone else. Once you add in benefit costs paying time and half or paying 2 people for the job likely comes out in favor of paying time and a half.

That is correct. These conductors are doing overtime because there is not sufficient staff to cover all the trains. That would cost Metro North a lot more in salary and benefits which is why they allow it. Jay

[Wilton2ParkAve]

Originally Posted by East of the River

True but were paying by the hour. If they made less overtime in theory that money would still have to be paid it would just be paid to someone else. Once you add in benefit costs paying time and half or paying 2 people for the job likely comes out in favor of paying time and a half.

It’s just another gimmick. Why aren’t these employees exempt status. No overtime. When you are making north of 50k, lose the overtime.

[JayCT]

Originally Posted by Wilton2ParkAve

It’s just another gimmick. Why aren’t these employees exempt status. No overtime. When you are making north of 50k, lose the overtime.

Sorry but $50,000 in New York is not a lot of money. Would you work more hours than you have to for free? Unless you are paid a lot of money, I doubt you would either. Legally they can't do that and these employees are not making big bucks. Remember it is 2017, not 1987. Jay