Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree that it's not the workers fault they make what they make. Somewhere along the line they negotiated that level of compensation for themselves and someone with authority agreed to it.
As for comparison to other cashier positions, I think you pointed out the difference, most companies have a cap as to what the maximum is they will pay someone to hold that job. It forces people to either move within the company, leave the company or be content with their now fixed wage. The wages are capped so that a person doing that job cannot earn more than is reasonable to perform those duties. Wal*Mart or McDonald's will not pay their cashiers, say $20 an hour regardless of how long they've been there as the position does not merit that pay rate.
However, the people arguing that toll collectors deserve this wage are basing their claim on their ability to support their families. That should not enter into the equation. The compensation should be matched to the skills required and labor pool available to fill the positions. In that light, $62k was ridiculous, $49k still seems crazy to me as there are myriad positions that require greater skillsets, but pay less. The most obvious comparison is a cashier position and there are plenty of examples of cashiers with equal or greater responsibility that earn less. The fact that it is a "dead end" job should also not influence the compensation paid.
this is a good post. there is only so much money you can expect to earn for a certain position no matter how long you are working in that position.
I agree that it's not the workers fault they make what they make. Somewhere along the line they negotiated that level of compensation for themselves and someone with authority agreed to it.
As for comparison to other cashier positions, I think you pointed out the difference, most companies have a cap as to what the maximum is they will pay someone to hold that job. It forces people to either move within the company, leave the company or be content with their now fixed wage. The wages are capped so that a person doing that job cannot earn more than is reasonable to perform those duties. Wal*Mart or McDonald's will not pay their cashiers, say $20 an hour regardless of how long they've been there as the position does not merit that pay rate.
However, the people arguing that toll collectors deserve this wage are basing their claim on their ability to support their families. That should not enter into the equation. The compensation should be matched to the skills required and labor pool available to fill the positions. In that light, $62k was ridiculous, $49k still seems crazy to me as there are myriad positions that require greater skillsets, but pay less. The most obvious comparison is a cashier position and there are plenty of examples of cashiers with equal or greater responsibility that earn less. The fact that it is a "dead end" job should also not influence the compensation paid.
i agree 100%. but, the "company" that manages the tollworkers has chosen to not cap their pay. blame unions if you want. but unions are only one side of the negotiation table. the citizens/government are the other side.
as for $49k...$24.50 is a bit much. it could certainly be less, but i don't know enough about what they require of people to do the job. do you have to take any sort of "public workers" test?
either way...the state is stupid to not switch to an ezpass + camera system. they would move from paying tollworkers, to paying collection workers...but it would eliminate the need to have people travelling all over the state to get to a job in a booth.
i agree 100%. but, the "company" that manages the tollworkers has chosen to not cap their pay. blame unions if you want. but unions are only one side of the negotiation table. the citizens/government are the other side.
this may be an issue with how the company is reimbursed by the government.
Let me say one thing about switching to an EZ-Pass and camera-only system.
One drawback you do not think about is rental cars. If you rent a car, and the car gets billed for a toll, you end up paying the toll + a 20$ service charge to the rental company. You may say big deal, but in an area like NY/NJ, there are thousands of rental cars. I got stuck with one of these on a business trip to chicago recently. It's BS...
Let me say one thing about switching to an EZ-Pass and camera-only system.
One drawback you do not think about is rental cars. If you rent a car, and the car gets billed for a toll, you end up paying the toll + a 20$ service charge to the rental company. You may say big deal, but in an area like NY/NJ, there are thousands of rental cars. I got stuck with one of these on a business trip to chicago recently. It's BS...
We need a national standard for EZ Pass so that it works on all toll roads. And, all rental cars should have a built-in EZ Pass. Your credit card gets auto-billed if you encounter tolls. In fact, all cars should be manufactured with built-in EZ Pass, and you subscribe to it like Onstar or whatever.
Then all physical tolls should be removed, and then we no longer need to be discussing overpaid toll workers.
By the way, if the toll workers who admittedly need no skills are making $49,000, what are the supervisors of those without any skills making? I'm afraid, I'm very afraid, to find out that number.
Let me say one thing about switching to an EZ-Pass and camera-only system.
One drawback you do not think about is rental cars. If you rent a car, and the car gets billed for a toll, you end up paying the toll + a 20$ service charge to the rental company. You may say big deal, but in an area like NY/NJ, there are thousands of rental cars. I got stuck with one of these on a business trip to chicago recently. It's BS...
$20 for each toll? that doesnt sound possible. i rented a car in puerto rico and i believe they charged me something like 2-3 bucks a day to use the ezpass plus the cost of the tolls.
either way...the state is stupid to not switch to an ezpass + camera system. they would move from paying tollworkers, to paying collection workers...but it would eliminate the need to have people travelling all over the state to get to a job in a booth.
Let me say one thing about switching to an EZ-Pass and camera-only system.
One drawback you do not think about is rental cars. If you rent a car, and the car gets billed for a toll, you end up paying the toll + a 20$ service charge to the rental company. You may say big deal, but in an area like NY/NJ, there are thousands of rental cars. I got stuck with one of these on a business trip to chicago recently. It's BS...
when i rented through AVIS, they provided EZPASS in the car. it wasn't a $20 service charge. they would figure out a better way i'm sure, if there were no other options...
when i rented through AVIS, they provided EZPASS in the car. it wasn't a $20 service charge. they would figure out a better way i'm sure, if there were no other options...
A lot of rental car companies and carshares in the NE now have EZPass in the car. However, if you have one that doesn't and you generate an EZPass violation by using the lane, the bill goes to the rental car agency, since they are the owner. They then tack on a $20 service charge, plus the toll, plus the violation fine from the agency.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.