VIA (Transit) to consider fare increases, eliminating senior-special rates, eliminating transfers completely & more (Dallas: pros and cons, tax)

[DexterCat]

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

Wow! Shocking that VIA had overtime as mandatory. Maybe now they will start balacing their schedules/employees more efficiently and make it an environment where people actually enjoy working there.

Thanks for the information. It's very insightful.

Ok...well...I have to get things done...until next time (maybe tonight) see you all later.

have fun waiting for the bus!!

[L210]

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

Wow! Shocking that VIA had overtime as mandatory. Maybe now they will start balacing their schedules/employees more efficiently and make it an environment where people actually enjoy working there.

Thanks for the information. It's very insightful.

Ok...well...I have to get things done...until next time (maybe tonight) see you all later.

It's either mandatory overtime or your route doesn't go out.

Some jobs are inherently unenjoyable no matter what an employer does i.e. corrections and retail.

[DexterCat]

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

VIA has been dolling out overtime pay excessively for years and years and years. The News 4 WOAI investigation was I believe about 3-5 years ago. If VIA couldn't get their "act together" and retain employees to fill up those slots so they don't have to go to overtime pay, then they aren't doing something right!

its automatically VIAs fault? what about the mongoloids they fired or who quit because they couldnt hack it or were bad at their job? yeah its ALWAYS the big corp's fault :massive eyeroll:

Ok...we'll just continue to let VIA raise prices on the elderly, disabled and working poor...who cares about them....I guess they are expendable to "some" people out there.

good

Meanwhile.....

got something thats not 5 years old? maybe something more recent? i ask because if this is the only incident in 5 years, id call that a damn good track record.

[TexasRedneck]

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

Wow you're missing the point entirely.

Perhaps - but I think that your point was that you don't understand VIA's business, and why so much overtime was being paid, based on a years-old story by a local TV station. Is that OT situation still the same, or has it perhaps gotten better?

WHY was the driver getting so much OT? Was it because others didn't WANT to work OT, and this driver did, to the point that he became the "go-to" guy when an extra hand was needed? IOW....you don't really have full knowledge/understanding of just what is happening....nor do I - but I'm not the one raisin' cain about it.

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

I'd rather VIA maintain a consistent workforce like millions of businesses have to day in and day out. If they can't balance their books properly and/or maintain a consistent number of drivers working regular non-overtime hours then something is outta' wack somewhere.

Have you ever put together a schedule for a large company? There are folks that suddenly get taken sick, have a family emergency, or just don't show up. You can't plan for that, and have to "roll with the punches" by filling in with the workforce available. Or else not run the bus that day - which would you prefer? I spent 20 years running a mid-sized company, and even that required some very fast footwork keeping the work flowing. If someone was sick, SOMEONE was going to get their 8 hours. Since keeping extra folks on the payroll to "cover" for someone missing/unavailable is REALLY stupid from a budgetary standpoint, sometimes folks got some really high OT hours. Goes with the territory.

And you forget (or have no real understanding of) labor forces if you think that just because someone's SUPPOSED to be at work means that they WILL be there - and given the licensing requirements for bus drivers, it's not the easiest thing in the world to get 'em, much less keep 'em.

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

I welcomed the News 4 WOAI news story a few years ago when they showed numerous busdrivers making 100,000 a year overtime pay. That's simply unnecessary. That is my point. Of course I don't want bus routes to stop. I want VIA to get it together FIRST, before asking for more fare increases. It's about leading by example.

Okay....tell me - what should they do differently, specifically? What percentage of overtime is worked by VIA personnel, and how does it compare to other bus systems statistically? Is it higher, or is it lower?

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

I don't have a "business training/degree." That isn't relevant to the discussion. I don't need a "business training/degree," nor do you or anyone else to have a discussion on here regarding a certain topic.

Sorry - but if you expect to have any credibility in your arguement, you need to at least have SOME working knowledge of the issues at hand - otherwise, you're simply talking without anything to back it up.

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

Oh, of course not. And as I said above in my reply to DexterCat, San Antonio will continue to be in the dark ages with the kind of "just get a car" mentality.

Excuse me?? YOU are the one complaining about the price increase - not I. I haven't ridden a public bus system at all in at least 20 years - yet my tax dollars continue to support it. That means that I (and others like me) are subsidizing YOUR ride - and that's why I have so little regard for your comments - because you offer no specifics as to why the increase is ill-advised. Frankly, those that RIDE the bus should PAY for the bus - after all, the riders are the ones getting the benefits. Yet I've paid the tax bill year after year, because I felt it WAS good - both for traffic congestion AND those who can't afford cars, or prefer to use public transportation. But to come on here and raise hob about a price increase when the fares don't even BEGIN to cover just the raw cost of operation....that just smacks of a self-focussed intellect.

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

If we do nothing to improve the transportation system in San Antonio and just accept fare increases every few years at "VIA's will" (with no improvement in the service), then we should also ask VIA bus drivers to take a paycut as well.

Really? Do YOU want to take a pay cut at YOUR job? Because I can PROMISE you that NO company is charging the same price for ANYTHING that they were a few years back - not if they're staying in business for long. Fuel prices - higher. Tires - higher. Insurance - higher. Maintenance costs/parts - higher. SOMEONE has to pay that - why not the folks that actually BENEFIT from riding the bus paying it?

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

After all, the public at large has to pay more for fares (coming up) so bus drivers making 100,000 or even more than 50,000 should take some type of paycut.

Like I said before, fair is fair.

*I* won't be paying higher fares - because I don't ride the bus. Nor will the vast majority of the citizens of SA, since most of them never ride a bus. Using YOUR analysis, it's only fair that we shut down VIA - because since MOST of us don't use it, we get NO benefit from our tax dollars used to support it.

After all, fair is fair!

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by GlorifiedMalcontent

"works" and "comprehensive" equates to having schedules and stops which correspond with each other, for example. more frequency and more locations at the least.

OK, I understand. You do realize that this will drive up operating costs, though, right? And as a pay-go agency, VIA must balance its budget every year.

Originally Posted by GlorifiedMalcontent

"benefits the whole city" means just that; benefiting the entire city, rather than focus all improvements and efforts to a select few streets.

Well, yes. But again, in order to run service all over the city (which will undoubtedly result in many empty buses), one would have to increase operating costs, and as a pay-go agency...etc., etc.

Originally Posted by GlorifiedMalcontent

but like i said, sa was never developed with mass transit in mind and it would be too big of a daunting task to orchestrate effective mass transit solutions on a city this size, so i doubt that any "improvements" would actually improve the system. at least not for a long while.

Well, it's done all over the place in cities as large as, or larger than, San Antonio. It's just that it hasn't been much of a priority in the city. SA is now the largest metro with no rail service. BUT, on the other hand, VIA is one of the most cost-effective and efficient transit systems in North America.

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by tgannaway89

The new hybrids were paid for by Obama's stimulus... VIA didn't pay a dime.

Well, technically Obama didn't either. That's either tax money or fare revenue (in the case of VIA), so it's really all the same thing at a very high level, isn't it?

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

If VIA throws out the "we are broke" line...I don't buy it if they are allowing their own drivers to make that much overtime pay. VIA should look within their own budget too (cost savings), and not just from the busriders for more money.

Well, I'm not saying this is necessarily the case for VIA (since I don't know their financials), *BUT* in some cases it makes more sense from an economic standpoint to pay someone $100,000 than to have to hire another employee to cover the overtime. This is a really simplistic example, but one driver making $100k with overtime is in the long run cheaper than two making $60k each.

Also - you have to make sure that hiring that "next employee" will be productive. It may not make sense in all cases to hire another employee if there's only, say, 20 hours of work a week for him or her. It might make sense from an economic standpoint to simply cover that 20 hours with current employees on overtime. The point was already made on here very well, but there is also the case of carrying an "extra list" to make sure that bus runs are covered in case of sick call-ins, vacations, etc. If possible, it's best to cover those with regular workers picking up some overtime, rather than keep a large slate of "extra list" employees sitting around waiting for someone to call out sick.

You also have to factor in the cost of benefits; in general, in most businesses that are labor-intensive, the cost of labor is a, if not the, major cost driver. There are certainly some things that can be done with scheduling - and again, I don't know VIA's situation, so I'm not commenting on them specifically - BUT in a lot of cases the most efficient and effective way to ensure that your runs are covered is simply to have a regular employee work overtime. If you've never scheduled a large enterprise like a transit authority, you have NO clue whatsoever about the calculus that goes into the decision-making process.

[xsa210tx]

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

WHY was the driver getting so much OT? Was it because others didn't WANT to work OT, and this driver did, to the point that he became the "go-to" guy when an extra hand was needed? IOW....you don't really have full knowledge/understanding of just what is happening....nor do I - but I'm not the one raisin' cain about it.

Or maybe it was because VIA lacked the foresight to properly retain and handle the workload to ensure that there wasn't unnecessary overtime? You do make a good point but I'm not sure I buy it with VIA.

If they took 20 dinosaur-years to implement a "no-texting-while-driving-a-city-bus-with-a-bus-full-of-passengers" policy, or until you get embarrassed on national TV, then I wonder what else they may have overlooked and/or turned a blind eye to? Hmmmmmm.

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

If someone was sick, SOMEONE was going to get their 8 hours. Since keeping extra folks on the payroll to "cover" for someone missing/unavailable is REALLY stupid from a budgetary standpoint, sometimes folks got some really high OT hours. Goes with the territory.

And you forget (or have no real understanding of) labor forces if you think that just because someone's SUPPOSED to be at work means that they WILL be there - and given the licensing requirements for bus drivers, it's not the easiest thing in the world to get 'em, much less keep 'em.

L210, a former busdriver, already admitted a few posts up that VIA was audited, and was forced to essentially "reduce" their overtime workload and according to L210, they had "mandatory overtime."

THANK GOODNESS that excessive overtime was found and audited. Lord knows they'd have much more employees banking big money had they not been audited and put in their place!

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

Okay....tell me - what should they do differently, specifically? What percentage of overtime is worked by VIA personnel, and how does it compare to other bus systems statistically? Is it higher, or is it lower?

What percentage? I'll tell you what...if they are making upwards of 100,000 a year, that's too damn much. I don't need to get into specifics to know that if they are paying excessive overtime...something is not right there.

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

Sorry - but if you expect to have any credibility in your arguement, you need to at least have SOME working knowledge of the issues at hand - otherwise, you're simply talking without anything to back it up.

My working knowlege: VIA expects to pass the burden to the seniors, elderly, disabled and working poor while they let some drivers make BIG BANK.

THAT, SPEAKS FOR ITSELF to any reasonably likeminded individual!

If they can't lead by example with their books, they ain't doin' something right.

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

Excuse me?? YOU are the one complaining about the price increase - not I. I haven't ridden a public bus system at all in at least 20 years - yet my tax dollars continue to support it. That means that I (and others like me) are subsidizing YOUR ride.

I'm sure as a former business owner yourself, you received some form of taxpayer writeoffs or deductions from the US taxpayer too, right?!. Everyone gets subsidized in SOME WAY, shape or form.

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

- and that's why I have so little regard for your comments - because you offer no specifics as to why the increase is ill-advised.

I've already said it about 50 million times, but I'll write it again in case you didn't read it: the elderly, the disabled, and the working poor are being asked to pay more while VIA has made NO improvements in the system to justify those fare increases, NOR to justify the excessive overtime pay.

I hope I don't have to repeat that again.

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

But to come on here and raise hob about a price increase when the fares don't even BEGIN to cover just the raw cost of operation....that just smacks of a self-focussed intellect.

To come on here and have no regard, again, for the working poor, the disabled, the elderly...smacks of greedyism (yes, I know it's not a word) but I like that word.

I'm not naive to think there are no operating costs but the 2 or 3 times in the last 5 to 7 years they have raised prices they didn't do a damn thing to really improve service. It's all just take take take take and to hell with you.

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

Really? Do YOU want to take a pay cut at YOUR job?

I don't make 60, 70, 80, or $100,000 a year like some of these drivers. THEY, need the paycut, not me.

For the record, IF I was making that much, I wouldn't mind a paycut. EVERYONE else, from the city, to small-busineses, and even corporate companies are instituting hiring freezes and cuts of some kind. Why is VIA special?!

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

Using YOUR analysis, it's only fair that we shut down VIA - because since MOST of us don't use it, we get NO benefit from our tax dollars used to support it.

After all, fair is fair!

With your analysis, to hell with anyone disabled, poor, and living on a fixed income and let the old coots and the buddy-buddies at VIA making bank live it up since they are "privileged," and if you're not privileged...then "scrape by" with what you have.

Yeah, that's REALLY fair.

[TexasRedneck]

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

Or maybe it was because VIA lacked the foresight to properly retain and handle the workload to ensure that there wasn't unnecessary overtime? You do make a good point but I'm not sure I buy it with VIA.

So....knowing none of the facts, background or specific information - since you don't like it, it isn't good/right? Okay......nothing more to be said.

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

What percentage? I'll tell you what...if they are making upwards of 100,000 a year, that's too damn much. I don't need to get into specifics to know that if they are paying excessive overtime...something is not right there.

Really? How many hours of overtime were worked by that driver? And what percentage of that overtime vs the total man-hours worked straight-time by VIA drivers? There's ALWAYS going to be some overtime - if not, then they're severely overmanned - which is an even GREATER waste - something most businessmen understand.

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

I'm sure as a former business owner yourself, you received some form of taxpayer writeoffs or deductions from the US taxpayer too, right?!. Everyone gets subsidized in SOME WAY, shape or form.

*If* I receive a deduction, it is because it is in acknowledgement of an *investment* in a piece of equipment, etc - which is nothing more than a reduction of the amount of money the government extracts from my efforts in business, without them lifting a finger. It may well be that the deductions might be more than your annual income - but without my investment, folks may not have jobs that produce an economic benefit.

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

I've already said it about 50 million times, but I'll write it again in case you didn't read it: the elderly, the disabled, and the working poor are being asked to pay more while VIA has made NO improvements in the system to justify those fare increases, NOR to justify the excessive overtime pay.

I hope I don't have to repeat that again.

I've said it every way I can - while I don't mind helping, I'm tired of those getting services FAR below the true cost of those services turning around and complaining when they're asked to bear a bit more of the cost...even though it's still FAR below the actual value of what they receive. I hope I don't have to repeat it.....but I will if you need me to!

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

To come on here and have no regard, again, for the working poor, the disabled, the elderly...smacks of greedyism (yes, I know it's not a word) but I like that word.

Excuse me? "No regard"?!?? Now, THAT, my friend, is not only insulting in the highest, but nothing more than an attempt to somehow attempt to place yourself at some "higher level" - and that's pure BS. No regard, eh? You're right - that service/repair call that I handled personally Saturday for the 80 year-old widow that I reduced the labor call (2.5 hrs on-site, plus the initial site visit) to a single site visit bill, the repair parts that I normally would bill $750 for....to a total bill of $587 - yeah, no regard.... The guy I cut a deal with last week to fix up an old wheelchair for another customer of mine free of charge - no regard. To sit there and let someone such as yourself, who avails themselves of free/discounted/subsidized services by taxpayers such as myself - and then attempts to somehow belittle me - yeah, now THERE I have NO regard.

Now - if you want to come up with FACTUAL information that supports your claims, I'll not only listen - but I'll join in the fight to rectify the wastage. But to stand back with NO knowledge of the facts at hand, with NO understanding of exactly what's going on - that's nothing more than tossin' handfulls of excrement on your wall, and then complaining about the smell.

So....get the FACTS together, and if they support your position I'm more than happy to join in the fray - but don't expect folks to get all worked up over a bunch of suppositions.

[L210]

Originally Posted by xsa210tx

L210, a former busdriver, already admitted a few posts up that VIA was audited, and was forced to essentially "reduce" their overtime workload and according to L210, they had "mandatory overtime."

You missed my point. They weren't audited because they were spending too much money on overtime, they were audited because they were overworking their employees. Instead of doing up to 16 hour days 5-6 days a week, they went to 12 hour days 7 days a week. Overtime was not cut, just the maximum hours that could be worked in one day.