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.
The conservative position is that Americans should make less money.
Whenever there is a story about a union or workers striking or workers wanting higher wages, the official conservative position is no, those workers shouldn't get higher wages.
Look, the reality is in this nation many of the jobs that we think of as good paying jobs didn't start out that way. They were made into to good paying jobs by workers demanding higher wages, by employers wanting to pay their workers higher wages to some extent and by the government ensuring that workers had rights with their employers.
WAAA WAAAA WAAAA.
Quote:
The transit agency has said union train operators and station agents average about $71,000 in base salary and $11,000 in overtime annually. The workers pay nothing toward their pensions.
How much more should they make? The next question is, how much more will they have to raise their rates for the public transportation and hurt those making less money? Then you will want the people hurt by this raise in fares, to make more money to pay for the fares, which will raise the prices and costs where THEY work, which will hurt someone else.
I am back to, fire them all and hire all new replacements.
Break the union. I am not a fan of unions, they are the main reason Eastern Airlines dismantled.
Everyone else's job is now, 'take it or leave it'. Why should these workers be treated any differently?
I read the article. First off there is a website that lists their base salary, none of their base salaries are $71,000. Top rate is either a $66,000 or $63,000.
I don't care about their incomes without knowing how much value their work earns for BART. How much value their work helps the communities in which BART operates.
Heck, based on those calculations they might deserve more pay.
My point stands whenever their is a contract dispute between labor and management the conservative position is workers should get less. This is repeated over and over.
You say you read the article which mentioned BENEFITS NOT SALARIES, then you make a blanket statement about wages.
Try to stay on topic and quit trying to move the goalposts.
No, you don't understand that public unions are not responsible for the cost of living of any place.
There will be far more workers in any given area who don't work for the government than those who do. It is the combined incomes of the majority of residents also housing policy that impacts whether an area is high COL.
So, you deny that public unions have ANY affect on the COL.
The conservative position is that Americans should make less money.
Whenever there is a story about a union or workers striking or workers wanting higher wages, the official conservative position is no, those workers shouldn't get higher wages.
Look, the reality is in this nation many of the jobs that we think of as good paying jobs didn't start out that way. They were made into to good paying jobs by workers demanding higher wages, by employers wanting to pay their workers higher wages to some extent and by the government ensuring that workers had rights with their employers.
That's the global position. You are grossly overpaid. Your culture is unsustainable.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,012,380 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
There is a huge difference, firstly these public jobs are monopolies and essential services to the public. When these workers strike it effects everyone that uses that service, BART worker goes on strike people can't get to their jobs. When the teacher goes on strike the kids are going to school. In comparison if the UAW goes on strike at the Ford plant I can just go buy a Chevy.
Secondly and just as important their boss who is deciding their wages and compensation also depends on their vote to keep his job. This is a huge conflict of interest becsue the rolls are reversed from the private sector.
Exactly! No public employee has the right to cut off essential public services because they are not satisfied with their pay/benefits. It really should be illegal for public employees to strike. I know all too well the pain I went through during two month long metro strikes AND lost out on my education in the 8th grade due to a prolonged strike. Sorry but this should NOT be legal.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,012,380 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by gizmo980
I have a MASTER'S Degree, work in a public sector job (librarian), and STILL can't afford the high COL here. Unless you're a double-income household, or making over 6 figures, the costs here are almost impossible. You know how much I currently pay for a one-bedroom apartment in an average neighborhood? $1610/mo, and that's considered a fantastic deal! So yeah; I already did what you said, and still don't know if I can afford to stay here much longer. Crappy thing is, I actually love my job and being near my family.
FYI: For the poster who asked if these strikes are mandatory, no they are not. In fact, quite the opposite in some cases. My union (SEIU) is in negotiations right now, and we got a very stern email about the possibility of a strike - basically saying that anyone who misses work that week must have a doctor's note, prearranged vacation time, or risk "time off without pay." We do care about serving the public, but at the same time, we too are tax-paying citizens who deserve to be heard. Oh, did you forget we pay taxes too, and thus contribute to our OWN salaries? How many of you private employees pay into your own wages? Hmmm.
Well ... Think of the workers that rely upon Bart to get to and from their jobs who earn less than you and the transit workers? The public that is served by BART is ultimately going to be screwed and how are THEY going to afford their rents/mortgage in the high COL SF Bay area if they cannot get to work? Sorry but I cannot stand the whole union mentality of it being all about ME, MY Benefits, My salary, ... It's the taxpaying public that are going to be affected by this strike that I care about. I've been a victim of two of these strikes and remember how difficult it was to get to work when I cannot drive (despite efforts to learn and get my license due to a vision issue). I truly don't care if the transit workers are unhappy ... that's THEIR issue not mine as a tax payer AND transit rider. Sorry but if you work in public services, you should not be allowed to strike PERIOD. I really hate the stronghold that unions have in our state and yes, I'm paying dues to a union (although I am not a member) so I have an ideal of how good unionized members have it in terms of pay/benefits so please cry me a river. If it is too costly to live in SF Bay, then BART employees need to reevaluate their line of work or location where they live. It isn't the tax payers responsibility to keep upping your pay/benefits because someone did not choose their careers wisely.
I wasn't even quoting you lol So are you in a union and know first hand of their dealings or are you just reading articles about it. You know there's a difference
Oh so only those who conduct in that type of behavior are qualified to speak about it? You are being beyond ridiculous. Prisons are full of union thugs. I guess if you pretend that isn't true then it isn't too.
No, unions can't do anything. What a profoundly absurd thought. Besides, don't care to see you defend Wall St. and its crooks, if that is what you have in mind.
So, California has voter propositions. If the union situation in California is so bad, why can't corporate concerns in California get a proposal on the ballot to vote for bringing Right to Work to California? Just collect the required number of signatures in a petition to get it to a vote.
I'm not defending anybody just pointing out your deflection tactic is completely off topic.
Why do what you say as liberals love unions. I say they need to get out their wallets and put their money where their mouths are and pay up. Pay em everything they want as liberals think unions are the gift that keeps on giving. So do it.
I'm not defending anybody just pointing out your deflection tactic is completely off topic.
Why do what you say as liberals love unions. I say they need to get out their wallets and put their money where their mouths are and pay up. Pay em everything they want as liberals think unions are the gift that keeps on giving. So do it.
Yeah that's how I see it as well.
Those transit people shouldn't even be talking about a strike seeing that's SF.
Why hasn't SF just given them what they asked for because, after all, it is the union and unions deserve whatever they ask for.
Are unions from all over the US going to be bussed in to support them like they did for the teachers in Wisconsin ?
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.
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.
