Employees pay a scant $92 a month for health care and contribute nothing to the pension plan. Assuming both are decent plans with adequate to good coverage and provide for an affordable retirement, that's a darn good deal. Wish I had that.

http://www.alternet.org/labor/7-things-you-need-know-about-bart-strike-california#_methods=onPlusOne%2C_ready%2C_close%2C_open%2C_resizeMe%2C_renderstart%2Concircled&id=I0_1372951712360&parent=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternet.org&pfname=&rpctoken=74249173

7 Key Things You Need to Know About the BART Strike in California
News and social media are awash in misunderstanding and disinfo about the strike. Here are the facts that matter.


3. BART workers are not greedy.
As BART officials have inflated the salary figures of BART train operators and station agents to an average of $71,000 annually, the SF Examiner reported workers make a maximum of $62,000 annually. While this still may seem like a decent salary, a family of four living in the Bay Area need $74,341 a year just to get by.

FULL story at link.

The average is 10,000 a year in overtime. Your assertion that people need $74,341 a year "just to get by" is ridiculous. The median income in San Francisco is $42,484. So I guess almost everyone in SF must be starving and in the streets. http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2011/03/07/bay-area-tops-state-again-in-median-income/

And there are several conservative sites with incorrect figures.

Got a link?

Unless you are the accountant for BART I suppose anyone's figures are suspect. But I did provide a link to the median SF income.

San Francisco is #6. (even though it is major a banking center on the West coast.)

Four counties in the Bay Area have led the state’s income charts for the last 38 years.

It’s expensive to live in the Bay Area so it’s a good thing that we lead the state in terms of median income. Now that income tax paying time is around the corner, the California Franchise Tax Board last week released income statistics based on the tax returns filed for 2009. The residents of a handful of Bay Area counties have the highest incomes of all Californians, and have been the highest wage earners for a long time now.

As other posters have mentioned, it's obviously to the company's mutual benefit to use overtime to fill manpower gaps, and if people can work overtime it means they're getting extra money for working more hours. This does not mean that everybody is working overtime. Some can't or won't due to their own schedules.

Another tactic commonly used by corporatists is using whatever benefits they have as income. Bet they don't do that when discussing management compensation! ( they don't )

These are the same sleight of hands the corporate pundits in the corporate media use to demonize a group of employees.

I worked at a steel mill in Chicago where overtime was mandatory. If your relief did not show up you worked an additional 8 hours whether you liked it or not.

If it were mandatory then the company wants it both ways: They don't want to hire more personnel, yet complain OT costs money.

I was required by contract to work a 48 hour week (8 hours overtime) 6 months out of the year (Spring to Fall) for 9 years.

In a state (most states) where you work at the employers will like Nebraska, you can be fired for refusing to work overtime. Even in union shops, many times overtime is mandatory at managements will.

My current contract limits workers to 14 hours in a 24 hour period. They can work up to 16 if the worker wants the extra 2 hours. There are RARE exceptions for weather conditions in 24 operations when snow/ice/wind storm (tress down impeding travel like Omaha had in Oct. 97) etc. that keep replacements from relieving the previous shift.

OS

the health insurance subsidy is worth $200-$400 a month, easily -- a yearly $2,400 to $4,800 tax-free perk. The ideal of a single-earner income family is a bit passé too. But I can get the increase to cover the loss in social security, and all the safety issues.

IF 40% of the US workforce was unionized like 50 years ago, we would ALL be making these wages and benefits. When it hits that mark, non-union shops have to match union shops in wages etc. to attract workers.

OS

Thinking BART workers are greedy because of their wages, their pension, their health insurance co-pay is a product of the gutting of worker pay and benefits that went hand in hand with the reduction of unionized workers.

BART workers aren't greedy, it's the non union bosses who are.

The main reason we cant do what we did 50 years ago is because of the simple fact that in the old days, the US was one of the few countries that actually MADE anything. The world bought from us. As more countries advanced, they began making their own stuff and some good quality stuff. Even if we had big import tariffs, we'd still have a problem. There is no way that an autoworker can make 70.00 an hr (benefits included) anymore. Foreign cars use to be crap. Not so much anymore. Not to mention foreign car companies opening factories here. Getting a "city job" shouldnt keep you poor, but it also shouldnt put you in a BMW.
Add to that the fact that in the past "middle class" meant you had a house and 1 car and a TV in a decent area. Now, its a home 50% bigger with more gadgets we "cant" do without, a 2nd or 3rd car, 60 in flatscreen (and 3 smaller ones elsewhere in the house), boat, weekends at the beach etc. I grew up in the 70s. I lived fine as the kid of an Air Force enlisted man. House was 1100 sq ft, we went to grandmas for vacation. Now TV has everyone thinking they deserve to live like the damn Kardashians regardless of their job. Well, you CAN'T.

Sorry, kinda went off the reservation there at the end. Let the beatings begin!

Fell for the propaganda/ Got lazy.

You are taking a position against workers on strike. You are not supporting the Union.

If you argue that the Union should make concessions that is not support. Understand?

They had a good deal offered early on but refused. When they finally signed a contract, it would take years for the gains to replace what earning were lost during the strike. And Fed Ex ended up getting stronger because of it.
Not ALL strikes are a good idea. Not supporting a bad decision doesnt mean you don't still support the union. As was stated, paying less than 100 bucks for insurance is a steal. Asking them to pay more sure doesnt seem out of this world. Its all on the taxpayer dime too. That can no longer be ignored.

Do you have any idea why all those workers went on strike at UPS? That strike was absolutely necessary and UPS still dominates the parcel market by a large margin so tell me how that was a bad idea? It didn't hurt the company, they still make billions every year and the employees got thousands more full time jobs at better pay, along with health insurance at no cost to them.

I can't believe you used that as an example.

Then fight for it, like the BART workers are.

Organize. Collectivize. Bargain. Strike.

The issue isn't that the BART workers are getting too much, it's that you're getting too little.

The BART workers have nothing to do with your salary, your benefits, or what you had for lunch today.

If you're upset with your current benefits, salary, insurance, or pension, then take it up with your fellow workers and with the administrators where you work. Don't take it out on other workers who believe in getting what they were promised and in getting a fair wage.

However with the 30 day contract extension that just happened last night, i have to say that when it comes to public services, striking should be used as a last resort and it wasn't. This agreed-to extension proves that. If the BART unions wanted to get the public on their side, they should have started with the extension and then got their side out and then went on to strike if they didn't get their needs met. I think, despite what the comments on the SFgate says, people in the Bay Area would be proud to support the unions if they felt that things were put to them properly. There are some grave issues befalling BART employees that just haven't made it into the newspapers yet. But also, the employees are talking about the safety issues as if it ONLY affects them, they don't. But frankly, it felt like this came out of nowhere, and little was done to prevent the strike from happening on either side of the table.

Remember that the BART administration asked the Gov NOT to impose a 60 day cooling off period. They wanted the union to look bad and they succeeded. Unfortunately, the unions fell for it.

and want Unions taken down a notch. "They should have to pay more for their health insurance". "$100 a month is a steal!" It's no goddamn wonder things have gotten so bad for workers. Everybody would rather kiss their bosses ass and work for chump change.

I've never had the benefit of working for a union. They are unheard of in my industry, even when I worked full-time.