I believe in unions, but this BART strike is BS. That 9.5% increase in health insurance? adds up to about $10 a month.

BTW, the average non-management employee salary? $76,500.

and all written by one person: bart_worker hahahahaha

The union miscalculated big time.

They are hoping people are too stupid to understand that. Some, like you, are too dishonest to acknowledge it.

The management is willing to arbitrate the whole package -- not just the work rules. The union cannot cherry-pick things that they like and leave the rest for arbitration. Every component of the deal is dependent on other components.

If I agree to sell 1 million apples at 5 cents when 1 apple is at 15 cents, the other party cannot lock in the 5 cents and arbitrate the quantity.

At no point has management offered to let an independent arbitrator negotiate the entire contract. The ignorance on display here is beyond belief. This has already been pointed out to you elsewhere in the thread but here you are again talking this utter nonsense. It just went in one ear and out the other, didn't it?

Let me spell this out for you one more time. The two sides are in agreement on everything except for the work rules as per the article. They can't come to an agreement on work rules so the Union offered to have an arbitrator decide. Management refused and insists on unconditional surrender instead even after the Union has already made concessions on pay and benefits.

Do you understand that?

it is a "package", each having its own value to both sides.

Leet me give you another example so that it will be clear.

If a car dealer says, "I'll give you the Rolls Royce for $1, if you bought the junk 1977 Pinto for $500,000", a customer cannot say, "ok, I'll take the rolls for $1, but let's put the pinto issue in to arbitration."

sides agree. And it would be preposterous for one or both sides to turn over the entire negotiation of a contract to an outside party. I have defied you to post proof of this offer by management and you haven't posted it because the offer doesn't exist.

Furthermore, that's not even an offer to begin with. The Union is paid dues money by every member to negotiate on behalf of the members. To turn over all negotiations to an arbitrator would defeat the purpose of having the Union in the first place.

You are just making shit up and you know it.

I'm not a knee-jerk union supporter. Unions CAN be greedy and unreasonable on occasion ... and this is one of them.

and is willing to risk losing on the work rules in the arbitration process. Instead, you make up your own ideas about what arbitration is. Ideas that are in direct contrast to the article in the OP.

Trust me, nobody will ever mistake you for a Union supporter, knee jerk or otherwise.

the chronicle is no longer some great bastion of liberalism (if it ever was.) it's wholly owned by conservatives, is maybe just barely right of center, is always anti-union, anti-homeless, pro-developer and their website pretty much only exists to bring non-local conservative trolls to the comment section.

Hope you enjoy the fair hike that's coming in order to pay for all of this 'Dog.

Oh wait a minute, they can just increase the sales tax again too so we can pay for this twice.

I have friends that live in CA and some think the BART workers are being unreasonable, but I don't know that much about it, except reading articles from the sfgate.

The last one I read was an Op-ed against the employees, so I would be interested in hearing the opinions of CA residents.

On one hand, I support their right to strike without question.

On the other hand, they're already the best paid transit workers in the country, most make double the states median wage, have already been offered a 12% raise on top of that, and are complaining about having to give 4% of that back to pension contributions (so they'll only be getting an 8% effective raise on top of being the best paid transit workers in the country). It's hard to have a lot of sympathy for their position, especially as the unions counteroffer would essentially force BART to raise fares to cover upcoming costs. It's a pretty unpopular position.

It's like free speech. I'm an absolutist and will support anyones right to say what they want. That doesn't mean I agree with what they're saying.

Last edited Fri Oct 18, 2013, 11:18 AM - Edit history (1)

that allowed workers to game the system. For example, a bart employee can fail to show up and is then replaced by another at time-and-a-half. Workers used to create groups where they would cover each other during their absences routinely, thus jacking up overtime costs. There was also a daily "bidding" rule that management wanted to make 6-monthly and the union refused that as well.

If they are not allowed to game the system, the overtime costs would go down.

And if someone is being pulled off their scheduled start time or work an extra day that week to fill in, it should be at time and a half.

but bart workers were doing this purposefully and routinely -- gaming the system.

At my last job, we had three sick days and two floating holidays in addition to all the scheduled holidays. Then, someone could have an extended illness or family emergency that requires them to exhaust all those days and still need more time off. If everyone had to work over to cover while we were understaffed, it was paid at time and a half. If someone had to come in on Saturday to make up the lost production, it was paid at time and a half.

What you are describing as "gaming the system" is really just working as directed according to the contract. The overtime pay is likely coming from people working over or being pulled off their regular shift.

Any bart employee A can currently say "I won't work Monday" (every week if they so want), not get paid for that Monday but then work a Saturday in the same week and get time-and-a-half. They then collude with another worker B who says he won't work Saturday but works the Monday of A and get time and a half. So for the same work, bart ends up paying an extra day of wages.

This can be done week after week after week -- gaming the system.

and besides, seems like you have your mind made up. Every SF Bay area news outlet has the same story. Read the comments by people under the news items where 99.9% of the comments are against the bart unions.

To expect a Union to cease negotiating and turn over the entire contract to an arbitrator isn't even remotely reasonable in the first place. They are paid to negotiate on behalf of their members. There would be no point in the Union existing if they did something like that so stop pretending that even if something like that were proposed, that it would be a reasonable offer.

The Union has bargained in good faith and offered to risk arbitration on the few remaining issues to get the contract signed. Management refuses and insists on unconditional surrender despite having already won concessions. That is not good faith negotiation. It is GOP style hostage taking.

There are a lot of hostages trying to get to work today. The only public transportation in town is their captor. I won't pretend to know how the rules should be changed. Some of the rules I read look like they are in need of change.

that very issue. They have already made concessions and are willing to risk losing even more to get a contract signed. They are taking the next logical step to get a deal done and management refuses to participate. I don't know why the Union gets no credit for that at all.

BART is not &quot t)he only public transportation in town..." in ANY community where there is a BART station. MUNI, AC Transit, SamTrans, GGT, CalTrain, the ferry systems and a half dozen smaller regional mass transit systems were business as usual today.

or >40 hours in a week. In this case, bart workers get overtime even if they work only 40 hours a week when they work a day other than their scheduled day.

And keep in mind about your unsubstantiated claim regarding the work rules allowing the workers to swap shifts for overtime, the Union offered to have an independent arbitrator decide what the new work rules would be. Management refused. Any work stoppage is on them, not the Union.

So, even if the Union does have a very generous provision giving them the ability to "game the system" (I'm not saying I believe you on that) they are willing to give an arbitrator the right to take that away.

I still don't believe you regarding work rule specifics, though. Not without a link. I think you will say anything to discredit Union workers.

That's standard stuff. Lots of places are like that. What would you like, a race to the bottom?

Unless one subscribes with the "someone has it better than me therefore I should hope to see them have less than I have, if I can't have it better" race to the bottom mantra. Music to the teabaggers ears.

We are not talking about that here.

A bart worker scheduled to work M-F, 9-5, can say he won't work Monday, then come on Saturday and get 4 days at time plus one day at time and a half. So he/she works 40 hours in a week but gets paid for 44 hours.

Still waiting to see the contract language backing up your claim. There would have to be language prohibiting management from taking any disciplinary action for a worker repeatedly failing to report without a good excuse.

For your claim to hold water, you would have to know that there were no doctor's excuses, no jury duty, no taking your kid to the hospital, etc... and you couldn't possibly know that.

regardless of the 40 hour/week thing.

We are not talking about workers working >8 hours a day. If they do, they deserve overtime.

many workers - most of whom never experienced being union members or having parents who worked unionized jobs - will believe that unions=thugs and will start drinking the corporatist Kool Aid. It's one thing if a strike happened among workers who make cars, computers, or clothing because most people won't feel that strike in their everyday lives (until the stores start running short of inventory). But most people even in the progressive Bay Area have a me-first mentality, and this strike is NOT HELPFUL AT ALL. Yes, California is blue, and we won't have another Reagan as governor anytime soon. But somewhere in Scott Walker's mind, he must be dreaming of moving to California and being a carpetbagger governor appealing to the anti-union folk out west.

BART management has a bad reputation and this is one reason why.

After negotiating and working out a wage/benefits package that looked acceptable, they wanted changed workrules --and to me, their request for new workrules is understandable. What isn't understandable was BART's refusal to negotiate or bargain over those workrules.

I have no car and no way to get to work without BART. I think people would be more sympathetic if not for the fact that BART workers make more money and have way, way, way better benefits than most people who ride BART. Nobody begrudges them, but they are creating great hardship for people who don't get paid if they don't go to work.

because for people like you they rely on BART just to get to work. It's human nature to put oneself first.

people will complain unless BART worker pay and benefits are as crappy as everyone who is paid crap and gets lousy benefits.

is that where we really want to go?

But they have to understand who is paying for this. This strike is taking food out of the mouths of low-paid hourly workers who can't get to work, while others use their precious vacation time, time they earned, to cover their time away. This strike is costing a lot - but it's not the strikers who are paying for it.

none of them will be paid for lost work during the strike.

Or at least the choice of their union bosses. The hotel and restaurants workers, security guards, and car parkers who had to stay home again today had no choice.

on DU? Just go away.

we're done here with you.

It doesn't say which work rules. The BART rep quoted is the one who said this, not the union. Yet most of the commenters in the troll-infested sfgate system ignore this and focus on the Bad Overpaid Union Thugs.

Management declined. They want it all. They want to crush the Union.

That would be like republicans getting obamacare gutted and then putting SS cuts up for arbitration.

The two sides are in agreement on the other provisions. Did you even bother to read the article?

You don't ask an arbitrator to write your contract for you. You ask for arbitration of specific issues.

What is interesting in the stories is what has been agreed to is the pay package, but the rules package offered by management is the sticking point. The union offered to send it to binding arbitration, meaning they believed they would win, and management refused, meaning that management thought they would lose. If the rules were just face saving for both sides, both sides would agree to arbitrate.

The union has not adequately explained to the public what the rules dispute is about, and it comes down to condemning the union and management on what was agreed. That makes no sense. This is a failure of reporting and of the media.

I'm affected by this strike much more than the last one, and I'm glad it's on a Friday, but wow, was it a frustrating week staying up late and getting up early waiting to see if they would strike. Between this and the shutdown, it has been two weeks of suspense that even Hitchcock couldn't achieve!

I do not blame the Union for standing firm on work rules. They've agreed to givebacks on health care and pensions but that's not enough. Management wants it all. Fuck them.

And it sounds to me like the raise is 3% per year. Sounds a bit different like that instead of only highlighting the 12% figure.

Responding to "Why every eligible worker doesn't join a union", think about this. You lived through the age of Reagan. I didn't (I was born two years after Reagan left office).

Blue-collar jobs had already been leaving the USA, but Reagan did more to take down union labor in the USA starting with busting the air traffic controllers' union in his first year in office. This master thesis says:

I've had my couches full with BART refugees since Sunday night. I'm happy to do it, and as an SEIU member, I support their right to strike.

But the union is playing with fire.

If you took a poll of the very liberal Bay Area right now, I'd not be shocked if 90% of the respondents said "Fuck the union!"

Whoever is doing their PR should be removed for gross incompetence and cluelessness. The constant late night deadlines and announcements and the total, total inability to effectively communicate what the dispute is even about are wrecking the union in the public's eyes. Management has been controlling the media narrative from the get-go.

The public is absolutely furious.

Yeah, the general consensus was that management has done a MUCH better job of framing the public relations. Contract bargaining is not a rational process- it's all about power, who has it and who doesn't. Management has built their power throughout this struggle, while the labor unions have let theirs slip away. We're using the BART struggle as an example of how NOT to bargain our own contract, which is coming up for renewal soon.

It is definitely a how-to in destroying public relations.

After the contract is settled, union heads should roll.

Very progressive community.. but this is not coming down well at all. People are struggling, I mean struggling to make ends meet, 100% dependent on public transportation (BART/ACT) to make their rent/mortgage etc on wages barely considered "livable".

Unions need to support the people if they want support by the people.

It's not a one way street, it's time some understood this.

Maybe there is a valid issue here but the public isn't hearing about it. They haven't been very effective in articulating their grievances.

on the few remaining issues they are deadlocked on and management refuses to participate. They have not done a good job pointing out that this is a good faith effort to avoid a work stoppage.

The Union has made concessions in these negotiations and it's time for BART management to support the people they serve by allowing the arbitration process to take place. Instead, they insist on hostage taking, just like the GOP. If they don't get everything they want, they just shut it down.

arbitration is a long process, having been involved in one myself.

I'm not sure I take at face value the notion that Bart Union members aren't getting what they want, this is all down to a dispute with new employee working rules which is easily argued/perceived that members are holding the people hostage, not the other way around.

I think the rules need a close look, if employees have been gaming the system to pad up overtime as a matter of routine, I think that needs to be addressed in a significant way.

Riders who are workers themselves are/have been getting screwed coming and going. How about a bit solidarity for the working poor and the working class who are already spending quite a bit of their low wage earnings for higher and higher commute rates. ?

If management wanted a fair and equitable agreement, that could easily be achieved but they want total domination. They hired a Union buster as chief negotiator and refused arbitration. Keep in mind both sides could request a timely decision based on the lack of time available.

You ask where is the Solidarity from the workers towards others, where is the dedication and responsibility from the management running this operation? They know very well they can't run a Union shop without a contract and without some give and take in negotiations but that is what they are hellbent on doing. People rightfully criticized the GOP for not being reasonable and taking hostages but cheer on BART management when they do it.

I personally think the speculation regarding work rules is exaggerated. It sounds like right wing Union busting to me. The only place I've heard these claims of abuse is from a decidedly right wing anti Union DUer. Whatever the case is on the work rules being abused, the Union has without a doubt offered to risk having their proposals turned down by an arbitrator. They are willing to risk losing on that to have a contract in place and it is management that is refusing to cooperate.

I'm not pro-management. I am just part of the working poor class that's trying to get by month to month. Public transportation is essential.

I'm just thinking maybe Union members might be over playing their hand wrt to rules changes.. I don't know, not privy to the details. I was just listening to KQED this morning, I think it was Forum and it sort of left me the impression that might be the case.

An arbitrator might decide entirely in favor of the management so I just don't understand where this notion comes from that the Union is being unreasonable.

The Union is allowed to negotiate, too. Do you agree with that? If they make concessions on pay and benefits and then give in to all of managements demands on work rules, that is not negotiation. That is getting run the fuck over.

If it was your pay and benefits and your quality of life that was at stake with these changes to work rules, you'd want your negotiating committee to fight, too!

edited to add:

I didn't mean to give the idea I thought you were anti Union. I think you are debating in good faith but a couple others here are not.

I get pretty wound up about this because Unions are all we have left. If we don't stand with them, things will certainly get worse for all of us.

When the heat of this battle is over.. maybe we can discuss why unions aren't being supported by the rank and file working class citizenry as they once were.

the answers I think are complicated, and not black and white. but the negative results remain. How to turn that around?

Last night I went to a see The Fifth Estate at the only theatre in my community which isn't a Union Shop, (don't know if any of the theatres are anywhere) after the film was over and exiting the theatre, I found two people picketing with signs pointing out that it wasn't a union shop.

I didn't feel like engaging at the time, I was initially thinking about the treatment of the subject matter in the film I just saw, and then a question came to mind: why picket only this business? Why not picket every single business on every block of this small town for the same reason? Additionally, if there is a single Union Shop anywhere here, why not boldly give public notice to that as well?

Do you see this aspect of part of the problem here?

Unless every non Union business is picketed, don't bother picketing any? You didn't feel like engaging? Why didn't you pick up a sign and picket with them?

I'm about exhausted with this thread anyway. Asking for Solidarity here is like pulling teeth and that's pretty goddamn sad on a Democratic forum. smh

there are lots of new transplants here that have flown in with the new tech money. sure they vote democratic and these people are "socially" liberal but when anything starts to inconvenience them, they suddenly aren't so liberal.

have been populating the region..

Did I read that right? A 12 percent raise over four years-- 3 percent per year-- but 13.5 percent pay cut for increased employee contributions for pensions and health care, most likely immediately? I'd strike too. That's a terrible deal.

That is a very very good offer...

Three percent per year isn't awful, but it isn't great, either. But combined with take backs that exceed three percent annually, it's a PAY CUT. If my union negotiated a contract that cut my pay I'd likely quit the union. We were faced with the same sorts of demands throughout the economic recession, but we held the line.

On their history. ...they aren't fighting the pay they are fighting work rules.

And if they have madr.it this far without furloighs or pay cuts or increased contribution then they are really lucky......

Sounds like management has better PR, but they can afford it.

are the hourly workers who staff the hotels and restaurants in San Francisco. Most of them don't make enough to live in the city where they work, so they live out in the East Bay and BART to work. If they don't work they don't get paid. If they don't get paid they don't eat.

That BART is the ONLY way to get from homes to work for so many workers is a major failure of public transit planning. Human nature though will have displaced workers solely blaming the unions and that's sad.

Are you one of those workers trying to cross the bay? It's gonna suck mightily tomorrow and this weekend.

I live in SF and work in Oakland, and don't own a car. However I happen to have a vacation planned for next week, so I'll just take off a day early. I have plenty of vacation time saved. I won't suffer. Others will though.

On edit: I wouldn't say that people are solely blaming the union. Management is catching their share.

I hope the strike is a one day deal.

It's a wonderful, nearly-riderless commute on most days, with an entire car to myself by the time I arrive in PH. Unfortunately for me, the shuttle services are mostly geared toward the west-bound commute. It's understandable, but it still sucks.

When this happened in July, we SF residents were allowed to work from home, but our new management forbids that. I wish we had been able to negotiate that

I know they're running some buses to WC and Concord but they won't be a good option for many reverse commuters. If you are able get to WC the County Connection MAY be able to get you the rest of the way but even then it will take an eon to commute.


eta: I'm fine short term because of the telecommuting option. I know I'm lucky.

I'll be allowed to log in from home for one hour to deal with urgent issues, then I'll have to use 7 of my remaining precious vacation hours for the rest of the day.

The lack of viable alternatives have worked in my favor in that respect, not having to take a 40-mile cab ride, but those vacation hours were accounted for already, so I'll have to deal with that later on.

In my experience this week, I've heard a lot of invective directed at the BART unions, but it hasn't spilled over into unions in general, or in theory. We've been scammed a lot since we were bought out, and I've heard things like "BART may be being unreasonable, but at least they don't have to deal with this" and the like. There is a lot of frustration and a little envy too

The strike has served to make BART riders and the general public aware of what BART employees actually make, and there's some shock and awe going on. As in they make WHAT and they want MORE? They make more than most BART riders, and have way better benefits so they can't expect lots of sympathy from the people who are actually paying for this strike with the food off their tables.

The Daly City and SF commuters who work in the Financial District all pile off the eastbound trains at Embarcadero, I hop on, and go three stops to downtown Oakland. Then I walk two blocks to my office. It's great. I love BART. My only other option is to ferry over to Oakland and then take the Oakland bus, which is what I would try. During the last strike a colleague drove me to work, which was actually fine, but that person is no longer there and everyone else who lives in the city is blissfully car-free.

Hell, the Pleasant Hill station still has a long-ass line on the SF side at 9am! Meanwhile, O get on at Civic Center, and by the time I hit PH it's just me and sleeping people on the train.

I was given permission to use some vacation time tomorrow, so at least for me there isn't too much suffering (except the loss of vacation time) but oh how I love that commute! The only down side is that I spend too much money on books

The union will be held responsible and not bart management.

In this case, the union is looking in the pockets of bart and seeing the money reserved for upgrading and earmarks for obsolescence and is saying, "we want that money.... you have plenty of money."

This is hardly an underpaid, overworked union -- they make more money than any other transit workers in this area.

For each job opening, bart gets 1700 applications -- it is harder to get a job at bart than get into harvard. If the pay and benefits are so bad, why would so many people die for a job there?

If that propaganda had any truth to it then it would have been done a long time ago.

Even pro-union people like me are against the bart union.

SF bay area is extremely liberal -- and still the union cannot get support -- says it all.

Heck, I'd even support a law that bans transit worker strikes.

According to another poster. So I guess we will see. It sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I wonder if these managers will have their salaries and benefits reduced to the level of the train operators, since that is the work that they will be performing and not managing. My guess is that they will not.

make then a final offerif they refuse tell them that after a certain date they are out of a job
ive read the contract proposal.
workers making 75k a year,recieving a 3% raise a year really have no reason to strike,especially if its in something as critical as mass transit

You have no idea what you are talking about. Arbitration is a last resort when there is a sticking point in the negotiations. The arbitrator steps in and decides on the issue(s) that the two parties are deadlocked on. That is how it works. It doesn't mean you scrap everything and start over with some guy from neither side deciding everything. I can't tell if you really don't understand that or if you are just feigning ignorance and hoping to save face after getting your butt kicked up and down this thread.

that management is willing to put the whole contract up for arbitration (as they said in the news conference) but the union would not?

Who is inflexible now?

agreement to have an arbitrator decide on things the two sides can't agree on to prevent a work stoppage.

The union is looking to have an equitable deal with the BART management. Sucks that unions actually believe that workers deserve as good a deal as management.

"they make more money than any other transit workers in this area"

NO, THEY DON'T. For example, a Transit Mechanic makes $36.02 per hour at BART and $38.18 per hour at Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.

Also ... "U.S. Department of Labor statistics indicate the median pay for subway and streetcar operators of all kinds in the U.S. is $30.16 an hour, and $31.62 in California - right about what BART pays its train drivers and station agents, $30.58 an hour."

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-workers-pay-plus-benefits-among-top-in-U-S-4723315.php#item-23057

It's becoming clear that you post no links to back up your claims because your claims are false.

You should post more often!

And the coffee shops and security desks, too!

Of selfish..... painful for those who can't go to work.

"For instance, if BART adds service on a holiday because of a special event, the unions could force the agency to schedule similar service the next year on that holiday, even if the event is not being held."

It's ridiculous rules like this that will sour public support.

The bart workers have been gaming the system for years. The last time, the board caved in to ridiculous demands and the unions thought the same would happen this time.

I'm glad it didn't.

Is how BART salaries got to be so high compared with other similar Union jobs. Nothing wrong with good pay, it's the distance between worker pay that adds more burden to those that depend on the transit system. For instance, I noticed that more than 3000 of the 3430 positions at BART make more than $80,000.00 per year. That's a good thing, but the people that use BART make a lot less and I'm sure the cost of using BART eats into their budget a great deal. I got the numbers from this link...

http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area?Entity=Bay Area Rapid Transit

and there was an outcry.

So this time, the board is playing hardball.

BART has reserves for planned improvements of the aging system and to replace obsolete equipment. The unions think that money can be given away as salaries with any future improvements coming out of fare hikes. It is as greedy a situation as it can get. The union tried to portray it as "bart is hoarding cash and not giving it to workers" which didn't fly.

On the other hand, bart management is overpaid as well and those costs must also be reined in.

Last edited Fri Oct 18, 2013, 09:16 PM - Edit history (1)

52% made over 75K the last time BART surveyed passengers in 2008. In 2013 dollars that 75K would be about 81K.
In 2008 37% of riders made over 100K and only 13% of riders made less than 25K. Lower income workers are slightly LESS likely to ride BART than are upper income workers.

In the same survey 73% of AM peak riders reported that they had a car available as an alternative transport -- many of them drove to the BART station.

So while a sizeable chunk of BART riders are without options in this strike and they are probably disproportionately those with incomes lower than the average BART worker, it's a mistake to characterize it as "the people that use BART make a lot less ..."

(**This is in reponse to #89 not #86.)

"The last time, the board caved in to ridiculous demands ..."

Are you referring to 2009 when BART drastically "underestimated" its projected gross revenue, ridership and sales tax revenues ? They claimed a $310 million operating deficit so the unions would agree to a contract they wouldn't have signed otherwise. It included a pay freeze which is why they've had no salary increase since 2009

The real problem with the current talks is that the union has done a poor job of public relations. They haven't effectively countered the misinformation being spread by everyone from Thomas Hock, the union-buster BART's paying $3400 A DAY as their chief negotiator, right on down to the commenters like yourself who keep posting dubious claims and fake outrage.

The fact is that when negotiating with unions the BART Board plays dirty, but when it comes to looking after their own in upper management ... ?

"BART GM Grace Crunican got a starting salary in 2011 of $300,000 despite being forced to resign from her position as Seattle’s Director of Transportation after both candidates in the 2009 Seattle mayor’s race pledged to fire her. Seeking new employment, Crunican applied to be county administrator of Clackamas County, Oregon in 2009; she did not get the job. Despite being forced to resign in Seattle and being passed over in Oregon, BART gave her a $300,000 starting salary and a $20,000 raise only six months into her job.


http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=11574

that there was massive unemployment and recession at that time. Private sector had layoffs and pay cuts in contrast.

I am talking about the 2006 (2005?) contract where the board gave the keys to the store to the unions and average citizens were furious that bart employees could hold the whole area hostage.

I would actually support a law that doesn't allow public transit unions to strike. It is an uneven power distribution and akin to teabaggers shutting the government down over obamacare.

If one doesn't like teabaggers doing it, it is not objective to like a union doing it.

In a private enterprise, the unions can ask for a pay raise but they take the risk of the enterprise failing due to high costs. So IMHO, private sector unions may ask whatever they want -- they take the risk that what they are asking may make the business fail.

In public transit, the customers have no choice but to pay the increased cost of ridership and the unions have no risk.

First it was "the last time," now it's "2006 (2005?)" but still no evidence to support your claims ?

And "the 2009 contract was very fair considering that there was massive unemployement and recession at that time" ...

So you see nothing wrong with the fact that BART concocted a fallacious projected deficit in order to negotiate a $100 million cut in their labor costs ?

And on top of all the highly dubious claims you've posted here, now you're espousing a "law that doesn't allow public transit unions to strike" because, y'know, the "teabaggers" ... ?

You're not ANY kind of a union supporter, "knee-jerk" or otherwise.

Here's a link to the available transit map: http://511.org/docs/Supplemental_Service_Map.pdf

There are also free shuttles, organized free carpools, and ferries. My favorite complainer on KRON 4 just now said he's upset because he can't have his leisurely morning breakfast and quick commute because of the strike.

As for workplace rules, how would you like your boss to be able to assign you 4 hour shifts at random times during the week? That's the main sticking point, and it's exactly why Management won't go to mediation.

And do you know how long these people have worked without a contract?

to live in Texas. I wholly depend on the bus system here to get to-and from work. A strike would give me the choice of either walking 14 miles to work or not going to work.
If the drivers are making nearly $80,000 a year, they should be willing to work whenever management says they need. If not, there are plenty of jobs at Burger King.

Gotcha. The fact is, BART management refuses to allow an arbitrator to settle a dispute about work rules.

to work under any rules that management wants to put in place for nearly $80,000 plus benefits. Hell I know I would. You give me $80,000, I'll work a 12 hour shift and come back 4 hours later. I sure as hell wouldn't screw other people over that just want to get to work or school. Be grateful that you have a kick ass job in a terrible economy, and get back to work. Hundreds of thousands of people are depending on you.

Why don't you call up BART and make that offer? If you really believe the words you just typed, why not?

The economy is tough. When the economy is tough, it is the easiest time for management to break unions.