BART and all other public transit agencies

[Robert A Whit]

I have ridden the NY City subway, seen the Metro running in VA and DC and more.

Taxpayers paid for my work to construct BART. BART is on strike. Who knows the typical earnings of their transit workers? BART has long paid our workers an average income of $134,000 based on figures told to viewers on our local TV news.

And they want more.

We have 13 counties around the SF Bay. A few counties opted in for BART. Many rejected BART when we got to vote on it. I admit making a good living working on BART but my job at the time was dangerous. A life could be lost at any moment.

What this is all about is this transit thing is spreading. The costs to build are always told to voters to be a lot less than it really ends up being. You must not rely on the numbers you are told by politicians. They may not be lying, but you are not being told the truth. The cost to build is only the starting place.

Now built, you must keep paying to keep the system up. And workers demand more and more income. They feel they have you by your balls, so they jack you up to get super incomes.

I am pretty sure that my old union does not get my former worker craft near the money those who sit in a computerized cab of a machine make. They don't work. They ride as the computer does the job. They are there in case the computer makes a mistake. And the cost of tickets is sky high.

The owners of large personal boats have told me that the boat is a hole in the water they pour money into.

Rapid transit is such a hole.

Now that BART is not working, the public at large clogs the roads. We did a vast disservice by having substandard roads is how I see it.

[tailfins]

What if they renamed it from Bay Area Rapid Transit to Frisco Area Rapid Transit?

[Marcus Aurelius]

What if they renamed it from Bay Area Rapid Transit to Frisco Area Rapid Transit?

How about Transgender Area Rapid Transit?

[Voted4Reagan]

BART... what a useless investment.

Same as AMTRAK

Same as the Long Island Railroad

Same as all other Union Operated Transportation Providers...

They are CROOKS...

[Robert A Whit]

What if they renamed it from Bay Area Rapid Transit to Frisco Area Rapid Transit?

These workers pay a grand total per month for their health care $92.00

Not $920 or $500, but NINTY TWO DOLLARS. And they want more.

And I will try to explain their monthly income this way, and this is only average.

$134,000 per year = $11,117 per month. Almost $2,800 per week.

Yet they demand a raise? These train jockeys sure are full of themselves.

Who recalls my statement that they get paid for sitting? They ride just the way the passengers that pay get to ride. Computers run those trains.

[Marcus Aurelius]

These workers pay a grand total per month for their health care $92.00

Not $920 or $500, but NINTY TWO DOLLARS. And they want more.

And I will try to explain their monthly income this way, and this is only average.

$134,000 per year = $11,117 per month. Almost $2,800 per week.

Yet they demand a raise? These train jockeys sure are full of themselves.

Who recalls my statement that they get paid for sitting? They ride just the way the passengers that pay get to ride. Computers run those trains.

you're full of shit with your numbers...

http://www.thenation.com/blog/175063/bart-strike-another-instance-media-portraying-workers-greedy#axzz2XwFGrvde


Workers are asking for a wage increase (they haven’t received one in five years) and improved safety measures (bullet-proof glass in station booths, better lighting in tunnels, etc.). The union is asking for a 23 percent raise over four years, and BART countered with an offer of an 8 percent raise over four years, but the union says this offer falls below cost of living increases.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/07/bay-area-transit-strike-why-it-matters

According to salary data scraped (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnZDmytGK63SdDJKTE5FNVVLdGQ4NjluZVVEWHNpS EE#gid=0) by journalist John Osborn and accumulated (http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area?Entity=Bay%20Area%20Rapid%20Transit) by the Bay Area News Group last year, average base salary for both station agents and full time train operators is around $56,000 a year. (Add to this the average overtime pay of around $10,000 for station agents and $17,000 for full time train operators.)

[Robert A Whit]

I admit I got my numbers from ABC or CBS news.

They reported the numbers I used.

BTW, I think mother jones is full of shit and so is any fool quoting them.

By the way, your figures probably are starting wages paid.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I admit I got my numbers from ABC or CBS news.

They reported the numbers I used.

BTW, I think mother jones is full of shit and so is any fool quoting them.

By the way, your figures probably are starting wages paid.

You responded pretty quick for a guy who has me on 'ignore', dumb ass.:laugh:

I'll trust sourced numbers over 'hey, I saw it on tv someplace' numbers any day. You can 'think' anything you like about the numbers, but if you disagree with them (as I did with yours) it's up to you to provide evidence to back up your claim (as I did).

You claim shit all the time, and rarely, if ever, back those claims up.

[Robert A Whit]

Go to the cage little man. If you want to fight me over pay for BART, start a thread in the cage.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Here's where Mother Jones got their numbers, dumb ass...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnZDmytGK63SdDJKTE5FNVVLdGQ4NjluZVVEWHNpS EE#gid=5
Mercury News

The $130,000 you heard was for one persons high end management position base salary. Base for train operators can be $63,676, with a further $75,000 if they work ALL possible overtime, as one example on the sheet shows. Some are higher, most are lower.

Knowledge is your friend... not 'hey, I think I heard it someplace'.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Go to the cage little man. If you want to fight me over pay for BART, start a thread in the cage.

You post hearsay, I post facts, and you whine that I should take it to the cage? Are you afraid of responding to facts?

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area?Entity=Bay%20Area%20Rapid%20Transit&appSession=48216175223590&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=2&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area?Entity=Bay%20Area%20Rapid%20Transit&appSession=48216175223590&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=2&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=

Scroll up, dumb ass. I already posted a link from Mercury News to a list of over 3,400 employee salaries.

Look at the second tab on the spreadsheet (Job Analysis). I breaks it down by position. Train Operators make from $53,672 to $106,472. The only people making $250,000 or more are high end managers, NOT train operators.

[logroller]

Scroll up, dumb ass. I already posted a link from Mercury News to a list of over 3,400 employee salaries.

Look at the second tab on the spreadsheet (Job Analysis). I breaks it down by position. Train Operators make from $53,672 to $106,472. The only people making $250,000 or more are high end managers, NOT train operators.
Awesome source; I found the same one. ;)
the median gross compensation for an a-line train operator is just over $100k. Thats the median, it ranges from $175 to $13k. I prefer median to average on incomes because averages can be skewed by a few high earners. But this also is gross income, which includes pension, medical etc. most people don't realize how much those perks cost. (A primary reason I advocate doing away with employer funded healthcare) in the interest of comparing apples to apples it's probably best to just to look at base+OT. Of course the perks certainly have an impact on overall costs, but its useful to put the compensation in perspective with an area that has a median income of nearly $50k. Ill fart around with the numbers, but I doubt it will cast any favorable light on the union workers demands-- as its likely they are extremely well-compensated.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Awesome source; I found the same one. ;)
the median gross compensation for an a-line train operator is just over $100k. Thats the median, it ranges from $175 to $13k. I prefer median to average on incomes because averages can be skewed by a few high earners. But this also is gross income, which includes pension, medical etc. most people don't realize how much those perks cost. (A primary reason I advocate doing away with employer funded healthcare) in the interest of comparing apples to apples it's probably best to just to look at base+OT. Of course the perks certainly have an impact on overall costs, but its useful to put the compensation in perspective with an area that has a median income of nearly $50k. Ill fart around with the numbers, but I doubt it will cast any favorable light on the union workers demands-- as its likely they are extremely well-compensated.

I don't really disagree with anything you said.

My point was to show that the initial numbers the OP mentioned were considerably high for a train operator. and that a little research on his part would have done him some good.

I agree that base + OT (assuming they work all the available OT) is a good barometer of compensation across the board.

While I am not into unions (I think they had a place once, but that has been corrupted over the last 20-30 years), I do find it odd that the train operators and such have not had a raise in 5 years. Hell, I get one every year. Not much sometimes, but it's there.

I do agree with their safety demands, though. Have you seen the crime statistics against BART workers?

[logroller]

I don't really disagree with anything you said.

My point was to show that the initial numbers the OP mentioned were considerably high for a train operator. and that a little research on his part would have done him some good.

I agree that base + OT (assuming they work all the available OT) is a good barometer of compensation across the board.

While I am not into unions (I think they had a place once, but that has been corrupted over the last 20-30 years), I do find it odd that the train operators and such have not had a raise in 5 years. Hell, I get one every year. Not much sometimes, but it's there.

I do agree with their safety demands, though. Have you seen the crime statistics against BART workers?
mark twain said it best, "there's lies, damned lies, and statistics." Anytime I see statistics given i immediately look for bias. Statistics tell a story; what's the purpose?
As for raises, it's important to understand the relationship between wages and pension benefits. These people aren't paying anything towards their pensions, which I assume is PERS. the benefits to public employees are extensive. For example, they get a lot of days off (vacation, personal, sick; often amount to well over a month) and these days are typically covered by another's OT and this drives the compensation used to calculate pensions up; covered wholly by the agency/fund.
Of course safety is a legitimate concern, but coming from a safety background I can tell you that safety upgrades are intrinsically cost-effective-- and management is more than willing to invest in such upgrades. These upgrades aren't free though; it cost a lot to install these things and when faced with astronomical increases to benefit compensation there's only so much in the coffers and something must be cut. Sure, they deserve a raise to keep up with cost of living but when those increases drive the index of pensions that must higher it becomes fiscally unsustainable. But I everybody took a realistic approach to the problems on the issue one would soon realize that the "benefits" provided by the union are null--- and that's a theme to the story that liberal San Fran just doesn't want told.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650040#post650040)
I don't really disagree with anything you said.

My point was to show that the initial numbers the OP mentioned were considerably high for a train operator. and that a little research on his part would have done him some good.

I agree that base + OT (assuming they work all the available OT) is a good barometer of compensation across the board.

While I am not into unions (I think they had a place once, but that has been corrupted over the last 20-30 years), I do find it odd that the train operators and such have not had a raise in 5 years. Hell, I get one every year. Not much sometimes, but it's there.

I do agree with their safety demands, though. Have you seen the crime statistics against BART workers?


mark twain said it best, "there's lies, damned lies, and statistics." Anytime I see statistics given i immediately look for bias. Statistics tell a story; what's the purpose?
As for raises, it's important to understand the relationship between wages and pension benefits. These people aren't paying anything towards their pensions, which I assume is PERS. the benefits to public employees are extensive. For example, they get a lot of days off (vacation, personal, sick; often amount to well over a month) and these days are typically covered by another's OT and this drives the compensation used to calculate pensions up; covered wholly by the agency/fund.
Of course safety is a legitimate concern, but coming from a safety background I can tell you that safety upgrades are intrinsically cost-effective-- and management is more than willing to invest in such upgrades. These upgrades aren't free though; it cost a lot to install these things and when faced with astronomical increases to benefit compensation there's only so much in the coffers and something must be cut. Sure, they deserve a raise to keep up with cost of living but when those increases drive the index of pensions that must higher it becomes fiscally unsustainable. But I everybody took a realistic approach to the problems on the issue one would soon realize that the "benefits" provided by the union are null--- and that's a theme to the story that liberal San Fran just doesn't want told.

Notice how respectful Marcus was to whomever he talked to. No calling him a dumb ass for not agreeing with Marcus. Clearly Marcus defended himself. So why no shout of liar and dumbass?

I got my figure of $134,000 from watching my local Bay Area News. I watch all the channels so my data could have come from any of ABC, CBS or NBC. I have no clue how I can link to a live broadcast discussing BART.

I also posted a link to the Mercury news (I have Marcus on ignore yet from time to time peek at his comments, so I see a few but not many of his comments) and on that list was many who were paid annually over $250,000. I did not mention the income of train operators.

I spoke of the average income to begin with. This means all incomes go into the same kettle and divided by number working for BART.

I don't know why but to Marcus, when he sees my posts, he decides he has to lunge at me with fangs bared as if I did a wrong. He treats Jafar the same way and perhaps others I am not thinking of right now.

Posts do not have to be agreed to. My signature line states I post opinions. That I am not claiming to be expert.

I sure enjoy posts that do not engage in personal attacks and those are what Marcus brings to the forum all the time. Attacks he does not have to make. Calling posters dumb ass is anti social behavior on his part.

It matters not what else he says when he tries that way of talking.

Logroller gave a great explanation of the issues. I mentioned that workers pay only $92 per month for a very expensive health care plan but rather than deal with that issue, Marcus decided I needed one more of his attacks.

BART has offered them a very generous package and the Union says hell no. One union settled but SEIU is refusing. We all know who SEIU supports don't we??

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650040#post650040)
I don't really disagree with anything you said.

My point was to show that the initial numbers the OP mentioned were considerably high for a train operator. and that a little research on his part would have done him some good.

I agree that base + OT (assuming they work all the available OT) is a good barometer of compensation across the board.

While I am not into unions (I think they had a place once, but that has been corrupted over the last 20-30 years), I do find it odd that the train operators and such have not had a raise in 5 years. Hell, I get one every year. Not much sometimes, but it's there.

I do agree with their safety demands, though. Have you seen the crime statistics against BART workers?
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by logroller http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650044#post650044)

mark twain said it best, "there's lies, damned lies, and statistics." Anytime I see statistics given i immediately look for bias. Statistics tell a story; what's the purpose?
As for raises, it's important to understand the relationship between wages and pension benefits. These people aren't paying anything towards their pensions, which I assume is PERS. the benefits to public employees are extensive. For example, they get a lot of days off (vacation, personal, sick; often amount to well over a month) and these days are typically covered by another's OT and this drives the compensation used to calculate pensions up; covered wholly by the agency/fund.
Of course safety is a legitimate concern, but coming from a safety background I can tell you that safety upgrades are intrinsically cost-effective-- and management is more than willing to invest in such upgrades. These upgrades aren't free though; it cost a lot to install these things and when faced with astronomical increases to benefit compensation there's only so much in the coffers and something must be cut. Sure, they deserve a raise to keep up with cost of living but when those increases drive the index of pensions that must higher it becomes fiscally unsustainable. But I everybody took a realistic approach to the problems on the issue one would soon realize that the "benefits" provided by the union are null--- and that's a theme to the story that liberal San Fran just doesn't want told.






Notice how respectful Marcus was to whomever he talked to. No calling him a dumb ass for not agreeing with Marcus. Clearly Marcus defended himself. So why no shout of liar and dumbass? No defense. Discussion. With facts, and links. You should try it sometime.

I got my figure of $134,000 from watching my local Bay Area News. I watch all the channels so my data could have come from any of ABC, CBS or NBC. I have no clue how I can link to a live broadcast discussing BART. If you can't link to a source, it isn't really a source. It's hearsay. Try GOOGLE, dumb ass.

I also posted a link to the Mercury news (I have Marcus on ignore yet from time to time peek at his comments, so I see a few but not many of his comments) and on that list was many who were paid annually over $250,000. I did not mention the income of train operators. Please, that is getting old. It's intentionally disingenuous to talk only about the highest manager salaries like they apply to every worker involved, dumb ass.

I spoke of the average income to begin with. This means all incomes go into the same kettle and divided by number working for BART. Which is an asinine way to figure it. Even Log mentioned that was not an accurate way to look at the situation.

I don't know why but to Marcus, when he sees my posts, he decides he has to lunge at me with fangs bared as if I did a wrong. He treats Jafar the same way and perhaps others I am not thinking of right now. Stop being a dumb ass, and you won't be treated as a dumb ass, dumb ass.

Posts do not have to be agreed to. My signature line states I post opinions. That I am not claiming to be expert. Yes, we know you're not an expert. Tell us something new.

I sure enjoy posts that do not engage in personal attacks and those are what Marcus brings to the forum all the time. Attacks he does not have to make. Calling posters dumb ass is anti social behavior on his part. Live with the name, dumb ass. It fits. As for personal attacks, I seem to remember you calling me an asshole recently. If you dislike personal attacks, why use them?

It matters not what else he says when he tries that way of talking.

Logroller gave a great explanation of the issues. I mentioned that workers pay only $92 per month for a very expensive health care plan but rather than deal with that issue, Marcus decided I needed one more of his attacks. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

BART has offered them a very generous package and the Union says hell no. One union settled but SEIU is refusing. We all know who SEIU supports don't we??

my comments in RED above, dumb ass.

[Robert A Whit]

Awesome source; I found the same one. ;)
the median gross compensation for an a-line train operator is just over $100k. Thats the median, it ranges from $175 to $13k. I prefer median to average on incomes because averages can be skewed by a few high earners. But this also is gross income, which includes pension, medical etc. most people don't realize how much those perks cost. (A primary reason I advocate doing away with employer funded healthcare) in the interest of comparing apples to apples it's probably best to just to look at base+OT. Of course the perks certainly have an impact on overall costs, but its useful to put the compensation in perspective with an area that has a median income of nearly $50k. Ill fart around with the numbers, but I doubt it will cast any favorable light on the union workers demands-- as its likely they are extremely well-compensated.

Due to request, I limit my exposure to Marcus but do see a few of his remarks. I posted the figures and to this moment have not seen his figures. Mine came from a local paper and he says his did too.

I did not see the source cited on my local TV news where I got my figures from. I went to one of the TV news trying to find a link but gave it up. I don't consider Marcus gripe enough to make me run all over just to please him anyway.

With his bad attitude on the forum, who the hell wants to rush around to make him happy? Were he pleasant to read, I sure would be more willing to help him out but his constant derisive fashion of posting makes me want to kick his qss, not find links for him.

Even the lowest paid BART workers start pretty high. And they are not running the train. They are actually passengers. The train starts and stops as directed by the computer. The driver can hit an emergency stop. It has to be very boring to drive the train.

Oakland is a violent city. Murder there is reported virtually daily and yet the city is just over half the size larger than my city. My city has murders but they are rare. Bart operators are in a compartment and of course safe from attack. They have manned stations at the stations but to buy a ticket you use the machines. It is highly automated.

It would be different if they beared the cost or a lot of the cost for benefits. Forcing taxpayers to shell out the difference of $92 per month vs the actual cost sucks. And they have a super generous retirement. If it is PERS, it is a cadillac of benefits. My own son in law rakes in big time money on his disability. Plus he holds a real job for a bank security operation. HE was forced to retire early so it is not his fault.

BART workers have repair people. I expect those work harder than train operators and perhaps are paid more. But I don't feel sorry for the workers. They pulled this crap in the past and if you want to ride BART now, it costs an arm and leg. No, when they get a raise, the publicly funded BART system will want more from the rest of us non BART users in taxes. A few people in the Bay area ride it a lot. The rest of us that do not get shit on.

But Marcus did not mention that part. I just checked with a BART rider who happens to be here at the moment and he told me his cost to take BART round trip to SF is $11.20 per day.

That is far too much. Bart runs on electric current, not diesel.

His trip is subsidized heavily by the rest of the non BART users.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Due to request, I limit my exposure to Marcus but do see a few of his remarks. I posted the figures and to this moment have not seen his figures. Mine came from a local paper and he says his did too.You bitched about the source of the figures, and didn't bother to actually LOOK at them? Dumb ass.

I did not see the source cited on my local TV news where I got my figures from. I went to one of the TV news trying to find a link but gave it up. I don't consider Marcus gripe enough to make me run all over just to please him anyway. Your call if you want to remain willfully ignorant of pertinent facts of your argument.

With his bad attitude on the forum, who the hell wants to rush around to make him happy? Were he pleasant to read, I sure would be more willing to help him out but his constant derisive fashion of posting makes me want to kick his qss, not find links for him. Stop whining.

Even the lowest paid BART workers start pretty high. And they are not running the train. They are actually passengers. The train starts and stops as directed by the computer. The driver can hit an emergency stop. It has to be very boring to drive the train. Here... educate yourself on the various duties of BART employees... http://www.bart.gov/about/jobs/descriptions/ ... and stop guessing.

Oakland is a violent city. Murder there is reported virtually daily and yet the city is just over half the size larger than my city. My city has murders but they are rare. Bart operators are in a compartment and of course safe from attack. They have manned stations at the stations but to buy a ticket you use the machines. It is highly automated. Then why was this needed, dumb ass? http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2013/news20130429a.aspx Again, educate yourself prior to posting... http://www.wemakebartwork.com/444/suit-against-bart-focuses-on-health-safety-issues/
BART Police figures show more than 2400 serious crimes committed on the transit system over the last three years – in five stations alone. There were more than 1,000 physical attacks on riders in the same time period, and more than 100 physical attacks on BART employees. Many of these crimes are so serious that BART police are required to report them to the FBI, as they include homicide, rape, physical battery, aggravated assault, and serious property crimes.

It would be different if they beared the cost or a lot of the cost for benefits. Forcing taxpayers to shell out the difference of $92 per month vs the actual cost sucks. And they have a super generous retirement. If it is PERS, it is a cadillac of benefits. My own son in law rakes in big time money on his disability. Plus he holds a real job for a bank security operation. HE was forced to retire early so it is not his fault.

BART workers have repair people. I expect those work harder than train operators and perhaps are paid more. But I don't feel sorry for the workers. They pulled this crap in the past and if you want to ride BART now, it costs an arm and leg. No, when they get a raise, the publicly funded BART system will want more from the rest of us non BART users in taxes. A few people in the Bay area ride it a lot. The rest of us that do not get shit on. Such is life. Learn to live with it.

But Marcus did not mention that part. I just checked with a BART rider who happens to be here at the moment and he told me his cost to take BART round trip to SF is $11.20 per day. Find another means of transport if you don't like the fares. http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2013/news20130228a.aspx
BART’s average fare is $3.59. A 5.2% increase would cost an extra 19 cents, bringing the fare to $3.78.

That is far too much. Bart runs on electric current, not diesel. Immaterial. Where do you think the electricity is generated?

His trip is subsidized heavily by the rest of the non BART users.

my comments in RED.

[logroller]

Due to request, I limit my exposure to Marcus but do see a few of his remarks. I posted the figures and to this moment have not seen his figures. Mine came from a local paper and he says his did too.

I did not see the source cited on my local TV news where I got my figures from. I went to one of the TV news trying to find a link but gave it up. I don't consider Marcus gripe enough to make me run all over just to please him anyway.

With his bad attitude on the forum, who the hell wants to rush around to make him happy? Were he pleasant to read, I sure would be more willing to help him out but his constant derisive fashion of posting makes me want to kick his qss, not find links for him.

Even the lowest paid BART workers start pretty high. And they are not running the train. They are actually passengers. The train starts and stops as directed by the computer. The driver can hit an emergency stop. It has to be very boring to drive the train.

Oakland is a violent city. Murder there is reported virtually daily and yet the city is just over half the size larger than my city. My city has murders but they are rare. Bart operators are in a compartment and of course safe from attack. They have manned stations at the stations but to buy a ticket you use the machines. It is highly automated.

It would be different if they beared the cost or a lot of the cost for benefits. Forcing taxpayers to shell out the difference of $92 per month vs the actual cost sucks. And they have a super generous retirement. If it is PERS, it is a cadillac of benefits. My own son in law rakes in big time money on his disability. Plus he holds a real job for a bank security operation. HE was forced to retire early so it is not his fault.

BART workers have repair people. I expect those work harder than train operators and perhaps are paid more. But I don't feel sorry for the workers. They pulled this crap in the past and if you want to ride BART now, it costs an arm and leg. No, when they get a raise, the publicly funded BART system will want more from the rest of us non BART users in taxes. A few people in the Bay area ride it a lot. The rest of us that do not get shit on.

But Marcus did not mention that part. I just checked with a BART rider who happens to be here at the moment and he told me his cost to take BART round trip to SF is $11.20 per day.

That is far too much. Bart runs on electric current, not diesel.

His trip is subsidized heavily by the rest of the non BART users.
The mercurynews site had an interactive database; it wasn't just a quoted number; so one can explore the data rather than merely accepting whatever conclusions were intended by the author/presenter. You seem to be muddying the issue. Is this an issue of unruly union demands or the superfluity of transit? They aren't one in the same and confusing the two, whether intentional or not, is a sure fire way for valid arguments to be dismissed as a bias driven strawman.

[Robert A Whit]

The mercurynews site had an interactive database; it wasn't just a quoted number; so one can explore the data rather than merely accepting whatever conclusions were intended by the author/presenter. You seem to be muddying the issue. Is this an issue of unruly union demands or the superfluity of transit? They aren't one in the same and confusing the two, whether intentional or not, is a sure fire way for valid arguments to be dismissed as a bias driven strawman.

I like how you respect posters comments. We need a lot more of that.

My OP merely stated what I the TV broadcast news told us all.

It is a lot more than BART riders paying for those wages and costs. Non riders pick up a lot of the costs. I can't tell you the exact percent, but it is not fully funded by riders.

Some jobs merit pay as shown by the Mercury article.

My constant bias is for the forgotten man, the guy paying the bills whose voice is seldom presented in the media.

They are not on strike as a strawman. The payment of very little of their health care is a vast issue. A raise as offered may be a fair raise but they turned that down.

When i see my taxes increase due to their demands, it gets very personal.

[Voted4Reagan]

Well.... since San Francisco is really WHITLESS in it's thinking...

W>A>R>T

Whitless Area Rapid Transit

[Robert A Whit]

Well.... since San Francisco is really WHITLESS in it's thinking...

W>A>R>T

Whitless Area Rapid Transit

Give me a post where I attacked you????????????????????

[Marcus Aurelius]

I like how you respect posters comments. We need a lot more of that.

My OP merely stated what I the TV broadcast news told us all.

It is a lot more than BART riders paying for those wages and costs. Non riders pick up a lot of the costs. I can't tell you the exact percent, but it is not fully funded by riders.

Some jobs merit pay as shown by the Mercury article.

My constant bias is for the forgotten man, the guy paying the bills whose voice is seldom presented in the media.

They are not on strike as a strawman. The payment of very little of their health care is a vast issue. A raise as offered may be a fair raise but they turned that down.

When i see my taxes increase due to their demands, it gets very personal.

Took me all of 10 seconds on Google to find YOUR information FOR you...

http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120614a.aspx

Fare-paying customers account for 78% of the operating funds in the FY13 budget.
Fare paying riders cover the vast majority of BART costs. Facts are your friend. Try them sometime.


Oh, you DO realize the workers have offered to INCREASE their share of health insurance costs... right, dumb ass?

[Robert A Whit]

Took me all of 10 seconds on Google to find YOUR information FOR you...

http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120614a.aspx

Fare paying riders cover the vast majority of BART costs. Facts are your friend. Try them sometime.


Oh, you DO realize the workers have offered to INCREASE their share of health insurance costs... right, dumb ass?

That is always how you should do it scrotum face.

There is no reason why non riders need to pay for rides they do not get to take.

Nobody says the workers have not done as you claim.

Scrotum face, there is no need to refute comments I have not made. To wit claims they have not said they will pick up some health care costs.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650122#post650122)
Took me all of 10 seconds on Google to find YOUR information FOR you...

http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/20...20120614a.aspx (http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120614a.aspx)

Fare paying riders cover the vast majority of BART costs. Facts are your friend. Try them sometime.


Oh, you DO realize the workers have offered to INCREASE their share of health insurance costs... right, dumb ass?



That is always how you should do it scrotum face.

There is no reason why non riders need to pay for rides they do not get to take.

Nobody says the workers have not done as you claim.

Scrotum face, there is no need to refute comments I have not made. To wit claims they have not said they will pick up some health care costs.

Again, proving once and for all that I am not on ignore, and I live rent free in your tiny little mind :laugh2:

You should try GOOGLE sometime, instead of hearsay. You might, I doubt it, look a tiny bit less inept when you post.

Scrotum face? That's the best you've got? :laugh:

Dumb ass.

[aboutime]

That is always how you should do it scrotum face.

There is no reason why non riders need to pay for rides they do not get to take.

Nobody says the workers have not done as you claim.

Scrotum face, there is no need to refute comments I have not made. To wit claims they have not said they will pick up some health care costs.


Robert. When you call someone such a name, like scrotum face. Is that meant to distract attention from your DICK HEADEDNESS?

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/05/bart-to-resume-service-no-deal-reached-with-union/?test=latestnews


Commuter rail service will resume Friday following a strike, after the San Francisco Bay Area transit agency and its two largest unions agreed to extend a labor contract for a month while they continue bargaining.



"Unfortunately, the issues that brought us to this point remain unresolved," Crunican said. "Despite lots of hard work, BART and its unions have failed to come to an agreement on contract issues that matter to all of us today and into the future."

Well, for once, a union did the right thing. At least for now.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/05...est=latestnews (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/07/05/bart-to-resume-service-no-deal-reached-with-union/?test=latestnews)


Commuter rail service will resume Friday following a strike, after the San Francisco Bay Area transit agency and its two largest unions agreed to extend a labor contract for a month while they continue bargaining.



"Unfortunately, the issues that brought us to this point remain unresolved," Crunican said. "Despite lots of hard work, BART and its unions have failed to come to an agreement on contract issues that matter to all of us today and into the future."





Well, for once, a union did the right thing. At least for now.





I am not unsympathetic to workers and their need to survive.

I am not sympathetic when said workers already make far more than typical incomes and have super generous benefits. Riders do not pay all the costs.

The train operators are commuters themselves by virtue that the system is automatic and managed by a computer. It is a gravy train to merely work for BART. Many who are out of work have said to both sides, "we are not working and will gladly run the trains for what the workers have been paid in the past"

BARTs major problem is it was built using tax dollars but run by people who have no particular vested interest as to holding down costs. It is not a for profit operation.

Here are some figures from BART as to their revenues and sources. Notice that Riders are not paying a fair share.

I believe it is on page 9 or 10 you can see in proper format the below figures.

http://www.bart.gov/docs/FY14_PB_Pamphlet_Master_05.01.13_Final.pdf

S O UR C E S
Passenger Revenue $ 380.2 $ 415.9 $ 35.7
Parking Revenue 15.6 19.8 4.2
OtherOperating Revenue 19.3 19.5 0.2
OPERATINGREVENUE TOTAL 415.1 455.2 40.1
Sales Tax 204.2 215.7 11.5
Property Tax 30.3 30.9 0.6
State Transit Assistance 17.3 18.8 1.5
OtherAssistance/Allocations 5.1 2.7 (2.4
TAX & FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TOTAL 257.0 268.1 11.1
OPERATINGSOURCES,subtotal 672.1 723.3 51.2
5307 Funds (Rail Car Fund Swap fromMTC) ‐ 72.0 72.0
OPERATINGSOURCES TOTAL 672.1 795.3 123.2
CAPITAL SOURCES TOTAL 1
869.2 824.9 (

Notice that property taxes and sales taxes are well over half the riders revenue.

[fj1200]

Notice that property taxes and sales taxes are well over half the riders revenue.

Not disagreeing that BART is likely a money suck and the employees are overpaid but there are benefits that accrue to non-riders of public transportation. All of those people not taking BART benefit by not having to compete with additional users for road space, parking spaces, etc.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650397#post650397)
Notice that property taxes and sales taxes are well over half the riders revenue.


Not disagreeing that BART is likely a money suck and the employees are overpaid but there are benefits that accrue to non-riders of public transportation. All of those people not taking BART benefit by not having to compete with additional users for road space, parking spaces, etc.

I posted numbers provided by BART financials showing that the earnings from riders is not nearly as much as Marcus claimed. He said we taxpayers pay 12 percent. That is so much bull shit I have to mention it. Property Taxes and Sales taxes raise well over half the Bart riders revenue.

Do I get benefit from BART?

Since I was a construction manager on a major job site, and worked on it during the time it was built, I got plenty of benefits. But as a home owner, I pay for rides I do not take. Does it mean I get a better commute to SF?

I have not been in SF since 2002 I believe, so no, I get no benefits. Those working in local business pay for BART too and those damned workers want to take more out of our hides.

I would turn them down and put those now wanting the work to work doing the job at a lower pay than they have been getting. I live about 40 miles from that city and find I do just fine not going there. I am lucky that I can get to SF and not pay a toll of any sort.

Parking is a bitch in SF and fees are staggering to park a car. And the city has a campaign that in my opinion is anti visitor. They have stunning parking meter charges.

When I was building BART, the common folk lore was BART would cause property values to rise and since I have plenty of tools to measure that, I never found out a way to prove what BART stated. I know that despite BART not serving Silicon Valley, that is what caused our prices to go up so much. Silicon Valley is a proven reason to buy homes in my town. Matter of fact, my city is part of Silicon Valley. So, scratch the statement it does not serve Silicon Valley but we are just in the fringes. The real heavy lifting Silicon Valley has no service.

[Robert A Whit]

This is the record obtained from BART financials.

The point is that currently salex tax revenue is way down. At first I was going to link it to Obama but that would be completely wrong. Maybe due to his stimulus that BART admits it got, it also lost sales tax income. That is a project I plan to check into.

-----------------------------------
Sales Tax Revenue

<tbody>
FY 2013 (Q3)
$52,798,923


FY 2013 (Q2)
$52,414,498


FY 2013 (Q1)
$52,324,601


FY 2012
$195,213,546


FY 2011
$180,819,206


FY 2010
$166,519,817


FY 2009
$184,285,565


FY 2008
$202,632,203


FY 2007
$198,805,258


FY 2006
$191,679,598


FY 2005
$178,391,706


FY 2004
$170,566,337

</tbody>


This may be linked to Gov. Jerry Browns claims he balanced the budget.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I posted numbers provided by BART financials showing that the earnings from riders is not nearly as much as Marcus claimed. He said we taxpayers pay 12 percent.


That is so much bull shit I have to mention it.

Property Taxes and Sales taxes raise well over half the Bart riders revenue.



Note the source of my information, and what I said... dumb ass.

http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/20...20120614a.aspx (http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120614a.aspx)

Fare-paying customers account for 78% of the operating funds in the FY13 budget.





Here's the whole paragraph...


BART’s $672.1 million operating budget is benefiting from ridership that is projected to increase by 3% in FY13 to an average weekday ridership of 376,000 for the year, which would be an all-time high. Fare-paying customers account for 78% of the operating funds in the FY13 budget. The second largest source of operating revenue, dedicated money from sales taxes, is expected to increase by 5%.

Want to continue to call me a liar, you stupid sack of shit???

[Robert A Whit]

Scrotum face

Thanks for confirming I occupy your head.

You now know for a fact due to BART financials that you were full of shit. You take responsibility for what you post here.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Scrotum face

Thanks for confirming I occupy your head.

You now know for a fact due to BART financials that you were full of shit. You take responsibility for what you post here.

My numbers CAME from BART themselves, dipshit. and are VERIFIED by the link YOU posted...

http://www.bart.gov/docs/FY14_PB_Pamphlet_Master_05.01.13_Final.pdf

Pages 9 of the document YOU linked to...

Passenger Revenue for 2013, in millions, 380.2
Operating Expenses Total for 2013, in millions, 532.7

380.2 is 72% of 532.7.

Dumb ass. I spoke ONLY of rider revenue vs. Operating expenses... go review my posts.

YOU started in with all the other financial bullshit that was immaterial to my post.

Now, are you still going to sit there with a straight face, call me a liar, and trash my source... when my source was YOUR source?

Dumb ass.

You now know for a fact due to BART financials that you posted and I quoted from, that you are full of shit and just trying to trash the thread. You take responsibility for what you post here.

[Robert A Whit]

So scrotum face

Now you admit to the forum that you flat out ignored the costs paid by taxpayers, not riders in order to pretend that your figure is right?

I knew that.

Till you smarted off, the issue is how much do taxpayers pay, not the percent of rider revenue to expenses.

[aboutime]

Scrotum face

Thanks for confirming I occupy your head.

You now know for a fact due to BART financials that you were full of shit. You take responsibility for what you post here.


Robert. Surely, you must know. When you call someone Scrotum face...then happily claim YOU occupy someone's head. What a picture we must be imagining by then????

Thankfully. Your Occupational abilities are limited to Head Jobs. SO TO SPEAK.

[Marcus Aurelius]

So scrotum face

Now you admit to the forum that you flat out ignored the costs paid by taxpayers, not riders in order to pretend that your figure is right?

I knew that.

Till you smarted off, the issue is how much do taxpayers pay, not the percent of rider revenue to expenses.



what part of I USED YOUR SOURCE TO GET MY NUMBERS, do you fail to comprehend?

I even told you what page of the document YOU LINKED TO verified my numbers.

Yet, you still try to pretend I said something I didn't, and that my numbers are false.

If my numbers are false, why did YOUR LINKED DOCUMENT VERIFY THEM, dumb ass???

[hjmick]

I imagine that you people have absolutely no clue just how insufferable you have made this forum...

[Marcus Aurelius]

I sure enjoy posts that do not engage in personal attacks and those are what Marcus brings to the forum all the time. Attacks he does not have to make. Calling posters dumb ass scrotum face is anti social behavior on his part.

This, from the 'man' calling me scrotum face? Please.

[Robert A Whit]

You have Marcus to thank. His abuse of posts is a thing of legend and it took me a long time to use his tactics against him.

Hijack, had you been kind to me, I would tell you I am sorry.

To all posters

I am sorry. I hate it when somebody comes along with the lead to his posts, dumbass.

[Robert A Whit]

This, from the 'man' calling me scrotum face? Please.

Oh but this from you is okay?


http://www.debatepolicy.com/image.php?u=2436&dateline=1371126736 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?2436-Marcus-Aurelius)Marcus Aurelius (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?2436-Marcus-Aurelius)
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/statusicon/user-online.pngYou..... dumbass!!!

[Marcus Aurelius]

Oh but this from you is okay?


http://www.debatepolicy.com/image.php?u=2436&dateline=1371126736 (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?2436-Marcus-Aurelius)Marcus Aurelius (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?2436-Marcus-Aurelius)
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/statusicon/user-online.pngYou..... dumbass!!!

You really need to stop derailing this thread, and explain to us all how YOUR SOURCE provided MY NUMBERS, yet my numbers are wrong.

[Robert A Whit]

You really need to stop derailing this thread, and explain to us all how YOUR SOURCE provided MY NUMBERS, yet my numbers are wrong.

Since you derail threads, that comment is very amusing.

You flat removed the revenue from taxpayers as I explained to you.

My OP spoke of revenue from taxpayers. In short you did your math wrong.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Since you derail threads, that comment is very amusing.

You flat removed the revenue from taxpayers as I explained to you.

My OP spoke of revenue from taxpayers. In short you did your math wrong.

My GOD, you are monumentally stupid tonight. I didn't DO the math BART did.

My first link was to BART, quoting their 72% paragraph from their own website.

My second link, was YOUR LINK, which is where BART got the numbers from! Page 9,of the document YOU LINKED TO, is where the BART WEBSITE got the 72% figure...

Passenger Revenue for 2013, in millions, 380.2
Operating Expenses Total for 2013, in millions, 532.7

380.2 is 72% of 532.7.

These are not MY numbers, they are BARTS... taken from the document YOU LINKED TO... dumb ass.

[aboutime]

I imagine that you people have absolutely no clue just how insufferable you have made this forum...


hymick. We've tried the IGNORE feature several times. That doesn't work in the slightest. So. Why not keep the laughs coming? Everybody needs to smile instead of being angry, or arguing all the time.
As for Insufferable. I don't think so. There are other places much worse, and the rules are so tough in many places. It becomes an echo chamber of Preaching to the Choir.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Whitless's problem appears to be that he is looking at the entire capital budget, while I am only discussing the operating expenses listed in said capital budget.

[Syrenn]

I have ridden the NY City subway, seen the Metro running in VA and DC and more.

Taxpayers paid for my work to construct BART. BART is on strike. Who knows the typical earnings of their transit workers? BART has long paid our workers an average income of $134,000 based on figures told to viewers on our local TV news.

And they want more.

We have 13 counties around the SF Bay. A few counties opted in for BART. Many rejected BART when we got to vote on it. I admit making a good living working on BART but my job at the time was dangerous. A life could be lost at any moment.

What this is all about is this transit thing is spreading. The costs to build are always told to voters to be a lot less than it really ends up being. You must not rely on the numbers you are told by politicians. They may not be lying, but you are not being told the truth. The cost to build is only the starting place.

Now built, you must keep paying to keep the system up. And workers demand more and more income. They feel they have you by your balls, so they jack you up to get super incomes.

I am pretty sure that my old union does not get my former worker craft near the money those who sit in a computerized cab of a machine make. They don't work. They ride as the computer does the job. They are there in case the computer makes a mistake. And the cost of tickets is sky high.

The owners of large personal boats have told me that the boat is a hole in the water they pour money into.

Rapid transit is such a hole.

Now that BART is not working, the public at large clogs the roads. We did a vast disservice by having substandard roads is how I see it.


you forgot about the 50k+ in benefits

and only $90 a month for medical..... for as many dependents as you want..

and they want a 25% pay raise


i say fuck um. They need to fire them all and get all new NON union people.

[logroller]

Whitless's problem appears to be that he is looking at the entire capital budget, while I am only discussing the operating expenses listed in said capital budget.
Even when looking at the entirety of revenue sources, ridership accounts for 62%.

[Syrenn]

Here's where Mother Jones got their numbers, dumb ass...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnZDmytGK63SdDJKTE5FNVVLdGQ4NjluZVVEWHNpS EE#gid=5
Mercury News

The $130,000 you heard was for one persons high end management position base salary. Base for train operators can be $63,676, with a further $75,000 if they work ALL possible overtime, as one example on the sheet shows. Some are higher, most are lower.

Knowledge is your friend... not 'hey, I think I heard it someplace'.


and when you add in the benefits.... that is pretty darn generous. They dont deserve a penny more in my opinion.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650023#post650023)
Here's where Mother Jones got their numbers, dumb ass...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...EWHNpSEE#gid=5 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnZDmytGK63SdDJKTE5FNVVLdGQ4NjluZVVEWHNpS EE#gid=5)
Mercury News

The $130,000 you heard was for one persons high end management position base salary. Base for train operators can be $63,676, with a further $75,000 if they work ALL possible overtime, as one example on the sheet shows. Some are higher, most are lower.

Knowledge is your friend... not 'hey, I think I heard it someplace'.


and when you add in the benefits.... that is pretty darn generous. They dont deserve a penny more in my opinion.

He hates it that I got my numbers from a major TV news channel. It was a visual, yet he simply can't understand.

The $134,000 figure no doubt is the average of all BART incomes. Not merely train operators.

I give him books to read and he looks at the pictures and eats those pages.

Poor dumb Marcus. He calls posters a dumbass in each post. Seems he lives with a limit to his vocabulary.

He was so confused he forgot my statement was that when sales and property taxes are added in, his figures are totally bogus.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650510#post650510)
Whitless's problem appears to be that he is looking at the entire capital budget, while I am only discussing the operating expenses listed in said capital budget.



Even when looking at the entirety of revenue sources, ridership accounts for 62%.

Scrotum face's problems is he reads terribly. He ignored what I actually said and argues some other thing. As I stated, ridership does not come close to paying for the system to operate. I believe Logroller is much more accurate.

[Robert A Whit]

you forgot about the 50k+ in benefits

and only $90 a month for medical..... for as many dependents as you want..

and they want a 25% pay raise


i say fuck um. They need to fire them all and get all new NON union people.

I love you lady. So right. Sadly the government protects those who in essence hold up the public by stating more, more and more. I admit I said typical worker but mean to say the AVERAGE income of all BART employees. Naturally the top level really sock it to taxpayers. Fire them too. Fuck all of them.

[Marcus Aurelius]

He hates it that I got my numbers from a major TV news channel. It was a visual, yet he simply can't understand.

The $134,000 figure no doubt is the average of all BART incomes. Not merely train operators.

I give him books to read and he looks at the pictures and eats those pages.

Poor dumb Marcus. He calls posters a dumbass in each post. Seems he lives with a limit to his vocabulary.

He was so confused he forgot my statement was that when sales and property taxes are added in, his figures are totally bogus.

my figures came form YOUR link, dipshit. I spoke ONLY of operating expenses and passenger revenue... nothing else.

The 78% figure is a BART figure, as I have repeatedly shown you, and again, since you're brain deadedness appears to be in full force tonight, ONLY covers operating expenses and rider revenue.

You took salary figures from a 10 second news piece, I showed you the BART spreadsheet listing 3,400 peoples actual compensation.

You can continue to believe you've proven me somehow wrong, or call me a liar, but anyone who reads this thread knows we are talking about two different things, and that the numbers I posted came DIRECTLY from BART, and YOUR LINK.

The more you deny my numbers, the dumber you look... if that is even possible.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Scrotum face's problems is he reads terribly. He ignored what I actually said and argues some other thing. As I stated, ridership does not come close to paying for the system to operate. I believe Logroller is much more accurate.

And as I pointed out, you are looking at the CAPITAL BUDGET (look up what that means, dumb ass)... I was quoting BART's own figures (FROM the capital budget) regarding operating expenses vs. ridership revenue.

[Robert A Whit]

my figures came form YOUR link, dipshit. I spoke ONLY of operating expenses and passenger revenue... nothing else.

The 72% figure is a BART figure, as I have repeatedly shown you, and again, since you're brain deadedness appears to be in full force tonight, ONLY covers operating expenses and rider revenue.

You took salary figures from a 10 second news piece, I showed you the BART spreadsheet listing 3,400 peoples actual compensation.

You can continue to believe you've proven me somehow wrong, or call me a liar, but anyone who reads this thread knows we are talking about two different things, and that the numbers I posted came DIRECTLY from BART, and YOUR LINK.

The more you deny my numbers, the dumber you look... if that is even possible.

Actually scrotum face, you more than fucked up, you keep doing it.

Syren pasted my true comments and you simply love board fighting so you had to whine about my numbers even though you admit I posted from BART's site where in the first place you used the Mercury News and it is very clear you still have no clue what I actually said to begin with.

I am loving every moment I am in your head.

[Robert A Whit]

Alas, scrotum face still is lying by claiming I am wrong since I set out to begin with that my revenue figures were much more than riders, since one of my beefs in my posting is that riders do not pay full share. Even his 72 percent figure is bat shit crazy as Logroller will also agree. Log figures it to be about 62 percent riders. I did not do the math but that sounds closer.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Actually scrotum face, you more than fucked up, you keep doing it.

Syren pasted my true comments and you simply love board fighting so you had to whine about my numbers even though you admit I posted from BART's site where in the first place you used the Mercury News and it is very clear you still have no clue what I actually said to begin with.

I am loving every moment I am in your head.

the depth of your stupidity is becoming legendary in this thread.

Do you know WHERE the mercury news got the numbers I initially posted? From the Public Employees Salary Database. You know where they got their numbers? From BART, dumb ass. Here's the spreadsheet link again, so you don't have to go back and look for it...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnZDmytGK63SdDJKTE5FNVVLdGQ4NjluZVVEWHNpS EE#gid=5


I don't really care what you said to begin with. I have proved everything I posted, and used YOUR SOURCES to do so. Not my problem if you can't handle the truth.

[Robert A Whit]

the depth of your stupidity is becoming legendary in this thread.

Do you know WHERE the mercury news got the numbers I initially posted? From the Public Employees Salary Database. You know where they got their numbers? From BART, dumb ass. Here's the spreadsheet link again, so you don't have to go back and look for it...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AnZDmytGK63SdDJKTE5FNVVLdGQ4NjluZVVEWHNpS EE#gid=5


I don't really care what you said to begin with. I have proved everything I posted, and used YOUR SOURCES to do so. Not my problem if you can't handle the truth.

Scrotum face, explain why you refuse to add in the various taxes not collected at the toll place of BART?

You refuse to admit that riders pay a lot less than you claim.

I even post BART numbers that you refuse to admit.

I spoke of property taxes and sales taxes. Something you still refuse to deal with. But wait, there are more taxes that are revenue and you refuse to admit to that too.

I picked up this on TV as I told you and their visual stated very clearly, BART pays an average $134,000 per employee and still you deny that.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Note the source of my information, and what I said... dumb ass.

http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/20...20120614a.aspx (http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120614a.aspx)

Fare-paying customers account for 78% of the operating funds in the FY13 budget.





Here's the whole paragraph...


BART’s $672.1 million operating budget is benefiting from ridership that is projected to increase by 3% in FY13 to an average weekday ridership of 376,000 for the year, which would be an all-time high. Fare-paying customers account for 78% of the operating funds in the FY13 budget. The second largest source of operating revenue, dedicated money from sales taxes, is expected to increase by 5%.




NOTE: it's actually 72%, not 78%. The 78% includes parking revenue as well.

LOOK at the source of the quote... it's BART. NOT Mother Jones, or CNN, or FOX NEWS or anyone else... DIRECTLY on BART's website.

THEY came up with the figure, from data on the Capital Budget YOU posted... http://www.bart.gov/docs/FY14_PB_Pamphlet_Master_05.01.13_Final.pdf

Page 9 shows rider revenue at $380.2 million for 2013, and Operating expenses at $532.7 million.


Here's a screenshot of the document YOU LINKED TO, dumb ass...

5205

Look at the numbers, from YOUR link. The agree with the original post I made about rider revenue covering 72% of operating expenses... when you include parking it's the 78% BART quoted.

You insist on counting numbers in MY comment that do not belong in my comment. Live with your failure, dumb ass.

[Robert A Whit]

Note the source of my information, and what I said... dumb ass.

http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/20...20120614a.aspx (http://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2012/news20120614a.aspx)
Here's the whole paragraph...


NOTE: it's actually 72%, not 78%. The 78% includes parking revenue as well.

LOOK at the source of the quote... it's BART. NOT Mother Jones, or CNN, or FOX NEWS or anyone else... DIRECTLY on BART's website.

THEY came up with the figure, from data on the Capital Budget YOU posted... http://www.bart.gov/docs/FY14_PB_Pamphlet_Master_05.01.13_Final.pdf

Page 9 shows rider revenue at $380.2 million for 2013, and Operating expenses at $532.7 million.


Here's a screenshot of the document YOU LINKED TO, dumb ass...

5205

Look at the numbers, from YOUR link. The agree with the original post I made about rider revenue covering 72% of operating expenses... when you include parking it's the 78% BART quoted.

You insist on counting numbers in MY comment that do not belong in my comment. Live with your failure, dumb ass.

I started the post to start with.

I did not bring up rider revenue. My statements that you blasted had to do with two issue.

1. $134,000 being the average income for all BART employees. I told you it was on a major aBC or CBS network news. (I later backed it up posting financials from BART)

2. That we taxpayers pay far too much to BART and I proved we do with my link, to wit I stated Sales taxes and property taxes. And to this point, as you play games, you refuse to address that. BART gets a lot of money from non riders.

Now stop sulking and admit you went off topic to focus only on rider revenue and stop bothering the adults.

What the fuck are you. fourteen?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Scrotum face, explain why you refuse to add in the various taxes not collected at the toll place of BART?Ask BART, dumb ass, I've repeatedly posted that the quote was THEIRS.

You refuse to admit that riders pay a lot less than you claim. I refused no such thing.

I even post BART numbers that you refuse to admit. Again, you posted a superset of numbers from the Capital Budget, while I concentrated on the subset of Operating Expenses and Rider Revenue, as a direct result of the BART website quote I was supporting. YOUR numbers support the quote I posted, FROM BART, because they are BOTH BART numbers, and are BOTH correct, you incredible moron!

I spoke of property taxes and sales taxes. Something you still refuse to deal with. But wait, there are more taxes that are revenue and you refuse to admit to that too. Immaterial. Again, super-set vs, subset. Go back to 3rd grade... they'll explain it to you.

I picked up this on TV as I told you and their visual stated very clearly, BART pays an average $134,000 per employee and still you deny that. Moron, I'm not the only poster here who told you that averaging all salaries together is a bogus way to determine the compensation of employees. Go back and look. In any case, why deal with averages, when I posted the EXACT compensation for 3,400 plus BART employees???



my comments in RED above, dumb ass.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I started the post to start with.

I did not bring up rider revenue. My statements that you blasted had to do with two issue.

1. $134,000 being the average income for all BART employees. I told you it was on a major aBC or CBS network news. (I later backed it up posting financials from BART)

2. That we taxpayers pay far too much to BART and I proved we do with my link, to wit I stated Sales taxes and property taxes. And to this point, as you play games, you refuse to address that. BART gets a lot of money from non riders.

Now stop sulking and admit you went off topic to focus only on rider revenue and stop bothering the adults.

What the fuck are you. fourteen?

I must be getting to you, you're starting to whine again.

I was not off topic, dipshit. Quoting BART's website, in a thread about BART, is off topic? Complain to the mods then, dumb ass. If I am off topic, then they would thread ban me.

Show me where I said 'BART does NOT get a lot of money from non-riders' dumb ass. Link to that post.

[Kathianne]

Notice how respectful Marcus was to whomever he talked to. No calling him a dumb ass for not agreeing with Marcus. Clearly Marcus defended himself. So why no shout of liar and dumbass?

I got my figure of $134,000 from watching my local Bay Area News. I watch all the channels so my data could have come from any of ABC, CBS or NBC. I have no clue how I can link to a live broadcast discussing BART.

I also posted a link to the Mercury news (I have Marcus on ignore yet from time to time peek at his comments, so I see a few but not many of his comments) and on that list was many who were paid annually over $250,000. I did not mention the income of train operators.

I spoke of the average income to begin with. This means all incomes go into the same kettle and divided by number working for BART.

I don't know why but to Marcus, when he sees my posts, he decides he has to lunge at me with fangs bared as if I did a wrong. He treats Jafar the same way and perhaps others I am not thinking of right now.

Posts do not have to be agreed to. My signature line states I post opinions. That I am not claiming to be expert.

I sure enjoy posts that do not engage in personal attacks and those are what Marcus brings to the forum all the time. Attacks he does not have to make. Calling posters dumb ass is anti social behavior on his part.

It matters not what else he says when he tries that way of talking.

Logroller gave a great explanation of the issues. I mentioned that workers pay only $92 per month for a very expensive health care plan but rather than deal with that issue, Marcus decided I needed one more of his attacks.

BART has offered them a very generous package and the Union says hell no. One union settled but SEIU is refusing. We all know who SEIU supports don't we??

Wow, just wow! In your OP you claimed the following:


...Taxpayers paid for my work to construct BART. BART is on strike. Who knows the typical earnings of their transit workers? BART has long paid our workers an average income of $134,000 based on figures told to viewers on our local TV news.

And they want more.

We have 13 counties around the SF Bay. A few counties opted in for BART. Many rejected BART when we got to vote on it. I admit making a good living working on BART but my job at the time was dangerous. A life could be lost at any moment.

What this is all about is this transit thing is spreading. The costs to build are always told to voters to be a lot less than it really ends up being. You must not rely on the numbers you are told by politicians. They may not be lying, but you are not being told the truth. The cost to build is only the starting place.

Now built, you must keep paying to keep the system up. And workers demand more and more income. They feel they have you by your balls, so they jack you up to get super incomes.

I am pretty sure that my old union does not get my former worker craft near the money those who sit in a computerized cab of a machine make. They don't work. They ride as the computer does the job. They are there in case the computer makes a mistake. And the cost of tickets is sky high.

...

You 'constructed' BART? All on your own? Why does this remind me of Al Gore and the internet?

You then refer to unions and those 'riding' not working, as it's pretty much mechanized. Then go onto claim exorbitant salaries and send folks to 'public info site' on salaries. Yet those 'high paying' jobs aren't those riding the rails, but management, lawyers, and police staff for the system.

You bring up oranges and switch to kiwis.

[Kathianne]

hymick. We've tried the IGNORE feature several times. That doesn't work in the slightest. So. Why not keep the laughs coming? Everybody needs to smile instead of being angry, or arguing all the time.
As for Insufferable. I don't think so. There are other places much worse, and the rules are so tough in many places. It becomes an echo chamber of Preaching to the Choir.

Actually I disagree with you and agree with hjmick. The 'dumb ass' and the insufferable one are really chasing some of us away. I do understand MA's getting more than annoyed with the insufferable one, but it's stealing candy from a baby, no need to go on and on.

I KNOW, I did it for too long myself. Now I ignore most of what he posts, it's too self-destructive to post to him.

[Robert A Whit]

Wow, just wow! In your OP you claimed the following:



You 'constructed' BART? All on your own? Why does this remind me of Al Gore and the internet?

You then refer to unions and those 'riding' not working, as it's pretty much mechanized. Then go onto claim exorbitant salaries and send folks to 'public info site' on salaries. Yet those 'high paying' jobs aren't those riding the rails, but management, lawyers, and police staff for the system.

You bring up oranges and switch to kiwis.

I was a job foreman for Raymond International and was hired by the VP of Gerwick Pomeroy to manage a job in San Francisco, so yes. I worked in management with teams of workers.

It reminds you of Al gore because you don't read well. I can't figure out any other explanation. No disrespect of course. I made one claim vs salaries. That the Bart workers average $134,000 per worker including wages, overtime and benefits. So, again you just did not read well. The group you bring up earn as I said generally well over $200,000 per year with a number raking in over $250,000.

Don't know why you are in this since you don't live in BART area, but there you are.

If you manage to figure out that I was speaking of the property taxes and sales we pay to pay to those rider train operators, do feel kind enough to remark again.

I also cited the average total income to the average Employee of Bart.

Wait, I also showed the Bart budget that proved my comments are accurate.

[Robert A Whit]

Actually I disagree with you and agree with hjmick. The 'dumb ass' and the insufferable one are really chasing some of us away. I do understand MA's getting more than annoyed with the insufferable one, but it's stealing candy from a baby, no need to go on and on.

I KNOW, I did it for too long myself. Now I ignore most of what he posts, it's too self-destructive to post to him.

Your problem is you as well as Marcus and even the other whiners show up to discuss posters. Me, I love topics. Try that sometime.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I was a job foreman for Raymond International and was hired by the VP of Gerwick Pomeroy to manage a job in San Francisco, so yes. I worked in management with teams of workers.

Earlier, you said...

I admit making a good living working on BART but my job at the time was dangerous. A life could be lost at any moment.

being in management was dangerous? You could have lost your life at any moment?

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650555#post650555)
I was a job foreman for Raymond International and was hired by the VP of Gerwick Pomeroy to manage a job in San Francisco, so yes. I worked in management with teams of workers.




Earlier, you said...

I admit making a good living working on BART but my job at the time was dangerous. A life could be lost at any moment.


being in management was dangerous? You could have lost your life at any moment?

Gee Marcus, do you ASSume that I was always a Foreman or in Management?

You shitting me. I started out as a grunt in the piledriver crew. I worked my way up to Foreman and later to Management. Doing those jobs, the risk to life was immensely reduced.

I just looked up the income for my former profession and it is this. When I worked in the business, there was never a year that I worked the same 52 weeks that the regular pay scale for many jobs works. In other words, below it seems a worker can make (including benefits) about $123,177.60 per year. But the fact is there is going to be times of no work.

BART on the other hand works all year long.

We lost work due the company having run out of jobs, bad weather and other reasons. But the man that worked the same hours as BART was very rare.

The plain wages are $70,668 as normal income for a 36 hr work week.

Not figured is our cost to get to work or funds spent for out of town quarters. When I worked I got a small stipend for travel pay for gas and motels. I am not sure they do that now.

As others told you, BART workers already are overpaid.

http://www.cfao.org/PDF/Employers/Wage/Pile_Drivers_Prior_Rates.pdf

CARPENTERS
46 Northern California Counties Conference Board
BILL FEYLING
Executive Director
May 22,20:2
TO: ALL PILE DRIVER SIGNATORY EMPLOYERS
Dear Employer:
Enclosed please find the Wage and Fringe Benefit Rate Card for the work year .July 1,2012
through ,June 30, 2013.
Wage Rates - Effective July 1, 2012
Journeyman:
Foreman:
Increase of $1.00 per hour for a total of $37.75 per
hour
$41.53 per hour (Journeyman wage rate plus 10%)
Fringe Benefits - Effective July 1, 2012 - Entire 46 Counties Area
Health and Welfare:
Pension:
Annuity:
Vacation:
Work Fees:
Apprentice/Journeyman
Training:
Industry Promotion:
Pile Drivers Employers
Contract Administration:
UBC Health & Safety Fund &
National Apprenticeship:
Increase thirty-five cents ($.35) per hour for a total
of nine dollars and ninety cents ($9.90) per hour
Increase thirty cents ($.30) per hour for a total of
eight dollars and seventy cents ($8.70) per hour
Increase ten cents ($.10) per hourfor a total of four
dollars and twenty cents ($4.20) per hour
Increase five cents ($.05) per hour for a total of three dollars
and sixty-five cents ($3.65) per hour
Increase four cents ($.04) per hour for a total of one
dollar and sixty cents ($1.60) per hour

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=650555#post650555)
I was a job foreman for Raymond International and was hired by the VP of Gerwick Pomeroy to manage a job in San Francisco, so yes. I worked in management with teams of workers.





Gee Marcus, do you ASSume that I was always a Foreman or in Management?

You shitting me. I started out as a grunt in the piledriver crew. I worked my way up to Foreman and later to Management. Doing those jobs, the risk to life was immensely reduced.

I just looked up the income for my former profession and it is this. When I worked in the business, there was never a year that I worked the same 52 weeks that the regular pay scale for many jobs works. In other words, below it seems a worker can make (including benefits) about $123,177.60 per year. But the fact is there is going to be times of no work.

BART on the other hand works all year long.

We lost work due the company having run out of jobs, bad weather and other reasons. But the man that worked the same hours as BART was very rare.

The plain wages are $70,668 as normal income for a 36 hr work week.

Not figured is our cost to get to work or funds spent for out of town quarters. When I worked I got a small stipend for travel pay for gas and motels. I am not sure they do that now.

As others told you, BART workers already are overpaid.

http://www.cfao.org/PDF/Employers/Wage/Pile_Drivers_Prior_Rates.pdf

CARPENTERS
46 Northern California Counties Conference Board
BILL FEYLING
Executive Director
May 22,20:2
TO: ALL PILE DRIVER SIGNATORY EMPLOYERS
Dear Employer:
Enclosed please find the Wage and Fringe Benefit Rate Card for the work year .July 1,2012
through ,June 30, 2013.
Wage Rates - Effective July 1, 2012
Journeyman:
Foreman:
Increase of $1.00 per hour for a total of $37.75 per
hour
$41.53 per hour (Journeyman wage rate plus 10%)
Fringe Benefits - Effective July 1, 2012 - Entire 46 Counties Area
Health and Welfare:
Pension:
Annuity:
Vacation:
Work Fees:
Apprentice/Journeyman
Training:
Industry Promotion:
Pile Drivers Employers
Contract Administration:
UBC Health & Safety Fund &
National Apprenticeship:
Increase thirty-five cents ($.35) per hour for a total
of nine dollars and ninety cents ($9.90) per hour
Increase thirty cents ($.30) per hour for a total of
eight dollars and seventy cents ($8.70) per hour
Increase ten cents ($.10) per hourfor a total of four
dollars and twenty cents ($4.20) per hour
Increase five cents ($.05) per hour for a total of three dollars
and sixty-five cents ($3.65) per hour
Increase four cents ($.04) per hour for a total of one
dollar and sixty cents ($1.60) per hour

YOU claimed management, nothing else. Now that you're caught, you 'adjust' your story to make it slightly more plausible. Then, you post recent salary information, as if that somehow proves your story, when it has zero to do with your story.

I really don't understand why you feel the need to continually make claims about your past, and try to make yourself out to be more than you are. It's really sad.

[Robert A Whit]

YOU claimed management, nothing else. Now that you're caught, you 'adjust' your story to make it slightly more plausible. Then, you post recent salary information, as if that somehow proves your story, when it has zero to do with your story.

I really don't understand why you feel the need to continually make claims about your past, and try to make yourself out to be more than you are. It's really sad.

One of my final jobs was in management.

You know, you waste all this time trying to fight me. To make yourself look pathetic.

Why do you operate like a child would?

Caught you claim? Marcus marcus marcus, I have spoken at other times that I started in construction in the beginning as a grunt. It took me several years to become a foreman. I was in management for one major job in SF.

Why are you so distressed?

Marcus, when you are almost 75, and did as many jobs as i have, you may find some punk such as you trying to tear you down too. Remember this experience when you finally grow up.

[aboutime]

When Dr. Robert, the acclaimed, self-made, self-appointed Psychiatrist speaks.....ROBERT listens.

[Robert A Whit]

When Dr. Abouttime, the acclaimed, self-made, self-appointed Psychiatrist speaks.....ROBERT listens.*

[Kathianne]

*

Wow, such an acknowledgment. YOU, DR. R listens to your harshest critic, who'd have thought?

[aboutime]

Wow, such an acknowledgment. YOU, DR. R listens to your harshest critic, who'd have thought?


Kathianne. Honestly? Can anyone deny almost anything, anyone, anywhere, at any time happens to say, anymore is...COMICAL?????

[Robert A Whit]

Wow, such an acknowledgment. YOU, DR. R listens to your harshest critic, who'd have thought?

I hold no degree. But sure, I even listen to you.