Under pressure from the Patrick administration, MBTA General Manager Daniel A. Grabauskas today agreed to rescind a 9 percent pay increase granted last week to 273 executive employees and to replace it with a 3 percent raise only for those making less than $70,000 per year.
Earlier, Secretary of Transportation Bernard Cohen announced that he would send Grabauskas a letter asking him to immediately halt the raises. Cohen, who chairs the MBTA board, added that “other MBTA Board members have been made aware of and support this request.”
Really, to issue dire warnings of “hefty” fare hikes because of the T’s fiscal problems, and then to unilaterally raise managers’ salaries a week or so later, is astonishing in its tone-deafness. I’ve defended Dan Grabauskas in the past, but boy, he sure blew this one. Thank goodness he’s been set straight.
Drowned out in this is the fact that there’s a lot of people who aren’t making 80k+ that are effected by this, who haven’t had raises in 3 years (and a 3% ‘raise’ after no cost of living adjustment for 3 entire years has got to be a net loss of 3-4% of that person’s buying power, as a solid guess). So, for secretaries who aren’t unionized and were covered in this plan making 30-40k, this is going to really suck.
<
p>I don’t get why we just can’t link these things to yearly cost of living adjustments – without forcing big numbers every 3 years. These aren’t union jobs, the execs shouldn’t attach themselves to union compensation (I don’t see Verizon doing that).
<
p>Then give bonuses/perks/promotions for these non union positions based on job performance. For starters, that’s a much better situation than the status quo – where the execs give themselves the same package that the unions get. There’s little incentive in that situation to truly negotiate, as opposed to giving the union everything it wants. A healthy debate at the negotiation table is best for the people who actually use the MBTA, after all.
<
p>In the end, these policies have turned the MBTA into a employee shuttle service more consumed with mbta jobs than improving service. I encourage people to read about “sidewalk republics” from Douglas Rae… because it pretty much sums up the mindset of the MBTA.
As a rider, I depend on the T daily. As an environmentalist, I want to see it expand. As a taxpayer, I don’t want to get fleeced. I feel like the Governor’s got my back.
I thought that those raises were a done deal, literally “yesterday’s news”. Very interesting to see the Guv step in like that- I like the fact that he recognizes the difference between those people who might need a raise and those who just want one.
I didn’t know he could do that either. I’m glad he did something, too, because I do think that these stories are dangerous when the income tax is on the ballot. People need to feel that we have a responsive government that’s transparent and doing it’s job. We definitely don’t want the knee-jerk reaction to these stories resulting in a ‘punishment’ that would nix 40+% of the state’s budget in one fell swoop.
<
p>tangently related: I read in an article somewhere that the role of governor in Massachusetts is actually one of the most powerful across the country, in terms of real power, compared to other governors in other states. More power over state agencies, etc. I’m not making a judgement call on it, but this story made me think of that article. I wish I kept links for these sort of things. LOL.
that the Gov does not actually have the power to reverse the raises. What he did was make it obvious to Grabauskas that he (Grabauskas) would lose the support of both the Governor and the Secretary of Transportation if he didn’t undo the raises. So Grabauskas realistically had no choice. This was political pressure, not an exercise of executive power.
even better!
Take, take, take, and take some more.
<
p>The public fisc is not a bottomless pit. Taxpayers and rate payers can only tolerate and afford so much.
<
p>In any economy this is not right. In this economy, this should have been a no brainer. This pay raise was never going to fly!
<
p>Deval deserves credit for standing up for the taxpayers. Deval is going to work hard to see that people have a reason to vote no on Question One.
<
p>Line item vetos. Stopping T raises. Thank you Governor Patrick for demonstrating fiscal responsibility.
<
p>
Is this 9% increase being discussed, 9% all in one year, or like most announced union contracts, the sum total over a period of years? If it’s the former, then it’s too much. They can’t expect to recoup missed raises all in one fell swoop. If it’s the latter, then it averages out to 3% per year over 3 years, which is not unreasonable. Of course, nothing can overcome the tin ear shown by T management announcing these raises days after crying poverty and floating another price increase plan.
<
p>Speaking of that price increase talk, the last couple of times they did it, they suffered significant ridership drops as they priced out the poorest riders who need public transport the most. It’s only by virtue of the massive increases in gas prices that the T suddenly began tapping into a new market of people who could afford those prices and distressed by the costs associated with driving to work have started using public transit. The original poorer riders have become increasingly priced out of the T, but the influx of new higher earning riders have offset that leading the T to think they could get away with another increase. They should be looking at their mission, rather than making a marketing decision based on tapping into markets that could maintain their revenues.
This whole “you’re on your own despite being part of the government” forward funding bull is not working.
…If it’s the latter, then it averages out to 3% per year over 3 years, which is not unreasonable.
<
p>It wouldn’t be unreasonable for an employee or manager who performed well. That would be a pretty tough sell in this case.