[Apologies in advance for not supplying the link to the full article. If you have that link, I’ll gladly update this post.]
I’ve heard the excuse of “it’s what the union gets” before. In negotiating non-union salaries in our town, the Board of Selectmen approved the raises given by the acting Town Manager because they were what the union got. But it gets better.
We then negotiated a contract for a new Town Manager. The selectmen actually included contract wording that guaranteed raises on par with what is negotiated in the union’s contracts. Outrageous!
Is there anything that can be done? If I’m reading this statute correctly, it seems that Town Meeting has the final word on collective bargaining agreements in that they could reject the funding of them.
Would this statute similarly cover the MBTA contracts — that is would they not be implemented until the legislature funds the negotiated salaries?
Seems like the person who chose Dan has bad managerial skills and should not hold elected office.
Management negotiates with labor to determine labor salary.
Management salary increases at same rate of labor salary.
<
p>Doesn’t this mean that management has an implicit incentive to increase labor salaries, since their pay raise is proportional?
<
p>Doesn’t seem too swift to me.
<
p>According to the article and some arithmetic, the value of the management raise in immediate salary is $1.8 million. Per year. But, don’t forget that raises are compounded — all future raises based on percentage will be bigger because of this raise. Furthermore, pensions are generally a function of salary, so this raises the pension obligation as well.
<
p>$1.8 M is a puny amount relative to the MBTA budget, but it does signify a pretty blatant problem.
<
p>Ugh. I’m a believer in public transit, but the MBTA’s actions consistently frustrate the heck out of me.
aside from the Olympics, this is the big story on 7,5 and 4.
is by definition a sleeper story.
…given that Grabauskas is one of their big heros in the Republican world. But now he just looks like an excuse making hack.
Q: Why is a 3% per year raise, for 3 years, called a 9% raise?
<
p>A: It makes a better headline.
<
p>If we set aside:
<
p>1. MBTA is horribly managed
<
p>2. The “retire at age 40 thing” is pretty amazing excess even for MA public sector
<
p>Isn’t 3% a fairly small reasonable COLA type raise?
<
p>If we’re going to cluster together the raises over 3 years, what do you say to “Boston teachers get 20% raise”?
Wow! Do you have a link for that?
When I was at assessing the most we ever got, per year, was like 2.5 percent, as far as I can remember.
In the full version of the article, it touched on COLA. I do not recall if this was on top of or in addition to COLA.
<
p>No business can guarantee its employees a raise — COLA or otherwise. Holding salaries steady only to pay it in a later lump sum is not good fiscal management, not for an organization that is $8.2M in the hole.
<
p>Retroactive raises is dancing around the issue. Yes, it made a better headline, but it is also accurate.
I don’t think a 3% cost of living raise is the MBTA’s problem. The problem is many of their salaries seem too high to begin with. They are way out of whack with what state officials managing at a similar level are. Their labor force by in large has higher salaries than most public servants.
<
p>To be fair Cities and Towns have similar problems: higher salaries and more generous benefits than the state gives its employees; yet it is always the T and the Pike and the Cities and Towns crying poor mouth.
<
p>
an executive at the MBTA makes makes an average of mid 80s. That’s certainly a decent chunk of change, but what’s the average executive at Fidelity making? I’d be willing to guess quite a bit higher, even when factoring in the perks of an MBTA employee. So, an MBTA employee could retire after the age of 40 – maybe – but a few year’s salary for a lot of execs in some of Boston’s biggest companies may be enough (my guess) for most of us to retire on, comfortably.
<
p>Plus, mid 80s in Boston certainly isn’t mid 80s in Alabama, for example.
<
p>All that said, I do SEE your point and think it has merit, it just isn’t the real problem. The real problem’s that the public thinks public employees should get paid jack and be happy for it, not the raises and not even the high wages (compared to other state gigs).
Did you happen to see what that T employee who was arrested and later fired for stealing T fares he was tasked to collect? IIRC, the number was $70K.
It’s a cesspool. Sell it, like the Chicago Skyway, to some private company. Put all the deed restrictions you want into the deal, but get rid of the ALL THE FEATHERBEDDING employees. And their pensions.
<
p>I’m working my fingers to the bone, and I’m paying taxes through the nose. Every story with a MTA or MBTA worker stuffing their pockets with my cash is a slap in the face to every Massachusetts taxpayer.
<
p>I’m voting to repeal the income tax if for no other reason than to throw the corrupt Massachusetts government — including the T, Massport, the MTA, and county governments statewide — into fiscal meltdown.
<
p>Let’s start completely over.
And then f*@% it up even worse for all of us.
They were working for the MTA. They were a paid consultant. It was the MTA’s responsibility to manage Bechtel, and they didn’t. Stop laying the blame on Bechtel … it was the MTA who was in charge.
<
p>In the private sector, you let a consultant or sub-contractor get the better of you and you are fired. F-I-R-E-D. Heads roll.
<
p>In the public sector, taxpayers dig deeper, and incompetency get bailed out.
<
p>Farnkoff, is this too alien a concept for you to grasp?
Nothing?
MBTA was and is incapable of running … the MBTA. It’s a building full of political hacks without the education or intelligence or motivation to operate a transit system and spend money wisely on capital projects.
<
p>They were not only unable but unwilling to discipline Bechtel or any other agent, proxy, or sub-contractor on cost-control. It’s as if they somehow benefited as more and more was spent on the Big Dig, with NO INCENTIVE to pinch pennies. Like we do every minute in the private sector.
<
p>If you need an example of this simply review how MBTA management waived through a general wage increase … because it also increased management’s pay! How sick is that?
<
p>And Farnkoff has the gall to claim privatization is a scam.
<
p>What’s the MBTA if not a scam?
<
p>BTW, given that the T needs $19 billion to fix what it already owns, why are they proposing to spend $1.2 billion for the Silverline extension, a double-decker bus tunnel 80-feet underground running from Tremont at the Pike, down Charles St South, turning onto Boylston St, down Essex, and to South Station?
<
p>The Mini Big Dig Super Scam! And I predict the costs will simply go up from there (it was originally $700 million) because that’s good for everyone engineers — union construction, MBTA employees — except the taxpayers who will have to eventually foot the bill.
<
p>I stick by my call to privatize the MBTA because a private scam is always better than a public sector one (see Farnkoff’s rant below.)
allow some oligarchs to deliver the shoddiest product, provide the lowest quality service, at the highest feasible price, with a nice fat cat monopoly on something with a captive and helpless consumer base. Privatization is a scam. Keep trying, though, bs.