Tales from the tracks - Page 3

BART strikes are on hold, but the standoff between workers — demonized by many, humanized here — and the district continues

Robert Bright
Photo by Mark Mosher/SEIU 1021

"It would hurt me," she said. She said that though people in the Bay Area demonize BART workers for wanting a raise, she feels it's simply been too long since they've had one.

"I think I haven't gotten a raise in two contracts. It's been like seven or eight years," she said.

Devoutly religious, ultimately she keeps faith that the workers will prevail in negotiations.

"(God) is going to bring this through," she said. "This thing with management, it's going to be all right."


For the Record: Clearing up misinformation about BART workers



BART workers pay only $92 a month into their health care. Right? Wrong. "That doesn't tell the full story," said Vincent Harrington, a lawyer representing the unions at the negotiating table. "These workers contributed 1.627 percent of their wages into a fund to cover not only the ongoing health care of active employees, but also the retirees."

That brings the total to about $180 per person, he said, with a caveat. Some time ago, employer-provided health care was capped. "Additional (healthcare) costs beyond that cap would be on the workers and their families, not on BART," he said.



It's true that BART workers don't contribute to their pensions, but the entity responsible for that is BART management. In 1980, BART made the proposal to pay employee contributions to pensions in exchange for wage concessions from BART workers. The unions recently proposed to contribute 7 percent of their pension benefits, with wage increases of 6.5 percent to offset that. BART management said they'd agree, if the wage increase was lowered to 0.5 percent instead.



A database constructed by the San Jose Mercury News lists a BART employee's full cost to the taxpayer — often at around $100,000. This is their "cost" to BART, not the wages they take home, a common mistake regularly made by angry online commenters. All employees everywhere, private or public sector, have a cost to their employer past their base salary.

According to Intuit.com, a web resource for small businesses, business owners should consider that each employee they hire will cost twice the amount of their wages. This is normal stuff, people. It's wrong, and not factually significant, to demonize BART workers for costing more than their salaries.



BART employees have also been villainized for working overtime. But these employees don't necessarily want to work overtime at all, and often do it at the urging of managers who have slashed so many workers in the past decade that the only way the trains will run is if everyone puts in extra work. A worker at the Aug. 7 BART hearing said, "I go to work before my daughter wakes up, and I'm home from work when my daughter goes to sleep."

Some mechanics we talked to said that working overtime can also lead to more injuries, and a higher possibility of mistakes that could cost riders their lives.



Since 2010, 1,099 BART customers reported being physically attacked, and so were 99 BART employees. Those station agents often work alone at night and just before dawn, the only staff in the entire station. They want extra staffing to help meet OSHA recommendations that employees work in pairs. They also want better worker's compensation coverage. Saul Almanza, a BART representative from SEIU Local 1021 and a 17-year railroader, said "The area where [BART mechanic] Mr. [Robert] Rhodes was killed was very dark, and remains that way today. Look at the picture to the left, and that's where Mr. Rhodes was standing as the southbound train proceeded through the interlock. It was dark and loud, and that's where he was struck as he stood there with no place to go."



This is why your newspaper is dying. For some oddball reason - in regards to almost all things political - you have equated being contrarian with being progressive.

Short answer to your snoozefest of an essay: Open those jobs up with a 20% reduction in both pay and benefits to all qualified applicants and watch what happens. It'll be a line down the street....

Seriously, nobody wants to hear your fucking sob story about the person who needs to pay a whopping 7% into their lifetime, guaranteed pension when 93% of America will never see anything like that.

Posted by Scram on Aug. 13, 2013 @ 11:26 pm

take a job where he has a four hour commute, so there must be some reason he is working for BART.

The personal stories of people who can't get by on 100,000 a year.

In the private sector the the union has to bargain with business that has to compete with other businesses, BART just raises rates and asks for more subsidies.

People at the bottom of the economic pyramid pay the ticket price increases too. Perhaps David Campos could get everyone the progressives claims to speak for free tickets, and then they could raise the price to cover that too?

Posted by Matlock on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 3:04 am

last year. And Phyllis Alexander made over $124K.

Yes, those are real number, which can be seen here: http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area/2012

But cool story profiling the bullshit stories of two BART employees. Just would have been more powerful if it was actually true. Stay solid SFBG!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 13, 2013 @ 11:37 pm

This includes overtime, the retail cost of health benefits, vacation benefits, speculative cost of future pensions, cost of uniforms and training, and the full cost of the annual holiday party they attend? I'm sure the actual take-home pay they get for working a 40 hour week is pretty modest, but honesty has never been the strong suit of the trolls here.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 12:08 am

you didn't follow the link.

Posted by Matlock on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 2:54 am

It would also seem that you were not able to accurately read what it says there. Bright makes $66k base salary and had another $3k in overtime. The $92k is his total compensation, including many things that we do not normally consider income. This is discussed in the article, which you apparently did not read.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 5:10 pm

Just wondering?

If you wonder through the data base OT is a pretty common thing for all the hourly employees. With all those paid days off(pay) their is bound to be shit loads of OT(pay). If BART hired lots of part timers to cover these days off you would be bitching about all the part time employment and jabbering about a living wage or something or another.

Posted by Matlock on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 5:27 pm

Robert Bright

$66,418 Base pay
$3,146 Overtime pay
$3,156 Other Lump sum payout: vac, sick, comp or buyout
$2,061Employer paid Med, Dental, Vision
$8,072 ER Employer contribution to pension
$4,774 EE Employee contribution to pension paid by employer
$1,869 DC Employer paid part of 401-k or 403-b
$1,965 Misc Other non-cash paid costs of employment

Robert can retire at the age of 55. If he has worked 17 years, he can retire on a pension paying 80% of his base salary, around $55K annually. And BART will continue covering his and dependents healthcare costs for life. He has a defined-benefit pension plan (just like the 1%-ers) that presumes 8% gains on the pension annually for life.

How is this man struggling? He is upper-middle-class by any means. The SFBG staff could have done some research online and discovered all of this. But you have a mentality that all blue-collar workers are struggling. This is not true in the public sector.

Robert and all public employees are doing very well in California. BART workers do not deserve a pay raise. They pay $0 into their pensions, unlike MUNI workers. who pay 7.5% annually. Would it be too much to ask BART workers to cover some of their own pension costs? Or pay more than $92 a month for healthcare for themselves and all dependents?


Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 3:28 am

Where do you get 80% after 17 years? BART workers are under a 2% at 55 plan. 17 years at age 55 would get you 34%. That would net about 21k a year.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 5:11 am

To side with BART unions shows this paper as out of touch with reality. I've lived in SF over 20 years. I grew up with SFBG and have been exposed to many issues and opinions thanks to SFBG. But there is no difference to humanizing a BART worker earning extraordinary benefits and earning more than most other workers in the bay area of equivalent skill-set, than to humanize millionaires in Atherton requesting our dire support for their public schools where they can't believe how not every kid has an iPad. SFBG has turned out to be a rag for the self-entitled and over privileged people in our society. Maybe it;s not so out of touch with reality here after all, as that attitude seems to be more and more prevalent here.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 9:46 am

The really sad thing is that you think these are "extraordinary benefits" in the Bay area. 66k plus dental? We should all have retirement plans. BART wokers are not eligible for social security, either. Don't let your jealousy get in the way of reality. Don't buy into class warfare. These people work hard with long hours. Often they have to open and close stations alone-many have been assaulted more than once. These people are trained professionals who are being nickle and dimed to death. If you want to see outrageous overtime, check out police and fire, then you may get some perspective.

As someone said earlier, lines would be long for those jobs; I guess being abused is better than no job, but thats just bringing all working conditions down.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2013 @ 5:51 pm

anything for their pensions. They are free. Or rather, we all have to pay for their pensions as well as our own.

And just $92 for health insurance for an entire family regardless of size? Insanity.

The BART workers could easily be replaced by cheaper workers. And even if their benefits package was halved, they would still be very generous.

Sorry, but the people, voters and commuters of the Bay Area have little sympathy for what are widely perceived as greedy and selfish workers whose sense of entitlement is stunning.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 30, 2013 @ 6:08 pm

Interesting pro-labor commentary from SFBG. In early July we watched the BART unions cripple Bay Area business when they went on strike for 4 days, and made a few hundred thousand commuters' lives miserable. The unions thought they would be clever and use the riders as helpless pawns in what has turned out to be a long, drawn-out labor dispute. What is happening now? The riders are turning against the Unions. Doubled commute times get old real fast.

I'd like to see BART management put together a "Plan B", in which it could run the trains with management and administrative people stepping in to keep the system running, even at partial-capacity, while the BART workers walked their picket lines. That would let the workers know they are not absolutely indispensable.

In the meantime, let's encourage the unions and management to get back to the table, and start bargaining in good faith.

John Bird
San Francisco

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 9:51 am

Love the "Stockholm Syndrome" mentality that all these comments display. People on these pages are essentially whining about the fact that BART workers managed to have their salaries and benefits gutted less than the average non-union employee. For years, unions have fought the hard battles and all other workers enjoy the benefits. There HAS to be that balance between employers who seek to get the most for the least out of their workers - and the unions who speak on behalf of the worker. The female profiled earns $56K - I doubt she's bathing in champagne on that salary. What shortsighted commuter selfishness is on display here - this attitude that "anyone could fill this position" - this race to the bottom where a fair playing field is for everyone to be earning poverty-level wages. There's a hidden arrogance on display that tries to suggest that "these jobs don't require skills." If I'm riding public transportation, I want union workers with a safety record handling that trip. I want people repairing my BART trains who are paid enough to care that they get the job done correctly. And for the record, I am not a BART employee, nor do I know anyone who is.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 10:18 am

She makes more than twice that.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 11:45 am

""BART workers managed to have their salaries and benefits gutted less than the average non-union employee.""

Nothing is being GUTTED. BART and other public-sector unions have guaranteed-benefit pension plans, just like rich corporate executives (the rest of us struggle along on defined-contribution 401-K pensions, which only pay what the stocks actually generate) that have GUARANTEED returns. There are no risks. These are the sweetest pension deals you can possibly get.

Guest above needs to understand the public-sector workers, and their gold-plated pensions, are going to bankrupt California at some point unless some reforms are passed. Myself, and many others, think it is not too much to ask BART employees to pay at least some of their own pension and healthcare costs.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 1:09 pm

"The female profiled earns $56K -"

Nope. That's not true. Here are the FACTS.

Phyllis Alexander
$51,775 base salary
$38,916 overtime (Good going, Phyllis! That's $3K a month in overtimes; piling it on a bit!)
$9,305 Other Lump sum sick payouts (ditto!)
$9,305 Healthcare/medical
$6,729 ER Employer contribution to pension (WHOA! A golden pension package!)
$2,223 Misc Other non-cash paid costs of employment
Phyllis has got a sweet upper-middle-class wage deal. She is not a struggling working-class girl trying to make ends meet. Don't pretend otherwise.

It's all right here at:

Posted by Troll the XIV on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 1:47 pm

Many SF firefighters get more and do less. I know some private sector marketing bullshitters who get more and do less. To say nothing of a tiny minority of CEOs who make much, much more, and do much, much less.

This woman works like a dog, so she gets overtime, like she should. When you work beyond your normal hours, you get paid more. That's why it's called overtime! She probably needs the money. Good for her.

All these trolls wax poetic about "success," but in fact they only like "success" when some A-hole "succeeds" by stepping on somebody's throat and steals money from the less fortunate by hook or by crook. When somebody succeeds the honest way, especially if it's a working class person, especially a person of color, these trolls HATE that. They SEETHE with hatred. You can feel the jealousy dripping from the pages of their comments, drenched in hatred and class envy.

Unlike these trolls, I LOVE to see a person succeed. I'm not jealous when my fellow human beings succeed in life, as long as they succeed honestly. Isn't that what the conservatives preach? Work hard, and you will succeed. That's what America's all about... or at least it's supposed to be.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 10:24 pm

"This woman works like a dog, so she gets overtime."

She is obviously gaming the system.

So, she makes about $3K a month in overtime (while on overtime she gets time-and-a-half, or $45.00 an hour, so she is putting in 66 overtime hours a month).

On the other hand, she is getting nearly $10K in unused sick-leave pay.

In other words, she calls in sick three weeks a year like all the other BART employees, and then makes up the difference at the 1.5x overtime rate.

Is there ANY adult supervision at BART?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 7:14 am

Unless you know her personally, I think it's distasteful to speculate. One case of the flu can knock you out for 3 weeks. And I already know the response. We in the private sector have to come to work with the flu or we'll be fired blah blah blah. Yeah, I get it. You don't have the same kind of working conditions she has, and you're envious. I understand that. But you know what? It's not her fault. We should all have the ability to take 3 weeks off if we're sick. Or 3 months. Ever see "Sicko?" Remember how that guy in france had to take 3 months off to recover, and his job was still there. Yeah, that's the way it should be. That's the way it works in a civilized country. Your anger and hatred should be directed at the powerful who created a system where most people have to come to work sick for threat of losing their jobs, not at the few who still have basic human rights at work.

If you want to look for people gaming the system, look at the banksters who gamed the system to make huge profits, while crashing the economy for the rest of us.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 8:04 am

Meet Greg. Mr. Hypothetical:

"But you know what? It's not her fault. We should all have the ability to take 3 weeks off if we're sick. Or 3 months. Ever see "Sicko?" Remember how that guy in france had to take 3 months off to recover, and his job was still there."

Greg assumes that the reason she makes $41,000 a year in overtime while cashing out an additional $9,000 in sick pay may be because she was whacked by SARS or some other devastating flu bug.

She's gaming the system.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 8:47 am

they do so because they didn't call in sick, not because they were sick. It is unused sick pay. Clearly, jobs with paid sick time and paid vacation have become so rare that the average person can't comprehend how such a system worked in our more enlightened past.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 3:11 pm

You're right. Neither of us caught that. Probably because neither of us have it. The difference, of course, is that unlike the troll I'm not envious of her. I'm happy for her success. She clearly works hard for what she makes.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 9:50 pm

with a sense of right and wrong, not union members.

Posted by - on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 10:05 pm

I like it, it is for sure a really nice story! Great job!

Posted by Alexandra on Jan. 08, 2014 @ 1:09 am

Trolls like I'm seeing here do work for chump change but they don't work for free. Are you BART managers with nothing better to do? Do you work for Veolia? Maybe you're just stupid but I'm giving you a little credit.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 11:06 am

Ah, if I disagree with you, then I must be a troll.

Are you Tim Redmond, speaking from the grave?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 1:10 pm

Thanks for finally providing some real coverage of the benefits to riders of BART that employees are bargaining for. Clean stations and safe trains should be expected, and it should not be up to workers to bargain for these things, but it is. I support the folks who operate the trains, clean the stations, maintain the trains, etc. and encourage BART management to stop encouraging overtime and switch from using their vast resources for one sided "news" and start bargaining in good faith.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 11:32 am

The BART workweek is 37.5 hours. Overtime my a$$

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 12:56 pm
Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 9:19 pm

7.5 hr days, which would be fine if BART was a 24 hr a day operation.

Posted by Matlock on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 9:42 pm

Some of the Guests above have got to learn to distinguish between private-sector unions and public-sector unions.

I'm a full-on supporter of unions in the private sector. Ford and the UAW, for example, know that they have to dance together, give-and-take, or the whole ship sinks (pardon the double metaphor).

Public-sector workers don't worry about that. Their bosses are their friends (ie, Ed Lee was a SF city employee for decades). Politicians are their friends; mayors and city councilmen who bow to their wishes (ie, Gavin Newsome gave police/fire a 20% raise). Leftists/liberals never question their obviously excessive salaries/perks for fear of being labeled anti-union.

Public-sector workers are the last people left in the world (besides the 1%-ers) that still have defined-benefit pension plans. BART workers, and most pub employees in California have guaranteed annual 7% returns built into their pensions. They retire as young as 55, often with pay equivalent to their annual salary.

The rest of us try to slog along hoping that SS and defined-contribution pension plans (401-K) will cover our bills.

I tried to explain this to Tim Redmond many times, but he didn't debate with his "Troll friends" (he only makes diatribe-like pronouncements).

Posted by Troll the XIV on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 1:19 pm

To your point, didn't the union already give back benefits last negotiations? It's not in their interest to bankrupt the system that pays them - this conversation is taking place all over the country with public sector workers. But I can understand their frustration when the entity they work for is either (a) gaming their profits, or (b) mismanaging their budget to begin with. Here in SF I believe their contention is with how BART is arriving at their figures - that's one reason why Brown's committee called for 30 days.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 16, 2013 @ 12:39 pm

Defined-benefit pension plans
Defined-contribution pension plans

The former: The 1%-ers and public-sector employees have these gold-plated pension plans guaranteeing annual returns on investment ranging from 6-8%. Sweet deals that are going to bankrupt California eventually

The latter: The rest of us (401-K). The plans pay only what the investments generate.

Learn a lesson today.

Posted by Anon on Aug. 19, 2013 @ 3:57 pm

7.5 hr days, which would be fine if BART was a 24 hr a day operation.

Posted by Festa Infantil on Aug. 03, 2014 @ 11:43 am

Fuck the UAW they helped NUMMI and all those workers right out the door and fuck all you ignorant people mad at BART workers! The truth is that these jobs are all offered to the public yet you sorry ass whiners had just as much of an opportunity to work for them as the current BART workers themselves. But you are all too stupid and ignorant to pass the entry exam to obtain those jobs. Now you take it out on this platform because you're all jealous of what they have and what you don't have. You all probably couldn't pass the test even if the answers were given to you stupid fucks. Way to cheer for a race to the bottom you stupid assholes. If management is in the business of profiting off of you hard work why don't you think you deserve a seat at the table and not waiting for the scraps that fall off. Fuck all you hating private sector I'm willing to lay down for scraps workers!!!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 4:40 pm

The man above needs to stop screaming in rage.

The BART golden pension plans are unsustainable. It is clearly outlined. Check the SJ Mercury database bro.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 8:26 pm

This BART strike mess is another result of a political alliance in which unions elect Democrats who pad benefits for unions, which then spend to re-elect Democrats who repeat the cycle. And I'm a liberal democrat, but this system is unsustainable.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 5:09 pm

The union elects people who create more union jobs, which creates more union money to elect people to create union jobs, which creates more union money to elect people to create union jobs, which creates more union money to elect people to create union jobs, which creates more union money to elect people to create union jobs, which creates more union money to elect people to create union jobs, which creates more union money to elect people to create union jobs,

Posted by Matlock on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 6:42 pm

And creating more jobs is a bad thing because...?

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 10:36 pm

More government employees have to be paid for how and by who?

Magic and Good intentions is the how.

The who is someone else.

Posted by Matlock on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 6:24 am

" In 1980, BART made the proposal to pay employee contributions to pensions in exchange for wage concessions from BART workers."

Lemme see, 1980 - when the interest rate was 13.5%!!! ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908373.html )

Obviously this seemed like a fair compromise for BART BACK THEN!

"Catching up" only applies when the Union members go 4 years without a raise - well reality needs to "catch up" with the flippin' unions!!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 9:45 pm

I'm a fairly progressive person. Take me out of the Bay Area and I'm to the extreme left. I like a lot of your paper, and I love the food critic girl.

But this just feels like you're trying really, really hard to garner sympathy for a cause that just isn't that sympathetic. I mean, these are the harshest stories you can profile? Off the top of my head, I can name 7 people dealing with much lower wages and zero benefits, and 4 of them have an advanced degree. And they're all managing to get by ok.

I get the idea - BART employees are supposed to be holding the line for the common worker. It just doesn't resonate that well.

Posted by I Like You Guys and Everything. on Aug. 14, 2013 @ 10:29 pm

Just how low do BART workers have to be paid before the trolls polluting this site admit that "Yeah, BART workers are getting screwed and they need to be paid more?" My current guess is a dozen loaves of bread and three weekly cases of bottled water.

Posted by Peter on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 7:34 am

"Just how low do BART workers have to be paid?"

Average annual compensation is $117K for BART employees. And that is "low pay"?

BART employees have average annual compensation of $117K annually. This makes them upper-middle-class, and among the top 10% of earners in America. Here's the evidence:
1. Go to: http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area
2. Under "Entity", chose "Bay Area Rapid Transit"
3. Click "search"
4. Page 1 of 138 will appear.
5. In the "Page" box, type 69, and click enter. Now a page w/the median annual salary of BART employees will appear.
The median compensation is $117,626. This includes $74,000 in base pay, approximately $9,000 in overtime pay, around $6,000 in lump sum payments for unused sick/vacation/comp time [Other], around $10,000 in pension payments, and roughly $5,000 in other pension costs [EE] that legally are supposed to be paid by the employee himself but are covered by BART.

BART employees pay nothing into their own pensions. They get full health benefits for themselves and all dependents for $92 a month. And worst of all, they are on defined-benefit pension plans (just like rich people are) that GUARANTEE 8% annually compounded returns.

This compensation is very generous, and the pension costs are completely unsustainable.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 8:51 am

How many times do you have to be shown the actual salary information. It's been linked like five times.

$117K? Not exactly a dozen loaves of bread and some bottled water. Refute something real or just don't type. k thx.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 9:17 am

Even if I feel the $117K figure is cobbled together to make the BART workers look like greedheads, you're not answering my question either.

So let's spell it out simply. If you feel BART workers are paid too much, what dollar figure would you say justifies saying BART workers are paid too little? Answer that and then we'll talk. Otherwise, take your resentment elsewhere.

Posted by Peter on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 11:49 am

You're all dramatic statement and pseudo inquiries, but no substance.

Let me help you.

The median *household* income in the Bay Area is roughly $62,024. Building maintenance is below $40,000. So, considering Phyllis' job description - in her own words - is "cleaning, cleaning, cleaning" should she really make 3x the average?

$40K should be her salary, which actually puts her at the high end for her skill set.

You're welcome.


Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 12:55 pm

"Guest," I shall overlook your childish behavior as you've now given me a slightly better idea of where you're coming from. Looking at your example:

Phyllis has worked at her BART station maintenance job for 16 years.

1. If I understand you right, you'd prefer that somebody like Phyllis should actually be paid a lot less than your "high end" $40K given her years of service. How many of thousands of dollars LESS are you talking about?

2. I notice that you mention a theoretical salary, but don't mention anything about health care costs or retirement costs. We can at least agree that health care and retirement do not pay for themselves. How much money per employee needs to be shelled out to cover a moderately expensive health insurance plan and a retirement plan?

The bigger question, though, is who pays for it and how much? Should Phyllis' salary be increased beyond your proposed $40K so that she can pay more of her health care costs and retirement costs? If so, how much? What proportion of the costs of health care and retirement should Phyllis' employer (BART) cover? Why do you feel this is a reasonable financial responsibility?

Other concerns need to be taken into account, such as fitting rent or mortgage costs into living in a very expensive part of the country. But this will be a start.

Posted by Peter on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 4:00 pm

"I shall overlook your childish rant". Pretentious douche, maybe? lol

Peter, you're getting owned here. I'm giving you numbers and stats, you're giving me... more boring questions. You have no real argument or content, so you're attempting to stretch out the debate into some coffee house discussion. I'm not buying it.

She makes 3x the average salary for her skill set. I think she should get $40K/year, no pension, and a 401K with an employer match. "Other concerns" don't matter, at all, no matter how mard you try to personalize this because you really have no arguments. Every worker in this country has other concerns, figure 'em out.


Posted by Guest on Aug. 15, 2013 @ 4:25 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Also from this author

  • Messed up: Did this man vandalize Alejandro Nieto's memorial?

  • San Francisco's shame and triumph: remembering the I-Hotel

  • Mayoral meltdown

    Mayor Ed Lee pushes back against ballot measures for affordable housing, transportation funding