4 ms·

Agreed, but asking for 20+ % raise over 3 years was a poor PR approach. I think unions served a purpose in the past, and hopefully still do now, but honestly o

Agreed, but asking for 20+ % raise over 3 years was a poor PR approach. I think unions served a purpose in the past, and hopefully still do now, but honestly once you look at the overtime pay it's painful. http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area/2012 http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area/2012 p.s. Some dude took a stab at liberating the data further, but it could use some work. http://public.tableausoftware.com/views/BARTsalaries/BARTsalariesandovertime?:embed=y&:display_count=no http://public.tableausoftware.com/views/BARTsalaries/BARTsal...

eightyone 13y ago
CBS is reporting they were seeking a 15% raise over three years. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/07/01/bart-workers-officially-strike/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/07/01/bart-workers-off...
- jcnnghm 13y ago
  Plus 2% cost of living each year. That's actually 22.5% over 3 years.
  - eightyone 13y ago
    May I get a source for that?
    - jcnnghm 13y ago
      Not that hard to google it yourself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/bart-strike_n_3493161.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/bart-strike_n_34931.... Simple interest isn't additive, that should be the first clue.
      - eightyone 13y ago
        I shouldn't have to Google it myself, you're making the claims. You can't just drop a whole bunch of numbers in a thread, present them as facts, and not cite any sources whatsoever. It does no one who is trying to learn about the subject matter any favors and isn't constructive at all.
        malandrew 13y ago
        I completely agree with this, however the tact could have been a bit better. I wouldn't mind having something like this officially added to the HN guidelines. Use IIRC or AFAIK when you remember something, but don't remember exactly or cite a source for anything stated as fact.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mc32 13y ago
Except for politics, there is little reason the conductors could not be replaced by automated systems. In other places, some mass transit systems are at least partially automated.
- cpeterso 13y ago
  I believe BART was intended to be automated. This 1972 LA Times article mentions safety concerns: Safe Automated BART Train Controls Doubted (1972) Legislative Analyst A. Alan Post expressed doubt Tuesday that a $36 million automated train control system for the Bay Area Rapid Transit District can be made "fail safe" to adequately protect its passengers." http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/660715472.html?dids=660715472:660715472&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Nov+15%2C+1972&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=Safe+Automated+BART+Train+Controls+Doubted&pqatl=google http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/660715472.html?di...
  - mc32 13y ago
    That may have been the finding back when the system was being evaluated prior to '72. Since then, automation has seen vast improvements in safety and fail-safe systems. It's only political inertia, in my opinion, which keeps things manned (and womanned). I suspect that even as Google cars take off in popularity and prove their safety, public transit will resist and insist that drivers who are susceptible to weariness, exhaustion, sleep deprivation, disease, etc. are still the safer to steer buses through our streets.

eightyone 13y ago

CBS is reporting they were seeking a 15% raise over three years. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/07/01/bart-workers-officially-strike/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/07/01/bart-workers-off...

jcnnghm 13y ago
Plus 2% cost of living each year. That's actually 22.5% over 3 years.
- eightyone 13y ago
  May I get a source for that?
  - jcnnghm 13y ago
    Not that hard to google it yourself: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/bart-strike_n_3493161.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/bart-strike_n_34931.... Simple interest isn't additive, that should be the first clue.
    - eightyone 13y ago
      I shouldn't have to Google it myself, you're making the claims. You can't just drop a whole bunch of numbers in a thread, present them as facts, and not cite any sources whatsoever. It does no one who is trying to learn about the subject matter any favors and isn't constructive at all.
      - malandrew 13y ago
        I completely agree with this, however the tact could have been a bit better. I wouldn't mind having something like this officially added to the HN guidelines. Use IIRC or AFAIK when you remember something, but don't remember exactly or cite a source for anything stated as fact.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mc32 13y ago

Except for politics, there is little reason the conductors could not be replaced by automated systems. In other places, some mass transit systems are at least partially automated.

cpeterso 13y ago
I believe BART was intended to be automated. This 1972 LA Times article mentions safety concerns: Safe Automated BART Train Controls Doubted (1972) Legislative Analyst A. Alan Post expressed doubt Tuesday that a $36 million automated train control system for the Bay Area Rapid Transit District can be made "fail safe" to adequately protect its passengers." http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/660715472.html?dids=660715472:660715472&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Nov+15%2C+1972&author=&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&desc=Safe+Automated+BART+Train+Controls+Doubted&pqatl=google http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/660715472.html?di...
- mc32 13y ago
  That may have been the finding back when the system was being evaluated prior to '72. Since then, automation has seen vast improvements in safety and fail-safe systems. It's only political inertia, in my opinion, which keeps things manned (and womanned). I suspect that even as Google cars take off in popularity and prove their safety, public transit will resist and insist that drivers who are susceptible to weariness, exhaustion, sleep deprivation, disease, etc. are still the safer to steer buses through our streets.