5 ms·

It'd have been nice to anonymize this data. I know it's publicly available but we should respect people's privacy. I don't think having people's name adds anyth

It'd have been nice to anonymize this data. I know it's publicly available but we should respect people's privacy. I don't think having people's name adds anything interesting to this data set.

maxcan 13y ago
In general, I'd agree. However, considering the collective action the union has taken disrupting a vital service, I think they forfeit a bit of privacy in this case. They are public servants who are holding the public hostage.
- georgespencer 13y ago
  Are they all members of the unions / striking?
  - pathy 13y ago
    I don't know exactly how it works in USA, but generally if the union decides to go on strike, you don't have much choice as an individual member.
    - josh2600 13y ago
      You have the choice to vote. The union voted to strike. Not everyone voted for it, but enough did to initiate the strike. It's usually a fairly unanimous thing. Source: once upon a time, long, long ago, I was on the executive board of a union that may or may not have voted to strike.
      - spikels 13y ago
        The percentage of members of the two BART unions that voted for the strike is also public. It was not close. SEIU 98.5% ATU 99.9% http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-workers-vote-to-authorize-a-strike-4623305.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-workers-vote-to-a...
        derleth 13y ago
        > The percentage of members of the two BART unions that voted for the strike is also public. It was not close. Those numbers (upwards of 90%) look like the numbers won by dictators in rigged elections. Who monitors the union voting process?
        casiotone 13y ago
        Union ballots are well regulated and usually even put incredibly unfair restrictions on the unions. They achieve this result in a very simple way: Their members want it.
        derleth 13y ago
        > Union ballots are well regulated Says who? The unions? What outside observers monitor the ballots?
        flyinRyan 13y ago
        Sounds like they have legit grievances then.
      - icelancer 13y ago
        But if the vote to strike is going to pass easily, then surely you don't want to be an outcast and vote against it, right? Retaliatory actions from your fellow union members has to be common.
        nknighthb 13y ago
        The ballots are secret. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-unions-rank-and-file-OK-strike-4625003.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-unions-rank-and-f...
        flyinRyan 13y ago
        Not nearly as common as retaliation from companies to unions. Ask Florida Daisy employees.
- flyt 13y ago
  They are not "public servants" they are humans who took a job that happens to be under a unionized collective bargaining agreement. Many of these people may not care about the union, and are just happy to have a job. They are not in a place to affect change in the way the union operates or negotiates and shouldn't have anti-union stigma placed on them or be the target of public reprisals. Have some respect for people that just want to earn an honest salary and do good work at a job which puts them in daily contact with the entire spectrum of the human experience. They simply want to maintain a level of compensation that they have negotiated for, and that, frankly, every other worker should also be demanding from their employers, but cannot due to the erosion of union effectiveness and trust over the last 50 years.
  - dennis82 13y ago
    They voted to strike. And yes, they assuredly are "public servants." It used to be that in exchange for working for the public and taking a lower salary, you'd be cushioned and shielded from recessions, in exchange for more stability. Now, public workers are better compensated than the private sector and still maintain guarantees for their jobs. So which is it? Because the way I and many other Californians see it, our state is in such dire straits because unions have squeezed the public dry, run up huge deficits to fund ridiculous pension plans, and haven't done anything beyond baseline to help the People.
- Amadou 13y ago
  > They are public servants who are holding the public hostage. I have to strongly disagree with that representation, you could just as well say that the "public" is holding their livelihoods hostage. Labor disputes are a characteristic of our economic system and are essentially morally neutral. The question that matters is, "Does including their names add any new insight to the debate?" I do not think it does.
  - maxcan 13y ago
    Fair enough that it doesn't add to the debate. But, you cannot say the public is holding them hostage. Any one of them can quit their job and look for another at will. The "public" can hardly look for replacement labor.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      (1) The public can look for replacement labor, they are called scabs. Or they can outright fire the strikers. (2) The public can look for replacement transportation.
      - maxcan 13y ago
        (1) There are usually fairly strong legal restrictions against hiring scabs. Especially for public sector unions. (2) True, but the public cannot use the infrastructure that they paid dearly to build and have some claim of ownership to.
        Amadou 13y ago
        (1) The SCOTUS ruled in NLRB v Mackay Radio that hiring scabs was legal. To the best of my knowledge there are no additional restrictions specific to public sector unions. You are requested to provide documentation for your claim. (2) It isn't the union stopping them from using that infrastructure, it is the government and their own lack of skills in its operation.
ajays 13y ago
By law, salaries of public sector employees are public knowledge. I think this is the same data that is seen here: http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area?Entity=Bay%20Area%20Rapid%20Transit http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area?Entity=Bay%20Ar...
- mariusz331 13y ago
  Yea I just got it from there. I thought it would be useful to some people in CSV format.
  - ajays 13y ago
    Thanks! I was thinking of asking the reporters for the data. Though there's an error in the data. Starting at row #1001 ("Caldwell"), the "base" column seems to have disappeared.
    - mariusz331 13y ago
      Thanks! Fixed!
mililani 13y ago
No, this is ALL public data. It's easily accessible ever since the CA state mandated transparency for all public service employee salaries. By the way, if anyone wants to know what Terry Tao, math extraordinaire, is making, you can also find that on the CA gov website.
zobzu 13y ago
This is actually public and non-private on purpose. If you hide a document and show the other one publicly it doesn't protects anyone privacy... wtf is this logic?

It'd have been nice to anonymize this data. I know it's publicly available but we should respect people's privacy. I don't think having people's name adds anything interesting to this data set.

maxcan 13y ago

In general, I'd agree. However, considering the collective action the union has taken disrupting a vital service, I think they forfeit a bit of privacy in this case. They are public servants who are holding the public hostage.

georgespencer 13y ago
Are they all members of the unions / striking?
- pathy 13y ago
  I don't know exactly how it works in USA, but generally if the union decides to go on strike, you don't have much choice as an individual member.
  - josh2600 13y ago
    You have the choice to vote. The union voted to strike. Not everyone voted for it, but enough did to initiate the strike. It's usually a fairly unanimous thing. Source: once upon a time, long, long ago, I was on the executive board of a union that may or may not have voted to strike.
    - spikels 13y ago
      The percentage of members of the two BART unions that voted for the strike is also public. It was not close. SEIU 98.5% ATU 99.9% http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-workers-vote-to-authorize-a-strike-4623305.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-workers-vote-to-a...
      - derleth 13y ago
        > The percentage of members of the two BART unions that voted for the strike is also public. It was not close. Those numbers (upwards of 90%) look like the numbers won by dictators in rigged elections. Who monitors the union voting process?
        casiotone 13y ago
        Union ballots are well regulated and usually even put incredibly unfair restrictions on the unions. They achieve this result in a very simple way: Their members want it.
        derleth 13y ago
        > Union ballots are well regulated Says who? The unions? What outside observers monitor the ballots?
      - flyinRyan 13y ago
        Sounds like they have legit grievances then.
    - icelancer 13y ago
      But if the vote to strike is going to pass easily, then surely you don't want to be an outcast and vote against it, right? Retaliatory actions from your fellow union members has to be common.
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        The ballots are secret. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-unions-rank-and-file-OK-strike-4625003.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-unions-rank-and-f...
      - flyinRyan 13y ago
        Not nearly as common as retaliation from companies to unions. Ask Florida Daisy employees.
flyt 13y ago
They are not "public servants" they are humans who took a job that happens to be under a unionized collective bargaining agreement. Many of these people may not care about the union, and are just happy to have a job. They are not in a place to affect change in the way the union operates or negotiates and shouldn't have anti-union stigma placed on them or be the target of public reprisals. Have some respect for people that just want to earn an honest salary and do good work at a job which puts them in daily contact with the entire spectrum of the human experience. They simply want to maintain a level of compensation that they have negotiated for, and that, frankly, every other worker should also be demanding from their employers, but cannot due to the erosion of union effectiveness and trust over the last 50 years.
- dennis82 13y ago
  They voted to strike. And yes, they assuredly are "public servants." It used to be that in exchange for working for the public and taking a lower salary, you'd be cushioned and shielded from recessions, in exchange for more stability. Now, public workers are better compensated than the private sector and still maintain guarantees for their jobs. So which is it? Because the way I and many other Californians see it, our state is in such dire straits because unions have squeezed the public dry, run up huge deficits to fund ridiculous pension plans, and haven't done anything beyond baseline to help the People.
Amadou 13y ago
> They are public servants who are holding the public hostage. I have to strongly disagree with that representation, you could just as well say that the "public" is holding their livelihoods hostage. Labor disputes are a characteristic of our economic system and are essentially morally neutral. The question that matters is, "Does including their names add any new insight to the debate?" I do not think it does.
- maxcan 13y ago
  Fair enough that it doesn't add to the debate. But, you cannot say the public is holding them hostage. Any one of them can quit their job and look for another at will. The "public" can hardly look for replacement labor.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    (1) The public can look for replacement labor, they are called scabs. Or they can outright fire the strikers. (2) The public can look for replacement transportation.
    - maxcan 13y ago
      (1) There are usually fairly strong legal restrictions against hiring scabs. Especially for public sector unions. (2) True, but the public cannot use the infrastructure that they paid dearly to build and have some claim of ownership to.
      - Amadou 13y ago
        (1) The SCOTUS ruled in NLRB v Mackay Radio that hiring scabs was legal. To the best of my knowledge there are no additional restrictions specific to public sector unions. You are requested to provide documentation for your claim. (2) It isn't the union stopping them from using that infrastructure, it is the government and their own lack of skills in its operation.

ajays 13y ago

By law, salaries of public sector employees are public knowledge. I think this is the same data that is seen here: http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area?Entity=Bay%20Area%20Rapid%20Transit http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area?Entity=Bay%20Ar...

mariusz331 13y ago
Yea I just got it from there. I thought it would be useful to some people in CSV format.
- ajays 13y ago
  Thanks! I was thinking of asking the reporters for the data. Though there's an error in the data. Starting at row #1001 ("Caldwell"), the "base" column seems to have disappeared.
  - mariusz331 13y ago
    Thanks! Fixed!

mililani 13y ago

No, this is ALL public data. It's easily accessible ever since the CA state mandated transparency for all public service employee salaries. By the way, if anyone wants to know what Terry Tao, math extraordinaire, is making, you can also find that on the CA gov website.

zobzu 13y ago

This is actually public and non-private on purpose. If you hide a document and show the other one publicly it doesn't protects anyone privacy... wtf is this logic?