Metro Vancouver transit operators to take strike vote

[meme405]

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

Like any job, give someone an inch and they take a mile. I work in a union myself, and I see these types of people a lot. Definitely there are those who wouldn't have a job if they weren't in a union. At the end of the day though, these fuck ups make me look like a model employee.

So you like working in a world of mediocrity because it makes you look better?

Well I like working with professionals because it makes my job easier, and the entire company looks better as a result of the good work everyone does.

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

Being in a union there are things I like and dislike. But when it comes down to it, without the union my wage would be most likely half of what it is now. So I'm overpaid then? If the company can afford to pay the wages they are paying us now, and still make money, how do you determine that someone is overpaid or not? If someone is willing to do it for 15 an hour then that should be the wage?

Or maybe your company would make way more money, if they shed all the dead weight the union protects and only kept the productive useful employees. Then your wage might go up because of all the great work you guys are doing.

Successful companies pay their employees well, not saying that unioned companies can't be successful, but in general most unions seem to protect and defend useless workers. Everyone works a a different pace, and everyone's experience is different from each other, so paying an entire company of people the same rate because they perform the same task is completely ass backwards.

Take the line assembly worker example, 2 guys go to work everyday, person one drags his ass and barely makes 1000 widgets, person 2 works hard all day and builds 5000 widgets. After the first week person 2 starts to notice person 1 isn't working as hard, but he never gets talked to and continues to work there because they are in a union, so person 2 decides he can slow down a bit as well. Now all of a sudden person 1 and 2 are barely building 3000 widgets a day. So the company they work for hired 2 more people to bring up production, but because of the union that company has to pay all 4 people as if they were doing the work of 4 people, when in reality they are all together only doing the work of 2 people.


EDIT:
I can actually keep going.

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

If the company can afford to pay the wages they are paying us now, and still make money, how do you determine that someone is overpaid or not?

Translink isn't making money, they are constantly taking money from our taxes in order to keep funding their costs which are spiraling out of control. So your argument doesn't work.

Originally Posted by jasonturbo

I don't really believe the wages are low so much as the taxes and cost of living is too high.

Could it be that our taxes are this high because we pay all our civil servants and employees of government run corporations ridiculous wages regardless of how mediocre or simple of a job they do? Regardless of whether or not their branch of public service manages to produce a profit?

[twitchyzero]

Originally Posted by beebob

. The ones should be taking a wage cut are the executives. If they are managing a business that is seeing deficits constantly, and want to start making cost reduction policies on its workers then maybe start with execs first. It may not be much. but at least they would be setting a good example.

has that ever happened before in public sector? I don't think execs/mgmt. is willing to take a salary cut, I certainly wouldn't for the "greater good" if you argue how much effort/time it took you to get there (if it's a startup, sure, I don't see it happening in a Crown corp)

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

People seem to think if you're not breaking your back then you're not worth the money.

To me, it has very little to do with risks on the job nor how much shit you have to deal with/put up. The union keeps talking about working conditions...okay please clarify how poor the working conditions are for the average transit operator...I'm all ears. and if it warrants a change, is there a way to improve that environment instead of upping wages to compensate?

Heck neither does wages have to do with how hardworking you are. I worked probably the hardest for $6.5/h when I was 15.

It's more about how much you've invested into a certain skillset. If you can be replaced by any person with a class 5 and clean 5 year record or one day an automated system...you have to ask yourself how much value you can offer. (Translink website says "be able to obtain class 2"...so I assume it's offered on-job during training)

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

Anyone who does a job for 40+ hours a week should be able to provide basic needs to live in my opinion, regardless of education. If the jobs important enough that it needs you full time, then you should be able to afford rent. That's more of a minimum wage issue than this thread though.

Sure you can afford the basics, but forget about luxuries. No car, no vacation, no pricey pasttimes/toys. You want that $300 handbag? You better stock up on TV dinner like college students. Forget about kids.

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by meme405

So you like working in a world of mediocrity because it makes you look better?

Well I like working with professionals because it makes my job easier, and the entire company looks better as a result of the good work everyone does.



Or maybe your company would make way more money, if they shed all the dead weight the union protects and only kept the productive useful employees. Then your wage might go up because of all the great work you guys are doing.

Successful companies pay their employees well, not saying that unioned companies can't be successful, but in general most unions seem to protect and defend useless workers. Everyone works a a different pace, and everyone's experience is different from each other, so paying an entire company of people the same rate because they perform the same task is completely ass backwards.

Take the line assembly worker example, 2 guys go to work everyday, person one drags his ass and barely makes 1000 widgets, person 2 works hard all day and builds 5000 widgets. After the first week person 2 starts to notice person 1 isn't working as hard, but he never gets talked to and continues to work there because they are in a union, so person 2 decides he can slow down a bit as well. Now all of a sudden person 1 and 2 are barely building 3000 widgets a day. So the company they work for hired 2 more people to bring up production, but because of the union that company has to pay all 4 people as if they were doing the work of 4 people, when in reality they are all together only doing the work of 2 people.

Some of the most successful companies there are do it on the backs of people making fuck all. Saying successful companies pay their employees well isn't true in a lot of cases.

And your assembly line example, maybe the company should do a better job of hiring then. It's not like once the guy is hired he's incapable of being canned. Generally there is an amount of hours worked before you are in a union and you can get tossed anytime before that. And it's also not impossible to get fired once you're in either. In the last 5 years at my work probably more than 10 guys have been fired for various reasons and the union couldn't do a thing about it

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by meme405

Translink isn't making money, they are constantly taking money from our taxes in order to keep funding their costs which are spiraling out of control. So your argument doesn't work.

TransLink is run by a bunch if stupid fucks who don't know their ass from a hat. I'd like to see what the wages bus drivers make are a year compared to the stupid expensive ideas they come up with that don't work.

But yeah, when they are constantly broke let's blame the guys on the bottom for making too much, not the billions they blew on bullshit that we didn't need.

[meme405]

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

But yeah, when they are constantly broke let's blame the guys on the bottom for making too much, not the billions they blew on bullshit that we didn't need.

I'm not blaming the guy on the bottom, but I am saying the guy on the bottom doesn't need a raise in excess of inflation when the company he works for is hemorrhaging money.

The fact is this, people who wish to make more than bus drivers, will become supervisors, or will find other avenues up beyond the actual driving position. This is how you get raises.

Other than that bus drivers should only be getting wage increases to keep up with inflation. Why should someone who has been doing the same job as the guy who did it 10 years ago, get paid more than what that guy got paid (inflation neglected).

It doens't make any sense, you get raises when you move to a new position, or for when you reach certain milestones, drivers don't just deserve raises because their contract is up.

Note: I am basing this on people understand the difference between a wage increase to match inflation, and an actual "raise". Every employee should be getting 2% or whatever eveyr year in order to match inflation (even though inflation is actually statistically much less than 2% here in canada).

[MarkyMark]

Across the board have wages kept up with inflation?

[smoothie.]

Originally Posted by meme405

I'm not blaming the guy on the bottom, but I am saying the guy on the bottom doesn't need a raise in excess of inflation when the company he works for is hemorrhaging money.

The fact is this, people who wish to make more than bus drivers, will become supervisors, or will find other avenues up beyond the actual driving position. This is how you get raises.

Other than that bus drivers should only be getting wage increases to keep up with inflation. Why should someone who has been doing the same job as the guy who did it 10 years ago, get paid more than what that guy got paid (inflation neglected).

It doens't make any sense, you get raises when you move to a new position, or for when you reach certain milestones, drivers don't just deserve raises because their contract is up.

Note: I am basing this on people understand the difference between a wage increase to match inflation, and an actual "raise". Every employee should be getting 2% or whatever eveyr year in order to match inflation (even though inflation is actually statistically much less than 2% here in canada).

Incentive to stay. I wouldnt stay at a job with no annual salary increase. 3/4 recent jobs were more than inflation, anually.

[smoothie.]

Originally Posted by meme405

...

Successful companies pay their employees well, not saying that unioned companies can't be successful, but in general most unions seem to protect and defend useless workers. Everyone works a a different pace, and everyone's experience is different from each other, so paying an entire company of people the same rate because they perform the same task is completely ass backwards.
...

Successful private companies dont guarantee proper compensation. I went from private to public for reason.

No more bullshit unpaid OT, proper procedures instead of work dumped on my desk, keeping salaries hindered so costs look lower.

There's always good and bad. Useless workers will always be there, union or not.

[MarkyMark]

It's just like assuming lower costs for companies means they pass the savings onto consumers. They will if it means their bottom line goes up, otherwise they'll pocket it for themselves.

Why does no one cares that the difference between a CEOs salary compared to his employees has gone up insanely high since the 70s and 80s? Suddenly someone realized they work 1000 times harder?

[meme405]

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

Why does no one cares that the difference between a CEOs salary compared to his employees has gone up insanely high since the 70s and 80s? Suddenly someone realized they work 1000 times harder?

Provide some proof that the CEO's salary has gone up disproportionately to the workers, and maybe I will believe you, but for now your just spit balling, and from what I see I believe bus drivers are payed completely proportionately to their counterparts.

[buhdeh]

If you think this is bad, you guys should see OFFICE JOBS in the government. At least bus drivers actually do work for most of their shift.

[smoothie.]

Originally Posted by meme405

Provide some proof that the CEO's salary has gone up disproportionately to the workers, and maybe I will believe you, but for now your just spit balling, and from what I see I believe bus drivers are payed completely proportionately to their counterparts.

CEO Pay Continues to Rise as Typical Workers Are Paid Less | Economic Policy Institute

CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratio Ballooned 1,000 Percent Since 1950: Report

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by meme405

Provide some proof that the CEO's salary has gone up disproportionately to the workers, and maybe I will believe you, but for now your just spit balling, and from what I see I believe bus drivers are payed completely proportionately to their counterparts.

From CBC.ca

"In a report published Monday, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives looked at salary information from 249 TSX-listed companies. The think-tank then calculated numbers based on the 100 people at the top of that list.

According to the group, the richest 100 CEOs in Canada took in $8.98 million last year, a drop of about two per cent from 2013's level. That figure includes salaries, bonuses, share grants and stock options.

But that's still well ahead of the $48,636 that the group says the typical full-year, full-time worker earned last year.

Based on last year's earnings, Canada's 100 top CEOs will earn by 12:18 p.m. today — Jan. 4 — what the average Canadian will make in a whole year."

Yes that's the top 100 but the fact remains, should anyone make what the average person makes in a year by Jan 4th?

[jackmeister]

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

It's just like assuming lower costs for companies means they pass the savings onto consumers. They will if it means their bottom line goes up, otherwise they'll pocket it for themselves.

Why does no one cares that the difference between a CEOs salary compared to his employees has gone up insanely high since the 70s and 80s? Suddenly someone realized they work 1000 times harder?

Or maybe the value of work they put in is significantly higher? When shit hits the fan the CEO is almost always the fall guy right? And to be fair, with the required skillset would you want to work as Translink CEO for 200k a year, or millions elsewhere?

I don't see bus drivers trying to hustle money out of different stakeholders (taxpayers, governments, users, etc) and face the music about what a shitty organization he works for.

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by jackmeister

Or maybe the value of work they put in is significantly higher? When shit hits the fan the CEO is almost always the fall guy right? And to be fair, with the required skillset would you want to work as Translink CEO for 200k a year, or millions elsewhere?

I don't see bus drivers trying to hustle money out of different stakeholders (taxpayers, governments, users, etc) and face the music about what a shitty organization he works for.

Yeah when shit hits the fan and they are fired, they'll already have made enough retire 10 times over, and most likely a severance big enough to retire 10 times over again.

[Adorkami]

The largest part of a CEOs income seems to be stock in most cases, something that is tied to the performance of the company they will be running. As for the wages having grown so much you fail to mention the other side of things... profit. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...-profits?embed

[meme405]

You guys are just providing blanket articles. They don't even provide links to translink, just a bunch of other companies most of which are private not public corporations.

Let me provide you an example that actually relates to tranlink:

TransLink cuts executive vehicle allowance, lowers salary cap for CEO - NEWS 1130

The CEO's and execs all took pay cuts and concessions last year, so why shouldn't the bus drivers be force to as well?

[smoothie.]

Originally Posted by meme405

You guys are just providing blanket articles. They don't even provide links to translink, just a bunch of other companies most of which are private not public corporations.

Let me provide you an example that actually relates to tranlink:

TransLink cuts executive vehicle allowance, lowers salary cap for CEO - NEWS 1130

The CEO's and execs all took pay cuts and concessions last year, so why shouldn't the bus drivers be force to as well?

Might as well take 29k off every translink employees pay also.

I'll just leave this here. You think the regular staff got bonuses like this?
https://www.biv.com/article/2014/9/t...ay-amid-vows-/

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by meme405

You guys are just providing blanket articles. They don't even provide links to translink, just a bunch of other companies most of which are private not public corporations.

Let me provide you an example that actually relates to tranlink:

TransLink cuts executive vehicle allowance, lowers salary cap for CEO - NEWS 1130

The CEO's and execs all took pay cuts and concessions last year, so why shouldn't the bus drivers be force to as well?

This convo has gone beyond just TransLink, or so I thought.

Anyways, back to TransLink. They have been bleeding money for years, why shouldn't that reflect on the people running it first? Where are the numbers showing that the main reason TransLink can't run without losing cash year over year is because the drivers make too much? In reality those cuts aren't saving them shit. It's just a way to calm the public down after being gouged by their incompetent expensive ideas for years.

[meme405]

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

Anyways, back to TransLink. They have been bleeding money for years, why shouldn't that reflect on the people running it first? Where are the numbers showing that the main reason TransLink can't run without losing cash year over year is because the drivers make too much? In reality those cuts aren't saving them shit. It's just a way to calm the public down after being gouged by their incompetent expensive ideas for years.

It saved them 2 million a year, while thats certainly more than nothing, it's won't do shit to correct the problem with translink. Then again just paying bus drivers more won't fix the problem either.

Originally Posted by smoothie.

Might as well take 29k off every translink employees pay also.

I'll just leave this here. You think the regular staff got bonuses like this?
https://www.biv.com/article/2014/9/t...ay-amid-vows-/

You linked an aricle from 2014, I linked an article from 2015 that proves they fixed that problem. No the regular workers didn't get bonuses like that, and neither do the CEO's anymore either, on top of that they also took a 6.4% pay cut across the board. So why are the drivers immune to concessions?

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

This convo has gone beyond just TransLink, or so I thought.

No it hasn't. If you wan't to discuss Trickle-Down-Economics we can do so in another thread.

[6o4__boi]

Originally Posted by meme405

The CEO's and execs all took pay cuts and concessions last year, so why shouldn't the bus drivers be force to as well?

pretty complex situation and i try not to side with either but i gotta pipe up when people start comparing apples to oranges

to answer that question because CEO's make exponentially (ok, that's an exaggeration but you get the point) more than your average driver?

cut salary range to $325k-$406k from max cap hit of $435k
404 - sympathy not found

On the other hand, if Operators and other lower tier employees should also "concede" as the great, illustrious visionaries did...
let's say median income of operators are $25/hr.
That's $42k on a 70 hour work week/year BEFORE taxes.
a 5% cut to hourly wages makes it $39,900 a year BEFORE taxes.

Big whoop, the CEO's and execs took "massive" paycuts and bonus eliminations. At the end of the day, they still retain perks, and they would just scoff at the cut...probably just paper toilet money to them.

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by meme405

It saved them 2 million a year, while thats certainly more than nothing, it's won't do shit to correct the problem with translink. Then again just paying bus drivers more won't fix the problem either.



You linked an aricle from 2014, I linked an article from 2015 that proves they fixed that problem. No the regular workers didn't get bonuses like that, and neither do the CEO's anymore either, on top of that they also took a 6.4% pay cut across the board. So why are the drivers immune to concessions?

Maybe because the drivers salaries don't allow them to pay off their house in 3 years? I'm still waiting to see how much money will be saved by wage concessions vs TransLink not making stupid expensive decisions every year.

[meme405]

Originally Posted by 6o4__boi

pretty complex situation and i try not to side with either but i gotta pipe up when people start comparing apples to oranges

to answer that question because CEO's make exponentially (ok, that's an exaggeration but you get the point) more than your average driver?

cut salary range to $325k-$406k from max cap hit of $435k
404 - sympathy not found

On the other hand, if Operators and other lower tier employees should also "concede" as the great, illustrious visionaries did...
let's say median income of operators are $25/hr.
That's $42k on a 70 hour work week/year BEFORE taxes.
a 5% cut to hourly wages makes it $39,900 a year BEFORE taxes.

Big whoop, the CEO's and execs took "massive" paycuts and bonus eliminations. At the end of the day, they still retain perks, and they would just scoff at the cut...probably just paper toilet money to them.

FYI. I agree on the apples to oranges bit. I'm not the one who took the conversation in this direction, I am simply responding to people who raised that as an issue and atleast giving some form of insight.

Originally Posted by MarkyMark

Maybe because the drivers salaries don't allow them to pay off their house in 3 years? I'm still waiting to see how much money will be saved by wage concessions vs TransLink not making stupid expensive decisions every year.

This conversation has gone from sounding like a salary discussion, to almost sounding like you just promoting communism. I suppose in your mind everyone who works 40 hours a week, deserves to be fed, bathed, have clothes, and housing... Sounds good see ya there

[MarkyMark]

Originally Posted by meme405

FYI. I agree on the apples to oranges bit. I'm not the one who took the conversation in this direction, I am simply responding to people who raised that as an issue and atleast giving some form of insight.



This conversation has gone from sounding like a salary discussion, to almost sounding like you just promoting communism. I suppose in your mind everyone who works 40 hours a week, deserves to be fed, bathed, have clothes, and housing... Sounds good see ya there

The fact is when you already make a shit ton a wage cut doesn't affect you anywhere near as someone who lives cheque to cheque.

And suddenly wanting the wealth to be spread out a bit more is communism. People get applauded for hoarding billions and paying their workers nothing, but pay a bus driver 30 bucks an hour and they are the ones who need to give their head a shake. Okie dokie.

[smoothie.]

Originally Posted by meme405

...

You linked an aricle from 2014, I linked an article from 2015 that proves they fixed that problem. No the regular workers didn't get bonuses like that, and neither do the CEO's anymore either, on top of that they also took a 6.4% pay cut across the board. So why are the drivers immune to concessions?

...

2015 is also the year they paid out double or triple CEO salaries?



I get what you're sort of saying, I just have no sympathy for the higher ups at Translink while I definitely feel for the average translink worker. I've seen some shit on those buses.