BART GETS BUSTED FOR LYING.AGAIN! - Daniel Borenstein: BART's pay data overstated case, but message the same

Print Email Font Resize
Daniel Borenstein: BART's pay data overstated case, but message the same
By Daniel Borenstein
Staff columnist
Posted: 06/21/2009 12:01:00 AM PDT

BART labor costs are far above the national norm, but some of the data that management has been relying on to substantiate that claim during union negotiations overstates the case.

Transit district officials are in the middle of bargaining with their five labor unions. For those sessions, BART prepared a salary survey that compared its top labor pay for several jobs to the top rates in similar transit agencies across the country.

The conclusion was clear: BART is at or near the highest salaries for train operators, station agents, mechanics, track equipment operators and janitors. The survey seemed solid, so much so that I highlighted it in my column last week with the salary numbers for each of the positions.

It's still true — with caveats that I'll explain — that BART wages are at or near the top in the nation, even when adjusted for regional differences in cost of living. And the take-away message remains the same: BART workers should make salary concessions to help the transit district stave off future fare hikes and service cuts.

But the numbers BART management was using require more explanation in some cases and are wrong in others. The problems with the data became clear when train operators and station agents read my column last week and started comparing their paychecks to the numbers I reported from the survey. They didn't match. And with good reason: They weren't the same.

According to the BART survey, the top pay for train operators and station agents is $37.75 an hour. This was presented to me as the base pay. In fact, it was data that had been adjusted for several factors, some legitimate, some erroneous. The base pay is actually $30.07 and the adjusted figure should have been $34.32.

There were several reasons for the difference:

First, the consultant who prepared the survey used base salary data provided by BART staff. But, for train operators and station agents, BART submitted the wrong data. As a result, the consultant started with an erroneously high number.

Second, the consultant adjusted the salary data upward because these BART workers are paid for 40-hour work weeks, but work only 37.5. The reason for that is that the employees' eight-hour day includes a paid half-hour lunch break. BART reasoned that, since the employees work fewer hours than they get paid for, the hourly pay rate is actually more. So for the survey comparison, BART increased the hourly pay rate for its workers accordingly.

It's a fair point and a factor that should be included in salary discussions, but the adjustment wasn't clear with the data I was provided. (Union leaders have a problem with the adjustment because they say they are on-call and must remain in the stations during their lunch breaks so their time is really not their own. BART says that's not the case, that there is no contract requirement that workers stay in the stations during their breaks.)

Third, the salaries were adjusted to account for the district's generous pension contributions. As I reported last week, BART workers don't contribute a dime to their substantial pensions. Not only does BART pay the employer's share to the pension plan, it also picks up the portion that's typically paid by the employee — in this case, about 7 percent of salary.

For the salary survey, the consultant added that 7 percent to the base salary. While it's a good idea to account for that 7 percent while doing salary comparisons, BART again should have been completely transparent about it.

Finally, in my column last week, I converted the hourly wages to annual salaries to help readers more easily understand the numbers. To do so, I checked with BART's consultant, who told me to calculate using a 2,080-hour work year — the standard multiplier for a 40-hour workweek. However, he now acknowledges, because the data was based on a 37.5-hour workweek, the multiplier should have been 1,950.

As a result of all these factors, I reported last week that BART's survey showed top-scale train operators and station agents make $78,520 a year in base pay. In fact, the top-scale number for base pay is about $62,545. And the correct number after the pension and lunch-period adjustments should have been $66,924.

So what should readers take away from all of this? BART argues that the $30.07 hourly base rate understates the true compensation for station agents and train operators. They maintain that the pension and lunch-period adjustments should be included in the figure. I agree. With those adjustments and corrections for the erroneous data BART supplied, the agency's consultant now calculates that the top adjusted hourly rate for train operators and station agents is $34.32. That's still the highest in the national survey and well above the average in each case.

Similarly, at top adjusted pay of $40.47 an hour (about $78,900 a year), salaries for BART mechanics and track equipment operators are the highest in the agency's national survey. And janitors, at an adjusted $28.09 an hour (about $54,800 a year), are second among nine agencies surveyed. (Again, the BART salaries are not base pay; they are adjusted for the paid lunch break and the pension contribution.)

It all still suggests that, with BART facing a $100 million shortfall over the next four years, labor needs to be a significant part of the solution. But, in getting there, BART management needs to be more careful about the accuracy of its data and more transparent when presenting it.