Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NotCleverNamesTaken t1_iudkhc6 wrote

This is cool

A functioning T Affordable housing would have been cooler, though

Edit: happy???

180

murdocke t1_iudo2o8 wrote

They can't just decide to spend this money on the T.

67

NotCleverNamesTaken t1_iudoh34 wrote

Would've been cool if they could

23

frankybling t1_iudpxu5 wrote

while I agree to a point… I don’t want them to just throw money at the issue without more accountability though. I like the T but it really feels like there’s been millions squandered on poorly written contracts for employees (possibly intentionally made that way) that provide 80% pensions (maybe more) for employees after 25 years of service… meaning that if you started working at 21 you could “retire” from the T and collect 80% of your three highest paying years for the rest of your life… at 46 years old! that’s a bad contract with our tax money. Obviously the T needs to be fixed but I want more accountability from the appointed officials before I hand them a blank check.

35

alongfield t1_iudsqhe wrote

That's about how it works for most every public service job, including military. You put in your years and you get the average of your last few years of pay. I've run across everything from 20-35 years of service to get full benefits.

You don't get blank checks in government. You get budgets that are written and approved before the year starts. In some states the excess would've gone to a general fund. In MA it has to go back to the taxpayers.

SO no, it isn't a "bad contract with our tax money", it's just a pension, like most every other pension anywhere else, both in the US and many other countries. It's how better places take care of their long-term employees.

26

frankybling t1_iudsz1d wrote

how do you retain employees after the 25 year mark? Also, military pension is not 80% neither are many other public sector jobs.

I understand how budgets work and I see how well the T has been maintained, that works for you?

5

alongfield t1_iudusz7 wrote

Nope, it doesn't, but I also think public transit should be 100% public operated. There still wouldn't be a "blank check" any way you did it.

Ask most US employers from 1945 - 1980. Most jobs had pensions until voodoo economics and boomer greed took over everywhere. Fucking Reagan made sure all that stopped when he signed a couple of nasty laws that have been screwing us ever since.

As far as "but what after 25 years"... I don't give a damn. You work to live, not live to work. They can go find someone else to take over. You've put in more than enough.

Every state job pays out a pension, and some of them are 75%-80%. Like the police.

18

1959Gibson t1_iueg2l3 wrote

You let them retire with some comfort. This isn’t China

2

frankybling t1_iuehsrb wrote

retiring at 46 years old? That isn’t what’s happening anymore, but certainly for the people that got that deal they definitely get to retire very young and reasonably comfortable. I’m probably really jealous about that. Can you retire at 46 with a blue collar job anywhere else with taxpayer funds?

4

clean_confusion t1_iugggvc wrote

Worth noting that most of the CBAs don't allow you to start collecting your pension at 46... you fully vest after 20-30 years, meaning that you're eligible for the max amount when you do start taking out, but you still might not be able to start collecting until 60, 65 etc. (And yes, the retirement age, vesting time, and contribution percentage have all gotten significantly higher over the last several decades, while real wages have decreased, so those currently receiving benefits got a much better deal than those currently paying in.)

8

1959Gibson t1_iueke6t wrote

This is the classic case of arguing against something good because of envy . The argument should not be why do they get to retire at 46 ? The question to argue should be why do I have to work until I’m 65 to retire ???

5

DulcineaC t1_iuikdmv wrote

Because workers need 25 years of service AND to be of an eligible age before they can receive pension payments. At least for most state agencies. So even if you have 25 years of service you still aren’t getting your pension until you’re 68 ( age might be lower depending when you started).

1

psychicsword t1_iueuhtc wrote

> That's about how it works for most every public service job, including military.

The existence of other contracts with similar terms doesn't make this a good deal in this case.

1

bakgwailo t1_iudsq59 wrote

As of 2012, you need 25 years of service and be at least 55 years old to retire, and the T is currently trying to bump that to 65. Nice try, though, at least we know what Howie Carr's Reddit burner account is.

17

frankybling t1_iudtcmg wrote

Howie Carr? Is he still around? (seriously I remember him from before I stopped reading newspapers, I figured he’d be retired by now too)… I just don’t think there’s enough accountability specifically within the MBTA to be sending them more money without a good public facing plan.

Also… fuck you

4

Accurate-Temporary73 t1_iuea0rz wrote

Don’t forget about the MASSIVE contract with that crappy Chinese company CRRC for the new train cars.

They’re years behind schedule, way over budget, and have had numerous mechanics failures on the few cars that were delivered.

They tried to save a few bucks by not going with Bombardier or one of the other US/Canada based companies and it’s biting them in the ass.

12

rip_wallace t1_iugkyoi wrote

What other US company? Lol

3

bakgwailo t1_iuiznul wrote

There are none. And Bombardier basically just got blacklisted by the MTA for fucking up the r211 order so badly.

1

rip_wallace t1_iuj0bue wrote

Exactly. The CRRC contract sucked because we asked them to build a factory in Springfield and provide manufacturing jobs despite Americas move away from those types of jobs

2

thejosharms t1_iuefish wrote

You could be upset about how that's a bad deal for taxpayers, or instead you could be upset why this isn't the standard for private companies and we all don't get to retire at a reasonable age with a pension and get to enjoy our time instead of working until we physically can't do it anymore.

You could also just go to work for the MBTA for yourself right? Then you'll get your vested pension you've earned after 25 years of public service. Also how many people do you know stay with one organization for 25 years?

2

frankybling t1_iueh0zv wrote

angry about both and got shut out when I applied at the MBTA in the 90’s and the job literally went to a friend of mine who’s last name rhymes with Bulger (remember Whitey’s brother Billy was the Senate President at that point)… this guy is his nephew. I’m still his friend but it was an inside thing… also I’ve been with the same company for 26 years… my pension is fully vested but it’s at 60% of my 3 top years. This seems pretty standard for folks that are able to still get pensions from their workplace. I also agree with the separate point (in my mind) that all companies should provide a pension, but this isn’t even what I’m talking about totally just one part that popped into my head about money being spent that should have been negotiated differently. I also don’t begrudge the people that got the sweet deal while it was available… it isn’t available anymore, but the money must still be paid to those that earned it in the 90’s.

4

DulcineaC t1_iuijzy8 wrote

I work in state government and while you do get something like 80% after 20 years of service you ALSO have to reach a certain age ( 68 years old) before you can start receiving the money. So in your example you could quit government at 46 and know that pension is out there waiting for you in another 22 years, but you’d still have to go work somewhere else in the meantime ti support yourself. I don’t know if the contract for T workers is different but I’d be surprised if it were.

2

frankybling t1_iuiy98s wrote

it’s that way now, it was not like that for a long time during the 80’s, 90’s and 00’s.

1

jvpewster t1_iufbv61 wrote

People want functioning government programs to pay poverty wages.

The T isn’t able to staff as is, and people are like “WOW A PENSION FOR 26 years of service?!?!?”

−1

frankybling t1_iufch19 wrote

$100k a year is the carman’s union top scale… that’s not exactly poverty

Before overtime

3

jvpewster t1_iufdog1 wrote

For a career job? Name any business that’s competitive in Boston that’s not paying its top end individual contributors significantly more then that? If pay were that far out of line they wouldn’t have a staff shortage.

−4

Wtf_is_this1234 t1_iufewcs wrote

Most businesses actually don't pay 6 figures to most of their employees. You must live in some magic fantasy land where someone earning $100k/year is considered poor instead of the real world where it's considered above average pay.

1

jvpewster t1_iufgq6h wrote

>most businesses don’t pay most of their employees 6 figures

Neither does the T, or even close to that. It’s the top scale, so the most experienced workers. Most businesses do pay 6 figures to their most experienced employees in roles for careers.

I’m sorry you’re living in a fantasy world if you think you could pay less and hold onto anyone for 5+ years in this economy. 100k a year is enough to buy a very modest house in an area with bad schools now. It’s middle class.

1

g_rich t1_iufr070 wrote

No by law it has to go back to the taxpayers.

5

Yak_Rodeo t1_iudwp1c wrote

some variation of this same comment gets posted every time after this stuff gets posted

the t is not underfunded. the t wastes tons of money and mismanages the rest. id rather have people be able to make their next rent payment or grocery bill than throw more money into the void of the t budget

29

HotTaeks t1_iue061l wrote

a lot of the T’s issues are from understaffing (not enough bus drivers, not enough dispatchers) and the driver issue especially comes down to non-competitive pay.

this also is not helping the people who need it most make their next rent payment

> Households that are among the bottom 20% of earners will receive an average credit of just $9, compared to those in the middle 20% with a $208 credit and those in the top 20% with a credit of $1,921.

source

13

Yak_Rodeo t1_iue4tgm wrote

spoken like someone who has never had to count every dollar. $9 absolutely makes a difference

−17

[deleted] t1_iue21sh wrote

[deleted]

2

beatwixt t1_iufj97e wrote

Sure management is terrible, but maintenance has been underfunded forever. We need to pay to maintain it, get better management, and pay to expand it.

If you try to improve management without properly funding it, you will end up with new shitty management because there isn’t money to do things right.

1

NotCleverNamesTaken t1_iudzk0r wrote

Ok fair, both things would have just been cool

1

shitz_brickz t1_iueiw4h wrote

Okay ya but it would be even cooler than both those things if the money went to curing cancer and bringing about world peace.

1

ik1nky t1_iuhyata wrote

The T is absolutely underfunded. If you think otherwise you have zero relevant knowledge to contribute anything of use to discussions around the T.

0

laughing-stockade t1_iudlnwu wrote

donate your refund to the t then

28

NotCleverNamesTaken t1_iudne6h wrote

Ok.

But it's much more effective when everyone does it.

−1

BiscuitKnees t1_iudo51m wrote

Then let’s go back to 1985 and tell the statehouse to do that instead. Or any General Congress since then. The law’s been on the books and no one cared until it was used.

17

No_Judge_3817 t1_iudqixf wrote

I mean yeah. That really is the solution. But all those dumbass time machine owners would rather pet a dinosaur than actually impact the world

5

foxfai t1_iudqcvo wrote

Better donate to the void then?

−2

crazydogggz t1_iudna5x wrote

That's not how this works. At all.

3

NotCleverNamesTaken t1_iudoeka wrote

Would have been cool if it did

0

crazydogggz t1_iudqmsz wrote

I understaand this subreddit will complain about the T even if it's not relevant but the state can't legally use this money for the T

9

sckuzzle t1_iue00bl wrote

Don't know why you are bringing the law into this. It's not relevant to the point they are making. Yes, we get the law says to do one thing. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been cool if it weren't that way.

0

[deleted] t1_iudqp6q wrote

[deleted]

1

bakgwailo t1_iueigb7 wrote

Nah. The T has objectively gotten significantly worse as I've gotten older. It was actually pretty good back in the day.

2

snoogins355 t1_iuglumq wrote

North-South Rail Link and high speed East-West rail would be a good idea too!

2

Ironman2179 t1_iue0266 wrote

We have been throwing money at the problem for years. It hasn't worked then. It's a people problem not a money problem.

1

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_iujg288 wrote

They can’t find people to work buses and trains because they don’t pay enough and you say it’s not a money problem?

0

Ironman2179 t1_iujgmng wrote

That's not a money problem but more finding the people who are willing to do the job. It's also a toxic work culture that needs to be corrected.

1

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_iujjko7 wrote

That’s a money problem basic supply and demand, not enough people who want to do the job, pay more

1

Ironman2179 t1_iujx49r wrote

We have been throwing money at the T for almost 20 years. We have got nothing back. At this point the solution isn't throw more money.

1

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_iujxstr wrote

the T still has an unfunded capital budget, and an even more underfunded maintenance budget. It can't hire people. It can't expand. Those are all issues solvable with more money. The MBTA already has one of the least subsidy rates in North America so the solution really is more money

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio#North_America

The only major city ahead of Boston in terms of reduced subsidy is Seattle, the MBTA is underfunded

1

Ironman2179 t1_iujzi7u wrote

That's because they directed most of their cash towards capital projects and deliberately underfunded maintenance. That's a leadership issue.

1

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_iujzvlw wrote

again, their capital budget is still underfunded, as is the maintenance, how would you solve that without more money? greater Boston is growing, you can't just say "stop expanding"

1

Ironman2179 t1_iuk02wg wrote

It was underfunded because they pulled money from the maintenance budget to pay for all their projects. They could have done fewer projects and had plenty of cash to pay for maintenance. It's a leadership problem.

1

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_iuk7dve wrote

So you mean to say that the T which already underserved a lot of metro Boston should have cut back on service expansion plans because it had insufficient money or otherwise cut back on expansion in a growing region

Sure fine that’s all well and good, but that doesn’t change the fact that the T has insufficient money to make it’s near term maintenance goals as well as meeting larger economic growth goals for metro Boston

The real solution is to fund both maintenance and capital projects appropriately and not force the T to choose

1

Ironman2179 t1_iuk93ze wrote

No that's called bad budgeting. Had the leadership properly budgeted their cash they could do both. They didn't. The leadership constantly has been fucking it up.

1

Doctrina_Stabilitas t1_iukb93q wrote

The MBTA has a 13B unfunded maintenance budget https://www.masstaxpayers.org/mbta-finances-cast-long-red-shadow-incoming-leaders

The 2020-2024 CIP for MassDOT includes 9.4B earmarked for the MBTA

https://massdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=33a118c32b3f47b3b90a769498aa68bd#

Which accounts for both expansion and maintenance / modernization

Even if we assumed all the funds earmarked for both maintenance and expansion went to the MBTA's maintenance shortfall, we're still short more than 3 Billion dollars at minimum, the MBTA needs more money

The approved capital budget says

>This $13 billion capital sources gap does not include sufficient funding to reduce greenhouse gas emissions nor to protect MBTA’s infrastructure from sea level rise and storm surge. Factoring in climate change costs, the MBTA is short approximately $20 billion for the period from 2023 through 2031. The federal infrastructure bill, if passed, will not meaningfully change this shortfall.

How do you propose we address this $20B capital shortfall (not even the operating shortfall which runs approximately half a Billion per year) the state itself acknowledges exists when making its capital budgets without adding more money and/or revenue

1

TheSausageKing t1_iuf5pgj wrote

Giving the state more money won’t help housing. We need to redo how zoning works.

0