|
|
|
|
|
by 3825
4630 days ago
|
|
As Shirley says: > For another, what does 80k really mean? Is it the average of their base salaries or their total costs of employment? And who are included in this average? Certainly, if management salaries are included, it'd unreasonably skew the data! I am concerned why there are 217 people in management. I am sure we can find some other people who will work in management for less. Fire the management! If it were up to me, I'd stick to the BART compensation for everyone but the utility workers and increase their base by about 1k over current BART proposal. I'd make up for that by cutting down on management costs. I would not necessarily decrease pay outside of those with corporate title but they have to start letting some of the people in management go. My goal would be to reduce the number of management employees from 217 to 150 by the end of 2014. Nobody needs 17% of their workforce to be in management. Trim that fat. I don't have much confidence in either the unions or the management to do their job. I bet everyone involved is very glad that I don't run BART. |
|
- Why is 217 too much, and 150 is better? Presumably some organizations need lots of management, while others need very little- how do you, as an outside observer, come up with a reasonable number? - Where did you get 17%? According to [0], there are 3430 bart employees. 217/3430 = 6.3%.
0: http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area?Entity=Bay%20Ar...