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.
I think this is the same data that is seen here: http://www.mercurynews.com/salaries/bay-area?Entity=Bay%20Ar...
Though there's an error in the data. Starting at row #1001 ("Caldwell"), the "base" column seems to have disappeared.
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.
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.
SEIU 98.5%
ATU 99.9%
Those numbers (upwards of 90%) look like the numbers won by dictators in rigged elections. Who monitors the union voting process?
Their members want it.
Says who? The unions? What outside observers monitor the ballots?
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-unions-rank-and-f...
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.
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.
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.
(2) The public can look for replacement transportation.
(2) True, but the public cannot use the infrastructure that they paid dearly to build and have some claim of ownership to.
(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.
If you hide a document and show the other one publicly it doesn't protects anyone privacy... wtf is this logic?