MBTA workers picket money room in protest against privatization; arrests made

How do we know those workers don't deserve those salaries? Well, for one thing people earning 50 to 100% above the established salary is indicative of gross mismanagement - if dozens of employees have to work extensive
OT for sustained and recurring periods of time, it is indicative of a supervisor or manager not monitoring and correcting the source of what creates the OT.

If there is too much work to be accomplished in normal schedule work hours, attempting to mitigate that problem, by doubling OT payroll costs is fiscally irresponsible. It also strongly points to a flawed payroll budget process.

Payroll budgets should reflect the mission of the organization with a contingency component built to accommodate
unique or unanticipated events or circumstances. Once the unique demand for labor becomes the norm, it is cheaper to hire additional employees than pay 1.5 times the standard rate. Agency heads that do not understand this are in the wrong jobs.

It is management's role to determine workers productivity - if groups of people are not meeting reasonable job performance expectations (resulting in others having to work OT) - managers have an inherent responsibility to correct the problems. In the alternative, after a period of time, if work loads have increased resulting in excessive OT, management needs to make the case (based on measurable data) that there is an ongoing shortfall of available labor to complete the work. Increasing payroll costs without a corresponding productivity improvement is negligent.

Your assertion: "We've all worked in places with awesome employees who do the work of 3 people, have a positive attitude and create a great working culture" is absurd and bereft of any factual support If someone is doing the work of 3 people it means management has not properly staffed their function or 3 employees are not working at proper proficiency level.

Putting all of the above aside, the T is funded by taxpayers - it is not a stand alone business - they have a responsibility to use our taxes to run their operations in a cost-effective and fiscally responsible fashion. We should pay people competitively so as to attract or retain employees who are able and willing to do the job. It is not the public's concern or responsibility to ensure that "talent" people achieve their "self-actualization."

As for the T being "a critical service for our economy" - in theory, that would seem accurate but in practice our political leaders have and continue to fail us. We have governor who did a lot of huffing and puffing in the beginning but not much since about the Baker is about one incident away from being exposed for not knowing what is going on in his own administration.

We have a Major who thinks he is run a frat house instead of one of the larger cities in the United States. His urban priorities are childish and embarrassing. He is now preoccupied with being re-elected (thus his marketing campaign showcasing his attendance at rather low level community events). Iinstead of taking a leadership role in addressing problems of the T, he tweets and texts us about the next "fun" event in the city. His focus is on bringing the Olympics to Boston, car racing in the Seaport district, and beer gardens to City Hall Plaza. tells us everything about where his head is. Remember the city workers clearing the parade route for the Super Bowl parade…meanwhile our kids were fired to walk in the streets to get to school, while whole swatches of neighbor steets and sidewalks remain touched.

Your comments about $200 K city workers may make you feel like an egalitarian but have little or no utility of the reality of an agency completely out-of-control.

The tax payer is footing the bill irrespective of who does the work.

Look at some of the thousands of private contracts doled out in MA. Many are issued with little to no competition to companies that have gamed the system such that they are the only ones who meet the requirements of the bids. Many of these contracts are long term. Even when the work is completed in a substandard manor, often the same companies are given future work again and again. If they are blacklisted, the executives will simply reincorporate under a new name. There is little oversight and it's tough for governmental departments to cancel a contract once issued.

Again, the Unions are not without fault. It needs to be easier for the goverment to fire Union employees. But you are living in a fantasy world if you somehow think "going private" will magically improve service or lower costs. If anything else it will only lead to more corruption as private companies aren't subject to FOI requests.