Really? They spend their day at work to make sure that the transit runs smoothly and now they can't even get a comped ride on the trains and buses that they themselves operate? You people are so greedy.

this is a negotiated item at one point the workers gave something up for this benefit

Unions are what employees need these days. Companies have all the power and are walking all over the little guy. Wages are low, unemployment is high... and the 1% at the top is counting their Benjamin's while everyone else suffers.

What are they going to do next? Take away their vacation or sick time or Benefits. I mean, they have to pay to ride the train they work on?

Unions aren't the enemy. Corporations and Greedy Big Shots who pay sh!t low wages are.

If your husband works in a small business, it will likely hurt his business as NJ Transit spend less money because they are spending it on their transit.

The economy will do better when more working and middle class employees are making more money and spending it.

They only get a free meal when they are working.

So do transit employees have to pay to ride the train while they are working? Or is it only when they are commuting to work. ..on the train?

They are called "step increases" so that they do not appear as raises to non-union people. In that way they can say "we have not gotten a raise in years" with a straight face, even though the amount of money paid to them each year is increased.

A step increase is a raise. If the union wants to play the no raise BS card then how about we abolish step increases or longevity raises and you guys just get a COLA tied to inflation. I will agree to that but $10 says the unions will never agree to that.

This is obviously a very low informed statement. I currently work in a non union job for NJT and can see the pay rates across all railroads, and see for my position we are the lowest paid class A Railroad in the country, but required to live in one of the most expensive locations in the country. Dollar for dollar spent, NJT is beginning to work their way to the most poorly run Railroad by attracting the least qualified people to management positions, which will jeapordize the safety and timely performance of the traveling public. It's a foolish decision that will account for added expenses to NJT because the cost savings in traveling by public transportation for the employees will prod them to drive, thus requiring transit to increase the size of their parking areas, adding expenses. It will decrease customer service, because management will not be silently monitoring the performance of duties, unless they are specifically paid to do so. There is not one bus or rail operation that does not offer free rides to employees, generally done to have added employees on location in case of an emergency. But apparently you must think there is absolutely no risk for emergency in NJ, especially from Terrorism.

Ya KINDA LIKE Congressmen and Senators huh? Not to mention all that FREE Socialized Meds. Like Medicare/Medicaid...Then retire with FULL benefits and get a job from some lobbyist. So ya see, its NOT just union workers now is it???

its not lobbyist - its historian :)

Its been wayyy to long since my last raise! How do I join? Too bad there aren't Unions for Office workers.

I work for a company who employs Union workers (I am not in a Union). They get so many holidays off.. sick time. vacation and get paid so much more! Its ridiculous.

Of course they should pay. The only time a worker for NJT should get a free ride is when he is working or going to and from work on an NJT train. Never should free rides be given to anyone for personal reasons. Same applies to EZ Passes and the PA.

Well, they can always find a new job.

All of these damn people need to pay (except when using it for work).

To XJS:
"Well they can also find a new job"?
"All these damn people..." Just who do you think you are talking about?? We are PEOPLE....with families, children, bills and all of life's other issues. Where the hell do you come off say "All these damn people"?? Are YOU on call 24 hours a day? Do YOU have to run out and leave your family during the night, on holidays, in the middle of dinner or in the middle of your child's fifth birthday to run to the site of and incident or derailment and spend the entire night in the chilly damp air? Or go out during a winter storm to keep service running so the ungrateful people like YOU can get to work in the morning? And we do all this without ONE CENT of extra pay!!! How much do you do? What do you offer the entire state of New Jersey for free? Put up or shut the heck up because you are clearly an inconsiderate, uninformed individual who shoots his/her mouth off without have the first clue about what they're talking about!

XJS: You're right....we ARE "Damn people".....we are damned for having to give a ride to people like you and having to keep quiet about it!

Don't worry. I don't use NJ Transit at all. I drive to work. If I take a trip on the train, I use Amtrak. But I use the train as infrequently as possible and I never use the bus.

For the record, I also have to interrupt my life at all hours for my job. I'm just not a union employee who gets to cry and complain about it and demand free perks.

Well then XJS, "for the record" we NEVER demanded "free perks". It was provided as part of the job when we were hired. I'm not crying about anything. Many here come from a distance and accepted the positions because that "perk" came with the job with the understanding that sometimes we had to work during our off time. We accepted that fact. Now the company is taking away something that hurts many of us, some quite a lot, and the company still demands that same level of commitment and support while taking money right out of our pockets. Money incidentally that we pay tax on and have to pay back to the company. It's cheaper to take a pay cut. Are we ticked off and frustrated? Absolutely we are. Again, did we demand this (and I remind you we're the non-union employees)? No, it was given when we were hired. Do we get ticked off and frustrated when insulted by people like yourself by being called "damn people" who are portrayed as people who milk the system when we do not, damn right we do!

Like I've stated:
1. You should get a discount when using the service.
2. Everyone is tightening their belts.
3. The Union should not have better/more benefits than non-union. In fact, since they make more, they should get less.
4. Find a way to disband the union.

XJS,

I am no saint. I often drive about as well. But public transportation is an obviously sensible investment in the economy. Taking into account per rider fares, tolls and subsidization, it is well more cost effective for a large scale work force to take a train or bus to work then to drive to work.

If you don't see this cost difference, it is because your car commute is so heavily subsidized by taxes raised and spent by the government. Roads, maintenance and policing of roads, bridges, tunnels, gasoline, vehicles themselves... how much would all of that cost without government subsidization? And how much money are people in those industries (most particularly the parts that are privately managed) raking in? I can assure you that the NJ Transit is costing taxpayers significantly less and offering a remarkably better value to the New Jerseyans as a whole.

It should make clear sense to readers here why you don't care if quality level funding goes to the NJ transit. You don't use it so it is not in your immediate self interest. You see it as something for littler people then yourself. But people who take NJ transit to work are generally going to work, and more cost efficiently by the taxpayer then yourself. Surely you can appreciate the idea of the government spending less and the taxpayer keeping more of their money.

Ridgewood mom-
1. I don't see public transportation as something for "littler people than myself".
2. There is no train station near my office.
3. My tax dollars subsidize all forms of transit (including roads). Free rides (or tolls) is absurd. I have no problem with giving employees a discount.

I realize everyone is tightening the belts and that is OK. Internally we've all said to each other it's happening all over and it was bound to happen here. We had to accept it. However ALL the tightening is being applied the same small group of about 1800 out of 11000 people. Vacation and sick times policies changed, reduced contributions to pensions, mandatory days off without pay, into our fifth year without raises. We've also been told that they will probably increase our contribution to health care benefits. Right, it's not fair that the unions still have all of the above and gave up nothing. Would we like to change that? Yes, I don't think I have to tell you how difficult that is and how powerful the unions are. Perhaps some time in the future, but the problem is immediate for us. It doesn't help that maybe in a few years the unions will give up more and as far as disbanding, I wish it were possible, but that will NEVER happen. I am working a second job already and now this is going to put a dent in that too. How much is this same small group supposed to withstand?? BTW, a 20% discount really doesn't help much when it's costing $300-$400 a month. Honestly I'm tired of this debate. You clearly won't exactly change your mind about this issue and there isn't too much point debating it further.

justwantfairshake,

I certainly support your efforts to get what you work hard for and deserve. Are there steps that you can take to work toward joining up with the union? It sound to me that they are working hard to advocate for some of the well earned employee rights that make the system function better.

justwantafairshake I am curious as to why you think that taking benefits away from the union members will make your life better? In fact, the weaker unions have become the the more you have lost. As you encourage the loss of benefits for them, it makes it easier for your employer to take them away from you.

Instead of joining the union, perhaps you can all just say, "OK, 20% discount for fare cards", get NJ Transit to set up pretax transit checks, and cover the costs of the fare to and from work.

There are other options too. Such as looking for a job closer to home.

Unions are squeezing the system.

Ridgewood Mom: Unfortunately, it is not possible for me to join the union. If it were possible I would certainly consider it.

Bellair Berdan: I never said that taking benefits away from the union members would make my life better. All I am saying is that it's not right for one small group of employees to repeatedly bear the burden of all the cost cutting measures while union members have given up nothing. All I seek is a little equality. Frankly, I don't want us to have to give up anything, but if we have to then we should all give something up and share the burden as employees of the same company. Instead it's time and again roughly 16% of the employees absorbing 100% of the cuts on behalf of 100% of the employees.

Needachange, are you also posting as justwantfairshake or are you just answering questions posed to that poster?

Needachange,

I don't want to pry into your personal business about why you can't join the union, but I feel your frustration and it sound legitimate to me. Your point is reasonable enough and I think that you are clearly deserving.

I can't say that I buy XJS's idea of everyone, union and non-union alike, taking an even 20%. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Power generally prioritizes self-interest and it should be rather obvious that if there were no union then no one would be receiving this benefit. Furthermore, overall pay and benefits for non-union workers would likely be lower then they currently are because the union helps to establish the standards for this type of employment by which non-union conditions are based. I sense that XJS knows this and just wants to see the unions dissolved, which he has stated as a goal, for precisely the reason that doing so could lead to further cost cutting to the detriment of employees.

However we classify transit in terms of being public or private (which, in any case, is really a false dichotomy invented by austerity pitchers), the heart of the problem lies in a lack of proper funding. It is a mistake for an employee to allow his or herself to be pitted against another employee where there is common cause and where the real antagonist should be understood to be those who are calling for austerity in the first place.

XJS: "2. Everyone is tightening their belts."

This is most definitely not true.

Thank you, well said....we're all considered "essential" employees in the winter and required to show up for work to make sure people can make to work on time. We have to get out there, leaving sometimes two-three hours early (which means 2:00 - 3:00 in the morning) to make every effort to keep service running. The non-union people have to do so without one penny of extra pay. Somehow I think that the free pass isn't so undeserved!

Theft? Really? When you use the product to get to the job that helps make the product work day after day - I don't think it is stealing. Considering the company doesn't reward its employess in any other way - let's be real. If this was you and your family would incur yet another monthly expense, I'm sure you would think about it in a different lite.

Flood Plain....how can someone say something so utterly ridiculous?? We are GIVEN passes by the company to ride the buses and trains. It's not done without permission. It is not theft by any definition.

Correct. It is ALL for show! First, that $1.6M is a false number. The company doesn't really know exactly how many of us use the service. There's no way of knowing unless they survey the entire staff. We don't swipe cards when we use the system, so there's no way to track its use. Where do the non-union people work? All over the state. Many do not use the service because it's more convenient to drive or there is no service in their area.

They're probably saying that the passes they issue are worth $1.6M.

XJS: I don't think so. From what I have heard there are a lot of assumptions involved in terms of who goes where and what route they follow. Also, to answer your question yes, I'm needachange. I couldn't log back in under that name for some reason. After I came up with the new one I thought I should have used needachange2 or something.

Hmmm. If it's funny accounting that's not ok.

Understood on the login. It happens.

There is obviously nothing wrong with your accounting demonstrated here Needachange. This guy is trying to pull a Mitt Romney on you, acting more confident then your opponent despite a complete lacking of substance, at a faster pace then they have time to refute.

Ridgewoodmom- I'll type slower for you, hope this helps:

The FUNNY accounting would be on the part of the people putting out the 1.6 mil in savings. Not the guy saying that they don't use a formula and pulled it out of thin air.

You are so hardwired to argue against me that you don't read. That makes you a libtard in my book.

Why? We all know what the country was like before unions.

Yes Billy. It was better.

You obviously aren't a history buff.

Billy, you aren't either. How many companies have the unions bankrupted in the last 20 years? And how many times have cities and states had to cut services and raise taxes just to meet the demands of the public sector unions THAT ALREADY HAVE CIVIL SERVICE PROTECTIONS? Answer = you can't count that high.

If that company can pay millions to its executives, the unions have a right to ask for more money.

And now the unions are about to kill Hostess. No more Twinkies.

You can ask for whatever you want but if you bankrupt the company, you bankrupt the company. Only an idiot kills the goose that lays the golden egg and union reps are the best goose killers on earth.

Unions served their purpose. Now they're just parasitic and living off the hosts. Soon enough they'll kill all the hosts and we'll have no hosts and no unions.

Do you people think that it costs more to run a bus or a train because an employee is taking an empty seat?

As far as Hostess goes, it's interesting they are trying to shed union workers rights in their bankruptcy proceedings yet at the same time the executives got big fat raises. For instance, the CEO got a raise form $750K to $2,550,000. How's that for killing the goose that lays the golden eggs?

You didn't answer my question. Why should unions not ask for more money in these bankrupt companies when the CEOs keep getting raises and huge bonuses each year?

Hostess is a joke. The problem has never been the pensions for the workers that actually work for Hostess. The problem has always been that Hostess is part of a multi-employer pension plan and the Teamsters refuse to let Hostess out of that plan so that they are no longer responsible for paying into a system where they are forced to cover the pensions of companies that are bankrupt and no longer exist. Another example of the unions bankrupting a company, not once but twice!

Of course it doesn't cost more to run the train with employees on it. It just costs more per paying passenger b/c it costs XX to run the train and if there are 80 paying customers and 20 non-paying employees, then the cost per paying customer is xx/80 rather than xx/100 if everyone was paying.

The real issue is lost revenue. If the train is at capacity b/c there are non-paying customers on there & paying customers are stuck waiting, they find alternate modes of transportation resulting in lost revenues.

Billy - when you're the person responsible for the total performance of the company, and you are making the big decisions, and your neck is on the line with the stockholders, then you get paid for your performance. The idea being a CEO is less replaceable than the guy who tightens the nuts on the tracks.

XJS are you seriously trying to state that 20% of the ridership are employees taking a free ride?

No, I was seriously trying to use an easy example with numbers. I have no idea how many people are riding for free. Do you? If not, why so critical of my 20% number?

OK XJS, you were just making things up, like in most of your posts. I get it. Don't let facts get in the way!

Bellair-
What you seem to not understand is that if it's 1 person per hundred or 20 people per hundred, the cost per paying rider increases for every non-paying rider. That was my point. My point had NOTHING to do with the actual number. You are either really, really stupid or really trying to protect your union benefits.

That's right XJS. Only stupid and most likely union people would ever expect someone to support their view with real numbers and fact.

Bellair, thanks for making it clear you're just plain dumb.

If you weren't, you'd have seen that my point was about the actual lost revenues as a whole, not the specific amount.

in other words- if a train can seat 100 people, and 120 people line up to get on the train. If some of those people aren't paying to ride, and the train fills up, the 20 people left are all paying customers & stuck waiting for the next train, they will find alternate modes of transportation. Thus, the NJ Transit system loses 20 paying customers.

At the same time, if it takes $100 to operate the train, and 100 people are on the train, it's $1 per person to operate. However, if only 99 people are paying to ride the train, then it's actually 1.01 per person to ride the train. If it's 90 people paying, then it's actually $1.11 per person to ride the train. If it's 80 paying customers, it's $1.25 per paying customer. Do you see where I'm going? You have to charge MORE per paying customer to pay for the train if some of the customers aren't paying. That's because it's a fixed cost to run the train.

The non-paying customer is worse than an empty seat b/c they block paying customers, whereas empty seats are available to paying customers.

Do you get it yet? If you don't, then you're most definitely union.

XJS,

You said, "The idea being a CEO is less replaceable than the guy who tightens the nuts on the tracks."

So then why aren't CEO salaries and bonuses tied to company performance or some other sensible sort of performance accountability measure? Are you aware of the extent to which many CEOs are compensated even when the companies they are at the head lose money or fair poorly by sensible evaluative measures? The evidence would suggest that, in at least some cases, CEOs are perfectly expendable and replaceable. Perhaps sometimes their power is primarily self serving.

Thank you for your kind words XJS, and that sure was a purty story you told. Too bad none of it is based in reality. I'm sure the number of workers that actually take advantage of this perk is pretty low. I've never seen transit employees pushing customers out of the way have you? Pretty much there is always an empty seat ( BTW an empty seat means that there is no paying customer to use it) I would even venture to guess that on average there is less than one employee per ride. However, if you have proof or marauding gangs of transit workers pushing paying customers off the trains and buses, please cite it.

XJS: I understand where you are going, but there are a whole bunch of reasons why your assumptions are incorrect and it would take too long to explain it all. I'll limit myself to saying that first the cost of operating the train is generally a constant regardless of how many passengers are on board. The likelihood of paying passengers being displaced by employees is pretty much nil and not a realistic scenario, not to mention there are very often empty seats on a train anyway. Further, in the unlikely event that a paying passenger cannot board it will be because of overcrowding of the train due for instance to a train that is out of service. Therefore, many people will have to wait for another train and they certainly are not being displaced by employees. In fact, many employees will gladly wait on the platform and allow the other passengers to board.

To BellairBerdan: You are absolutely correct in your statement that the number of employees that take advantage of the "perk" is quite low. In fact, the number of employees that this change applies to is approximately 1,800 out of the 11,000 total employees at NJT. Of those 1800, less that half actually use the service on a daily basis. No doubt Mr. XJS would be disappointed to learn that none of this was done to benefit that taxpayers of the State of New Jersey. It was solely and exclusively to benefit the political image of Mr. Christie who has no qualms whatsoever about screwing hardworking people for political gain.

For the record, NJ Transit workers are not government workers. We are an entity owned by the state, which is not the same thing. As an example, a state worker is entitled to legal representation in the event of a lawsuit tied to their work. NJ Transit workers are not. So if sued by someone in the course of our work, we have to get our own legal representation and pay for it because we are a "Quasi-state agency and therefore not entitled to representation. HOWEVER...during a snowstorm we have been told that we are ALL essential and as state workers we must report to work! So...we are state workers or not at the convenience of the state.

Your husband isn't getting a raise b/c the greedy union won't let NJT reign in the cost of retiree healthcare and pension costs.

I understand what you are saying about paying back - however, when does NJT start paying their employess enough to afford paying back??? How about a cost of living increase??

Socialism doesn't work. Communism doesn't work. So you're wish for economic equality can never be a reality.

D-Zone - if you read a lot of her posts you'll be certain this one was posted in sarcasm. Our local soccer mom seems to be a socialist or communist at heart.

Yes D-zone, I was caricaturing the ludicrous.

XJS, I don't know anything about socialism or communism here. Those are not my interests. Equality? I don't really want that either. Just a little bit of rational decency that is good for the economy.

What do you mean by "controls" Richard? I thought it was a free market.

:)

How many rich people do you see taking a New Jersey Transit bus to work every day?

It's very simple Nose Wayne. In order to make poor people more productive you take things away from them. In order to make the rich more productive you give them more!

Right, and who pays the bus fares used to pay people's salaries over at NJT? Those people who aren't rich who ride the bus to work.

Spartacus, it is subsidized. And after Christie's cuts it is more cash strapped.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/02/nj_transit_subsidy_cuts_by_gov.html

Subsidizing public transportation would be less necessary if we didn't give free passes to anyone who works for public transportation. I work for Ford. Should I get a free car so I can drive back and forth to work? Ford doesn't think so.

Umm, the difference is that Fords cost much more than a bus ride, and you do get an employee discount on the cars.

XJS, I think that you should at least get a discount. Don't you?

Well said Billy Mays!!!!

I had a relative ad a neighbor that both worked at Ford in Mahwah. They both bought Fords, got a discount AND were allowed to follow their car down the line as it was being made. Made them appreciative and much more loyal employees.

Yes, an employee discount, and there are limitations to use of the discount.

A Ford does cost more up front, but how much are people spending on monthly train passes? Say you're paying $267 a month for your pass. MSRP on the base Fusion is $22,495. How many months do you ride for free before you've paid for the car? The answer is about 84 months - that's about 7 years. The discount, btw, ranges, but in this instance would be close to 12% (so I'd pay 19,975 for this car).

So if a rider rides NJ Transit for 7 years they've effectively gotten their Ford's worth.

In answer to Ridgewood mom's question - I'd give employees a 10-20% discount on fare cards and fire any employee caught giving anyone (employee or not) a free ride.

Makes sense to me Bellair. Many companies offer special stock options for high level executives for precisely this reason. It ensures that they have skin in the game.

That is nice, Ford had an employee discount program. Did the taxpayers have to pay for that? Nope. Were customers required to pay for that? Nope, they can shop elsewhere if they want. And did that Ford employee have restrictions on how often and under what conditions they could take advantage of that program? Absolutely.

Um car manufacturers don't have any restrictions on how many times their employees can buy cars using the discount.

Needachange
Thanks for your comment - you really explained it well to those who may not know how much "non agreement" employees have given up in the last few years!

So the vote was cast today - any thoughts on the outcome? From what I heard - didn't seem to phase the committee to move on to other business......

My apologies for having misunderstood your comment.

I agree with you for the most part - it's time to kill the union.

Did you read the article? If you did, you'd know I was right.

Needachange-
Once again, your hitting it right with your comments!! My husband has never taken a seat from a paying customer, has always been helpful and yes, has left our family time to work during service disruption! He has always done his job with pride - and I will agree that yes, morale in the office very low!

People who work at books stores generally get a discount on the books they buy.

People who work at hardware stores generally get a discount on hardware supplies.

People who work at grocery stores often get a discount on the groceries they buy.

It makes good managerial sense to encourage employees to feel as thought they are part of the enterprise that they are engaged in. It allows them to establish a sense of identity in their workplace, a sense of intrinsic pride in the value of the work they do, and a sense that they are being recognized as playing a part in that function. This generally makes employees more loyal to their employers, such that they work harder and with more dedication.

The attack that we are witnessing here, on simple provisions for public transit workers, is little more then an extension of an extreme philosophy that seeks to cut away all forms of service that are paid for via any small amount of government implemented taxation, even where those tax monies are doing tremendous good. It is also a diversion from the fact that these issues stem exclusively from cuts made to the funding of the NJ Transit by governor Christie. This is the same thing that is going on in all public sector fields across the country.

But they don't get the book or the groceries for free. Right? So give NJ Transit employees a 20% discount on their cards. And make it across the board, not just non-union employees.

I have a cousin who works at a bookstore who does, indeed, get free books. :)

I agree with you XJS, that it should be across the board. The question is how we can see to it that private sector employees be treated better by their employers as well. The answer is not austerity. The answer is a greater role of the government in regulating illegal and unethical business practices.

Argh. Not the government!!! No no no. They screw up anything they touch.

People who don't like how an employer treats them can vote with their feet. Companies that treat their employees poorly tend to lose employees just like companies that treat their customers poorly tend to lose their customers. Of course, I would not expect someone who expects the government to be a nanny state to figure out that one.

XJS: "Argh. Not the government!!! No no no. They screw up anything they touch."

I think that this illustrates a very important point in terms of understanding your motivations here, and Ojo Rojo's comments add a great deal to our understanding of this shared psychology as well. You are not interested in looking at the situation as it is and working out a practical solution. You are driven by an emotive and visceral distaste for the very existence and functioning of government and just want to slash away wherever you can pull it off, regardless of the particulars of the situation or the matter of whether doing so would be pragmatically useful or not.

I hope that NJ transit workers, and all working people, will take notice of this connection as they listen to the rhetoric of faux-conservative politicians calls for austerity. Many of these people are not even socially conservative. It is not lazy people that these people are after. It is YOU, YOUR JOB, YOUR MONEY, and YOUR LIVELIHOOD that these people are after.

Ojo Rojos: "People who don't like how an employer treats them can vote with their feet."

Funny. And then if they are unemployed they are lazy, lecherous and lacking in personal responsibility. You seem to lack even the most basic understanding of social power dynamics. If you have power you get to make choices. If you don't have power you don't get to make choices. You do not have the luxury of liberty.

People who look for options always have a choice especially in an area like this where there are so many possibilities.

Nice try, but no. I made my points very clear. Your inability to understand them is your personal problem. Don't make it my problem by posting incorrect statements about my beliefs.

Yes Bellair, and it will also further cripple the economy as an enormous percentage of the population spend less and less money.

Wealthier persons who have enough money to make money off their money will always spread less of it around, as they seek to amass more of it, then will persons who spend most of their income as they earn it. As cuts to working people are made in order to accommodate lower taxes for persons who hold on to more of what they have, the economy becomes less active.

Can I spend your money for you? If its okay for you to dictate spending other people's money, why is not okay for other people to dictate how we spend yours?

You know what is particularly interesting about some of these comments? Nobody bothered to do any fact checking and read the NJT financials. I see a lot of bellyaching about Christie cutting this and Christie cutting that yet at the end of the day, in Fiscal 2011, government funding as a whole was up almost $25mm (2.6%).

And I quote from the most recent annual report: "Non-operating revenues, net, increased $24.8 million, or 2.6 percent, principally attributable to an increase in the State of New Jersey operating subsidy and governmental reimbursements consisting of federal, state and local reimbursements, which represent funding from the New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund, New Jersey Casino Revenue Fund and various
federal grants for specific activities."

Yeah, some big shortfall there. Perhaps if you bothered to read the report, you'd realize things like fuel costs, health care costs and pension contributions are squeezing NJT's finances but none of you bothered to do that.

Ojo Rojo you're beginning to seem like you're saying if there was expanded Social Security and nationalized health care that employers would no longer be burdened with those problems of health insurance costs for their employees and pensions for the miniscule amount of workers that would actually work long enough to get one.

Mr. Gray, I'm just curious to know because it isn't clear....who were you replying to and what money are you saying that person is spending? I wanted to comment, but didn't want to make a mistake having misunderstood your statement.

Hell no. Shifting the burden on to taxpayers in any form is not the answer to controlling costs.

Ojo Rojo, you realize workers are taxpayers, right?

Yeah, so? Having society pick up the tab for healthcare is a complete failure. Go look at the state of NJ if you need proof of that. For years, many towns offered generous healthcare plans w/ little to nothing in the way of co-pays, deductibles or other limits on coverage. As a result what happened? Their rates spiraled up out of control. And how did the state and these towns get things under control? They took a page out of the private sector's book. They started making the coverage less generous w/ people being responsible for more of the cost and that forced people to be more aware of how much they were costing their insurance plan. Personal responsibility is what motivates people to control costs, not handouts.

Ojo, how it it a handout of taxpayers pay for it with their own taxes? How does less coverage make it better for people? You know that Medicare has much lower administrative costs than private insurance, don't you?

So explain, you don't want the taxpayer to pay for it themselves and you don't want the employer to pay?

A. Not everyone pays taxes or works (DUH)
B. You aren't paying with it with just your taxes, you are paying for it with society as a whole's taxes b/c everyone earns different amounts and pays a different amount in taxes. People who pay less in taxes will inevitably be subsidized by those that pay more and if you can't comprehend that then you need a lesson in math.
C. I have excellent coverage w/ my plan, I also have a very high deductible and max out of pocket amount when I exceed my deductible (plan doesn't cover 100% of anything til I exceed that maximum out of pocket level). Having to pay of the costs doesn't reduce my coverage in the slightest but it does make me very aware of how much in health care expenditures I incur. That plan also has low rates b/c my insurance company knows I won't go to the doctor every time I get the sniffles like I would under the sort of plans you would support.

But Ojo we were talking about transit workers. They work and pay taxes, don't they?

How do you know what types of plans I would support and how does your insurance company know how or when you would use their service? It's pretty nice of them to charge you less for never using their service. You got yourself a bargain there!

BTW, isn't the whole idea of insurance to bet on someone else paying your bill? If you were truly responsible you'd just pay everything yourself instead of expecting a handout from all those other people that purchase insurance and don't put in a claim.

We aren't talking just about transit workers when you say "nationalized healthcare". You brought that into the discussion, not me. And no, you just aren't getting it. NJT transit workers are not using just their tax dollars when NJT pays the NJT portion of the cost of their benefits. What those workers pay in taxes goes in a communal pot w/ everyone else's $ and NJT is using everyone's tax money and fare money when it comes time to pay for things like salaries and benefits. Perhaps if you stopped being so single minded and obstinate, you might be able to comprehend that. A few accounting and finance classes might help as well.

You clearly have no idea what a high deductible and high max out of pocket health plan is like. I am responsible for a several thousand dollar deductible that I pay before the insurance company picks up a dime of my bills. After that I pay as much as 40% of every bill til I am out of pocket several thousand dollars. The purpose of the plan is not to give someone else the bill. The purpose of the plan is to protect me from very high medical bills in the event something catastrophic were to happen. And so far I have gotten nowhere near even hitting my deductible in years so every year I pay and I get nothing.

Only people like you think insurance is about sticking someone else w/ the bill. For people like me, it is a form of protection and no different than the auto insurance I have had for over 2 decades and never made a claim on.

Wow Ojo, you sure got a great deal. How much does that private insurance charge you not to use it? Well, whatever it is, you sure got over on them. What a great deal to pay and get nothing. But let me ask you, when you finally do put in a claim (assuming that your insurance carrier will even approve it), where do you think that money comes from to pay for it?

See, you still don't get it. You are all about sticking someone else w/ the bill that you have no idea what insurance is really supposed to be for. My guess that is b/c you are one of those people who never works for or pays for anything.

Ojo, I'm asking you, where do you think the money comes from? Does it come out of the air? Does the insurance carrier print it? Or does it come form other people that purchase insurance? I realize you don't want to admit you're a Socialist and depend on others that pay into the system to pay your bills, but that's what happens, isn't it?

Yeah, I am such a socialist. I pay for insurance I never use, I pay for Social Security and Medicare which both will be bankrupt before I retire and I pay taxes to a government but don't use hardly any services. Try again.

Yet you who want nationalized healthcare, no copays, no deductibles, no responsibility and loads of taxes support the free market. Try again.

Ojo, do you not want to tell me where the money comes from or don't you know?

lol thanks. I remember him. His new name which translates to conjunctivitis is quite interesting though.

I remember him as well. If you want cross dressers, you should go troll on CL or wander around the west village late at night in some of your favorite city council person's red dresses. I am sure you are prettier than her.

Bellair, have fun w/ the paid political operative trolling now in this thread. I don't play well w/ people like him so I bid you adieu.

Hooray for Karl Marx, eh?