Retirement for public employees in California is generally calculated to include OT and other comp
Have you been reading this thread? Because previous posters have clarified that BART employees are CALPERS, and CALPERS doesn't include OT in the pension calculation.
If you have any evidence to the contrary, I'd be happy to read it.
I think the definition of "pensionable compensation" only changed for people hired after 2013: Signed into law by Governor Brown in 2012 as part of AB 340, PEPRA created a definition of “pensionable compensation” for employees hired after January 1, 2013 who qualify as new members.
https://www.calpers.ca.gov/docs/forms-publications/pensionable-compensation.pdf
In any case, we're talking about $35k of $270k here, of which $162k is OT pay at a much higher OT rate. IMO this is unreasonable.
BART is an independent agency with its own board of directors, so I believe if you have a beef, you need to take it up with them, not governor Brown. You might need to modify the state and local legislation that created the semi-independent transit district.
Given they are a union shop with a lot of constraining rules, I actually observe that BART management does a pretty decent job. It is very hard to manage and keep services going in that environment. Also, in the public transit space, safety and fairness are higher priorities than cost. That is just a fact of life, so sometimes there are inefficiencies.
In terms of the cost overrun cited, if you force managers to use horrible federal funding guidelines for procurement, require compliance with state labor laws (all works must have both a licensed journeyman and apprentice, even if patching a pothole), and insist on small and disadvantaged business set asides and all the paperwork to report every hour spent, costs go up. Gotta change the rules if you want cost efficiency to be the outcome.
Not to defend waste, but walk those shoes first before trying to say you can do better. Also, private companies have equally bad inefficiencies I have observed. It used to be my job to find and try to correct them. I helped ATT save $300M/yr with two months of analysis of one inefficient area.
As a non-state agency participating in Calpers, BART has their own plan, with their own terms and conditions, that Calpers prices to them. These options are priced into the benefits structure, employee contribution, etc. That $35k is a hypothetical. I wouldn't be surprised if the medical benefit costs alone start to approach that. The benefits package and hiring/training costs are the real story here, not the overtime. It creates distortions that result in rational managers staffing in this way. For all we know, the number of janitors was agreed with the union, has a hard cap, and has high absenteeism (note: that is a hypothetical, I don't know their actual status).
We could dig up the actual details and talk facts, with a bit of work, as it is public information.
Anyway, I know how complex this situation is and most people don't have a clue, they just react to headlines.
I've not blamed Brown on this issue, just pointed out that he signed a law affecting retirement calculations. On the contrary, to his credit he's tried to reign in some of the pension abuses in CA. It's been slow going, with stiff opposition from the public sector at every step. Baby steps, but progress nonetheless.
You do realize that you're excusing government incompetence by blaming government, right? It's difficult to convince people to support government funded projects if you're arguing that the buck stops nowhere, that no one should be held accountable because of rules, procedures, etc. mandated by the very government running the project.
I never said these types of project are easy, and I never claimed I could do it better - it's not my area of expertise to build bridges or big construction projects. I have, however, managed a number of teams and I would have never allowed the amount of OT that this janitor worked. I can also read and learn about the wider world and hold government to a higher standard which is demonstrably possible. There are countries that run much more efficiently than CA, Germany comes to mind as a good example.
The root cause of the excessive Bay Bridge overruns cited was political leaders selecting a bridge design primarily for it's aesthetic appeal, rather than a much cheaper utilitarian design which was also much less complex. This would have also avoided the ongoing issues with hydrogen intrusion and cracked bolts plaguing the structure. But it is also clear that CalTrans did not exercise proper oversight, and there have been no efforts even to claw back bonuses awarded to contractors for finishing early even though there are quality issues. No accountability whatsoever.
When companies are poorly run they are eventually held accountable by stockholders or the market. Inefficient companies evolve or die, and new more efficient companies start. Government does not have this same level of dynamism, so it's up to voters to bitch and complain and keep government honest. Hence this article and this thread.
