Comments on: DiNapoli: MTA should rein in overtime spending

By: john murphy

john murphy — Tue, 04 May 2010 16:56:11 +0000

The LIRR ot & work rules are a shame, its no wonder its the most expensive RR system in the country. Someone in management has to step up and say “enough already”.
The bulk of the “workers” are a joke. The average 3rd grader has more responsibility than these people.
Change the rules, lower the costs, if they strike so be it. Most riders would happily trade a few months of service problems , for the chance to rid the LIRR of these high priced know nothings and fix the LIRR cost structure.

By: nycpat

nycpat — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 17:04:27 +0000

These rules were put in effect to enable workers to go home and have a life, not as a racket to rip off taxpayers. They were supposed to dissuade management from keeping workers on the job 6-7 days a week 12-16 hrs a day, like in the “good old days”. It’s cheaper for management to use the workaholics than hire more people. This is a management decission, the union i’m sure would rather see more new hires working 40 odd hours a week.

By: Neil

Neil — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 05:06:22 +0000

There’s allot that can be done to reduce overtime costs. They just need to try to make things more efficient and reduce the ridiculous union contracts that allow union employees to manipulate and game the system. Things are inefficient on purpose in order to jack up OT costs. There are plenty of jobs that have built in Overtime and all sorts of ridiculous union contract rules that jack up the amount of overtime employees rake in.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:15:36 +0000

I understand that now. I wasn't picking up on what you were saying, but that plus what Niccolo said below makes more sense. So then maybe the problem is that DiNapoli keeps going on and on about it?

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:09:52 +0000

This is exactly what I was saying. But Ben finds it “shockingly” hard to believe.

By: Niccolo Machiavelli

Niccolo Machiavelli — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 21:32:18 +0000

“That’s shockingly hard to believe on both the white and blue collar fronts. Would they really be paying additional staff in excess of $500 million? If so, then the supposedly bloated MTA seems to be woefully understaffed.”

Typed by someone who has never made a payroll or lived off of overtime as almost all wage workers must in today’s world.

In almost all employers, union and non-union, public and private,
overtime is the cheapest hour of the day. Before the Great Recession hit the average work week in manufacturing was 49 hours, now it is about 44. Nonetheless, time paid not worked (vacations, holidays, sick days, personal days,bereavement leave, jury duty) health and welfare, defined benefit and defined contribution pensions all generally add up to more than half of the hourly rate.

Employers who have a heavier portion of the total labor cost paid out in benefits have a greater incentive to substitute overtime labor for new hires. This is especially true of the LIRR even though new employees start at 70% of the hourly wage rate of the existing workforce.

Still though $500,000,000/50,000 hourly represented employees = $10,000 per employee of overtime/$42 = 238 hrs of OT (42 is time and one half for $28 hr. workers) 238hrs./52 weeks = 4.5 hrs. per week, very close to the national average.

Of course above you were using $31 and hr for the car repairmen in question and there are not really 52 weeks there are 48 or 49 but you get my point that the OT whack on the LIRR is really not too far out of range for the average hourly wage worker (not bloggers, they work long hours for almost nothing and apparently enjoy it).

Given the high value of benefits in MTA jobs I’m surprised the OT total is as low as it is. The hiring freeze will of course only exacerbate the need for overtime. The classifications referenced above are particular skills that take a long time to develop and also dangerous and dirty, cold and hot. End the OT and that skilled senior mechanic will probably go somewhere else and his job will be left open until it is filled by a junior guy (it takes time to develop the skills). Until that happens they will have to bring in a skilled guy on OT to cover the job. Wash, rinse, repeat.

The only thing more repetitive than this cycle are the endless string of audits run to study the matter. DiNapoli has several file drawers full of studies over the last 30 years on the LIRR. Its an evergreen Groundhog Day story. And, if the MTA really tightens their belt, there will be even more OT to shock you.

By: Boris

Boris — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:18:19 +0000

This is indeed a good argument against the MTA’s supposed bloat. Above market wages guarantee lower employment and higher unemployment.

If the MTA can afford to spend $30/hr for janitorial services, and the market rate is $15/hr but the law mandates a minimum wage of $30/hr, all the MTA will do is hire one janitor instead of two and then also pay him $45/hr for occasional overtime work (since there is enough work for two people). The station stays dirty, the regional unemployment rate stays high, too much money is spent, and the MTA is broke.

Considering what else I know about Albany, sounds entirely plausible.

By: Russell Warshay

Russell Warshay — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:52:48 +0000

It might be less expensive to pay the overtime than to pay regular wages plus new benefits costs to additional personnel.

By: Benjamin Kabak

Benjamin Kabak — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:39:09 +0000

That’s shockingly hard to believe on both the white and blue collar fronts. Would they really be paying additional staff in excess of $500 million? If so, then the supposedly bloated MTA seems to be woefully understaffed.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 19:37:30 +0000

MTA management always says that it is cheaper to pay the O.T.