Of course, which side has done a better job does not address the question of fairness that is at the base of the conflict....

The public's view is shaped largely (though not entirely), by how the issue is framed within the media. Ever since the 1960s when the media were roundly criticized for adding fuel to urban riots and unrest, media moguls, editors, and journalists have gone overboard in discouraging any and all attempts that might be seen as disruptive of the status quo. (Hence: lot's of coverage of the upcoming baseball series, no mention of a march that will take place this week-end.)

The media are beholden to the corporations and companies that buy ads that are necessary to keep the media afloat. Knowing which side of the bread has the butter, the media shapes issues with a bias toward presenting the reasonableness of the forces of status quo (profit) and the unreasonableness of those who challenge the status quo -- see, e.g., reduction of 99%ers to unkempt poopers.

What's unfortunate is that the public is vulnerable to the media's pandering as it does to the forces of status quo.

Here is the link for the KPIX story
Web Link

Additionally, people are attuned to the unrealistic demands of an out of control union.
The facts speak louder than any childish ranting's of the likes of Mike Cherry.
Current union workers make about $76,500 in gross pay on average, contribute nothing toward their pensions and $92 a month for health benefits. While the cost of health care has soared, BART says workers' monthly contributions have only risen slightly each year, from $75 in 2006, leaving management to pick up a bigger share of the tab.

I apologize for my 'childish ranting'. Really. I do.

Thanks, Dave, for your fresh and keenly new insights which, truly, we haven't heard before. Really. No, I'm not kidding. Keep up the good work!

Like said, if the liberal papers support management and not the unions you have to know that things are way out of whack in the union demands. The unions got away with unsustainable and over the top benefits for a long time for which they should be happy they received. Instead they whine that they can no longer get all these benefits for almost free.

So if you want fair, look at what the private sector is receiving for the same educational and training background (salary and benefits). However, if you did that you would find that the unions are way overcompensated. That is why you will not see a salary survey like that from the unions.

Here is a great new question raised on the other thread asked by Frizzel--why is it BART employees believe they should be able to support a family of four on one salary? The suggestion is that many families of four have to have two breadwinners to live in the Bay Area. How many BART employees are part of a two income family? I'll see if I can find any supporting data for the Frizzel claim.

I find it ironic (and somewhat out of touch with reality) that Mike complains about both the media and corporations making the unions look bad or seem irrelevant.
First off, weere it not for those evil corporations, those many thousands of BART commuters would not be paying to ride the trains and pay for your inflated compensation packages. As far as the media goes, you obviously have not been paying attention. The left wing media is most certainly lined up big labor and the butt kissing politicians that line their pockets with union thug's contributions (payoffs). You can bet they will be out in droves once the thugs start beating on innocent bystanders when they don't get what they want.

right, correct. People complain about the corporations but it is the corporations that give us the jobs. A profitable corporation will result in more jobs. Perhaps Mike would be happier if everybody either worked for the government or on welfare. Come to think of that, working for the government is a type of welfare when they are being paid more than the fair rate for compensation including benefits.

"A profitable corporation will result in more jobs"

More like "A profitable corporation will result in more money for the investors and the company executives"

Investors are often the pension funds.

Another good point. If the corporations do not do well, CalPERS and CalSTRS are in even more trouble and pension rates will need to go way up.

So profitable companies do the following:
1) Generate jobs
2) Generate returns for their executives (who then spend the money in the economy, generating more jobs)
3) Generate returns for investors (who then spend the money in the economy, generating more jobs)
4) Generate returns for state pension funds (CalPERS, CalSTRS) which are needed to pay the defined-benefit.

While not all corporations are great players, most are.