CTA Tattler

Are you kidding me!?! These people are supposed to be public servants. They are not corporate CEOs and should not be making that kind of money at the expense of the taxpayer. From my viewpoint, they are paid about three times what they should be. (Just to be clear, I'm talking about the mayor, Mr. Huberman, and Mr. Stroger; not the bus and train operators.)

Wonder if Huberman has any incentives in his contract?

You want the person running the city of Chicago to make $70,000 a year? Yeah, that sounds like a good idea.

Yeah, uh, ebob, considering that Daley and Hubie put in 60+ hours every week you may want to account for that.

Public servant or not, there should be a reasonable opportunity for compensation.

I figure Huberman should get about $125,000.
Daley nothing
Stroger should be paying us.
I'm sure the old man stashed away millions in bribes & kickbacks in Panama & the Caymans!

>>>
As CEO of such a large government agency, I don't think Huberman (or Daley for that matter) is paid enough.
<<<

Well, first off, I want to de-personalize this concept. I don't think Huberman should be the President of CTA, so *HE* is over-paid. But that's different than discussing what the position's salary should be.

If we're going to compare their salaries to jobs with similar duties in the private sector, they're very much under-paid, and it's no wonder it's hard to find people with the needed skills to take these jobs.

But the problem is that these jobs in the private sector are very much over-paid. The relationship between the salaries of CEO's of big corporations to the front-line laborers in those organizations has been getting more and more lopsided, while that relationship in government has remained relatively stable.

Nobody is worth a salary of over a million dollars a year. Nobody. But there are plenty of people out there who are earning that kind of money leading companies with workforces that include laborers living under the poverty level despite working full-time at difficult jobs.

I wish I knew a way to fix this inequity that doesn't create more and bigger problems than what it solves. A century ago, the answer was labor unions, but a century ago people didn't jump from company to company like we do today. Given the choice of take it, leave it or change it, leave it was in a distant third. Now it's way out in front, so last century's answer isn't the right one this century.

But I'm getting off-topic. As long as we're living in a world where CEO-level skills are being rewarded with (multi)-million dollar salaries, we can't expect to get the best leaders to give that up for a paltry (apx) 200K. The only people that 200K will attract will be those who can't get a million dollar job, and/or narcissists.

I wish there was a better answer, but those top jobs need better salaries if we expect to get better people in them. And lord knows we need better people than we have now!

I've read this blog over the past year and witnessed 'the tattler' act as a tool of the CTA over and over, usually giving the city the benefit of the doubt. This post has pushed me past my tipping point. Salaries do not include the many, MANY fringe benefits public officials receive, not to mention the incredible power they wield.

I hope the Tattler learns to advocate for the people and not those who have been running the show. Until then, I won't be back to this site.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out, Travis.

Gee and I thought I was the only one who noticed the pro-CTA bias.

It's really hard for me to say something not good about someone named Kevin. First, the tattler as a concept is great. I commend him for the CTA alerts system and the wealt of information that is here, but at the same time, its readily apparent that the bias is there and I definitely see him firmly implanted in the Hubie fanboy section of the park....

I think Huberman should get about $75K a year as a base salary and the rest should be incentive pay based on clear, realistic, tangible goals.

I'd be more than happy to base the CTA presidents salary on the number of times the 22 Clark runs late. By this time of the year, he'd be paying the taxpayers.

I ended up waiting about 50 minutes for a bus on Sunday afternoon. The bus computer showed it was running 21 minutes late on a low traffic, no cubs game day.

This last post was a little over the top.

We have a mayor who is barely literate who embarrasses himself every time he starts talking about literacy. I watch him give a speech about "Thems(sic) that want to learn".

His last appointment to the CTA was a guy who looked good in an orange vest, and our city is drowning in debt and taxes and fees while he diverts millions of the property tax money into TIF slush funds that aren't accountable to anyone...

KevinB

"We have a mayor who is barely literate .."
from KevinB

~~~~~
Actually the Mayor is exceptionally literate. What he isn't, and often quite painfully not, is "articulate."

(It's hard to see credibility in those(example: KevinB) who don't understand what they are attempting to mock.)

HA! HA! HA! Dictionary, that was beautiful.

Forget about CEOs, etc. Huberman would make more money if he were a first year lawyer at a firm like Sidley, Kirkland, or Mayer Brown. Think about that. Daley only makes something like 10% more than first year lawyers.

I'm not seeing this pro-CTA bias here, unless it's "Yippee, we have public transportation. I don't have to drive everywhere I go." And even if there is some kind of bias, it's not as if The Tattler is The Trib or something. It's Kevin's blog, and I'm damned glad he blogs and lets us comment.

dictionary:

I'm actually suprised that someone knew there was difference.

I think da mayor is only barely literate and definitely not articulate as a artichoke. I'd also further say that he is pompous and egotistical in the extreme and has the reasoning ability of a small child (examples: Northerly Island and the Childrens Museum).

In my case I'm sometimes not as articulate as I'd like to be, but I'm also not paid alot of money to be that way on a full time basis and represent such a great city as Chicago. If I was I'd take a few charm school lessons and probably dress better and might even have a full time grammar/speech coach. I'd also get laid alot more.

"but thems the breaks"

Oh, and I was actually going by the dictionary definition of literate:

characterized by skill, lucidity, polish, or the like.

I think da mayor is 0 for 3 on skill, lucidity or polish.

KevinB

>>>
If I was I'd take a few charm school lessons and probably dress better and might even have a full time grammar/speech coach. I'd also get laid alot more.
<<<

There's a tip you won't find on AdultFriendFinder.com.

I would find it hard to believe that a Chicago mayor couldn't, if desired, get some, a lot, all the time. Harold W. (rest his soul) got it in his office with his bois.

Good luck finding a CEO of ANYTHING willing to take a salary of $75,000, especially when his "line workers" are making $50,000.

Yes, if the government of the City of Chicago or if the Chicago Transit Authority were private, for-profit corporations, they would have CEOs who might be paid more than the Mayor and the CTA's president.

However, the government is not private or for-profit, and it does not have a "CEO." It has a Mayor. There are plenty of equally or more competent people who would happily serve as Mayor if Daley were not willing to do so for less than, say, double the median Chicago household income.

If we accepted the premise that market forces should determine the salary of the Mayor of Chicago, the salary would probably be zero, since there are plenty of wealthy people who would take the position for free. As a matter of democracy, it makes sense to provide a salary nevertheless so that non-wealthy people can serve as Mayor; but that justifies paying a comfortable, livable wage - it does not justify comparisons to corporate CEO salaries and whatnot. You could just as easily say that the guy who won the lottery last week made a million dollars this year - the mayor shouldn't make less than some shmoe who just got lucky with a lotto ticket!

A salary of $100k or so would be plenty for a Mayor to live on and would not be too outlandishly more than the incomes of the people he or she is elected to serve. Anyone who would pass on the job of being Mayor because of the difference between $100k and $216k per year is in it for themselves and not for the public. You may end up with that sort of person regardless, but there's no need to cater to them in setting salaries.

CTA president I am less sure about. It does not have the prestige value of being the mayor, so it could require a higher salary in order to attract a sufficient pool of competent people. As Huberman's reasonably successful (under the circumstances) year or so as president shows, though, it is not a position that requires special technical skill or training, though. So $200k certainly seems kind of high to attract someone with basic managerial competence.

I think the mayor is stupid like a fox. He knows how to get what he wants before you've even noticed what he's done, and then he figures he doesn't owe you a coherent explanation. When he runs out of non-sequiturs to mumble, he'll blame our objections on the newspapers, and pretend like he's actually being accountable to the public.

We are his boss--why can we not call him on the carpet?

The idea that we pay "The Toddler" offends me.

When can we put him in jail?

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=29736

Does anyone know more on Block 37 and this new bailout? I'm all for developing this land, but it seems to take a long time and get very expensive.

By the way, I did not mean to suggest that $216k was roughly double the median household income in Chicago. Median household income is about $50k/year (and hence $100k is roughly double that).

Re the Crain's article in Jacketpotato's post: if the CTA had $1.5 billion of capital funds someday, I certainly hope they wouldn't spend it on some silly, privatized airport "express" train. There are plenty of much higher priority capital projects that could use that kind of money.

>>>
If we accepted the premise that market forces should determine the salary of the Mayor of Chicago, the salary would probably be zero, since there are plenty of wealthy people who would take the position for free.
<<<

And why is that? Is it because they want to give away their skills and expertise for free instead of getting a job with a good salary?

No. These wealthy people who would do it for free would have ulterior motives. No one gives it away for free. If they're not getting it on the front end, they're getting it on the back end.

You're not paying the mayor so poor people can afford to have aspirations to become mayor, and still be able to afford groceries. You're paying the mayor because they're doing a job. Anyone who is qualified to be mayor can do far better than $212K in the private sector.

Of course one perk is missing from those private sector jobs. And it ain't health insurance or a pension plan. It's fame.

So if we have a qualified mayor, he's giving up the chance to have a much better paying job. The question then becomes is he doing it for the back end corruption money, or to fulfill some narcisistic need? Either way, we don't have the best mayor we could have. The best mayor we could have is taking a job where he's getting paid a more comperable salary based on his skills and abilities.

On the other hand, we can't afford the kind of salary it would take to attract better candidates to the office, so we have to put up with one or more of the following: Incompetence. Corruption. Narcissism. Perhaps all three.

Lowering the salary for the mayor only would serve to increase the amount of those three conditions we'd have to put up with.

As for CTA President, we have a little more wiggle room. There aren't many better paying jobs for someone with the necessary skill sets because all transit systems of any size are also publicly owned. (Too bad we currently have a CTA President who doesn't even have the necessary skill set to run a small town, one bus transit authority, let alone the CTA.)

The CTA Presidency shouldn't be some political stepping stone for another incompetent, or corrupt and/or narcissistic hack.

frankly, I think they're all making plenty and then some.
But since we're talking about large gov't organizations...let's go to the top. According to a couple websites, base salary for Daley is better than Cheney's ($198,600). Bush makes $400,000+perks. I'm aware that Cheney must have more than base from the gov't (expense account, security, etc) that Daley *perhaps* doesn't. Blago makes in the $150-155,000 range, plus extras (like the mansion he barely lives in).
I'm not really surprised at what Daley, Stroger, Huberman, et al, make. But I do think it's enough, all things considered.
(and at least they're not actively pulling Emil Jones' whining act about needing a raise...)
I have to agree that your comments rub me the wrong way, Kevin. Undoubtedly, it's because when we perceive someone doing a less than stellar job, we object to them getting such high payment or to any implication that they should get more than they already do.
I think Huberman has potential, but the others I've mentioned are doing terribly in my opinion, and yes, I think Daley may indeed be keeping Huberman from reaching that potential.

Oh, let's vote them all out next election! Kevin B for mayor! (ahem, you are from Chicago, aren't you, KB?)

Bus drivers make more than me; on the other hand, while I have my issues, I also am not in contact with the public on that level (Thank God!). I can live with that, I think. Not happily, but honestly.

I've been trying to find salary data for Howard Roberts who is the President of NYC Transit, but haven't had any luck. He's actually got about 25 years of metropolitan transit experience with both NYCT and Philadelphia's SEPTA. It might be an interesting or maddenning comparison. Let's not forget that our favorite whipping boy does have that shiny MBA from the U of C. Those tend to command top dollar in the private sector and might factor into his compensation. Regardless, Huberman could be making a whole heap more money working for an investment bank, hedge fund, real estate developer, etc.

Anyone that believes that Da Mayor only makes $216K/year is fooling themselves. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that his mayor salary is only a small part of his total income.

Where else would he be getting income, Original?

Cheers to the BGA, an underappreciated organization. It's sad that in a state as corrupt as ours, this organization is staffed with three full-time employees.

Rusty opined:

>>No. These wealthy people who would do it for free would have ulterior motives. No one gives it away for free.>
So if we have a qualified mayor, he's giving up the chance to have a much better paying job.
<<

So only extremely wealthy people can be good mayors? Is this just social darwinism or do you have a reason for thinking this that you might care to share with us?

[previous post got mangled by the website somehow]

Rusty opined:

"No. These wealthy people who would do it for free would have ulterior motives. No one gives it away for free."

Given that this is clearly false (e.g., Michael Bloomberg), what is the reasoning behind this statement, Rusty? (Is there any? Or just bombast?)

And further

"So if we have a qualified mayor, he's giving up the chance to have a much better paying job."

So only extremely wealthy people can be good mayors? Is this just social darwinism or do you have a reason for thinking this that you might care to share with us?

Egan:

Where in the world did Rusty say that only wealthy people could be good mayors? I think you need to take a reading comprehension class.

Okay, let's follow this step by step.

If you're qualified to be a good mayor, you have the kind of skills that could make you very wealthy.

However, it doesn't work in reverse. Being very wealthy doesn't give you the kind of skills that would make you qualified to be a good mayor.

That doesn't mean all qualified people are wealthy, either. It just means that if they chose to work in the private sector, they would be qualified for jobs that could make them wealthy.

I'd draw you a venn diagam, but I'm limited to text, and your ability to follow the logic I'm laying out without introducing some twisted logic of your own, which is what you've apparently done.

I gather Rusty does not have a response to the first point.

MK's query is pretty much answered by Rusty's most recent post: Rusty says that "If you're qualified to be a good mayor, you have the kind of skills that could make you very wealthy." Rust adds the (uncontroversial) qualifier that, of course, such a person might not actually be wealthy if he or she forgoes work in the private sector.

But Rusty still hasn't explained that rather fantastic proposition. It seems wrong (and wrong-headed) on the face of it, but it's worth one last call for Rusty to offer any justification he has for the statement, assuming it's not just another one of his because-I-said-so kinds of arguments: why is it that that the only people qualified to be a good mayor are people who make (or could make) lots of money?

[And before MK asks: A statement is logically equivalent to its contrapositive. See generally, logic.]

>>>
why is it that that the only people qualified to be a good mayor are people who make (or could make) lots of money?
<<<

Would you want a mayor incappable of performing a job that would be valued and compensated justly in the free market?

Why is it so hard to understand that someone who is qualified to be a good big city mayor is also qualified to run some other large organization???

I'm totally baffled that you can't get this rather simple concept.

I'm sorry, but I'd never vote for a mayorial candidate who isn't qualified to be a well compensated executive in the private sector. If they aren't qualified for that, then they sure aren't qualified to be a big city mayor. This isn't some little town of a few hundred people that is really run by a full-time city administrator. This is the mayor of Chicago we're talking about here! He damn well better be qualified for an executive position, and not just some schmo off the street who thinks he can talk the talk.

Anyone who is qualified to be the mayor of Chicago is qualified for jobs in the private sector that pay multiple times what the mayor's job pays. Not because I say so, but because it's so self evident that it's amazing that anyone with an IQ of over 70 isn't getting it.

FYI, Stroger is head of a larger government.

>Daley only makes something like 10% more than first year lawyers.

This isn't correct. There are first year lawyers who make a lot at places like Sidley, but the majority of first-year and even experienced lawyers don't make anything like that amount of money. Daley, bless his "very literate" mind, failed the bar twice.

Without getting into a long discussion of the Mayor, I think he's done some things well and some things not so well, but face it, he wasn't headed for a firm like Sidley.

In fact, here's a chart showing the first year lawyers average about 1/4 what the Mayor makes:

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Attorney_%2f_Lawyer/Salary

Ironically, that means first year lawyers make about 10% more than CTA drivers!

I'm not sure why you find that ironic, Ralph.

I am absolutely stunned about how nobody seems to be paying attention to what I consider to be the most enormous bombshell that has ever been reported about the CTA, probably even including that NTSB investigation of the blue line derailment. Has anyone even looked at that article that Jacketpotato linked to? This was reported Sunday by Crain's Chicago Business and none of the other media outlets have mentioned or followed up on it. What is this world coming to? Nobody seems to care when it is discovered that millions and millions of dollers had been thrown away on something that apperently will never end up being built? Instead the Tribune has an article about a new seat cleaning program on the CTA (or something like that). This bears repeating. Hundreds of millions of dollers have been spent on the block 37 superstation, which was already overbudget, and the CTA has now apperently concluded that there is no way the thing can be built. When I saw that on Sunday, I actually expected that on Monday this blog and others would be filled with outrage about this and that the newspapers and television stations would be agressively competing with each other to ask questions about how this could have happened. I thought that Daley would be flooded with questions and that he might have an embarresing press conference filled with "no comments" or other evasions. But no, that didn't happen. Nothing like it did. Instead none of the other news organizations EVEN REPORTED THE STORY. Yes, it might be disappointing that Crain's beat them to it but, for Christ's sake, that isn't a reason not to report something so enormously significant. It is enormously mystifying. I have never had much faith in the press but even I would have never expected this. And why do the people of the city just sit by and let them spend such a huge amount of taxpayer dollers on something that never made sense in the first place, even if it were built.

I've worked for one of the big law firms, and I beg to differ on what first year lawyers make there. It's a lot.

for the record, the top firms in the city pay first-year associates i believe $145,000. i suppose the class starting this year could be up to $160,000. and even those only keep going up because they are going up in new york.

The mayor's main job is to provide leadership for city government - managerial leadership, but also political, moral, and planning leadership. Unlike a private for profit corporation, whose CEO is basically responsible for maximizing profit, the head of a government has a variety of responsibilities and an obligation to the public interest that may or may not be served by whatever combination of values leads one to be a "good" private CEO.

It's precisely because this isn't some little town of a few hundred people that the mayor isn't actually (or at least shouldn't be) "managing" any component of city government himself; people with department specific management skills can and are hired for that. The mayor of a city of 3 million is a little more like a governor or a president; and I'd rather have someone with political and moral vision and no demonstrable management skills (say, an Obama) rather than someone with proven management skills and business acumen but no demonstrable political or moral vision (say, a Perot).

But hey, what do I know - I apparently have an IQ of 70 or less, since I disagree with Rusty! :-)

"The mayor of a city of 3 million is a little more like a governor or a president; and I'd rather have someone with political and moral vision and no demonstrable management skills (say, an Obama) rather than someone with proven management skills and business acumen but no demonstrable political or moral vision (say, a Perot)."

It's thinking like that that brought us to the situation we are in today with ever rising taxes paying an ever expanding city government with no real benefit. I'd say you awarding yourself an IQ of 70 is overly generous.

"As CEO of such a large government agency, I don't think Huberman..."

LOL! First of all Huberman would not be a CEO in real world, he would be some middle to lower management type (if that). Secondly, if Huberman had an transporation skills then maybe $200k would be reasonable, but the guy is an empty suit. So he is overpaid by about $150k. When will Chicago ever learn?