Saturday, February 27, 2016

Sound Familiar? United Teachers Of Pasadena Are Leafletting Sierra Madre For More Dough


This sounds kind of familiar, right? PUSD teachers are being paid lower wages than those in the neighboring districts, and therefore are now leaving for greener pastures. Thus placing the Pasadena Unified School District amongst the lowest rated in California. Or at least that is one convenient explanation for systemic failure.

Which is pretty much the same message the City of Sierra Madre has been putting out about the Police Department and its similar desertion problems. Apparently the SMPD is losing officers to other departments because of the pay difference. Meaning, of course, you need to pay more in taxes. All because wages and benefits are being ratcheted up as local government labor amalgamates play one dumb agency off another.

All of this is starting to sound alike.

Transparent California has provided us with a list of what PUSD/UTP teachers are being paid. Somehow I don't get the feeling they are missing out on any trips to Trader Joes. Link here.

Sustainable what?

The solution, of course, is to make everything "sustainable." Right? What I think this jargonista terminology means is keeping services at the level they have always been, and have been for your entire lifetime, but making you pay more for them. You know, so the local faithless employees won't leave. Six figure compensations and all.


Nice to see Mayor Capoccia is willing to pitch in with the city's municipal employee unions to cozen even more cash out of your pocket. At least now we know who he is really working for.

Too bad he wasn't forthcoming about that when he first ran for City Council in 2012.

Judy Chu is kinda lousy

Interesting article making the Internet rounds lately. Apparently our very own Congresswoman Judy Chu is considered to be one of the most ineffective representatives in Washington DC.


So where does Judy Chu place on this Congressional roster of shame and ineptitude? Way down at the very bottom of the fish barrel. 7th worst.


Do we get stuck with the losers or what?

sierramadretattler.blogspot.com

58 comments:

  1. I'm not a Judy Chu fan, but the less she does in Congress, and the less Congress does as a whole, is just fine with me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If the demographics continue in the San Gabriel Valley, all of our representatives will be Judy Chus. If she's as bad as they say, maybe that's a good thing.

      Delete
  2. I was a Judy Chu fan for a while, mainly after the San Gabriel mountain national monument designation. Then I realized, that just as she is, that designation means nothing and gets nothing done. She'll probably stick around for a few more terms however, which is really disappointing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with 5:23. We would all be literally better off if we paid them to do nothing. I'd like them just to go home. Less damage will be done to California and we'd all be better off. Judy is owed a debt of gratitude. I wish everyone up there in Sacramento could be as ineffectual.

      Delete
    2. In Sacramento we have Chris Holden. He gives out honorary certificates to citizens for achievements in dog walking, shoe tying and doorknob maintenance.

      Delete
    3. And wants to push the 710 tunnel through.

      Delete
  3. It's not so much that we get stuck with the losers, as it is that we don't stop the losers from winning the jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Judy supports the 210 Tunnel. Needs to go.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why is it the more we pay the worse things get? PUSD is a basket case, and city hall spends everything it gets on itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PUSD is a case study to advocate home schooling.

      Delete
    2. Pasadena practices educational apartheid. Whites go to private schools, everyone else to the PUSD. Of course, that hardly prevents the folks living there from believing how concerned and caring they are.

      Delete
    3. They say how concerned they are. Yet the dropout rate, especially those of color, continues to be sky high. Gotta love government schools.

      Delete
    4. The kids are the hostsges. The point of it all is money.

      Delete
  6. I'm glad people are finally starting to wake up to the union tactics. "If we don't succumb to their threats and pay them higher salaries, benefits and pension, they are all going to leave." "We must pay what a neighboring city is paying in order to remain 'competitive'" or "If we don't pass or increase this or that tax, police, police and paramedic response times will increase putting people's lives at risk". Haven't we heard this all before? Aren't these the same statements that are made in every city that has some tax measure on the ballot? Its become laughable. Remember the the mailers sent from the police union supporting a candidate because that candidate was "tough on crime" or that candidate was the "law and order" candidate. What a joke that was. That candidate was simply the one who would negotiate a better labor contract with the city once in office. That's also why when I get those annual flyers from the Police union asking for a donation, I throw it in the trash. Why would I want to give the police "association" more money so that they can use that money against my interests by inserting themselves into local politics to my detriment. People are finally starting to wake up to this. In any election campaign at the city, state or national level, follow the money. If a candidate is being supported by the public employee unions, that tells you all you need to know about what that candidate will do with your tax money once they get in office.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Short of changing the laws to take away their ability to unionize, the only option left is to starve the government of money and force them to operate more efficiently. The only problem is that the public employee unions have such a powerful hold on our elected representatives that the last things to go when the budget gets cut is the salaries, benefits and pensions for the city employees. They always immediately start slashing the things that would be most inconvenient to the residents in effect punishing us for not approving a new tax or a higher tax. They really have us by the you know what. They want us to really pay the price for trying to force some measure of fiscal discipline. I remember in the the City of LA when there was some new tax on the ballot a few years ago, residents were told that if the tax was not passed the public restrooms at the beaches would have to be shuttered. Remember that one. It never ends. Meanwhile, government employees pay has gone up and up. In a recent editorial the Star News said that they have now achieved a trifecta. It used to pay that people who worked on government received lower pay than workers in the private sector in exchange for better job security and modestly better benefits. Now, they have surpassed the private sector in all categories. AS we keep paying them more and more money, they keep paying their union dues and the union dues are used to lobby for candidates and policies that are antithetical to the interests of the residents and taxpayers. They are essentially using are own money against us. Wow!

      Delete
    2. I agree with your analysis .If you are wondering what the eventual outcome is - welcome to socialism.It is a dark ,drab ,horrid place.

      Delete
    3. 7:01 says that private sector employees have been surpassed by public sector employees in pay, security, and benefits. Assuming this is true, perhaps it's time to roll back the enormous amount of power corporations wield against their employees. Just look at the incredible changes in the ratio of executive vs non-executive compensation over the last 20-30 years.

      Perhaps the private sector employees need to join together with the public sector unions to help prevent the former from losing any more ground. Private AND public sector employees need to stop voting against their economic interests and demand laws that stanch the lopsided power corporations enjoy through the legal bribery of elected officials via campaign and super-pac contributions.

      Trickle down liars often say that the rising tide floats all boats. But their kind of tide only floats yachts. The true rising tide needs to be pumped in by the workers themselves, both private and public sector.

      Delete
  7. Nothing like having a Council Member who's Mayor for the year giving a State of The City address when he's up for re-election.

    Appears to me the taxpayers' dollars will be going towards a speech about Capoccia's first term accomplishments and also the need to raise taxes 66$. Of course, to spend tax money to advocate a tax increase is illegal, but when did that ever stop the City government"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, didn't the Mayor give his quasi state-of-the-city speech to the Kiwanis before he is giving it to the city? Why did he do that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To please Susan Henderson. Cappy still believes the Mountain Views News matters.

      Delete
    2. Fer sure, 8:35. We have to have a Sierra Madre paper to keep our mountain village. Kinda like the SMPD.

      Delete
  9. There is more going on here, stand back and look at the whole picture. Getting all the facts will allow us to direct our energy in a direction that can fix the problem.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is what I order when I'm at Lucky Baldwin's. The Big Pitcher.

      Delete
    2. You mean the facts like LA Sheriff Dept. (LASD) would be at least $700,000 less a year and have 20% more patrols than keeping SMPD?

      And the fact that LASD has a better funded pension so we could finally dig our way out of the black hole that is CalPERS?

      You mean that big picture?

      Delete
    3. Sshhhh! You'll wake the children!

      Delete
  10. As long as the clueless voters keep voting for these progressive and often very corrupt people......we the taxpayers are going to keep funding these outrageous pensions and salaries for people like Judy Chu, Teachers and police unions.
    Vote against all progressives and all taxes.
    California is one of if not the highest taxed State in the Union.
    Our tax dollars are being abused.

    ReplyDelete
  11. VOTE NO on the UUT!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damn right vote know.
      A yes vote will insure more abusive and corrupt government.

      Delete
    2. Vote YES on the UUT to save our government.

      Delete
  12. Off Subject: Does anyone no when the City of Sierra Madre v Hildreth trial starts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Know.

      Last I heard was June/September/December...

      Delete
    2. Very soon I think.
      I wonder how much that one is going to cost?

      Delete
    3. The trial Starts on Monday @ 9:30. Burbank Court Room A

      Delete
  13. Chu should have sponsored 50 or 60 maybe even 80 bills to repeal Obamacare. Those bills would all get out committee and pass. Of course, each one would be vetoed, but her "effectiveness" rating would be stellar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11:42 here. Everyone should take a look at insidgov's least effective ratings for a quick lesson on bias in reporting.

      Leave aside the altogether simplistic ratings approach, i.e. ratings based on bills out of committee/passed which will ALWAYS favor those in the majority party.

      Click through the list page by page and see what obvious piece of information is missing from each profile. What is it? The PARTY of the least effective members is missing. You have to click on each individual's name to get party info, something many time challenged readers won't do.

      You might ask, why omit party info? The reason is very simple: Even a casual reader might suspect bias if s/he could see at a glance that only 8 of the 35 (22.9%)listed as least effective are Republicans.

      Then go to the last page of the report and look at the list provided. The default list, which does show the party, is top loaded with Republicans! Why? Because the casual reader (who probably won't even scroll down the complete list after viewing members one-by-one) will be led to believe that the list is balanced, perhaps even biased against Republicans.

      There you have it: bias masquerading as balance.

      Delete
    2. Maybe. Or it could be that Democrats have trouble getting stuff out of committees that are controlled by Republicans. They are the majority party in Congress.

      Delete
    3. That's what I said in paragraph 2, above. The majority party always has the advantage in that regard. In fact, a bill containing measures favored by both parties may be first proposed by a member of a minority party. A member of the majority party may also submit a bill proposing the same or similar measures. Guess which bill gets out of committee and is passed.

      Delete
    4. Probably just the opposite when the Democrats run the House, right?

      Delete
    5. Both sides do it when in the majority, which is why I phrased it in terms of majority/minority rather than R/D.

      Delete
    6. So how is that bias? It is just a political reality.

      Delete
    7. There are several biases at play in insidegov's "least effective" ratings system.

      The political reality, as you accurately call it, makes the "least effective" rating system overly simplistic and always biased against whichever party happens to be in the minority.

      A further, more insidious bias, one which is clearly intended to favor R's and disfavors D's, is in the manner of reporting as I described above: first hiding the party info and then top loading the default list on the last page with Rs to make it appear as balanced or even biased against Rs. This is FoxNews style reporting.

      Given the biased manner of reporting and the political reality of bill passage rates for majority party vs. minority party, I doubt the authors would use "bills out of committee and passed" as the criteria for effectiveness if Ds were in the majority.

      The insidegov authors need to hoist up their sagging shorts--their bias is showing.

      Delete
    8. I thought the arrangement of the Congressmen was strictly by number of proposed bills that dies in committee.

      Delete
    9. The 35 page arrangement does not list party, so you would not easily know that list contains mainly Dems by a ratio of more than 4 to 1. If a fair reader saw such a ratio at the outset, s/he would suspect bias, but the authors neutralized any such suspicion by removing party.

      The list on the last page, which does list party, is not in any order (alphabetical by name or state; numerically by district number or number of bills), but it is top loaded with Repubs. A fair reader therefore might think that the list is either balanced or more likely, biased against Repubs. Thus, the authors succeed in neutralizing their obvious bias against Dems, which is apparent not only in the biased rating criteria but also the flagrantly biased reporting method.

      If you believe the rating criteria and reporting methods employed are unbiased, please explain why.

      Delete
    10. The same standard was applied to all of the Congressmembers cited. I am certain other criteria could have been used, but the standard was evenly shared.

      Delete
    11. Kinda sounds like Sacramento, with the Dems in charge instead.

      Delete
    12. They could have rated their effectiveness based on height, which would be biased against women, or based on the word counts of the bills they proposed, which would be biased in favor of the verbose, but, hey, either are fine as long as the same standard applied to all.

      Delete
  14. A teacher with more than five years with a district only receives credit for five years of teaching on the pay scale. This can amount in a big pay cut. Pasadena is probably losing its teachers because it is a crapy district.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Morale must be in the pits.

      Delete
    2. Let me play my violin for you.

      Delete
    3. 11:43 here to 12:30. No teacher in their right mind would opt to teach in this district if they had a choice. I taught in it for awhile and then got out of Dodge. Don't feel sorry for any of them.

      Delete
    4. Amen to that.

      Delete
  15. Why is the state protecting Hillary. This is just an extension of the school issues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe you should enroll at Trump University and find out.

      Delete
  16. 5.22 I believe that every one of us can increase our knowledge even if it cost $40k to attend the TRUMP Institute. Just think, how much we have learned from the Famous Sierra Madre Tattler. Keep up the good work john ... I believe we need a small government and city hall must be held accountable which they have not been. I will vote to Repeal UUT and franchise taxes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trump is a crook.
      Checkered Past of Now-Defunct Trump University Comes Back to Haunt Candidate
      http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/27/new-york-times-digital-checkered-past-of-now-defunct-trump-university-comes-back-to-haunt-candidate.html

      Delete
    2. I think he's a lot more dangerous than just being a crook.

      Delete
  17. And I hope bill and Hillary go to jail also.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The system is rigged

    ReplyDelete