Mayor takes an (unpaid) holiday

L.A. taxpayers will save $858.26 today courtesy of Antonio Villaraigosa. That's what the mayor (who earns more than $223,000 a year) will give up in pay as part of his plan to save the city $20 million by encouraging city employees to  take voluntary furlough days.

"Tough budget times require that we all step up to the plate," Villaraigosa said in a story in the Daily News.

The problem is the vast majority of public employees are remaining on the sidelines (to mix up sports metaphors). So far, only about 131 employees have taken a furlough day. Based on figures from last week, the savings have totaled less than $100,000 -- slightly more than the salary of a mayoral spokesperson but far short of $20 million target.

Let's see. The mayor sacrificed $858 today. Divided by about 3 million L.A. residents, that adds up 0.000286 cents per person.  Don't spend it all in one place.

-- Jesus Sanchez

Photo: Annie Wells / Los Angeles Times   

Comments

[Sue Kamm]

SM wrote:

"If the mayor's unpaid day off is saving LA's population some money, other city employees will do the same. In the long run, it will add up and perhaps our economy will improve!"

As others who have commented said, it's all well and good for the mayor to take a day off without pay; however, most rank and file city workers can't afford to lose that day's pay. Did he get benefits while he was on this "furlough" ? As any personnel worker will tell you, it's not the base salary that's the killer, it's the benefits - particularly health care.

The public wants services such as trash pickup, parks and recreation centers, and libraries. If there are mandatory furloughs, does the mayor expect the same level of service as a fully-staffed agency offers?

[Jake]

Maybe Antonio can take the next two years off without pay and do us all a favor.

[SM]

Why do we always have to be think about this so egocentrically?? We need to think collectively! If the mayor's unpaid day off is saving LA's population some money, other city employees will do the same. In the long run, it will add up and perhaps our economy will improve!

[h.w.]

I just realized you (Alan Clemens) might have meant that at the author of the article, not the writer of the last post. If so - I still don't retract it, since the facts don't change...

[h.w.]

I can't volunteer a day's worth of wages. That was my point. First, I am a part-time employee, and furlough days are only offered to full time employees. Second, I can't afford it. A day's worth of wages means not being able to fill up my tank, or cutting back on food, neither of which I'm willing to do. Between rent and bills, I run out of money right when the next paycheck arrives. And plenty of my acquaintances who are full time employees are the same position, because they have additional expenses - like children.

[alan clemens]

It is so easy to critize to be sarcastic.

I would like to see the writer volunteer a day's worth of wages.

[h.w.]

Problem is, we don't want to take unpaid days off because well, we need the money. I suppose it's easy to lose a day's pay when you make $223k a year ...