Antonio to city workers: Please stay home

We have a record-breaking new budget here in the City of Angels -- a proposed $7 billion, David Zahniser reports. We also happen to be $406 million short, so all sorts of cash-saving and money-making proposals are floating around. Among them, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's idea to force city workers to take six days off this year without pay.

“There are some [employees] who would rather lay off more people and not share the pain across the workforce,” the mayor said. “We think it’s better that everybody participates, that everybody shares the burden.”

Villaraigosa tried to set an example in this year taking at least one unpaid day off himself. Before the forced furloughs could be instated though, the City Council has to approve the budget, then the city would have to negotiate with the unions involved.

--Veronique de Turenne

Photo: Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[alan]

Villaraigosa's suggesting to workers to stay home is the nuttiest thing I ever heard. Shows just how out of touch with reality he is. He must live a life different from the average Joe that he no respect for average Joe's. Like Marie Antionette during the fammine: "let them eat cake"

[charliesix]

What about an across the board 10% pay reduction for all city employees, some of whom are way, way, overpaid anyway.

[Malby]

I thought Mayor Villar took MOST days off, with pay. All I ever see is stupid pictures of him with a ceremonial ribbon or check or shovel--always on the lookout for photo-ops, but doing nothing of substance. (On the other hand, maybe it's just as well . . . .)

[DV]

MAYOR VILLARAIGOSA, CHIEF BRATTON, CONTROLLER CHICK:

HERE'S THE BEST FOR L.A.

1) DO NOT LAY-OFF THOSE 767 EMPLOYEES UNTIL YOU SEE MY STRATEGY.
2) DO NOT HIRE ADDITIONAL 1,000 POLICEMEN
3) ALLOW ME TO PRESENT A MORE EFFECTIVE WAY OF HANDLING GANGS. YOUR STRATEGY IS EXPENSIVE, WASTEFUL , UNSAFE FOR ALL ANGELENOS.
ALL I ASK IS 1 HOUR TO MAKE THE PRESENTATION. THIS STRATEGY WOULD DEFINITELY MAKE L.A. A LOT SAFER.

[hecowe]

Clear out the deadwood and STOP SPENDING OUR TAX MONEY ON YOUR STUPID TRIPS AND PET PROJECTS first. Fix the potholes, clean up the parks and put the bad guys in jail. Pick the top 5 things cities are supposed to do to make it a nice and safe place to live, and do those. It shouldn't be harder to run a city of 10,000 than a city of 100,000 or 1 million or 10 million. DO WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO FIRST -- then you can travel and pay off your mistresses and give money away to anyone with a sob story.

It's like the school board -- if you pay the teachers to teach and buy books, paper and pencils for all the students, THEN you can waste taxpayer money on 400 administration secretaries per school and 80,000 IEP people.

I don't think we're asking for much to ask that these people be MERELY COMPETENT. When mediocrity is an upgrade, we're thrilled.

[Solamente]

Is it any wonder that the City’s budget shortfall is the worst in history?

Every Mayor for the last 30 years held down spending by freezing hiring and promotions. The freeze was sometimes hard or soft – but it was a freeze and sent a message to the City Brahmins that spending needed to be controlled. Mr. Villaraigosa let loose the flood gates as soon as he became Mayor for an orgy of empire building and serious salary creep by the unions and city managers.

If there are any good reporters left on the Times, someone ought to compare the total number of budgeted positions at the end of Hahn’s term and the number in the current City budget; as well as analyze how many positions are vacant and filled. Also, take a look at the increase in salaries for General Managers since he has become Mayor. I would also be willing to guess that the City has added more than new positions since Tony V. took office. Let's have some fact-based investigated reported instead of playing on a theme of the day.

Of course, coming from Sacto Mr. Villaraigosa knows better than anyone how to manage the public’s money. If anyone challenges him on this, watch for the spin – it will be dazzling!

[sean]

At the risk of pointing out the too obvious: we should follow the lead of Colorado which banned sanctuary cities two years ago, and despite cries of racism and that the world will fall, it's now fiscally sound and the results are just what they hoped.

Since cops are encouraged to cooperate with ICE, their streets are safer and jails emptier (they're probably mostly here in California now, right in L A), schools are functional and many of the non-English speaking illegals left when their work dried up (from Social Security checks and penalties on employers who knowingly hire illegals), and when they were denied benefits intended only for legal citizens (like welfare and food stamps). Schools are also safer without all the gangs, who now know they can't control the streets and laugh at the cops with impunity.

With the declining illegal population, healthcare facilities from hospitals to clinics are functional and almost in the black again, streets are safer and quieter, skies are cleaner -- more money for mass transit and state of the art airport and roads and raillines being built.

Unemployment is down, and employers are getting the qualified workers they need: as yesterday's Times story indicated, the illegals who come here even as children don't have the skills we need as a society, while their attendant costs drive out the blue collar and middle class (of all races, including legal Hispanics who prefer to live in more functional cities) who could be trained or re-trained for jobs.

Not only didn't the sky fall in Colorado, they're a model for California to follow. Arizona is following suit -- problem with their success is, many illegals are moving to L A and San Fran instead. That's why we need a state policy to ban sanctuary cities -- now, Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Fran is actually begging illegals to go to his city to pander to the Hispanic vote, looking toward his upcoming run for Governor. Our Mayor must be afraid that even if he wanted to cooperate with the laws deporting illegal gangbangers and restricting some services to legal residents (which cops and others doubt), he'd have to worry about looking foolish relative to Newsom If NO cities could differ from federal law, and were required to enforce it -- technically, in a state bill passed in 96 -- this absurd competition would be over, and the west would be closer to one standard that would still leave us the most generous to immigrants of any country in the world, but without the disasters we're facing now. Far more sensible than laying off otherwise dutiful city employees, just for financial reasons.