“The DWP offers a specific, real-world example of just how egregiously public sector unions can enrich themselves at the expense of the public.”

What kind of union enriches a guard by 288% more, but only 76% more for an electrical mechanic?

Enquiring minds are more likely to suspect a gross error in calculations. As Skipping Dog said, GIGO.

When someone accepts this kind of results without verification, it is called a “Seilerism”.

If you really want, we can get into specifics, like using 11% of private wages as a cost of health insurance. If you actually read Biggs, you would understand that health insurance is usually a fixed dollar benefit, so it is a higher percentage for low paid workers, and lower percentage for higher paid.

Or we could seriously discuss using MVL vs AAL to discount pensions. It’s not as settled as you might think.

Or the BLS “comparisons”….a veritable minefield of questionable data.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof…..I don’t see it.

Roughly speaking, it appears that city GAs show roughly $50,000 + in regular pay, and about $16,000 “benefits” for total pay of around $66,000.

DWP GAs typically show about $66,000 regular pay, benefits “not provided”, and total pay about ($66,000) roughly equal to regular pay, plus OT.

It appears that reporting methods are different between different departments. I recall you said you had called DWP to verify the data and were going to investigate further.

I understand, and can see in the SCO data that city, county, and state departments vary greatly in the way they report data.

As long as DWP continues to list benefits as ” not provided”, I will myself, and recommend to others, take your “study” with a grain of salt.

And, yes, it is very clear that you and your organization are biased. Do you seriously deny that?

That hurts. Did the LA DWP break down for each employee, or each position, exactly the
1. Wage
2. Overtime
3. Healthcare costs
4. Actual or approximate pension contribution

It doesn’t appear so in either your data or the SCO data.

It looks like you did some extrapolating. And I do not trust your math.

As my friend Carl Sagan said: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Does the LA DWP have any “executive secretaries”?

Garbage in, garbage out, Robert. When the data isn’t properly counted and sorted, the results have no support.

So when you are unable to dispute the facts reported, you resort to the cowardly act of implying the findings are flawed because of who reported them.

Wish I had seen this side of you earlier, would have saved me some time.

FYI The data used is from the California State Controllers Office, is defined clearly, and was reviewed by the DWP themselves who only complained about my including OT in the op ed example, and said nothing about findings of my study which EXCLUDE OT.

Except for one paragraph where I report that DWP employees can earn OT pay for work that outside contractors perform.

The level of cognitive dissonance required for you to write a comment like the above – i have no evidence whatsoever but just know it must be wrong! – and accuse others of bias is staggering.

Should be taken with a very substantial grain of salt.

” All data on Transparent California has been compiled from public records requested and received from the associated political entity and is provided as a public service. We are not responsible for errors contained in those public records.,

Data they receive is not uniform from one government entity to another and the different categories of pay may be conflated.

This is not exactly an unbiased source.

You could not be more correct Hondo!!
The people in California have failed at installing honest politicians that would look out for the taxpayers money, we have been usurped by the RAGWUS and its minions, 🙂