We are well and truly underway…
PA state law ordinarily forbids labor arbiters from considering “the City’s ability to pay” when making decisions. Before we leave the necessary protection of Act 47 in 2019, can we change that law to its exact opposite: that arbitrators must consider it? It seems so much more sustainable and rational. Are we sure the PA Code does not contain a typo? (more)
Cheer up: It’s great that some City workers may now live where they want, feel they must, and as they please. Well maybe not “great” in that we would strongly prefer you choose to live here for many reasons. But the ridiculous (though popular) notion that an employer gets to rule over a worker while resting or at leisure is fading. Bear in mind, it is not as though police-community relations in Pittsburgh have been saturated with neighborly trust and empathy thanks to the residency rule — and we should all agree the City stands to benefit considerably from casting a wider net. (more)
Finally, Palmosina v. Peduto, Costa & Acklin will make its way through the legal system like a glacial pie fight. Was the former fired for political reasons? The answer almost definitely has to be: “Not really, but kinda.” Curious to learn what are the burdens of proof in such a case, and how much embarrassing-to-everyone-involved evidence each party is going to bring. One must imagine the government possesses far more ready data.
It has no real bearing on this one individual’s complaint, but we do think it’s remarkable that a year or two ago, 5 out of 32 [1, 2] city Democratic ward leaders were working in the city’s Department of Public Works. That’s a freakishly strong correlation. How do we account for it?