Union flier helps at least one voter
To the editor:
While looking over the Review-Journal's primary voter guide, I concluded that some of the races are easy choices, while others are not.
But one race became easier when I received a card in the mail from the Clark County Education Association. It contained information about District A School Board Trustee Deanna Wright, who I have never heard of.
According to the card, Ms. Wright voted to stop the district's advancement programs - the only way teachers had to "earn pay raises by going above a master's degree." The card was signed by six teachers, four from elementary schools and one each from a middle school and a high school. It goes on to ask: Does Deanna Wright represent your point of view? Are you kidding? Heck, yeah!
Since when does teaching high school, middle school or elementary school require "more than a master's degree"? Is there any relationship to the classes taken by the teachers and the classes they teach?
With the Clark County school system so far in debt, and an arbitrator insisting that pay rates continue at unsustainable levels, School Board leaders must do all they can to evaluate each program based on merit and value to the students. Now I know for whom I'm voting.
Stan Spraul
Henderson
Fine company
To the editor:
I feel compelled to respond to recent letters regarding the trash service provided by Republic Services.
I am very proud to work for this company. Even though we have a contract with Clark County, this in no way gives Republic Services "free rein" on the costs, the changing of pickup standards, etc. The quarterly amount is approved by the county; our rate, compared to other states, is modest.
Yes, a program has been implemented in various parts of our service area that does entail pickup once a week, but for both trash and recyclable items. The customer is provided the two containers, no additional cost. Please note, recycle pickup was every other week prior to the change to the once-a-week pickup of both. This is an effort to provide our customers with the opportunity to recycle, all in one container as opposed to the three bins, which do have to be sorted according to color.
And I have to take umbrage with the recent Review-Journal article about the individual who works out of town and was disputing the lien on his property. Yes, we have a mandate. Yes, it was approved by the county commissioners. And in order for the individual's balance to be placed in lien status it has become severely past due, with communications sent to the customer unanswered.
Again, the amount we are talking about breaks down to approximately $14 per month.
It is unfortunate the situation occurred. But we, the representatives, did not cause this. Non-payment of a bill did. Yes, we are customer service representatives, but do not fault someone else for the situation not caused by them.
Denise Drake
Las Vegas
Fat chance
To the editor:
The new proposal in New York City to ban super-sized sugary drinks is a terrible way to approach the obesity epidemic.
Banning super-sized sugary drinks such as sodas in restaurants, food carts, movie theaters, sports arenas and delis takes away an individual's right to decide for himself what to eat and drink. Most individuals already are informed of the risks regarding excessive salt and sugar use - and they want to enjoy what they consume without having government officials deciding what's best.
The other reason banning large sugary drinks makes no sense is that people will just go back for a refill.
This proposal will not affect the obesity rate. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg must realize that a Nanny State is not what our country is based upon.
Bill Miller
Las Vegas
More to it
To the editor:
This Harvey Whittemore thing ("Illegal contributions alleged," Thursday Review-Journal) is just the cover of the book.
If Mr. Whittemore is guilty, there must be a personal motivation involved. There must be a serious reason someone would let the campaigns of politicians draw him into a situation like this. Plus, there must be a monumental reason that would lead him to lie to the FBI.
I propose that these questions can be answered by the recipients of these funds, and that these recipients need to stand up and be counted or go down with the accused.
Jim Andreas
Las Vegas
Pay up
To the editor:
On Tuesday, along party lines, the Republicans informed women that no matter if we do the same work, it is not as valuable as work performed by a man ("Senate GOP blocks equal pay measure," Wednesday Review-Journal).
Many women are the sole supporters of their families, and their circumstances vary. To have Republicans unite to say the worth of a woman's work is not equal to that of a man is setting this country back decades.
Some claimed they voted against it because it may - the operative word here being "may" - put an unfair burden on small business. This is the epitome of ignorance and sexism. No statistics, no substantial reports, just a broad "maybe" put forth by those who do not worry about living from paycheck to paycheck.
Well, if that were the case, why not reduce the salary of men to match women, thus making it better for business owners all the way around? Would men accept that turn of events?
You have a job that needs to be done; you pay someone to do that job. To allow gender to play a role in the pay scale is not only an injustice to women, but is reverse discrimination toward men.
Why hire a man when you can get a woman for three-quarters of the salary?
Perhaps some politicians think that they gave us the right to vote, so what more do we want? Equality would be nice - but apparently that has to be voted on. And on Tuesday, women lost.
Patti Tripp
Las Vegas
