jsteele wrote:According to the article, "Most D.C. workers do not make inflated salaries, and the pay for many is relatively low."

But, by all means, let's pick out one guy and turn him into a deceptive headline.

Also, would you mind providing your salary and profession so that we can determine whether or not it is worthy of discussing on DCUM?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:According to the article, "Most D.C. workers do not make inflated salaries, and the pay for many is relatively low."

But, by all means, let's pick out one guy and turn him into a deceptive headline.

Also, would you mind providing your salary and profession so that we can determine whether or not it is worthy of discussing on DCUM?

Jeff, I don't work for the taxpayers. Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/7/seniority-salaries-bulk-up-dcs-payroll/

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:According to the article, "Most D.C. workers do not make inflated salaries, and the pay for many is relatively low."

But, by all means, let's pick out one guy and turn him into a deceptive headline.

Also, would you mind providing your salary and profession so that we can determine whether or not it is worthy of discussing on DCUM?

Jeff, I don't work for the taxpayers. Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:The point is that this person's compensation is not within the normal market rate for a cleaning person.

If that was the point, the OP would have titled this thread "A District custodian makes over $100k". But, the OP chose to pick a person who is an anomaly and title this thread as if that person was the rule rather than the exception. So, the point was apparently to mislead in order to further an agenda.

Moreover, as the article states, this anomaly does not exist because of current policies, but because of polices from the Barry years. The article further states as these people who have been working since the early 1980s retire, they are being replaced by people making much lower salaries.