Thursday, January 10, 2019

Analyzing why the Los Angeles School District is headed for a January 2018 Teacher's Strike they may not be able to avoid.

There is a lot of posturing going on in regards to the LA Unified School District Strike. Both sides are claiming the other side is not negotiating in a sincere manner. And, as is usually the case when unresolvable conflicts occur, both sides are telling the truth.
Since I probably won't be invited to help mediate nor be asked for my opinion, I will post it here for you, my readers. We can have a chuckle knowing what we know and how to resolve the Strike issue, while also knowing what is shared here won't get back to the very people who might possibly be able to use the information to resolve the Strike Talks.

Issue Number one, Teachers want a 10% pay raise, the District is offering 6%. The problem is this is not the problem. The real problem is class room size. Class room sizes have apparently been increasing for quite a while and now I am reading claims of between 35 to 50 children in a class when most people seem to think that 25 to 30 is the ideal maximum. 30 students is not the ideal amount, it is the ideal amount that is considered the ceiling for creating the type of class room size a Teacher can work with.

So here's the Problem, how does the School District quantify reducing class sizes that are 35 to 50, back down to 25, and still give LA Unified a Raise? The answer is, the Teacher's Union appears to be saying that class size must be reduced, and it can have no bearing on the amount of their raise. What is throwing off the Teacher's Bargaining position is their belief that their raise is completely irrelevant to Class Size, yet they want significantly smaller class sizes.

If we could get a Math Teacher to create a Mathematical equation that would correlate the value of classroom size reduction to the size of the Teacher's pay raise, maybe progress could be made. Why not involve some Math Teachers and have them analyze the numbers?

The additional issue being argued is there is a 2 billion dollar savings account that could be going towards resolving the present salary and class size dispute. California has had a bi-polar attitude towards Donald Trump. The first year Trump was in office the Stock Market exploded, and suddenly the very Democrats who denounced Trump were crowing about a boon in their State Pension reserves, which were caused by Donald Trump led Stock Market skyrocketing. Trump's second year wasn't so good for the Stock Market, and reality has quickly set in to be extra careful when it comes to Pension Savings Accounts since the Stock Market can crash and wallow after a record number of years of expansion.

If 6% is the maximum raise allowed, I would suggest go to 7%, and then subtract 1% for every 3-4 kids a class room is reduced by. This would put the raise at around 4.5% with about 10 less kids per classroom, 25 students with a cap of 40 kids, then, to add more goodwill, drop the Maximum cap to 30 to 32. This is both sides giving in. The teachers get a 4.5% raise, classrooms that were 35 to 50 will be reduced to 25 to no more than 30 to 32 max, meaning a reduction in Maximum students in a classroom from 10 to 20 students.  AND, I would add 500 dollars to 1,000 dollars a year stipend per teacher for purchases for items that Teachers end up paying for on behalf of their students. Plus with the reduced class size there is an even better chance that teachers won't be buying anything for their kids out of their own pocket. And yes, full time Nurses, AND roving Teacher's Assistants (within the same school)  for Special Ed classes, absolutely. This would also give the school some additional supervision in the hallways as the Rovers travel to different classrooms to help out as needed.

When we add all of this up it does a pretty decent job coming close to what both sides are trying to achieve. For a 1.5% pay raise reduction, the Teachers get manageable sized classrooms, a 4.5% pay raise, and a 1,000 dollar a year supplemental supplies stipend. What do you think?

If you are planning on creating or broadcasting a commercial and want an objective, outsiders point of view about your commercial, contact Alessandro Machi about his consulting services at...
info at
You can also view more
commercial critiques
by Alessandro Machi at

Wednesday, January 2, 2019

Gender Disintegration, the Going out of Business, ALL Labels Must Go, Clearance Sale.

AlexLOGIC just had an epiphany. The relatively recent gender disintegration trend that is gaining momentum has an inevitability about it. I think gender disintegration relates to Smart Phones and Streaming Options and the ongoing explosion of new media in multiplying venues, formats and media platforms. The Causation between Streaming Media and Gender Disintegration is rather amazing and can perhaps be summed up with the following thought bubble, "Don't pre-label me, I'll label myself when I am good and ready, until then back off". But its more than that, it's also, "I'll become my own Brand when I am good and ready, until then back off and let me be me".

If Gender Identification labels are removed, then the epidermal layer of Gay, Straight, Transvestite, Transexual and Bi-Sexual and a myriad of other gender Id's all become unnecessary. Everyone is a human being being human who in their own time will become their own brand.

Could the obliteration of Shame be the underlying cause and effect that is driving Gender Disintegration? Shaming has managed to throw a bigger geographical shadow with each passing generation. In the past Shame could ruin a person in any Town in any Country, but the shamed person could also leave that Town and go far enough away and start over if they desired. But as the Shaming Shadow covers more territory with each passing generation because of technological advances, there is nowhere left for the Shamed to run to and start over. 

Most would agree that Shame cannot outrun a Smart Phone and Streaming. Since there is no room left to run and hide, the answer is to face the Demon of Shame and say "Enough". If one is Gender Neutral, or Non Binary, then almost all shame becomes obliterated. 

Of course Shame will still exist; if someone physically abuses another, and especially if the person being abused is smaller of stature and strength or in a subordinate position, then shaming of the physically stronger or superior positioned person will still exist.  Shame would also exist in the Crime and Punishment realm, but almost all other forms of Shame would vanish if Gender Neutrality, or Non Binary, existed.

Whether we like it or not, the world is entering a fascinating paradigm, all because of Smart Phones, Streaming, and Shame. Shame has become such a potent tool in the streaming age that it has to be slain like a Fire Destroying Dragon.

The funny thing is, I think Gender Disintegration is ridiculously stupid, yet I think I agree with it in principle anyways.

So what might Gender Disintegration fix? It might fix salary differences between the Sexes since Sexual Identity would be mired in a Gray area. As described above, Shaming would be somewhat more difficult as Society could adopt the Pee Wee Herman Defense when he flew over his bicycle handlebars in front of a group of impressionable young teens and said, "I Meant to do that". Life is no longer about competing with the same sex and possibly always being last or near least. Every adventure would have different blending of people and inevitably people who are not good in one thing may shine in something else more often then if they are always competing within the same Sex.

As for the strength argument as being something that cannot be ignored, Society is becoming infiltrated with robotics and the ability to control powerful robotics and automations from a distance, thereby diminishing the need for more physical strength.

My reservations revolve around the idea that everyone starts the same and then turns into something different. I personally like the idea of two sexes, identified at birth, and then each blossoms into whatever they want to be.

Alessandro Machi is a Product Entrepreneur who Enjoys Elevating Existing Brands, and is pretty decent at analyzing high end commercials before they are aired.

info at
You can also view more
commercial critiques
by Alessandro Machi at

Add Any