No savings in daylight time,
but feds may have
say in time zone change
The issue of observing daylight time in Alaska is once again before us. This time, will the Legislature allow the debate, conduct an open vote on the issue, and send it to the governor? If history repeats itself the prognosis for this scenario is "guarded." Since 1999, five bills to repeal daylight time have met a similar fate when an individual legislator acting in the capacity of a committee chair effectively disenfranchised Alaskans from being represented in the legislative process by simply refusing to hold a hearing on these various bills and very effectively vetoed the legislation with no explanation required.
The official purpose for observing daylight time is to save energy. Daylight time is not intended to enhance commerce (including the vacation spending of tourists); that is a function of time zones. Have you heard any mention of the value of daylight time as saving energy in all the discussions relating to energy costs facing Alaskans? The reason you haven't is because there are no energy savings. Temperature and available ambient light affect energy in Alaska, not the time of day. Delaying sunset immediately delays sunrise the next morning so whatever might be gained in the evening is lost the next morning.
Following the 1983 creation of the Alaska "mega" time zone, all of Alaska, except a portion of in the Aleutian Islands, was in the same time zone. Therefore, those who suggest our Legislature can change Alaska to another time zone or exempt only a portion of the current Alaska time zone from observing daylight time might reflect on the federal law: 15 U.S. Code 260a: "Advancement of time or changeover dates:
(1) any State that lies entirely within one time zone may by law exempt itself from the provisions of this subsection providing for the advancement of time, but only if that law provides that the entire State (including all political subdivisions thereof) shall observe the standard time otherwise applicable during that period, and (2) any State with parts thereof in more than one time zone may by law exempt either the entire State as provided in (1) or may exempt the entire area of the State lying within any time zone."
— Lynn Willis
Eagle River
Bartenders say ferry managers got it wrong; bars are profitable
As bartenders for the Alaska Marine Highway System, we've been asked to comment on responses from the system's management to questions our legislators raised regarding their shocking rationale of saving $750,000 by eliminating the ferry bars during this budget crisis.
We're happy to report the AMHS cost analysis regarding the ferry bars is the result of probable bureaucratic error.
One zinger that jumped out was they had a list of "12 full-time bartenders" (we are actually a group of 10, and we are not all full-time) getting relatively as much annual compensation as the top 39 personnel in management. Our 10 bartenders were allegedly getting $1.1 million in compensation and benefits compared to management's $4.2 million package. And 400 weeks of 2014 ferry sailings got counted as if all of them had bar service, when the actual number is 157.
It's easy math to calculate the pay for us, and it comes to about $307,000. Adding a retirement benefit package, as if we're all still in the old defined-benefit plan system, costs the state another 28.13 percent, or $86,400, bringing the total to $393,400. But let's not forget about our health insurance cost. For the months we bartenders work on the ferries, $100,000 is a generous estimation, which brings us to $493,400 in expenses to the state, all while ringing up sales of $625,000.
Putting the product cost at slightly over half what the revenue sale value is, surely must have been another bureaucratic error — as any bar owner will confirm it's far less than that. Saying it is 20 percent is probably conservatively generous, which shows a product cost of $125,000 on our sales of $625,000.
In short, the labor plus product costs for running the bars actually pays for the service. And bar service contributes to the appeal of riding the ferries. We all know AMHS doesn't make money. The ferries are state-subsidized and necessary. Contrasted by the otherwise subsidized nature of the system, the bar service stands out like a shining light.
— Tony Tengs and Mary Healy,
Juneau;
Ady Milos,
Haines;
Tera Sanders
Douglas
Medicaid expansion will benefit all
I would like to encourage our legislators in Juneau to back Gov. Walker's move to expand Medicaid in Alaska. It should have been done when first offered. I cannot for the life of me understand why people would begrudge others health care.
Yes, the state will have to contribute 10 percent a few years down the road. That means the Legislature has to actually get down to work and cooperate with each other to work on our serious financial problems. Perhaps they could fix SB 21 for starters.
Expand Medicaid, please. It won't affect me, my insurance comes through my retirement and before that through my employer. It would be great if many more people could have the same benefit. Healthy people are more productive, I'm sure. If it creates thousands of jobs, too, so much better.
— Linda Shore
Anchorage
The views expressed here are the writers' own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a letter for consideration, email letters@alaskadispatch.com, or click here to submit via any web browser. Submitting a letter to the editor constitutes granting permission for it to be edited for clarity, accuracy and brevity. Send longer works of opinion to commentary@alaskadispatch.com.