Happy to see CSEA voted "yes." It may be a crummy deal but layoffs are worse. This is one of those cases where there are no good choices, but Yes was better. The TU, naturally, was pushing the idea yesterday that state workers would vote "no."
The Times Union gathered a small group of state workers last week to discuss the contract. The paper extended invitations to those who have frequently commented on contract issues in the paper's popular blog, Capitol Confidential.
As it turned out, those who responded to the invitations all belonged to PEF, although they worked at a variety of jobs in different state agencies and in different locations of the state; the majority said they were likely to vote against the offer. All were in middle-aged, although their years of service ranged from a handful of years to several decades.
The Times Union agreed not to name them due to their concern that speaking out could anger their bosses or even co-workers.The bold was added by me. Granted, it is a "sample" of PEF; maybe that union will vote the contract down, I'm not sure. But could a sample be more biased, untransparent, unethical, and unscientific? And it's OK to hide identities because the workers are afraid of their colleagues?
Full disclosure before I get to the next part of this rant: Bob likes to listen to WAMC. I like Prairie Home Companion, Mountain Stage, and the puzzle show with Will Shorts but a lot of the other programming drives me up the wall. I am not crazy about hearing people chattering on the radio (or TV) and I really hate it when the show is pushing a POV.
Sometimes in Samsonville he listens to shows I don't like very much, but I tolerate it. On Sunday the Media Project was on. This is one of the programs I can't stand - so smug! The TU editor wasn't on this past week, so it was a tiny bit better than usual. But I would love to know how he would justify the sourcing of this story. I've no doubt he would defend it.
Changing subjects but not mood: It's only an anecdotal study at this point, but here's the latest example of my hypothesis: if you want to get away with killing someone, do it with your car. As long as you're not drunk, that is. Drunk = unforgivable moral failing that should be harshly punished. Splattering someone (or a crowd) because you are a reckless moron = perfectly fine and even expected in society. The mantra goes something like this: the perpetrator is a victim too, guilt is enough of a burden, and even a minor repercussion such as a ding on the driver's license (or, heaven forbid, license suspension) would be unfair since it was simply a terrible accident that could happen to anyone and not driving is a terrible, terrible hardship.
Finally, OK as far as it goes - no complaint here, but what is stopping him from opening his checkbook and paying? This seems extremely disingenuous to me. Why should what others pay have anything to do with his behavior if he's truly sincere? Why did he take all those tax breaks if it offends him? I don't get it. So pony it up, Warren. Actions speak louder than words.