How can I take the AFSCME serious when they make comments like this?

http://freep.com/article/20090924/NE...hanics-layoffs

“Dave Bing…is trying to make private subcontractors rich by sending them the repair work while laying off employees who have 20 or more years of seniority,� said Leamon Wilson, AFSCME Local 312 president. “The contractors will shortchange the repairs, leading to more breakdowns and missed routes for those who ride the city’s buses.�

I'm curious if Mr. Leamon cares so much about the city and it's employees why he chooses to live in Lathrup Village.

Meh ... but if Dave Bing cares so much about the city ... aww, forget it. ;)

I would be more than happy to compare job creation and community work to what Leamon does.

The point is that his credibility just goes further to crap when he makes outrageous claims like Bing is trying to make private contractors rich. I would prefer is he just clearly stated "I care about jobs, not the city" A little honesty from Mr. Leamon would go a long way and he has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't give two shits about the city.

If he wants to make it clear that he is championing the people who hold the jobs that is fine but he needs to admit he cares about retaining jobs, not the quality or cost effecctiveness of the services his union supplies

Can we just go ahead and change the name of the forum to UnionsNO! :D

Can we just go ahead and have the unions admit they care about jobs but not the city or services they provide?

Haha. Well, considering that the entire United States economy rests on people looking out for their own asses and fucking everybody else over while lying about how they're doing what they do to make the world a better place, I suggest you start with the most powerful people there are, then work your way down. You will get to the unions, after a while... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jt1

Can we just go ahead and have the unions admit they care about jobs but not the city or services they provide?

---

Of course the union leadership care about jobs. Representing the interests of their dues payers is their damn job. They're not a charity.

Having said that, I'm not sure why you think private contractors are somehow better, unless you're just blinded by ideology. They are most definitely not charities, and absolutely do not have the best interests of the city or its citizens in mind.

Mr. Wilson is essentially correct when he talks about spending our money to pay people who are not employed by us a lot of money, to in turn pay other people to do the city's work under goodness knows what conditions for goodness knows what kind of pay [[certainly little enough to leave the contractors a healthy profit margin), while taking jobs away from people who have worked for the city at a living wage for decades.

"Can we just go ahead and have the unions admit they care about jobs but not the city or services they provide?"

The union members may care most about their jobs [[as opposed to all of the benevolent people working in the private sector who put their company over themselves....). But they may also be right. Are you in a position to say that outsourcing will provide higher quality service and better work than the union employees can provide?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jt1

“Dave Bing…is trying to make private subcontractors rich by sending them the repair work while laying off employees who have 20 or more years of seniority,� said Leamon Wilson, AFSCME Local 312 president. “The contractors will shortchange the repairs, leading to more breakdowns and missed routes for those who ride the city’s buses.�

I'm curious if Mr. Leamon cares so much about the city and it's employees why he chooses to live in Lathrup Village.

---

His position makes sense to me--subcontractors will be less accountable to the public, will cut corners, and the workers who have done these jobs for a long time will be kicked to the curb. Make an argument for why he's wrong.

Others have already pointed out that there's no reason to think that private contractors care about "the city" more than their own profits.

Also, I don't really care where the dude lives. And btw, if you're a Bing supporter, it's not smart to play that game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melocoton

His position makes sense to me--subcontractors will be less accountable to the public, will cut corners, and the workers who have done these jobs for a long time will be kicked to the curb. Make an argument for why he's wrong.

---

I don't think private contractors will necessarily be better than the current AFSCME mechanics, but I don't get why you think the AFSCME guys are accountable to the public or that they don't cut corners. Yes, longtime employees will be "kicked to the curb," but that should just about make up for all the hours I've spent sitting at that curb in a broken-down bus waiting for a maintenance truck that never shows up. I don't know how familiar you are with transit in other cities, but DDOT's maintenance issues are beyond unacceptable.

Speaking as a private contracter, I gotta tell ya, I care a LOT more about my customers than I did when working for someone else. I have to, or I find myself with no customers. Not so sure that's such a major concern in a union shop with captive customers..I was less than impressed with the AFSCME folks when we were out protesting Kilpatrick last year..great chanters of slogans and punchers of time clocks, them. Not so much with the actual caring for the cause, seemed like it was just another part of the job for them.

I don't know Mr. Leamon's motivation and I cannot speak for all city positions where there are currently contractors doing the same job as city employees. But I can tell you with certainty that there are already cases that anyone can look at in city government where much of what he says has proven to be true.

Rather than everyone simply repeating the prevailing wisdom that privatization would save money, why has no one been brave enough to look at the actual data that already exists?

There are already contractors in the City. Why has no one looked at their costs compared to city compensation [[including benefits) for the same job? Why not report on the outcome of some contracts where millions have been spent with private contractors? There's no need for conjecture on either side. The data is already there.

Particularly with the professional titles that require degrees and/or licensing or certification, private contractors cost significantly [[sometimes astronomically) more. Even when you factor in benefits. The city has historically undercompensated its professionals. They stayed on because of the job security and benefits. Now the city cannot even provide those, which makes the gap between public and private salaries even wider.

But, if the city does find areas where privatization yields good service for significantly less, then as a taxpayer I say, by all means, privatize. Many city employees don't live in the city anyway, so I don't feel like they'd be putting my neighbors out of work.