Union Priorities

[BigBallinStalin]

You're being deliberately obtuse.

If someone presents you with a document saying "you're not welcome to play in our sandbox" it certainly isn't "wrongdoing" to take it at face value and assume that you're not allowed to play in their sandbox.

If three days later their PR department decides to save face by saying, "oh we didn't really mean that, of course they would have been welcome here" it doesn't change anything.

Now, now, Dukusaur. If you admit that reality conforms with Sym's feelings and ignorance, then you can't be right.

[BigBallinStalin]

I''m referencing the source in the OP. I'm quoting Doc's source.

Would you READ it then?! At the very top of the article underneath the title, it has a timestamp of when the article was last updated (which obviously means it has changed from the original publishing). The article then talks about a press conference that took place LATE FRIDAY. If Doc posted this thread and a link to the article on Friday MORNING, how could that update and new details possibly have been known when the thread/article was posted?!

Why is Sym acting in such a manner? What do you think explains his behavior, NS?

[Symmetry]

But the mistake was theirs, right? I get that they were afraid of Unions, but they made the mistake. Blame the people who messed up.

Both could be blamed, but it's unreasonable to hold Decatur Utilities responsible if they rationally choose to avoid the risks of dealing with unclear IBEW 30-page contracts and with other uncertainties involving other unions.
(see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk)

Besides, how sincere do you think IBEW was when they said, "help is welcomed from union and non-union utility workers"--even though they sent Dec. Utilities a 30-page contract?

Pretty sincere- it's not like they were the people making the wrong decision on this. Sorry dude, but it looks like the OP conned you on this. I know you have a general lack of sympathy for unions, and you know I have a general. but limited sympathy for them.

Haha, if they're so sincere, then why send them a 31-page contract?

You don't understand risk and uncertainty, so there isn't much point in talking to you about this.

Kiddo, I get risk and uncertainty. I also get that saying that you're afraid something bad might happen ain't always a good excuse for doing bad things.

Sorry, but the blaming unions ain't a get out clause for corporate wrongdoing, and like I said, you got conned on this one.

Based on your response, you don't understand risk and uncertainty, how those affects people's decisions, and how responsibility is related--even though you say otherwise.

Okay, Sym, you'll respond, maybe sprinkle in a few "kiddos" or whatever, and I'll just ignore it. How's that?

As if using a nickname is as bad as the stuff you pull. Fine, I won't call you kiddo. You willing to respond fairly now?

[Doc_Brown]

Symmetry,
I posted the article on Friday morning (10:55am my time, and I'm in the Huntsville/Decatur area where the crews are from, so I'm in the same time zone). What I quoted in the OP was the full contents of the article. Currently the article states that it was updated Nov. 3. Unfortunately, being a local news outlet (An NBC affiliate, not Fox), they're not taking the time to clarify exactly what they changed.

So, you're right that my original take on the situation was in error, and had the article read as it currently does, I would not have started this thread. After reading the article through twice, I'm still not completely clear on what's really going on, or who to blame for the underlying situation. It is clear that the GM of the utility company caused a lot of confusion. I won't say he lied about the situation, because it's quite possible that in the rush to get help to New Jersey, he was confused about the source of the statement. I would also say that the local NBC-affiliate didn't do due diligence on requesting to see the memo and trying to interview the unions that were supposedly trying to stop non-union people from helping out.

One final point:

Hmm, so it looks like in the end Fox got the story wrong and blamed the Unions.

This is incorrect. It was a local NBC affiliate that broke the story. Later on the same morning Harding stated on the Fox Business Channel, "We were presented documents from IBEW that required our folks to affiliate with the unions and that was something we could not agree to." His statement was incorrect. This was not a case of Fox news twisting the story to carry the message they wanted.

[Symmetry]

Symmetry,
I posted the article on Friday morning (10:55am my time, and I'm in the Huntsville/Decatur area where the crews are from, so I'm in the same time zone). What I quoted in the OP was the full contents of the article. Currently the article states that it was updated Nov. 3. Unfortunately, being a local news outlet (An NBC affiliate, not Fox), they're not taking the time to clarify exactly what they changed.

So, you're right that my original take on the situation was in error, and had the article read as it currently does, I would not have started this thread. After reading the article through twice, I'm still not completely clear on what's really going on, or who to blame for the underlying situation. It is clear that the GM of the utility company caused a lot of confusion. I won't say he lied about the situation, because it's quite possible that in the rush to get help to New Jersey, he was confused about the source of the statement. I would also say that the local NBC-affiliate didn't do due diligence on requesting to see the memo and trying to interview the unions that were supposedly trying to stop non-union people from helping out.

One final point:

Hmm, so it looks like in the end Fox got the story wrong and blamed the Unions.

This is incorrect. It was a local NBC affiliate that broke the story. Later on the same morning Harding stated on the Fox Business Channel, "We were presented documents from IBEW that required our folks to affiliate with the unions and that was something we could not agree to." His statement was incorrect. This was not a case of Fox news twisting the story to carry the message they wanted.

Thanks for the correction, I took the Fox bit from the article. It takes a strong character to admit when you're wrong. Much respect on this.