Friday, January 23, 2009

My Morning Wooten

All over the place today. There's things where we agree, things we've covered ad nauseum and things that are just plain weird. So let's pick on fallacious gem.
From Thursday’s AJC business section: “Eaton … cutting 5,200 jobs.” “Disney offers 600 voluntary buyouts.” “Intel plans to cut 5,000 to 6,000 jobs.” “Van Heusen closing 175 stores.” Now find an equivalent story in the public sector.
Ooooooo! Oooooo! Ooooooo! Pick me! Pick me!

What distant tome did I retrieve to bring forth such arcane knowledge ? The Atlanta Journal Constitution.
Evans replied that staff cuts were back on the table, though DOT had already made severe cuts in other areas. “To be frank I think my clock is pretty well cleaned at this point,” she said.
Another aspect of new Jim I won't miss. Myth making.

Selah.

14 comments:

decaturguy said...

Or this story:

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2009/01/22/cagle_preserving_property_tax.html

decaturguy said...

Well, that didn't work, but what I was trying to refer to what Cagle saying that "job furloughs" were the answer to implement the promised $200 per homeowner tax cuts promised last year.

Unknown said...

Have staff cuts actually been made? Not hour reductions, but "you don't work here anymore" cuts?

Sara said...

Either the Appeals Court or Supreme Court, I forget which one, did staff reductions. (The other one opted for furloughs.) The justices on both courts were basically given the option of firing 20% of their clerks and staff, or they and their staffs could keep their jobs but work 80% schedules and get 80% of their usual salaries. It was theorized this was part of the reason Justice Sears decided to resign. But, like I said, I can't remember if it was the Ct of Appeals or Supreme Court that actually opted for the staff cuts.

griftdrift said...

So another day of dancing on pinheads, Dale?

Perhaps I should have included this additional text to make the mythmaking more clear.

"Governments just demand more money"

But I thought it was obvious.

But to answer your question, I don't know if the DOT specifically has laid off positions but I'm willing to bet there have been some unfilled if not cut all together. And the obvious point is they are considering something Jim wants his readers to believe never happens in government.

But there have certainly been layoffs recently at all levels of government including the state.

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2008/11/17/daily82.html

Unknown said...

Sara - thanks for the info. It seems to me that there are better places to make cuts than cops and courts, which have definitely been the most visible to me.

Grift - no danciong, just trying to get a simple answer to a simple question.

Unknown said...

I am amazed that Jim said that, given Mayor Franklin's highly puublicized fight with tht eocuncil over revenue which has resulted in her furloughs and hour reductions.

Anonymous said...

Here are some hard numbers from the opening of the AJC article "Outsourced cities rethink contracts in recession," published on Tuesday:

"As the economy faltered, Atlanta dealt with a budgetary shortfall by cutting 350 positions. Gwinnett County also axed 93 jobs. On Thursday, DeKalb County announced it was eliminating 181 positions to save money"

Jen said...

Yeah, or.. the Public Defender and Investigator hiring freeze.

Unknown said...

Egg-Zachary, Jen.

Unknown said...

Egg-Zachary, Jen.

Anonymous said...

QUOTE:
'Evans replied that staff cuts were back on the table, though DOT had already made severe cuts in other areas. “To be frank I think my clock is pretty well cleaned at this point,” she said.'

She's basically cut ALL outside consultants and even ended contracts in the middle, leaving some consultants fighting to get paid for the work already performed. Leaving 1,000's of consultants spinning in her wake.

Not that I've actually experienced or know 1st hand about these cuts. *cough*

~berk

Not anyone said...

How about their are legal requirements for firing bureaucrats so we don't have a politicized bureaucracy.

Unknown said...

They would have to put themselves under tougher laws than the private sector and make it difficult for the pliticians to control things. I don't see that happening.