A truly monumental municpal fark up.

I'm so glad I don't live in the city.

530 people too far up the pay scale?

Chevello: 530 people too far up the pay scale?

That was my first thought.

"We have to let you go, but feel free to apply for one of the 1,600 available positions at a lower pay rate."

Chevello: 530 people too far up the pay scale?

Sort of.

What is actually happening is the city is changing vendors. So, the bartender making $10.60/hr after 5 years with the old one, gets $7.25/hr with the new one.

Oh, and no health insurance.

Another Government Employee: Chevello: 530 people too far up the pay scale?

Sort of.

What is actually happening is the city is changing vendors. So, the bartender making $10.60/hr after 5 years with the old one, gets $7.25/hr with the new one.

Oh, and no health insurance.

Exactly. The city has completely rebid ALL the concessions in the airport at once and there are some pretty big changes that are happening. Between that and the fact that a completely new international terminal is opening up, these numbers make some sense. You've got an initial net loss of personnel because of some vendors not having their contracts renewed, but the long-term net gain of more personnel overall because of new vendors coming in as well as the additional concessions in the new terminal.

What we still don't know is Mayor Reed's and Governor Deal's cut.

Another Government Employee: What we still don't know is Mayor Reed's and Governor Deal's cut.

Remember about 10 years ago when there was a study that stated if the City would lease to Airport to a private operator the city would not have to collect any taxes what so ever and the city budget would increase by about 25%

This is an extremely uninteresting article.

/was at the airport last night

Tom_Slick: Another Government Employee: What we still don't know is Mayor Reed's and Governor Deal's cut.

Remember about 10 years ago when there was a study that stated if the City would lease to Airport to a private operator the city would not have to collect any taxes what so ever and the city budget would increase by about 25%

Yeah. It was touted on Boortz for the longest time.

But that was back in the Bill Campbell era. I couldn't imagine hm not getting at least 10% of that proposal.

I hope it doesn't affect that place where you can buy nuts.

/and the magician

Another Government Employee: What is actually happening is the city is changing vendors. So, the bartender making $10.60/hr after 5 years with the old one, gets $7.25/hr with the new one.

Oh, and no health insurance.


I wouldnt be surprised to see the two vendors being just two different arms of the same company.

Then again, this is the worker-hostile South we're talking about here. Providing any respect to a worker is a cardinal sin.

Close pizza store, open steak house.

Pizza store employees get sacked, but can reapply for the steak house position.

Seems stupid when you read the headline, but not when you read the article. Not everyone from the old places will be able to transition straight to the new places.

/It's also a good way to get rid of dead wood without prejudice.

sethstorm: Another Government Employee: What is actually happening is the city is changing vendors. So, the bartender making $10.60/hr after 5 years with the old one, gets $7.25/hr with the new one.

Oh, and no health insurance.


I wouldnt be surprised to see the two vendors being just two different arms of the same company.

Then again, this is the worker-hostile South we're talking about here. Providing any respect to a worker is a cardinal sin.

I'm genuinely curious if this is because of slavery. Wages and benefits have always been worse in the south, but I wonder if a culture of the wealthy having workers that they could treat however they wanted (slaves) extended into post-slavery conditions in which workers were still treated poorly? It would seem plausible, but I genuinely don't know.

Arctic Phoenix: sethstorm: Another Government Employee: What is actually happening is the city is changing vendors. So, the bartender making $10.60/hr after 5 years with the old one, gets $7.25/hr with the new one.

Oh, and no health insurance.


I wouldnt be surprised to see the two vendors being just two different arms of the same company.

Then again, this is the worker-hostile South we're talking about here. Providing any respect to a worker is a cardinal sin.

I'm genuinely curious if this is because of slavery. Wages and benefits have always been worse in the south, but I wonder if a culture of the wealthy having workers that they could treat however they wanted (slaves) extended into post-slavery conditions in which workers were still treated poorly? It would seem plausible, but I genuinely don't know.

There's also the part where the South had not much in terms of manufacturing industries outside of textiles. With that in mind, businesses could go in with a clean slate and use regional sensitivities to build their idea of business friendliness.

This is in opposition to the North, where unions were killed with kindness and respect or present where such respect was absent. In short, the North was industrialized before business could inoculate against unionization(and by extension, any respect for workers), while the South was somewhere the businesses could preempt anything that might be worker-friendly.

sethstorm: Arctic Phoenix: sethstorm: Another Government Employee: What is actually happening is the city is changing vendors. So, the bartender making $10.60/hr after 5 years with the old one, gets $7.25/hr with the new one.

Oh, and no health insurance.


I wouldnt be surprised to see the two vendors being just two different arms of the same company.

Then again, this is the worker-hostile South we're talking about here. Providing any respect to a worker is a cardinal sin.

I'm genuinely curious if this is because of slavery. Wages and benefits have always been worse in the south, but I wonder if a culture of the wealthy having workers that they could treat however they wanted (slaves) extended into post-slavery conditions in which workers were still treated poorly? It would seem plausible, but I genuinely don't know.

There's also the part where the South had not much in terms of manufacturing industries outside of textiles. With that in mind, businesses could go in with a clean slate and use regional sensitivities to build their idea of business friendliness.

This is in opposition to the North, where unions were killed with kindness and respect or present where such respect was absent. In short, the North was industrialized before business could inoculate against unionization(and by extension, any respect for workers), while the South was somewhere the businesses could preempt anything that might be worker-friendly.

So, basically, yes?

My minimum wage sense is tingling.

Considering the volume of lawsuits levied against the city since the vendor bids were announced, it'll be awhile until those 1600 jobs are available.

Arctic Phoenix: So, basically, yes?

Correct. I was just explaining it further, since slavery isnt the sole cause (but it is a major component).

The short version:
No significant industrial presence +
no labor union presence +
regional sensitivities +
business entry

= worker hostile South.