Reader Rusirius wrote:
Perfect responses Eric! Cmon folks, focus like a laser beam. You may not like Eric but the topic has nothing to do with individuals but with a broken system where people who stand to benefit financially use the EIR process to do just that – benefit with $$$$ In case you missed my earlier post, the unions were after the one dollar and change per hour that they would have been guaranteed – for every worker. This translates into millions and millions of dollars. Oh, and it wouldn’t matter where the union “travelers” came from – ohio, new jersey, chicago, or whatever state the unions couldn’t employ their members…
Reader tsueG wrote:
Gee, Eric, on one hand you admonish that project bargaining/politics is a “contact sport” and boys/girls should just get out if they can’t deal with it (oh my, you’re so tough!). On the other hand, you whine about “extortion”. Extortion is a crime. Are criminal charges pending? No? Then, I guess the union tactics are simply part of… a contact sport. Can’t be a whiner and tough guy at the same time, can you?
Don’t use quotation marks in your posts, they mess up what you are posting. Our explaining in very up front and rational terms why agreeing to discriminate against a whole class of workers was not acceptable is quite different from you initiating the original threat that started the whole process and resulted in an entire project being lost, along with 8000 jobs. Am I writing too fast here? A legitimate reaction taken to an irrational and immoral action by you is both to be expected and righteous. What you did is neither.
You cost us the project, not our working to stop discrimination.
Reader Sandy wrote:
Eric: What is Green-Mail and has it ever resulted in ANY environmental protection?
Greenmail is the term coined by ABC’s Kevin Dayton that is used to describe the tactic used by construction union leaders to hold up and threaten projects using the environmental review process until an owner gives and signs a PLA. After that the unions and their so-called environmental allies like CURE and Ms. Hunter here in San Diego, just go away. Faux claims backed up by faux environmentalists. Deadly combination.
Reader Mtgoat wrote:
Parks and open space seems like a great use for the Chula Vista waterfront. But if locals want business to overtake the waterfront, then the region does not need more hotels – it needs maritime business like container cargo port served by new rail corridor
We should let the market decide such things. Apparently the market, as shown by Gaylord’s desire to build here, disagrees with you.
Construction unions are having quite a destructive month in San Diego, between forcing Gaylord out of town with environmental threats and trying to block the citizens of Vista from taking advantage of their new charter city status. Remember back in 2000, when Senator Steve Peace officially declared to the State Building Trades that “San Diego is a union town” and the unions won their Project Labor Agreement for the Padres ballpark through the same environmental extortion that they are trying now against Gaylord? Times have changed. Targets of extortion and threats now expose the tactics to the public instead of wringing their hands and surrendering to the unions behind closed doors. Lesson to developers and agencies: when you get correspondence from the Adams Broadwell Joseph & Cardoza law firm in South San Francisco, or the Altshuler Berzon law firm in San Francisco, be sure to let the community know.
Yes, we are all waking up to the damage caused by these people. It has indeed been a terrible month for the labor bosses here. In Vista, as you write, we seem them telling 70% of the voters who said yes to going charter that they are dumb and need to be sued for their vote. These guys never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And we are here to make the most of it!
Hey, Steve Peace was the guy who gave us the energy de-regulation right? Another work of brilliance from that guy.
Reader Merit Man wrote:
I think it is disgusting the way Unions have gone about attempting to regain their lost market share. Any normal organization, faced with a declining client base would go into improvement mode. They would find new services to offer to their customers and improve upon the customer service. But not Big Labor. Their answer is to demand that government enact laws that require the use of their more costly and arguably inferior labor. They use environmental concerns to blackmail decision makers into instituting union only Project Labor Agreements as a means to head off costly environmental complaints. We have even seen in some municipalities how phony “Safety Policies” are used to swing more work to the unions. These so-called “Electrical Safety Policies” require a majority of the electricians to have graduated from the union-dominated apprenticeship program. It makes no bones about the fact that it is discriminating against those that
It is disgusting, and immoral. I would just ask our friends in the unions to remember this classic quote from Ronaldus Magnus (Ronald Reagan)
“A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take away all you have.”
Reader Rusyrius wrote:
Steve K – I take it you’re a union boss that would prefer to see secret union ballot elections done away with. You’d prefer to take a survey with Guido and his sidekicks making sure they know to join the union. If I can make close to union wages with the ability, if I work hard and merit it, above union wages, and get a great health and welfare program, why would I want to pay some leftist political group my hard earned money? Take a look at the Department of Labor and find out the percentage of union vs. nonunion – it’s actually not 80 but 85 that are union free. And don’t give me that line that without unions we wouldn’t – bla bla bla bla. Unions need to get with the program and jump into the 21st century – compete on value
You would think.