Yet another list manager screw-up -- I'm getting them ALL out of my system
this week. We don't allow anonymous posts. However, Rosalind was thoughtful
enough to ask my permission before sending, and I said yes, thinking she
could take responsibility. But these are pretty serious allegations and I
think the author should be known to stand behind them. (I realize
retaliation is a possibility, but I though unions were about job
protection!) Anyway, no more anonymous posts, not even second-hand. Sorry
for my brainlock.
On to the substance...
>By the way, members of the Library Board have attended 2 meetings of
>AFSCME #99, trying to get the union to support the referendum. We won't.
>The staff, the people who actually do the work, don't support the
referendum.
This is interesting...can anyone on the list (and willing to be identified)
confirm this? And if it's true, does anyone from the union have enough guts
to publicly say exactly why?
Assuming this union's rejection is true, I have two questions for them:
1. Is one reason you're against it that you're still mad about the library
management's handling of the Internet filtering controversy?
2. Are you against it because efficiencies in a new library may mean fewer
union jobs, or at least not the kind of job growth the union wants? Or
perhaps because of job loss/dislocation during the time the library is
closed?
>Finally, the reason they gave for rebuilding on the current site, rather
>than using the old Nicollet Hotel site directly north of the current
>building is: but if we build there, we'll be at the end of the skyway
>system.
I actually hadn't heard this. What the library folks told me is that the
Nicollet Hotel site is smaller, so a new building would have to be taller
there. That means it would be more costly to operate (more going up and
down) over the long-term, wiping out the upfront cost savings, even
factoring in the two-year relocation cost.
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
