Once again the unrelated McGuires agree on something (there's some McGuires that
I'm related to that I agree with less
frequently than I do with Jim.) Below is a copy of the letter I sent to Lou Gelfand
this morning. I would encourage
others to write to the various folks at the Strib and the other media outlets who
might have some say in how this story is
being presented. I am, of course, not naive about the Strib's primary market, the
suburbs, but as others have said, this
strike is about much more than freeway congestion or lack thereof.
I would also like to take issue with David's warning about personal shots - I
haven't noticed any transgressions yet.
Peter Bell's public posturing is very definitely fair game for discussion. He is the
one making this a political / media
chess match. If he wants to negotiate a labor contract, then he should get to the
bargaining table.
My letter this morning to Lou Gelfand, Startribune reader rep
"Mr. Gelfand,
Please point out to Ms. Blake and the readers of your paper that she made a
very unfortunate mistake in her
choice of words, if indeed it was a mistake, when she said, "the Metro Transit
strike centers on the Met
Council's attempt to control health care costs and the union's rejection of
changes in benefits." (3/13) I saw
no evidence in her story or anywhere else about the Met Council's attempts to
control health care costs. And I
have heard reports that the union is indeed willing to accept changes in
benefits; they just don't want the
exact changes being dictated by Bell and the Met Council. So, the essence of her
sentence is just plain wrong,
and worse, it gives the impression that the Met Council was attempting to do
something laudable (control health
care costs) and that the union was rejecting those efforts, when the reality is
just the opposite - the union
has been much more flexible in its position and remains so.
What the strike centers on is, of course, very dependent on point of view and
an assessment of a very wide
range of factors. It appears to me that the strike centers on the Met Council's
attempt to have the workers of
the transit system bear the entire brunt of increased health care costs, that
they may or may not have attempted
to control. I would actually be very interested in a report on the Met Council's
attempts at control of health
care costs. What have they actually done to attempt to control those costs? And
I don't mean shift the costs
to somebody else; that's not really controlling costs. My wife could write the
mortgage payment with a check
from her account - does that really save me money? Of course not, we're in it
together, which is how the Met
Council should be viewing their 'family.' And their extended family is today
shouldering some very heavy extra
burdens, regardless of Bell and Pawlenty's pitiful crumbs to the masses approach."
Dan McGuire
Ericsson
Jim MCGUIRE wrote:
> I've grown increasingly annoyed at seeing the phrase "controlling health
> care costs" used as an explanation for the Met Council's position regarding
> the transit strike.
>
> For example, in today's StarTribune an article by Laurie Blake headlined
> "Bypassing the bus strike?" includes the following paragraph:
>
> "The Metro Transit strike centers on the Met Council's attempt to control
> health care costs and the union's rejection of the changes in benefits."
>
> The problem with the statement is that the Met Council's position does
> absolutely nothing to "control health care costs." Under the Met Council's
> proposal the COST of health care DOES NOT CHANGE.
>
> What will change if the Met Council's offer were to be accepted by the union
> is who pays for the cost of health care.
>
> I would really appreciate it if the Star Tribune and other local media stop
> asserting that the Met Council is doing anything to control the spiralling
> cost of health care for their employees. I would admit that I'd appreciate
> an attempt by them to do so, but I have yet to see any plan on their part to
> do this.
>
> Jim McGuire
> Como
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar � get it now!
> http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
>
> REMINDERS:
> 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL
> PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
> 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
>
> For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
> For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
> ________________________________
>
> Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
> Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
