I read in the paper that Schenectady might close the body shop in the municipal garage, which repairs damage to city owned vehicles. This supposedly results from an insurance change, providing a very high deductible on collision coverage to city vehicles, which in turn is a result of numerous at-fault accidents related to persistent poor driving by operators of those vehicles.
Currently the operation of the shop is paid for by settlements from the insurance carrier for the vehicles, and the high deductible will eliminate most of those payments, as the city essentially self insures for most mishaps. No settlement money to pay for the body shop results in closing the shop. It all sounds logical if you don't think about it.
The problem is, that now the city will have to pay for repairs itself. And presumably the body shop has been doing repairs for less than the independent repair shops, so why does it make sense to pay those same outside shops to fix damage when you pay for it yourself instead of using an insurance settlement? Has someone forgotten "a penny saved is a penny earned?" Unless the city plans to leave the damage unfixed and have the city workers going about in unsafe junkers until they are sold by the pound as scrap instead of as used cars, someone has to fix them! And if internal repairs are more cost effective, then how does it make sense to spend more elsewhere, and give up the control over the quality and scheduling that doing repairs yourself brings?
I'd like to think common sense will prevail, the city paid to set up the shop, to the extent that numbers are available to the public it looks as if it saves money, and the only reason to shut down the body shop would be because the city vehicles were having fewer accidents. I'd rather see that demonstrated by results than assumed as a given because it sounds good to say "retrain drivers to have fewer accidents." I'm a skeptic, and once the body shop is closed, even if it will save money the cost of restarting may negate the savings and force the city to use more expensive commercial repair services. Leave it open for six months after the proposed retraining takes place, then decide the best course. As a taxpayer I love to see my money spent wisely, but control over the entire repair process has value, too. The city should quantify the results of driver training (why didn't they do training originally?) before declaring success and deciding that the municipal body shop is no longer needed.
CapdistNY RSS feed
Posts
All Comments
Friday, March 2, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Diminishing returns for ads
I have to believe that the "law of diminishing returns" applies strongly to TV ads. The more often any given ad appears on TV the less people are willing to pay attention. A little observation will support this. Watching Monday Night Football in a sports bar, the number of people who got up to order food or drinks or visit the rest rooms was fairly constant until a commercial was replayed. Then people stopped watching the TV and found something else to do. Even when people didn't leave the table they turned to look at those at the table with them instead of the TV.
It was not just the transition from action to commercial, either. I thought it might be caused by the "here's a good time to release pressure" response, and in fact that was easily observed. But the people remaining at the table often talked while watching the screen until the first repeated commercial came on, then started looking at each other. The interesting thing about that is that watching the screen generally didn't resume until the action came back on, or a commercial featuring scantily clad models or fast cars. No surprise there.
I have two conclusions from this and a few similar observations. First, that every repetition of the same or very similar ad moves from vague interest to disinterest, then to dislike. Thinking about TV and groups, the MUTE button is likely to be used about the third time an ad comes in in a short time.
The second observation is that once people stop paying attention to the commercial, they tend to continue disinterest until the actual program comes on. So one repetitious ad can not only cause disinterest (and eventually actual hostility) but will render following commercials and public service announcements less effective. I wonder if one of those smart DVR boxes which drop commercials could be set to let (or make) you see each commercial once, then skip it every time it comes on from that point forward.
It was not just the transition from action to commercial, either. I thought it might be caused by the "here's a good time to release pressure" response, and in fact that was easily observed. But the people remaining at the table often talked while watching the screen until the first repeated commercial came on, then started looking at each other. The interesting thing about that is that watching the screen generally didn't resume until the action came back on, or a commercial featuring scantily clad models or fast cars. No surprise there.
I have two conclusions from this and a few similar observations. First, that every repetition of the same or very similar ad moves from vague interest to disinterest, then to dislike. Thinking about TV and groups, the MUTE button is likely to be used about the third time an ad comes in in a short time.
The second observation is that once people stop paying attention to the commercial, they tend to continue disinterest until the actual program comes on. So one repetitious ad can not only cause disinterest (and eventually actual hostility) but will render following commercials and public service announcements less effective. I wonder if one of those smart DVR boxes which drop commercials could be set to let (or make) you see each commercial once, then skip it every time it comes on from that point forward.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
A roundabout way to address traffic problems
I realize that the roundabout is the latest fad in traffic control, and that it presents a low maintenance way to avoid accidents at intersections. Unfortunately, in practice they are being used in places and ways which don't seem appropriate, if benefit to to motoring public, the taxpayers, the voters, are taken into account.
In places where the traffic is light, is roughly the same from all incoming roads, a roundabout is just a really annoying way to cause traffic delays as people slow down to negotiate the turn, coming to a full stop or crawling pace when there is snow or ice on the road. In bad weather it presents the winter motorist a fine chance to slide off the road negotiating a turn which has been introduced into an otherwise safe straight road.
At heavy traffic times such as rush hour, as volume increases people coming from one road and going to another half or three quarters of the way around the circle will occasionally dominate the circle and enter the roundabout in a steady stream of traffic with no gaps for access by motorists entering from other roads. If this persists briefly it's intended behavior, but if it lasts for minutes it results in a backup on those other roads, sometimes all the way back to another roundabout, which in turn becomes totally deadlocked.
Eventually the driver at the front of one of the backlogged roads gets frustrated, perhaps urged on by the people behind leaning on their horns, and that front driver tries to pull into a small or nonresistant gap, which at best means a driver in the roundabout, who has the right of way, will have to brake and give every car behind a chance to have a rear end accident. At worst, the non-gap will be occupied by several cars proving the law of impenetrability, that two objects can not occupy the same space at the same time. This doesn't seem to bother traffic engineers, one was quoted in local news coverage saying that "accidents are usually harmless fender benders with no injuries." If accidents actually at the roundabout are not higher, I have to wonder how many drivers frustrated by a long wait try to "make up the time" and drive aggressively for the remainder of their trip while doing so.
In most fields of engineering there is a technique called "worst case analysis," which would predict behavior in the worst possible case and the worst case which occurs regularly, such as twice a day in morning and evening rush hour. That might lead to some better choices of where to use a roundabout, spacing between roundabouts, and where a signal is a better choice. Since removing under-performing roundabouts would be an expensive solution to an occasional but frequent problem, perhaps augmenting the roundabouts in problem locations with a traffic signal, controlled by backlog sensors and active only at problem times, to prevent prolonged exclusive flow from any one source.
In a perfect world motorists would note a backlog problem and take action on their own to allow smooth traffic flow. In the real world, particularly at the end of the work day when people are tired and want to get home, motorists don't care if someone waits a long time to proceed, as long as it is someone else. Proponents claim that roundabouts work fine if drivers only knew how to use them. This is somewhat like a software package with a poor user interface and a vendor suggesting training the users instead of fixing the problem. Users will turn to other software, and I know from discussions I have heard, drivers state that they are already taking alternate routes to avoid roundabouts. Shifting the traffic from main roads to neighborhoods and secondary roads is not the solution, it's time to rethink and improve the "user interface" of problem intersections
In places where the traffic is light, is roughly the same from all incoming roads, a roundabout is just a really annoying way to cause traffic delays as people slow down to negotiate the turn, coming to a full stop or crawling pace when there is snow or ice on the road. In bad weather it presents the winter motorist a fine chance to slide off the road negotiating a turn which has been introduced into an otherwise safe straight road.
At heavy traffic times such as rush hour, as volume increases people coming from one road and going to another half or three quarters of the way around the circle will occasionally dominate the circle and enter the roundabout in a steady stream of traffic with no gaps for access by motorists entering from other roads. If this persists briefly it's intended behavior, but if it lasts for minutes it results in a backup on those other roads, sometimes all the way back to another roundabout, which in turn becomes totally deadlocked.
Eventually the driver at the front of one of the backlogged roads gets frustrated, perhaps urged on by the people behind leaning on their horns, and that front driver tries to pull into a small or nonresistant gap, which at best means a driver in the roundabout, who has the right of way, will have to brake and give every car behind a chance to have a rear end accident. At worst, the non-gap will be occupied by several cars proving the law of impenetrability, that two objects can not occupy the same space at the same time. This doesn't seem to bother traffic engineers, one was quoted in local news coverage saying that "accidents are usually harmless fender benders with no injuries." If accidents actually at the roundabout are not higher, I have to wonder how many drivers frustrated by a long wait try to "make up the time" and drive aggressively for the remainder of their trip while doing so.
In most fields of engineering there is a technique called "worst case analysis," which would predict behavior in the worst possible case and the worst case which occurs regularly, such as twice a day in morning and evening rush hour. That might lead to some better choices of where to use a roundabout, spacing between roundabouts, and where a signal is a better choice. Since removing under-performing roundabouts would be an expensive solution to an occasional but frequent problem, perhaps augmenting the roundabouts in problem locations with a traffic signal, controlled by backlog sensors and active only at problem times, to prevent prolonged exclusive flow from any one source.
In a perfect world motorists would note a backlog problem and take action on their own to allow smooth traffic flow. In the real world, particularly at the end of the work day when people are tired and want to get home, motorists don't care if someone waits a long time to proceed, as long as it is someone else. Proponents claim that roundabouts work fine if drivers only knew how to use them. This is somewhat like a software package with a poor user interface and a vendor suggesting training the users instead of fixing the problem. Users will turn to other software, and I know from discussions I have heard, drivers state that they are already taking alternate routes to avoid roundabouts. Shifting the traffic from main roads to neighborhoods and secondary roads is not the solution, it's time to rethink and improve the "user interface" of problem intersections
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
America is being attacked by religious radicals
Once again Americans may die from attacks by fundamentalist religious groups attempting to force their views on the rest of us. Only now it isn't foreign radical Muslim groups, but US fundamentalist factions determined to force their practices on the rest of us. And while we see it locally, it reflects a lack of tolerance in the US as a whole and in foreign countries as well.
At the Shenendehowa High School, the deceptively named Shenendehowa Parent's Choice Coalition is trying to force their choice, ignorance,on the rest of the student body. These parents could withdraw their own children from the course, but instead choose to impose abstinence only "sex ed" on everyone. The "Parents Choice" group is blocking choice by other parents, and adding the risk that sexually active teens (statistically the vast majority) will not be taught to avoid the many risks of pregnancy or getting a sexually transmitted disease, possibly one which will require lifelong care or be fatal. And since over 40% of teen teen pregnancies end in abortion or miscarriage, there are significant health risks to these children. Nationally over 15% of all new HIV cases reported, and about half of all STDs reported are in people in the under 24 group.
The sad truth is that these parents not only risk their own children, but every child in that school who remains ignorant. Learning about sex "on the street" is a good way to learn about the mechanics of sex, but a poor way to learn about safety. Where did this "Parents Choice" religious group get the right to to choose ignorance for other people's children?
Looking at this issue, I found on a Midwest station call-in show an interview with a mother who belonged to a similar group in the greater Chicago area. The reporter asked if this woman's daughter had been vaccinated against the cancer causing human papilloma virus (HPV). The parent replied that "My daughter will remain a virgin until her wedding night, marry a virgin, and she doesn't need a vaccine that promotes promiscuous behavior." I sure hope she's right about that behavior! Another caller called pregnancy and disease "God's judgement on sinners."
After hiring failed gubernatorial candidate and anti-abortion activist Karen Handel as senior vice president of public policy, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation, a leading breast cancer group adopted a policy preventing funding for groups under investigation for misuse of funds. Then Representative Cliff Stearns, a Florida Republican and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, started an investigation to see if Planned Parenthood had used federal funds for abortion. That investigation seems to have been tabled "waiting for documents," leaving a stalled investigation, no need to prove wrongdoing, and thus permanently blocking funding for breast exams benefiting women who choose Planned Parenthood for their gynecological care.
The funding from the Komen groups was used solely for breast health examinations, not for any other activity of Planned Parenthood.
In Ohio, Amish terrorists (I couldn't make that up that term) from "a renegade Amish sect" are kidnapping church members who disagreed on interpretations of faith and shaving the beards of men and raping women "to keep sect members in line." The group attacked victims in three states. What's next, an Amber Alert on a horse and buggy?
In the south the Westboro Baptist Church has been disrupting the funerals of soldiers killed in action. This group has made the war into a gay rights issue in their minds, possibly confusing "don't ask don't tell" with "don't think, don't care" before you demonstrate. And a sympathetic judge has said this is a legitimate expression of their religious rights, free speech rights, or the right to do whatever you want as long as you hate homosexuals. So far no law enforcement group has used the "inciting to riot" laws employed against other demonstrators.
In Israel an article in 972 magazine tells us that a group of ultra orthodox children is reported to have verbally attacked and spat upon an eight year old girl for wearing secular garb. This lack of tolerance is not just in the USA, although it seems more shocking here compared to the tolerant attitudes of only a few years ago.
The overall trend in all of this is that more and more religious groups who hold beliefs that their version of "God's laws" trumps secular legislatures and courts. In some cases they attack only peace of mind, but in others they expose women to the very disease they ask us to fight by giving them money, or put other people's children at risk of unprotected sex in the effort to force everyone to live by some group's beliefs and rules.
The right to free speech never included the right to force others to listen, where have our courts gone wrong that this made up right trumps the ones in the Constitution.
At the Shenendehowa High School, the deceptively named Shenendehowa Parent's Choice Coalition is trying to force their choice, ignorance,on the rest of the student body. These parents could withdraw their own children from the course, but instead choose to impose abstinence only "sex ed" on everyone. The "Parents Choice" group is blocking choice by other parents, and adding the risk that sexually active teens (statistically the vast majority) will not be taught to avoid the many risks of pregnancy or getting a sexually transmitted disease, possibly one which will require lifelong care or be fatal. And since over 40% of teen teen pregnancies end in abortion or miscarriage, there are significant health risks to these children. Nationally over 15% of all new HIV cases reported, and about half of all STDs reported are in people in the under 24 group.
The sad truth is that these parents not only risk their own children, but every child in that school who remains ignorant. Learning about sex "on the street" is a good way to learn about the mechanics of sex, but a poor way to learn about safety. Where did this "Parents Choice" religious group get the right to to choose ignorance for other people's children?
Looking at this issue, I found on a Midwest station call-in show an interview with a mother who belonged to a similar group in the greater Chicago area. The reporter asked if this woman's daughter had been vaccinated against the cancer causing human papilloma virus (HPV). The parent replied that "My daughter will remain a virgin until her wedding night, marry a virgin, and she doesn't need a vaccine that promotes promiscuous behavior." I sure hope she's right about that behavior! Another caller called pregnancy and disease "God's judgement on sinners."
After hiring failed gubernatorial candidate and anti-abortion activist Karen Handel as senior vice president of public policy, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation, a leading breast cancer group adopted a policy preventing funding for groups under investigation for misuse of funds. Then Representative Cliff Stearns, a Florida Republican and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, started an investigation to see if Planned Parenthood had used federal funds for abortion. That investigation seems to have been tabled "waiting for documents," leaving a stalled investigation, no need to prove wrongdoing, and thus permanently blocking funding for breast exams benefiting women who choose Planned Parenthood for their gynecological care.
The funding from the Komen groups was used solely for breast health examinations, not for any other activity of Planned Parenthood.
In Ohio, Amish terrorists (I couldn't make that up that term) from "a renegade Amish sect" are kidnapping church members who disagreed on interpretations of faith and shaving the beards of men and raping women "to keep sect members in line." The group attacked victims in three states. What's next, an Amber Alert on a horse and buggy?
In the south the Westboro Baptist Church has been disrupting the funerals of soldiers killed in action. This group has made the war into a gay rights issue in their minds, possibly confusing "don't ask don't tell" with "don't think, don't care" before you demonstrate. And a sympathetic judge has said this is a legitimate expression of their religious rights, free speech rights, or the right to do whatever you want as long as you hate homosexuals. So far no law enforcement group has used the "inciting to riot" laws employed against other demonstrators.
In Israel an article in 972 magazine tells us that a group of ultra orthodox children is reported to have verbally attacked and spat upon an eight year old girl for wearing secular garb. This lack of tolerance is not just in the USA, although it seems more shocking here compared to the tolerant attitudes of only a few years ago.
The overall trend in all of this is that more and more religious groups who hold beliefs that their version of "God's laws" trumps secular legislatures and courts. In some cases they attack only peace of mind, but in others they expose women to the very disease they ask us to fight by giving them money, or put other people's children at risk of unprotected sex in the effort to force everyone to live by some group's beliefs and rules.
The right to free speech never included the right to force others to listen, where have our courts gone wrong that this made up right trumps the ones in the Constitution.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Psychiatrists want to make grief an illness
The NY Times reports that grieving the loss of a friend, family or loved one may soon be considered a form of depression. The American Psychiatric Association is proposing that grief be classified as a type of depression, and reported as such in the standard reference work in the field, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM.
This change would be good for doctors, some insurance plans which cover treatment of mental illness would now pay for treatment of grief, doctors could prescribe psychoactive drugs for it, and people who work in fields requiring sanity could suddenly find that it was harder or impossible to get a security clearance, job working with children, gun permit, visa into some countries, etc.
Proponents claim that it would result in better care for those debilitated by grief, which should be covered by the current symptoms of depression, sleep loss, loss of concentration, inability to handle self care, pay their bills, or continue to work effectively. It's hard to tell if this would improve the health of the patient or that of the doctor's bank account.
How many times do we see some violent criminal described as "cold and heartless, never showed any emotions?" I am more likely to question the normalcy of someone who doesn't feel grief than someone who does. Let's not stigmatize people with normal grief, whether from greed or the belief that normal human emotions need to be "treated," it's a bad idea.
Revisions to the DSM are also being discussed which would narrow the definition of autism, which in some cases would result in loss of insurance coverage for treatment. Proponents say that children "just at an awkward stage" should not be labeled autistic.
Followup: there is a really detailed article on this in Health+Fitness, as well as a overview article on inquisitr.com. There is an article in the NY Times, and AP coverage was carried in many local papers, some with comments from local physicians. Feel free to report other good links in comments.
This change would be good for doctors, some insurance plans which cover treatment of mental illness would now pay for treatment of grief, doctors could prescribe psychoactive drugs for it, and people who work in fields requiring sanity could suddenly find that it was harder or impossible to get a security clearance, job working with children, gun permit, visa into some countries, etc.
Proponents claim that it would result in better care for those debilitated by grief, which should be covered by the current symptoms of depression, sleep loss, loss of concentration, inability to handle self care, pay their bills, or continue to work effectively. It's hard to tell if this would improve the health of the patient or that of the doctor's bank account.
How many times do we see some violent criminal described as "cold and heartless, never showed any emotions?" I am more likely to question the normalcy of someone who doesn't feel grief than someone who does. Let's not stigmatize people with normal grief, whether from greed or the belief that normal human emotions need to be "treated," it's a bad idea.
Revisions to the DSM are also being discussed which would narrow the definition of autism, which in some cases would result in loss of insurance coverage for treatment. Proponents say that children "just at an awkward stage" should not be labeled autistic.
Followup: there is a really detailed article on this in Health+Fitness, as well as a overview article on inquisitr.com. There is an article in the NY Times, and AP coverage was carried in many local papers, some with comments from local physicians. Feel free to report other good links in comments.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
No time to skimp - SUVs for evidence techs
As a long time SUV owner[1], I have a good understanding of what difference an SUV can make in shortening travel time in bad weather, and in making travel possible at all when the destination is not on a paved road. So I speak from experience when I say that Schenectady should stop dithering over cost and get an SUV for use by the "on call" evidence tech.
I see no need for each tech to have an SUV, the purpose is to make sure a very necessary trained person can get to a crime scene, not to provide transportation in lieu of a personal vehicle for the entire staff. Government workers should bear the same responsibility as everyone else for arranging to get to work at their normal location and hours, but when "get to work" isn't the same place or same hours all the time, the one tech on call should have a vehicle suited to the demands of the job, which require going anywhere, any time of the day or night, any day of the week, and promptly. While bringing with them whatever special equipment is needed. Requiring any employee to have a personal vehicle like that is unreasonable, it is special equipment and should be provided.
It would seem even more reasonable to have two vehicles like that, one at home with the on call tech outside of working hours, and one waiting in the Foster Avenue "Garage Mahal" the city built recently. Planning for one vehicle to be unavailable occasionally is good management, vehicles need maintenance, crimes don't always happen one at a time, and a backup would be a reasonable precaution. But it should be the reserve, in the garage, not someone's personal perk or as a spare ride for the garage workers. By alternating the use of vehicles, the mileage will be spread between them, and should be low. That should make these a long term investment rather than something which needs to be replaced frequently.
An SUV is a heavy duty vehicle, its extra capabilities justify the bad mileage and somewhat higher cost of such transportation. Note that I am talking about a "real SUV," and while marketing people may try to deceive the public by calling an all wheel drive (AWD) station wagon such as the Explorer an SUV, it's not. Lest we forget, the "U" is for "utility," and that includes body on frame, a two speed transfer case, robust load rating, high ground clearance, and rear wheel drive. See below for why these features matter. Vehicles such as the Chevy Suburban and Ford Expedition are built on truck frames, and are big, heavy, expensive, rough riding, and capable. Two SUVs make sense for evidence techs, more don't, and lesser vehicles would compromise their ability to the do the job.
In case anyone suggests just getting a few trucks and putting caps on them, I did consider that myself, but it seems like a poor way to save money. First, big capable trucks aren't that much cheaper than an SUV. And an SUV has a lot of marginal utility. That's a term which refers to things it can do which an alternative could not. Compared to a truck, the SUV holds longer evidence with seats folded, and can provide at least some climate control for evidence. And the ability to carry extra passengers into a remote crime scene is valuable, ask any detective how they feel about walking a half mile or more in mud, or rain, or bitter cold. Carrying passengers in some cases will save time, and if those passengers are medical personnel, might save a life. The advantages of an SUV justify the cost, it's just a more adaptable vehicle.
Why SUV features are beneficial:
I see no need for each tech to have an SUV, the purpose is to make sure a very necessary trained person can get to a crime scene, not to provide transportation in lieu of a personal vehicle for the entire staff. Government workers should bear the same responsibility as everyone else for arranging to get to work at their normal location and hours, but when "get to work" isn't the same place or same hours all the time, the one tech on call should have a vehicle suited to the demands of the job, which require going anywhere, any time of the day or night, any day of the week, and promptly. While bringing with them whatever special equipment is needed. Requiring any employee to have a personal vehicle like that is unreasonable, it is special equipment and should be provided.
It would seem even more reasonable to have two vehicles like that, one at home with the on call tech outside of working hours, and one waiting in the Foster Avenue "Garage Mahal" the city built recently. Planning for one vehicle to be unavailable occasionally is good management, vehicles need maintenance, crimes don't always happen one at a time, and a backup would be a reasonable precaution. But it should be the reserve, in the garage, not someone's personal perk or as a spare ride for the garage workers. By alternating the use of vehicles, the mileage will be spread between them, and should be low. That should make these a long term investment rather than something which needs to be replaced frequently.
An SUV is a heavy duty vehicle, its extra capabilities justify the bad mileage and somewhat higher cost of such transportation. Note that I am talking about a "real SUV," and while marketing people may try to deceive the public by calling an all wheel drive (AWD) station wagon such as the Explorer an SUV, it's not. Lest we forget, the "U" is for "utility," and that includes body on frame, a two speed transfer case, robust load rating, high ground clearance, and rear wheel drive. See below for why these features matter. Vehicles such as the Chevy Suburban and Ford Expedition are built on truck frames, and are big, heavy, expensive, rough riding, and capable. Two SUVs make sense for evidence techs, more don't, and lesser vehicles would compromise their ability to the do the job.
In case anyone suggests just getting a few trucks and putting caps on them, I did consider that myself, but it seems like a poor way to save money. First, big capable trucks aren't that much cheaper than an SUV. And an SUV has a lot of marginal utility. That's a term which refers to things it can do which an alternative could not. Compared to a truck, the SUV holds longer evidence with seats folded, and can provide at least some climate control for evidence. And the ability to carry extra passengers into a remote crime scene is valuable, ask any detective how they feel about walking a half mile or more in mud, or rain, or bitter cold. Carrying passengers in some cases will save time, and if those passengers are medical personnel, might save a life. The advantages of an SUV justify the cost, it's just a more adaptable vehicle.
Why SUV features are beneficial:
- body on frame - easier to attach special equipment to the frame, easier to fix if getting to a remote crime scene results in undercarriage or cosmetic damage.
- two speed transfer case - allows the vehicle to be safely used to move things at a scene to gain access, and remove obstacles preventing preservation of evidence. Also useful for pulling stuck official vehicles out of the mud at a crime scene.
- high load rating - because evidence isn't always light.
- high ground clearance - one of the things which really helps travel over bad or nonexistent roads, prevents getting "high centered" with the frame on an obstacle and wheels off the ground.
- rear wheel drive - because equipment and evidence go in the back, because weight shifts to the rear going up hills, because trailers (if needed) put weight on the back. You don't always drive in four wheel drive.
Monday, January 23, 2012
SCCC wants to ignore independent salary findings
I see that SCCC is not inclined to accept independent findings that show pay at the school is significantly below pay for the same positions at most community colleges of similar size in this area. The school wants to compare the raises to those of other (non-teaching) employees in terms of percentage, rather than compare the actual annual value of the salary to what appears to be "fair market value" for educators at similar schools.
I keep hearing about the things the school is doing, and they don't sound like poverty to me. When a school is adding courses and planning new buildings, it's hard to justify a wage policy which looks like paying below customary wages initially and then compounding the problem by offering substandard raises to the people who do the actual work which brings students to the school. I would love to see a comparison of SCCC administrator wages to those at the same similar schools. Are the people who want to hire cheap labor working for 15% below equivalent jobs at other schools themselves?
There are four things which people mention when choosing an employer; wages, benefits, location, and job satisfaction. And while I usually hear them mentioned in that order, when people tell me they are leaving a job, they say the reason is "not happy there" more often than "more money." And those who leave without a new job all lined up are very likely to describe the reason as some variation of "that job sucks." I have to think that a low ball offer on raises, given the comparison to wages elsewhere and the money being spent in other areas will leave a lot of dissatisfied teachers, higher turnover, and being forced to hire those teachers who weren't good enough to find better paid employment somewhere else. Accepting low pay is easier when you feel as though there isn't much money available than when you feel as though you are just not fairly valued.
Has empire building warped the judgement of the administration? Have the media unfairly neglected to report the administrators themselves working for less to fund the infrastructure growth? Or are our students being taught by teachers who couldn't find a better job, while money goes into expansion?
I keep hearing about the things the school is doing, and they don't sound like poverty to me. When a school is adding courses and planning new buildings, it's hard to justify a wage policy which looks like paying below customary wages initially and then compounding the problem by offering substandard raises to the people who do the actual work which brings students to the school. I would love to see a comparison of SCCC administrator wages to those at the same similar schools. Are the people who want to hire cheap labor working for 15% below equivalent jobs at other schools themselves?
There are four things which people mention when choosing an employer; wages, benefits, location, and job satisfaction. And while I usually hear them mentioned in that order, when people tell me they are leaving a job, they say the reason is "not happy there" more often than "more money." And those who leave without a new job all lined up are very likely to describe the reason as some variation of "that job sucks." I have to think that a low ball offer on raises, given the comparison to wages elsewhere and the money being spent in other areas will leave a lot of dissatisfied teachers, higher turnover, and being forced to hire those teachers who weren't good enough to find better paid employment somewhere else. Accepting low pay is easier when you feel as though there isn't much money available than when you feel as though you are just not fairly valued.
Has empire building warped the judgement of the administration? Have the media unfairly neglected to report the administrators themselves working for less to fund the infrastructure growth? Or are our students being taught by teachers who couldn't find a better job, while money goes into expansion?
Thursday, January 19, 2012
What is the value of naming rights?
A few odd thoughts popped into my head when I heard that one of the venues inside the Time-Union Arena was getting a new name. In no particular order:
What's in a name? What is the actual return on investment from having a commercial name attached to a building, or part of one? Do enough people choose your product based on your name on a sports complex to increase your sales to the point where you can justify it as an advertizing expense? Or is it some mix of publicity and ego boost?
Naming rights on sections in a complex is newer. how far down the scale will it go? Will I next visit the Frank and Joe's Sunoco men's room, right next to the Slim-Fast ladies room? Or does a business have to buy a pair of restrooms and apply a single name to them, like Sam and Betty's Bar Personal Comfort Area? And do related businesses benefit more from name association than an unrelated business, like Nike being more effective than Nabisco on a sports complex? Perhaps the comfort stations would help a plumbing business more, or a paper products company? How about the Charmin Quilted Ladies Toilet? And if parts of an arena can have naming rights, how about areas within? Will I find the Pampers Changing Station inside one of these rest rooms?
What happened to the taxpayers name? The Times-Union Arena was originally the Knickerbocker Arena. Why didn't the naming rights get sold for the product or service preceding the name the taxpayer paid for, so that the name would be Sponsor Knickerbocker Arena and people would associate the sponsor and the building even more closely. It would be nice if the name contained some hint that we taxpayers paid for it.
Where does this trend end? The time is long past when we could count on common sense, good taste, public perception, or even basic human dignity to restrain the process of making money. Will we see naming rights sold to personal products companies, diseases, political parties, or religions? And will other public buildings sell naming rights? I have visions of the Trojan Condom Elementary School, or Prostate Cancer Woman's Shelter, and the price any of the legal firms who advertise on TV would pay for naming rights to the courthouse. I bet some people think I'm exaggerating, reread the second sentence of this paragraph. Funeral homes would buy naming rights on the morgue.
What's in a name? What is the actual return on investment from having a commercial name attached to a building, or part of one? Do enough people choose your product based on your name on a sports complex to increase your sales to the point where you can justify it as an advertizing expense? Or is it some mix of publicity and ego boost?
Naming rights on sections in a complex is newer. how far down the scale will it go? Will I next visit the Frank and Joe's Sunoco men's room, right next to the Slim-Fast ladies room? Or does a business have to buy a pair of restrooms and apply a single name to them, like Sam and Betty's Bar Personal Comfort Area? And do related businesses benefit more from name association than an unrelated business, like Nike being more effective than Nabisco on a sports complex? Perhaps the comfort stations would help a plumbing business more, or a paper products company? How about the Charmin Quilted Ladies Toilet? And if parts of an arena can have naming rights, how about areas within? Will I find the Pampers Changing Station inside one of these rest rooms?
What happened to the taxpayers name? The Times-Union Arena was originally the Knickerbocker Arena. Why didn't the naming rights get sold for the product or service preceding the name the taxpayer paid for, so that the name would be Sponsor Knickerbocker Arena and people would associate the sponsor and the building even more closely. It would be nice if the name contained some hint that we taxpayers paid for it.
Where does this trend end? The time is long past when we could count on common sense, good taste, public perception, or even basic human dignity to restrain the process of making money. Will we see naming rights sold to personal products companies, diseases, political parties, or religions? And will other public buildings sell naming rights? I have visions of the Trojan Condom Elementary School, or Prostate Cancer Woman's Shelter, and the price any of the legal firms who advertise on TV would pay for naming rights to the courthouse. I bet some people think I'm exaggerating, reread the second sentence of this paragraph. Funeral homes would buy naming rights on the morgue.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
What is with Schenectady Mayoral Candidates?
Full disclosure: I know both of these recent candidates, and have worked with both of them on neighborhood association issues.
Recently barely defeated candidate Roger Hull wrote a very critical piece for the news recently, in which he complains that there should have been a recount after the very close race for mayor, and that Gary McCarthy is "double dipping" by accepting a public pension while seeking (and winning) an elected public office. I'll talk about those point in a moment, but the whole tone of the piece sounded like whining loser rather than game changing third party founder.
During the race Gary McCarthy refused to approve permits to allow other people to collect signatures on petitions for Roger Hull, a process which has been rubber stamped by both parties for years. Even Hull's son was refused a permit, which served no good purpose, as enough signatures were collected, but did offend a number of voters, who were not shy about saying so. I heard that in College Park, I heard it in Woodlawn, and I heard it in the Stockade. Doing something which offends even people who are inclined to like you isn't good politics.
Recounting the votes
I completely agree that the vote should have been recounted in this case, not because it would have changed the result, but because it would have avoided speculation about vote irregularities, particularly those caused by unplugging and moving the machines at Schenectady High, which certainly introduced doubts because poll watchers for other candidates couldn't be in two places at once to monitor the handling of the machines both inside and outside the school. While I don't believe the conspiracy theories about the bomb scare being a trick to get the machines moved, it looks questionable, and since people are talking about the origin of the call, someone must believe it was a dirty trick.
Double dipping
Unless voters have a problem with the idea of someone retiring and drawing a pension from one job while working another, I don't see why this point was raised. Usually the term is used to refer to someone who retires from a job and then continue to do the same job as a "consultant." Clearly that's not the case here, and while Gary McCarthy is putting more money in his pocket by retiring to take the mayor's job, it does save the city money by not having to pay for some benefits. Score that one a win-win, big win for the mayor, small win for the city. And probably overall a small win for the taxpayers as a whole, Given the number of retired people working a little because the pension isn't going very far, I don't think the public is going to see this as a problem.
I have two wishes about Schenectady politics, the first being the new third party continue to field viable candidates and keep the council on its best behavior, and second that the next election be more civil in tone and focused on issue, because "I like his solutions" is what you want to hear, not terms like "lesser of two evils." And having people turn out because they actually think their vote makes a difference is refreshing, I hope that continues. It's been about a decade since I heard people saying "I'm glad I voted" or "I should have voted" after an election.
Recently barely defeated candidate Roger Hull wrote a very critical piece for the news recently, in which he complains that there should have been a recount after the very close race for mayor, and that Gary McCarthy is "double dipping" by accepting a public pension while seeking (and winning) an elected public office. I'll talk about those point in a moment, but the whole tone of the piece sounded like whining loser rather than game changing third party founder.
During the race Gary McCarthy refused to approve permits to allow other people to collect signatures on petitions for Roger Hull, a process which has been rubber stamped by both parties for years. Even Hull's son was refused a permit, which served no good purpose, as enough signatures were collected, but did offend a number of voters, who were not shy about saying so. I heard that in College Park, I heard it in Woodlawn, and I heard it in the Stockade. Doing something which offends even people who are inclined to like you isn't good politics.
Recounting the votes
I completely agree that the vote should have been recounted in this case, not because it would have changed the result, but because it would have avoided speculation about vote irregularities, particularly those caused by unplugging and moving the machines at Schenectady High, which certainly introduced doubts because poll watchers for other candidates couldn't be in two places at once to monitor the handling of the machines both inside and outside the school. While I don't believe the conspiracy theories about the bomb scare being a trick to get the machines moved, it looks questionable, and since people are talking about the origin of the call, someone must believe it was a dirty trick.
Double dipping
Unless voters have a problem with the idea of someone retiring and drawing a pension from one job while working another, I don't see why this point was raised. Usually the term is used to refer to someone who retires from a job and then continue to do the same job as a "consultant." Clearly that's not the case here, and while Gary McCarthy is putting more money in his pocket by retiring to take the mayor's job, it does save the city money by not having to pay for some benefits. Score that one a win-win, big win for the mayor, small win for the city. And probably overall a small win for the taxpayers as a whole, Given the number of retired people working a little because the pension isn't going very far, I don't think the public is going to see this as a problem.
I have two wishes about Schenectady politics, the first being the new third party continue to field viable candidates and keep the council on its best behavior, and second that the next election be more civil in tone and focused on issue, because "I like his solutions" is what you want to hear, not terms like "lesser of two evils." And having people turn out because they actually think their vote makes a difference is refreshing, I hope that continues. It's been about a decade since I heard people saying "I'm glad I voted" or "I should have voted" after an election.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)