Silbert:
Receipts: $44,645
Expenditures: $26,268.44
Net: +$18,376.56
Murray:
Receipts: $50,062.02
Expenditures: $36,172.53
Net: +$13,889.49
Goldberg:
Receipts: $44,387.50
Expenditures: $41,370.50
Net: +$3,017
Kelley:
Receipts: $17,273
Expenditures: $8,995
Net: +$8,278
Brief analysis: I think I could probably write what da clerk wrote last month (minus the pro-Silbert stuff). Seems like things have settled into a post-caucus food coma. No one is going to pay attention except us until the last week of May.
Silbert continues to lead by a fairly wide margin. Murray needs to step it up if he wants to have enough dough for TV. I’m now more convinced than ever that Goldberg will self-fund come convention and/or TV ad time. Kelley keeps hangin’ around and, if posts on this site are to be believed, affecting voters who listen to him in a positively Kucinich-ian way.
It still seems to me like a 2-person race is developing, though – with the Goldberg ace-in-the-hole caveat, of course, and with Murray being the one to beat at the convention (I refuse to comment beyond that date…)
Hoss, you beat me to it.
<
p>
I think you all know what I would have written in light of these numbers, so I’ll spare you the analysis. I actually agree pretty much with Hoss.
I definitely agree with your analysis as well. Thanks for posting those numbers.
<
p>
But I can’t help but wonder, what did Goldberg spend all her money on?
staff and office space. that’d be my guess. Only recently have I seen Kelley’s handler, Murray just entered the race, and I’m not sure how long Andrea’s handler has been on (not unless she keeps a couple of padi staffers.)
<
p>
Somebody with more inside knowledge please correct me. I think Goldberg spent a fair amount on her handler with the floppy haircut, he started popping up in public around the end of last year (although I didn’t see him out at the DCI.)
from what I’ve seen with the online campaign filings, she seems to have done alot of spending on political consultants (5k a pop) and other things like that. I agree with you though, she does have the resources to bankroll her campaign so I’m just curious as to when it will be.
Andrea Silbert, Massachusetts Democratic candidate for Lt. Governor, the candidate with “the proven record of job creation” recently laid off her newly hired finance assistant (who happens to be a friend of mine) because her campaign values money over manpower. Not only does this leave the Silbert Campaign with only 3 employees (as of the time he left) to run a state-wide campaign, but it leaves someone new to the area searching for a new way to pay the bills. The unemployed, a recent graduate from the University of Massachusetts Amherst began his first post collegiate position February 1, 2005. Less than 1 month later, exactly one day prior to which his health care benefits were scheduled to begin, he was let go. His supervisor informed him that due to recent fundraising troubles they would be unable to keep him on. After seeing these latest fundraising numbers, I was appalled and couldn’t sit by and watch this go unheard. Even with his small salary + health care cost, Andrea Silbert would still have netted more money for the month than any of her opponents, and still be well over $100,000 up on her nearest opponent. On her website, Ms. Silbert asserts that ” the state is falling behind in two key areas: job creation and retaining young people.” If she’s having trouble doing this within her own campaign, what is she going to do when she’s helping to run the state? Further, the Silbert’s campaign was very much aware that the unemployed had recently moved into a new apartment, in order to avoid the 2 hour commute he had been making previously. This means one of two things, either Silbert wanted to salt the wound of the young college grad by intentionally failing to warn him that his job security may not be stable enough to move into a new apartment, or her campaign is so fiscally irresponsible that she had no clue that she lacked the necessary funding to take on a new employee. It is now quite obvious that she didn’t lack the funding, she simply made the “business decision” that “money in the bank” is more important than people, sounds almost like a Republican to me…I don’t know who I’m voting for yet, but I do know it won’t be Andrea Silbert.
looks like this just got personal (for someone). . .It seems that Silbert fires someone everytime she needs her fundraising numbers to be higher.
<
p>
But, we need to remember we obviously don’t know the whole story here. Not that I think firing someone just out of college right before his health benefits set-in is right, but we don’t know if there were other circumstances that caused this employment decision.
Deep Throat, if you want anyone to take you seriously, why don’t you post your real name and the name of the finance assistant, and get some comment from them. Otherwise, most people will probably just take your rant as irrelevant gossip. Talk is cheap, as us bloggers know better than anyone!
<
p>
If most people will take it as irrelevnat gossip then why does it get you so riled up? Is it really that unbelievable that a Silbert campaign staffer may have been fired? Why do some like yourself and Fieldguy get so defensive when people even bring up anything slightly “negative” about the Silbert campaign?
<
p>
I was curious as to Politicalfeminista’s comment on Silbert’s firings of people…could you elaborate?
Who knows why this post was posted. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s not. If true, there are 2 sides to every story. If not, then it’s another example of the perils of open blogs, and it would join the chorus of posts that may not pass the “truthiness” test.
<
p>
That said, this blog ain’t the public square, and people have every right to hide behind a shield of anonymity. I’m the poster child for this premise. I have absolutely no desire to reveal my identity because of my ties with people involved in numerous statewide campaigns. Hell, for all you all know, I could be an employee of one of them. Or not. That’s my point, we don’t know, nor should we if the poster doesn’t want to and the hosts of this blog don’t want to force us to. If things got out of hand with comments, I’m sure there are ways our hosts could out us, but I’m sure glad they haven’t gone down that road…yet.
MMMMWAAAHAHAHAHA!
Indeed. My point was not that anonymous comments have no significance, just that their impact is limited. In your case, for example, although much of what you write is interesting I don’t pay as much attention to it as I would if I knew who you were (which, of course, David, Charley and I do 😉 just kidding … or are we).
I would assume that you know who I am, or at least know the email that I got my password sent to… I love you guys, so please keep my secret!
<
p>
Did you guys ever think when you started this that the blog would be where it is and would be so widely turned to? You guys did well filling a space that needed filling. And now you’re getting filthy rich doing so! (Ha ha).
I have a friend who was recently laid off by Silbert. I wonder if it is the same person? Who are you Deapthroat? In any event I can at least confirm that Silbert has let at least one employee go due to “fundraising problems” which clearly is not the case. Interesting that she declared that “the state is falling behind in two key areas job creation and retaining young people” Ha what a hypocrite.
Unless ThirdWay is the same person as DeepThroat. Anyway, the point is that anonymous posts aren’t in general as credible as signed statements, which is one reason by-lines are popular. As to outing people, that would be in vain: anonymous addresses are easy to get. As to getting rich, the day BMG has grossed more than one month of average health care premiums in Massachusetts remains some way in the future.
Why have blogs at all?
As an LG race ‘lurker’ on this blog for many months (great job guys!) this thread takes the cake for not only thorough pettiness but it also highlights all too clearly those who only want to disparage a candidate – and that’s you Pol Fem and Deepthrought – as you have no idea what was behind the decisions made by the campaign staff at Andrea’s office yet you seem to think you have corroboration by some unknown blogger. It has been my experience that when someone says they are letting you go because of “fundraising problems” and they are actually doing great in the fundraising dept. it usually means something else such as job competency issues.
<
p>
I am a very close ally and supporter of the Silbert campaign (yes I admit it and will be right up front) but I am basically a non-pol and I read this blog for real issues and newsworthy comments, not to read about someone’s attitude because their friend got “laid” off. Whether or not someone was laid off – and news flash – everyone will be laid off come next November because it will all be over. This is a campaign. It is run on a shoe string. The reason Andrea’s campaign has been so effective is that Andrea is a very competent manager (as evidenced by building her non-profit from the ground up to becoming the most successful Women’s Business Center in the entire US) and every penny goes towards the actual work of the campaign – getting the message out about her candidacy and raising money. She sure seems to be doing just that. How many times has it been said that the candidate with the most money for the primary wins? I do know that Andrea and her finance director (that’s 2 people) raised more money in 2005 and put more in the bank by far than any other candidate for LG in this race, and she is the ‘outsider’. They sure seem to know what they are doing. The fact that they require some VERY capable staff to keep up with them sure makes sense to me. I frankly am proud that they don’t keep staff if they don’t stack up. The purpose of a campaign is to campaign not to provide jobs. As only one of the thousands of supporters of Andrea’s candidacy that has never before actually been involved with a campaign as a supporter($) I would rather her not waste my money on staff if they don’t need to and I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt to make that decision and not second guess her. But maybe I am just polite.
<
p>
Now, can we actually get back to substantive issues and discussions regarding some real issues pertaining to this race?
Discussing the candidates character is just as important as talking about the issues he/she stands for. This is something that should not be brushed aside as being irrelevant. If you are letting someone go because of competency issues then tell them. Why give someone excuses. Don’t we deserve to have a person in office who is up front about a problem? Someone who is honest about what is actually going on?
Andreas position on Education/Workforce Development. she says ” The tax revenue generated from new jobs will help the state fund public pre-school and all day kindergarten…….” The early education for all bill H 4746 I believe should be voted on any day know. It is a bill that has been in the works for over 5 years now, Strategies for children accomplished the daunting task of bringing public and private providers together to provide voluntary high qualtiy universal preschool within a mixed delivery system.
<
p>
So why does Andrea want to change that? Why does she want to put all of the private providers out of business? Does she have information or research that supports it being a public preschool rather than a mixed system? Does she have a policy person on this? When the private providers go out of business what will happen to all the children in all day care? What will happen to the workling parents of those children? Do you think this will creat jobs? What will happen to all of the workers at the private providers?
<
p>
Does she have a plan for the cities and towns to build and/or aquire aditional space for the public preschool programs? Does she know how long it will take to build and fund these? How many jobs will she have to create to fund the aditional space, how much additional money will be needed for the additional space.
<
p>
In 2005 there were over 14000 low income children on waitlists for subsidized early childhood programs what is the plan to address this? Oh yeah those 14000 children represent about 6000 people willing to work but can;t because a lack of subsidies.
<
p>
Yes, lets start with this one
I presume you’d be in favor of posing that question to all of the candidates.
<
p>
Just to play policy-devil’s advocate here: why do you think providing public pre-school will have a detrimental effect on private providers of those services? Don’t private and parochial schools co-exist with public education? Wouldn’t more jobs be created? Wouldn’t such a public system benefit unions due to the teaching standards the state would likely impose (if that’s in the bill you cite, I wouldn’t know because I haven’t read it yet).
<
p>
Gawd, I wish that the LG candidates could get heard if they put out position papers on things like this and the other issues they’re talking about. The problem is that our system deters them from doing so and demands that they spend time raising money. Couple that with the fact that even if they DID spend the time and effort to put together detailed issue papers, no press outlet would examine the issue such that it would affect the race. What are we left with? A race to be the “Tim for Treasurer” of 2006 – i.e. the one with the catchi-est ad.
<
p>
Ugh.
to all lg candidates as well as G candidates, did the same thing in 02 too.
<
p>
why do you think providing public pre-school will have a detrimental effect on private providers of those services?
<
p>
Sill economics, if the preschoolers leave the private providers only infants amd toodlers will be left full time, preschoolers will be part time the revenue will not support private providers.
<
p>
Wouldnt more jobs be created? You would think yes but no in a private preschool you need 1 teacher for 10 9 12 if half day) children (absent SPED) in public preschools is has been as high as 1 :24.
<
p>
It would benefit the unions.
<
p>
The teaching standars are to be universal across public and private, unfortunately there is no accountability for the public programs for non compliance private providers can be shut down.
<
p>
And I cou;dnt agree more with your last paragraph but it is important. the winning LG will likely be the G someday and this is too important of an issue with a HUGE pricetag to leavce for chance.
<
p>
I hope you really wanted the answers.
This is clearly your issue. I sure ain’t mine, as my fakin’ it post proved!
<
p>
As I said, I wish issues like this would get the attention they deserve. But in the LG’s race at least, they won’t. Were I advising an LG campaign, I’d tell that that they shouldn’t pay for policy people, should put volunteer policy people to work calling delegates and getting signatures until after the convention, and should raise a ton of dough.
get this attention and people like me give this stuff away to candidates for free. I can 99.999% guarantee that someone from strategies for children contacted all candidates to brief them on the bill. They then are made up to date on the progress and are available to consult with. In 02 I was one of 40 legislative liasons on this issue and we made sure every candidate for Senate, Rep LG an G were approached.
Just because the legislature passes a bill it doesn’t come with the funding attached and these days how do we pay for this? Where do we get a billion $ to fund the initiative? I believe a more correct analysis of Andrea’s position is that with more jobs/more revenues the state would be in a better position to actually enact this legislation that has been carefully (we hope) crafted to help those who need it most. It seems from what I know that Andrea would be a wholehearted advocate of this bill. How do you infer she is not in favor just because she wants to help increase state revenue through job creation? If you really listen to her speak she is in favor of private and public partnerships – kinda like the way she built the Center for Women and Enterprise, no? You might also take into account the number of day care centers her clients at CWE have actually started. I think you may be reading a bit much into a simple statement regarding increased revenue for the state and a small example of what it can provide – not all or only what it should provide.
<
p>
Just a thought but why don’t you single out any of the other candidates’ (perceived) positions on this issue? What is Tim’s record on education other than cutting budgets on school funding? Deb’s? Sam’s? I for one would like to learn from your experience with this issue but your knowledge may come across better if it is not in the form of an attack on one particular candidate.
there is NO funding attached? I will single out any issue when a candidate send me a letter to my home asking me as a delegate to support them and inserts a beautiful three color brochure that has an absurd comment in it ……thank you.
<
p>
How many “day care centers has she helped start? If it is one or more shame on her for not conferring with them before she made her statement.
<
p>
and please spare me the poor “attack” defense, you want to keep it to the issues correct?
I clearly stated that we shouldn’t rely on his comments and assume what went on.
would be the proper word. I believe you are confusing a discussion about character with a discussion about an event with which we know you know nothing about personally (only two or three people actually do because they were there). That’s called gossip. Unless you are a competent manager with 15+ years experience or a seasoned campaign staffer you probably shouldn’t comment on a management decision that actually seems quite rudimentary and straightforward.
The lack of experience certainly does not necessitate that a person be prohibited from commenting and forming opinions. That is the equivalent of saying have that I never held political office therefore I should not vote. You statement is actually a contradiction in and of itself, on the one hand you say we should not judge a decision which we know nothing about and on the other you call the decision rudimentary. Getting back to the issue here, it is clear to me that this is either a dishonest candidate or a hypocritical one. Saying that the state needs to retain young people and then letting a young person go because of a lack of fund raising does one of two things, it either deceives her former employee, or goes against her own stated beliefs. In either case I for will not support a candidate with such character flaws.
It means that the employee was not fulfilling the duties of his job and was therefore fired. Happens every day, and most successful job-creators know that you have to cast off the dead weight in order to get ahead. Even liberal progessives have to know this. I don’t see too many people succeeding who aren’t good managers, and a good manager makes tough decisions even if it hurts an individual. Decisiveness is, in fact, a positive character trait. If, as has been said, this person was blindsided, that’s business baby. Take the hit, learn from it, and get stronger.
<
p>
This shows me Silbert has the stones to make tough decisions that will benefit her effort. As the non-politico in the race, you could chalk this up as a plus on her end: decisive, knows how to see a goal and go after it. Campaigns are about winning. Period.
<
p>
Beleive me, if there’s dead weight on Goldberg or Murray’s campaign, they’re gone too. (Kelley doesn’t have that problem…) Goldberg and Murray are two tough cookies – look at Murray: he just laid off a ton of teachers and closed a bunch of schools. Why? For budget and enrollment reasons. Tell me that isn’t the sign of a decision maker. He knows he’s going to get hit on it if someone goes negative, but he did it anyway. And Goldberg? She had to deal with shrinking town budgets. Did she fire anyone? I dunno, but probably. If not there, then I’m sure she’s fired someone in her day.
<
p>
Here’s another thought: what if this dude was indeed fired but was fired for lying to Andrea? Or for stealing or for giving info to another campaign? What if he came in drunk? Or, what if he wasn’t pissed about being fired but someone from another campaign found out and posted the fake tale? Huh?
<
p>
Enough from me.
All I am saying is that she should of been upfront with the guy. If he was fired for doing something that you mentioned then tell him, dont make up same story about a lack of funding, because CLEARLY as you can see above, this is not true. All I want is honesty. Maybe that is too much to ask from a politician these days?
maybe she was upfront, who knows.
<
p>
Or maybe he was drunk (I like that, it’s fun to think of drunk campaign staffers. Oh to be young again….)
was the one who wrote her education/workforce issue statement! Not as much fun as beinhg drunk, but better than marching in a parade with a hnagover!
How did that go??
New members of the Blue Mass community…passionately exchanging ideas. Hey, whatever subject it takes to attract more posters!
<
p>
And this posting certainly did. DeepThroat2006 joined the community yesterday at 11:42 in the morning. S/he just shared the one post that Bulleted this diary to the top of the charts. (This is probably one of just a score of diaries that generated 30 comments.) With a rookie swing like that, I look forward your future posts. I hope they are 1/2 as provocative, but, as a Silbert supporter, a like more above the belt.
<
p>
Then thethirdway and 2C joined our group within minutes of each other (3rdway @ 2:24pm and 2C @ 2:45pm) and took opposite rhetorical positions.
<
p>
Like I said, welcome. I hope to see more of your posts on the wide variety of subjects people bring forth. It would be a shame to focus so much thought and energy over the merits and underlying symbolism of a single incident, which is admittedly a major deal for the person involved, but insignificant in terms of the election and surrounding issues.
<
p>
If for whatever reason you don’t, that will be a shame for a few reasons. One is the more the merrier. But another reason it would be a shame, is that I wouldn’t hold an iota of faith that anything you said over the last two days was true or had relevance. I’d just think you were among trolls of the internet.
To quote you, “…look at Murray: he just laid off a ton of teachers and closed a bunch of schools.”
<
p>
Where did you come up with that one? This is just simply untrue because neither has happened. I just thought that I’d point it out to you while we are dealing with issues of credibilty in this post.
<
p>
With regards to Silbert firing someone on her campaign…big deal. She needs to do what’s best for her campaign.
http://telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060216/NEWS/602160503/1116
<
p>
I’ll issue a correction restate my assertion:
<
p>
Tim Murray, chair of the Worcester School Committee, voted to approve the closing of 4 schools and the elimination of 150 jobs, some of which are teachers.
<
p>
As Mayor, I’m sure Tim would admit that the buck stops with him and he would take responsibility for this. I also beleive he’d assert that he’s working hard to revitalize Worcester to attract people there, particularly those who are moving out of Boston in search of more affordable housing.
Correct. I know what he voted for. He did so based on preliminary budget estimates from the state as to what Worcester can expect. While the school closings and teacher layoffs may happen, that is not what your post said. No school has closed and no teachers have been laid off.
while the outcome is unknown, I agree it shows Murray’s decision making skills. To me, he had a choice; hang the city, school system and teachers out to dry to make himself look good or make the tough umpopular (and IMHO the correct ) decision and take the lumps. Hopefully with all the construction going on in Worcester he has a hard hat. Plus I maintain, in my town we always seem to come up with at least some of the money at the annual town meeting .
I read the article and certainly would want to know more about the history of this. I am on the School Committee in a small town, also facing declining enrollments, tight budgets and the potential closing of one of our 2 elementary schools. And when I say potential, that is about 2-3 fiscal years out, based on number crunching of cohorts of estimated enrollments.
<
p>
My point is to what degree Worcester has been caught off guard or not? We have been looking at this for a couple of years already. I understand that a city has different degrees of issues than my small town, but planning and sharing that knowledge of what lies ahead can be done.
<
p>
The article states the closings will only save 30 positions and some unknown number of teaching positions? Certainly that is quite relevant to the parents in Worcester. As chair of the school committee, I will be quite interested in seeing Murray’s ability to manage this situation. I know I would not want to be going into a convention in my own city with upset parents and teachers.
<
p>
As far as the issue around the staffing of the Silbert campaign (full disclosure- I am a Silbert supporter), I don’t it is incongruent to be ahead of everyone in fundraising, but not where you might want to be. I don’t think anyone disputes that $$ will be a huge factor. It seems to me that Silbert has been getting by with fewer staff than Murray and Goldberg, but has still managed to be seen here anyway as one of the top 2 candidates, based on money in the bank.
<
p>
I don’t believe that was the only change made in staffing there. At some point, you need a strong staff, as a candidate for statewide office simply cannot do both.
Just so we are clear. The Mayor of Worcester VOTED the closure of schools to save jobs not cut them! “Mayor Timothy P. Murray, School Committee chairman and lieutenant governor candidate, said the process will not be easy. âClearly, financial constraints as well as population trends are forcing us to do this,â he said. âAs difficult as it is, the last thing we want to do is layoffs.â
<
p>
The closures should save at least 30 positions, but because of the $8 million gap, about 150 positions, not all of them teachers, will still be cut, Deputy Superintendent Stephen E. Mills said”
<
p>
It is obvious that The Mayor made this choice in an effort to save jobs!
My bad on the 30 jobs…. the article states clearly that it would save 30 jobs. However, that is still within the context of a significant number of lost jobs, there are still huge reductions to be made one way or another. There appears to be some discussion as to whether this is being done in a manner that least affects children in the classroom. I know this is a difficult process. I still am interested as to the history of this, how long this problem and possible solution has been around?
Under any circumstance we can all be sure of one thing… Its going to be a difficult process, this being said I think the Mayor deserves props for this one! We all understand the 8 million dollar gap needs to be filled, and I think Mr. Murray’s vote to close the schools instead of laying off an additional 30 jobs was crucial. Unfortunatly Many cuts may still be made, but its obvious to me that his intentions are to make decisions that will best satisfy the needs of his city, at he same time, save as many jobs as possible.
He’s been monitoring these posts, but for obvious reasons does not wish to get involved. After discussing things with him, he was certainly not drunk, I can assure you of that, and to even suggest such a thing and laugh about it is simply inappropriate. Nor did he leak information to another campaign. Furthermore, upon his hiring he was told by his supervisor (the Campaign/Finance manager) that she wasn’t one to sugarcoat things, and tells it like it is. Upon being let go, he was told by her that she admired his hard work and dedication but they simply didn’t have the money to keep on 4 full-time employees with benefits (he made a meager $2,000 a month and worked your typical campaign hours- well over 40 hours a week). So one way or another he was lied to, either she is one to sugarcoat things, and decided to lie to him about the reason for firing him (very unprofessional) or she lied to him about not having the money (also very unprofessional), Simply put the campaign made the decision that the extra $2,000 a month + healthcare was worth more than a person. I see a lot of people asking how this relates to the overall scope of the campaign, well here it is: Ms. Silbert and her campaign manager took on this extra employee. They knew that he was going to be uprooting himself in order to work the long hours that were required of him. Just ONE MONTH later Silbert decided that they no longer had the funds/these funds could be better allocated elsewhere. Does that sound like responsible leadership to you? Mayor Murray said “As difficult as it is, the last thing we want to do is layoffs.”, but when you do lay somebody off, the least you can do is be honest with them. We’re Democrats, I thought we we’re supposed to care about people…”
<
p>
He’s been monitoring these posts, but for obvious reasons does not wish to get involved. After discussing things with him, he was certainly not drunk, I can assure you of that, and to even suggest such a thing and laugh about it is simply inappropriate. Nor did he leak information to another campaign. Furthermore, upon his hiring he was told by his supervisor (the Campaign/Finance manager) that she wasn’t one to sugarcoat things, and tells it like it is. Upon being let go, he was told by her that she admired his hard work and dedication but they simply didn’t have the money to keep on 4 full-time employees with benefits (he made a meager $2,000 a month and worked your typical campaign hours- well over 40 hours a week). So one way or another he was lied to, either she is one to sugarcoat things, and decided to lie to him about the reason for firing him (very unprofessional) or she lied to him about not having the money (also very unprofessional), Simply put the campaign made the decision that the extra $2,000 a month + healthcare was worth more than a person. I see a lot of people asking how this relates to the overall scope of the campaign, well here it is: Ms. Silbert and her campaign manager took on this extra employee. They knew that he was going to be uprooting himself in order to work the long hours that were required of him. Just ONE MONTH later Silbert decided that they no longer had the funds/these funds could be better allocated elsewhere. Does that sound like responsible leadership to you? Mayor Murray said “As difficult as it is, the last thing we want to do is layoffs.”, but when you do lay somebody off, the least you can do is be honest with them. We’re Democrats, I thought we we’re supposed to care about people…”
<
p>
Thank you for the Welcome Frank, I look forward to posting on other pertinent issues!
Welcome to the real world.
<
p>
Lesson #1: Unless you work for yourself, your employer is your enemy and is under no obligation to you personally.
<
p>
Does this sound like responsible leadership to me? Frankly, it sounds like every business I’ve ever been involved with or heard about. Hell, when the tech bubble was bursting I knew people plenty of people who were laid off a few short weeks after being hired.
your friend is a stand up guy. Although I sincerely sympathize with him and his siutuation this unfortunately is what happens…… sometimes, although I could not disagree more with SCO’s position. This does happen and it happens alot. Being a small busines person myself I take a vested interest in my employees. I have washed floors and toilets to save money in order to not layoff people. I skimp when I have to and often times gave my employees the raises they deserved at my own personal expense. So it may happen, it may happen often, it may happen most of the time but it most certainly does not happen all the time. Not all employers are enemies.
<
p>
For your friends benefit you/he may want this to be completely out in the open. Someone may identify him once her next campaign finance report is out.
Who are you? I only ask because I think we know the same person…
<
p>
Anyway I couldnt agree with you more leftisright. This kind of thing certainly does happen, but it should of been done with a little more dignity then they way silbert handled it. “employers are the enemy” I’m sorry but making a blanket statement like that is rediculous
This is not intended as personal criticism, but I hope you find this helpful to your future contributions to BMG.