Mayor McDermott No Longer On WJOB?

sparks wrote:

the oracle wrote:

not sure if this adds to the discussion or not, the credit for living in hammond issue, im told was also a matter for city teamster workers in our last contract negotiation in approx 2007. something like a one time 1500 dollar bonus for employees that owned a residence in the city. the teamster employees voted it down narrowly, and instead asked for a bigger raise. they didnt get it (but got a few other concesssions instead such as a quarterly on time and perfect attendance bonus). and when they went back to asking for the hometown bonus again they found it off the table.

I believe it is always good policy to have the employees of a city live in that city.The Mayor made a smart move when he required the department heads live in Hammond. Employees who live in the city have a greater stake in what happens to the city.

But when the State says that they do not have to, they do not have to

If you want the police and fire fighters to live in the city, petition the state to change the law

Incidentally, let me know how many firefighters and police officers that support you on that as well

This all brings up the age old question of whether city workers should even have a union. As we saw from Gov. Daniels unionization is no longer the sacred cow it once was.

How is that lawsuit proceeding? Have not heard much about it lately

The Firefighters Union President Ed Lomeli said that if you asked the fireman why they moved out the number one reason would be the school system. I dont blame them yet virtually nothing is being done to improve the school system. In fact they extended Dr. Watkins contract...unbelievable! Unfortunately the number one issue for people leaving this city is not being addressed in any significant manner

sparks wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

A union is supposed to represent all its constituents equally regardless of where they live. Seems like that's what the BA was doing.

I think that it is the duty of the business agent is to negotiate the best contract possible. How is it in the best interests of the members to turn down a residency bonus? One third of the Hammond firefighter lost almost $5,000
because of his decision.

But the contract that is in place treats all equally. It does not give an advantage to the minority who happen to live in Hammond. The contract is the best possible for ALL, not the best possible for one third.

Robin Banks wrote:

sparks wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

A union is supposed to represent all its constituents equally regardless of where they live. Seems like that's what the BA was doing.

I think that it is the duty of the business agent is to negotiate the best contract possible. How is it in the best interests of the members to turn down a residency bonus? One third of the Hammond firefighter lost almost $5,000
because of his decision.

But the contract that is in place treats all equally. It does not give an advantage to the minority who happen to live in Hammond. The contract is the best possible for ALL, not the best possible for one third.

If that is the case, then why did O'Malley file an arbitrator case and attempt to force the city to pay back pay for 4 years of bonuses for the firefighters who do live in Hammond?

sparks wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

sparks wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

A union is supposed to represent all its constituents equally regardless of where they live. Seems like that's what the BA was doing.

I think that it is the duty of the business agent is to negotiate the best contract possible. How is it in the best interests of the members to turn down a residency bonus? One third of the Hammond firefighter lost almost $5,000
because of his decision.

But the contract that is in place treats all equally. It does not give an advantage to the minority who happen to live in Hammond. The contract is the best possible for ALL, not the best possible for one third.

If that is the case, then why did O'Malley file an arbitrator case and attempt to force the city to pay back pay for 4 years of bonuses for the firefighters who do live in Hammond?

And did he win? NOPE

mike3775 wrote:

sparks wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

sparks wrote:

Robin Banks wrote:

A union is supposed to represent all its constituents equally regardless of where they live. Seems like that's what the BA was doing.

I think that it is the duty of the business agent is to negotiate the best contract possible. How is it in the best interests of the members to turn down a residency bonus? One third of the Hammond firefighter lost almost $5,000
because of his decision.

But the contract that is in place treats all equally. It does not give an advantage to the minority who happen to live in Hammond. The contract is the best possible for ALL, not the best possible for one third.

If that is the case, then why did O'Malley file an arbitrator case and attempt to force the city to pay back pay for 4 years of bonuses for the firefighters who do live in Hammond?

And did he win? NOPE

No, but I was trying to point out that Robin's logic was faulty. If the goal is to make sure some members don't receive bonuses,why file the arbitration case?

Filing an arbitrator case and negotiating a contract are two entirely different things; a point made clear by Mike's post.

voter3 wrote:

The Firefighters Union President Ed Lomeli said that if you asked the fireman why they moved out the number one reason would be the school system. I dont blame them yet virtually nothing is being done to improve the school system. In fact they extended Dr. Watkins contract...unbelievable! Unfortunately the number one issue for people leaving this city is not being addressed in any significant manner

Actually, that issue is being addressed. Everytime you or one of your coworkers cites an illegal cut-up and forces the landlord to bring the property up to code, you are helping the city move forward. In fact, when you look at what the Mayor has done so far,many of his efforts have made Hammond a better place to live. New investment has been attracted, jobs have been created and new housing built. College bound is another program capable of drawing in families who are more involved in their children's education. Hammond's schools are only as good as the students who enroll there. As you work to rid the city of bighted housing stock, you are ridding the school city of disruptive students who drag the other students down.

At the present time I don't think you can fairly claim CB has "drawn" anybody to Hammond. At best it's either an incentive to stay or a nice bonus to residents. One of it's goals is indeed to draw new residents but I feel that it has fallen way short in that regard.

As for the so-called new jobs, aside from the BP project (that may actually be in jeopardy due to Presidential policy) aren't we really just seeing low end min wage positions? So basically we are attracting the types of jobs that draw the lower income folks our way and not the people hoped for by the CB program.

Building for building's sake really only benefits the building trades. So I guess if that's your real measure of success this administration has been good for you. But considering how tied to retail much of that growth has been it is questionable just how beneficial that growth is long term short of a dramatic turnaround in the economy.

Mirage wrote:

At the present time I don't think you can fairly claim CB has "drawn" anybody to Hammond. At best it's either an incentive to stay or a nice bonus to residents. One of it's goals is indeed to draw new residents but I feel that it has fallen way short in that regard.

here is what I said.College bound is another program capable of drawing in families who are more involved in their children's education.The Mayor has created a program that is capable of improving Hammond. I made no claims as to it's success so far.

Mirage wrote:

As for the so-called new jobs, aside from the BP project (that may actually be in jeopardy due to Presidential policy) aren't we really just seeing low end min wage positions? So basically we are attracting the types of jobs that draw the lower income folks our way and not the people hoped for by the CB program.

You are overlooking the fact that the businesses that have located in Hammond have also created good jobs. Cabela's,Home Depot,The Horseshoe all have management people who earn six figure salaries. Those businesses have also added to the tax base, creating more tax revenue for government.

Mirage wrote:

Building for building's sake really only benefits the building trades. So I guess if that's your real measure of success this administration has been good for you. But considering how tied to retail much of that growth has been it is questionable just how beneficial that growth is long term short of a dramatic turnaround in the economy.

No one builds for "building's" sake in private industry. Businesses invest in areas because they believe that they can make money there. The store Wal Mart build in Woodmar has been very successful which is why they are building another one in Robertsdale. The fact that companies are willing to invest millions of dollars in Hammond in an economic downturn is a very good sign for it's future.

Cabela's,Home Depot,The Horseshoe

I was expecting someone to bring that up! Let's look at those. Cabela's - layoffs and sagging sales. Home Depot? In a similar boat due to the housing crisis. Horseshoe? How long can it be before the sagging economy begins to jeopardize that revenue stream? But I wouldn't consider any of these "good jobs." Just a bit above minimum wage jobs that many claim is only intended to be a training wage anyway.

And while for some time I have been saying that some people's lot in life may never much rise above low end jobs and they deserve at least minimal benefits at the same time you are really just proving my point that these jobs ain't all that great to be boasting about.

All said and done Hammond may have many faces but it really has no unique identity anymore. While it has been attracting some service and retail jobs there really is no tourist industry to speak of and the manufacturing base seems to be losing ground. The types of changes I see going on and being proposed seem more suited to a hospitality economy, which we ain't.

Mirage wrote:

Cabela's,Home Depot,The Horseshoe

I was expecting someone to bring that up! Let's look at those. Cabela's - layoffs and sagging sales. Home Depot? In a similar boat due to the housing crisis. Horseshoe? How long can it be before the sagging economy begins to jeopardize that revenue stream? But I wouldn't consider any of these "good jobs." Just a bit above minimum wage jobs that many claim is only intended to be a training wage anyway.

And while for some time I have been saying that some people's lot in life may never much rise above low end jobs and they deserve at least minimal benefits at the same time you are really just proving my point that these jobs ain't all that great to be boasting about.

All said and done Hammond may have many faces but it really has no unique identity anymore. While it has been attracting some service and retail jobs there really is no tourist industry to speak of and the manufacturing base seems to be losing ground. The types of changes I see going on and being proposed seem more suited to a hospitality economy, which we ain't.

OK, since it seems that you feel that attracting those businesses has very little benefit for Hammond because the majority of those jobs don't pay enough, what would you do differently now to improve the city?

Sparks, why should I change my primary address from Porter County to Hammond, and pull my son from a private school and place him in Hammond schools?

Last time I checked, Hammond Schools SUCK. Yeah those ISTEP results really make me want to put my son into the Hammond School System.

Sorry, but until the Hammond School System becomes way better than it is, no way will anyone move to the city for College Bound. Only the people already living in the city will use it.

mike3775 wrote:

Sparks, why should I change my primary address from Porter County to Hammond, and pull my son from a private school and place him in Hammond schools?

Last time I checked, Hammond Schools SUCK. Yeah those ISTEP results really make me want to put my son into the Hammond School System.

Sorry, but until the Hammond School System becomes way better than it is, no way will anyone move to the city for College Bound. Only the people already living in the city will use it.

I thought your son lived in California with his grandparents? I believe that having the college bound program in place is a selling point for people looking to purchase a home. People have been buying homes in Hammond, over 500 changed hands in 2008. Just because you wouldn't live here doesn't mean that everyone else in the world feels the same way or is in the same economic situation. I have met several new homeowners who said the college bound program influenced them to purchase a home here. Ambition,intelligence and hard work play a bigger factor in future success than the ISTEP scores of the school students attend.

sparks wrote:

mike3775 wrote:

Sparks, why should I change my primary address from Porter County to Hammond, and pull my son from a private school and place him in Hammond schools?

Last time I checked, Hammond Schools SUCK. Yeah those ISTEP results really make me want to put my son into the Hammond School System.

Sorry, but until the Hammond School System becomes way better than it is, no way will anyone move to the city for College Bound. Only the people already living in the city will use it.

I thought your son lived in California with his grandparents? I believe that having the college bound program in place is a selling point for people looking to purchase a home. People have been buying homes in Hammond, over 500 changed hands in 2008. Just because you wouldn't live here doesn't mean that everyone else in the world feels the same way or is in the same economic situation. I have met several new homeowners who said the college bound program influenced them to purchase a home here. Ambition,intelligence and hard work play a bigger factor in future success than the ISTEP scores of the school students attend.

He was visiting and came back home prior to Christmas.

500 new home buyers just for College Bound? Where did those stats come from? Show me the proof that 500 houses were sold due to College Bound. and how many of those 500 homes were sold via Home bound?

you are splitting hairs Mikey. he never said they all bought because of CB in fact he said several.

Mike, there are also private schools in Hammond, and those students are also available for College Bound. No one said that your child would have to attend a public school, especially since he is already enrolled in a private school.

Im glad the mayor is back on WJOB. His show is informative.

ok this thread is going all over the place. but as for you guys who have been discussing jobs brought to hammond...off of the top of my head besides the retail....in the past two years...

there is a new nursing college downtown.

the new ice distributorship

the expansion at fed ex.

the mexican food producer that relocated here.

a new tire recyclying company.

expansion at jupiter alluminum (mostly before the fire) and reconstruction after the fire.

theres more, but as i said, thats just off the top of my head.

sparks wrote:

Mirage wrote:

Cabela's,Home Depot,The Horseshoe

I was expecting someone to bring that up! Let's look at those. Cabela's - layoffs and sagging sales. Home Depot? In a similar boat due to the housing crisis. Horseshoe? How long can it be before the sagging economy begins to jeopardize that revenue stream? But I wouldn't consider any of these "good jobs." Just a bit above minimum wage jobs that many claim is only intended to be a training wage anyway.

And while for some time I have been saying that some people's lot in life may never much rise above low end jobs and they deserve at least minimal benefits at the same time you are really just proving my point that these jobs ain't all that great to be boasting about.

All said and done Hammond may have many faces but it really has no unique identity anymore. While it has been attracting some service and retail jobs there really is no tourist industry to speak of and the manufacturing base seems to be losing ground. The types of changes I see going on and being proposed seem more suited to a hospitality economy, which we ain't.

OK, since it seems that you feel that attracting those businesses has very little benefit for Hammond because the majority of those jobs don't pay enough, what would you do differently now to improve the city?

To answer that you must first address the question of how you want Hammond to be defined. And really that answer needs to be viewed regionally, but until you know what Hammond aspires to be you can't really address the question properly. We seem to be gravitating towards a hospitality aimed economy but possess neither the attractions necessary or even the resources necessary to pull it off without merging with other towns, such as say Whiting to make more full use of the lake shore.

I waited patiently as some used to say just wait for that incubator thing to take off and essentially business will define us. But that development has been very sluggish, at best. Are we comfortable just being a bedroom community with a few big tax contributors like BP and the malls? Or do we want for example to attract high tech and research firms?

Setting all other factors aside I think the biggest problem is that we don't know who we are or who we want to be and that while there may be some less well talked about master planning ongoing that mostly only insiders know anything about the average Joe only knows what's happening in respect to change after the proposals are sitting the the city council's agenda for passage, just like the red light camera thing popping up out of nowhere or the downtown clock tower/ ice rink proposal. Love it or hate it at least the SoL thing was proposed early in the process as the offer came available, had healthy discussion, but was later rejected for technical considerations.

I can't really disagree with your assessment Mark, although for the life of me I can't recall Dowling at all.

The only thing I would add is that of course Hammond cannot really be an island like arguably Whiting has been. But then Whiting never really aspired to be much more than a bedroom community with great beach access with BP paying half their way all said & done. And I would argue that because of it's isolationism as people became more mobile less people shopped the stores on 119th and took their business to places like River Oaks rather than walking downtown to trade.

Now I will grant that Hammond now rebuilding it's retail base and at least adding to it's property tax base is not a bad thing, but again Hammond has always aspired to be more than just a bedroom community.

Speaking of the mayor on WJOB he was on impromptu this morning to voice concern over the Gov wanting to take over board appointments and underfunding needed projects. Needless to say he was not pleased. Both McDermott and the Gov will be on separately Friday, but I have a feeling the mayor may have a question or two for the Gov himself. Should be worth tuning in!

FFScott wrote:

Im glad the mayor is back on WJOB. His show is informative.

Need a tissue Scottie?