7 Environmental officials leave...Daniels is an ass.

[smurfygirl]

7 environmental officials leave in Daniels' shake-up
By Tammy Webber
[e-mail]
January 12, 2005


Six top Indiana Department of Environmental Management administrators resigned and one was fired this week in a shake-up by Gov. Mitch Daniels, who has criticized the agency for impeding economic development.
Daniels addressed agency employees Tuesday afternoon, making it clear that his -- and their -- top priority should be to help businesses create new jobs in Indiana.
"Nowhere can a bigger difference be made more swiftly than by the people in this room," said Daniels, who has criticized the agency as being too slow and inconsistent in issuing permits to industries that pollute.

He said environmental protection and public health are important, but "a poor Indiana will not be a green Indiana."
Among those who left were longtime water division chief Tim Method, who for the past eight years had overseen most agency programs as deputy commissioner for environmental results, and Janet McCabe, deputy commissioner in the Office of Air Quality.
Both were well-regarded by many in the environmental and business communities for their technical expertise and institutional knowledge.

Others who left were Deputy Commissioners Felicia Robinson, legal affairs; Susan Murphy Moster, environmental operations; Cheryl Reed, public policy and planning; and Jim Mahern, pollution prevention and technical assistance; and ombudsman Greg Ellis.
All were given an opportunity Monday to resign in good standing; all did, except Mahern, who was dismissed Tuesday, said Amy Hartsock, spokeswoman for the environmental agency.

Bruce Palin, deputy assistant commissioner of the Office of Land Quality, was asked to stay.
Tom Easterly, appointed by Daniels to run the environmental agency, would say only that the administration had to "decide on a point of change."
Although changes were expected, some were surprised they came so quickly.
"I understand a new administration needs its own people, but I'm surprised there wasn't a better transition period," said Tom Neltner, who runs the environmental advocacy group Improving Kids' Environment.

Neltner said Method, especially, had historical knowledge that might have helped with a smooth transition. He said he hoped the agency now would move quickly to fill the vacancies with technically qualified people.
Indiana Manufacturers Association Environmental Affairs Director Patrick Bennett said change is difficult, "but in this case, change will be good."

Call Star reporter Tammy Webber at [phone].

[Gloria]

1. How is Gary, IN doing? About 20 years ago I passed through on

the way to Chicago and nearly passed out.

[Plaid Adder]

5. It's still pretty bad. Though Hammond smells worse, IMHO,

from the toll road, anyway.

The joke is that northwest Indiana is already so polluted it's hard to imagine how much worse it could get under Mitch. And yet, somehow, as polluted as we are, we are also not rich. Gutting environmental protections is not gonna bring steel back, I'm afraid.

Ah well. Life under the Prince of Darkness, Week #1...

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[izzybeans]

2. Is there any recourse

for fired employes of enivornmental management for being fired or pushed out for something not in their job description?

[hippiechick]

3. Ha, In Indiana they can fire you cause they don't like your socks.

No lie.


:hippie:

[izzybeans]

4. I could understand a commerce sec. or something

but an environmental job?

Somehow the sock thing doesn't surprise me.

[Plaid Adder]

6. Well, as we know, state employees are no longer represented

by a union with collective bargaining rights, so that's out.

Unless you're in a union or you have signed an individual contract with your employer, you are on what they call the employment-at-will plan. That means you're employed at your employer's will, not yours. When you're employed at will, you can be fired without cause, and it's all legal and above board--unless you can prove that your employer violated, say, the civil rights act by firing you.

This, incidentally, is one of the reasons we need ENDA--to make it illegal to fire employees just because they're gay. Currently, it is completely legal in most states to fire an employee for no other reason than the fact that he's gay. Or for the fact that he wears a funny hat. Legally, both causes are equally valid reasons to fire people who are employed at will. You can walk right up to an employee and say, "I don't want any gay employees, so I'm firing you," and that employee just has to pack up and go and cannot sue you at all.

Most people you talk to don't realize this because they also don't really understand what employment at will really means. But unless you are under contract, either through your union or just between you and your employer, you can be fired at any time and for any reason and with no legal recourse.

C ya,

THe Plaid Adder

[izzybeans]

7. Thanks!

[BiggJawn]

9. Indfiana has "Employment At Will"

Which means "Fired on a WHIM"

[thinkingwoman]

10. right. sure.

I can just fire anyone on a whim. That's why I have to keep meticulous records and prove the firing is justified to keep a fired employee from collecting unemployment from my account.

[BiggJawn]

12. I stand by my statement.

I'm not talking about defending an unemployment insurance claim, I'm talking about calling someone into your office and saying "You know what? I'm tired of you, and it just ain't working out. You're Fired...Heh-heh...How'd you like my "Donald" impression?".

You know damn good and well (or you should) that Indiana labour law is tilted heavily in favour of the Employer.

Ever have somebody you've fired "win"? With the "meticulous records" you keep, I'd be surprised.

[thinkingwoman]

13. my my, such hostility

when you don't even know me.

I'm a great employer and yet I vote Democrat. Go figure.

Anyway...to respond to your post. Yes I've had people I've fired win. In fact every single one of them has won except the last one...the one I finally kept meticulous records for.

I fired people who stole money off of me and they still collected unemployment for more than 6 months. Why? Because my record keeping was lacking and I couldn't prove that I had made rules and consequences clear before the firing.

Do I believe that Indiana labor laws are tilted in favor of the employer? Yes, I do. Does that mean I can fire anyone for anything with no repurcussions? No, it does not.

[BiggJawn]

14. Have you had to re-instate anyone you've fired?

Have you lost a case for firing somebody unjustly?

I wasn't talking about what happens AFTER you fire the slobs, I was talking about the act of firing.

"I'm a great employer and yet I vote Democrat. Go figure."

And what exactly is THAT supposed to mean?

I'm decent employee, and I vote Democratic. What does any of THAT have to with a discussion of Indiana's anti-worker labour
laws?

"I fired people who stole money off of me"

Maybe your interviewing/vetting process needs some tweeks?

[thinkingwoman]

15. why should I?

Why should any employer have to keep someone working for that they don't want to employ?

And in all honesty, why would anyone want to work for someone who doesn't want them there or would fire them for the color of their socks?

These are the questions I always come back to with this topic. That's really all at-will employment comes down to.

I'll tell you what the good employer vote Democrat quip meant. It means I am tired of people on DU acting like employers who want to have the right to fire employees who don't fit with their company are bad people. Nothing less, nothing more.

As for your last jab...I didn't interview or vet the people who stole from me. I inherited them with the business. And I got rid of them to save the company from bankruptcy.

No interviewing/vetting process is fool proof. Hiring mistakes get made, often because people are fairly good at pretending to be someone they're not for a short period of time. But there is no earthly reason why such people should be entitled to a job when they don't do their work and cause problems with good employees.

Have you ever been an employer? Have you ever worked with someone who sabatoges your work and causes havoc throughout the company but doesn't get fired?

[BiggJawn]

16. Why Indeed?

Oh, I agree...Why have any women working for you? they're moody and don't pull their weight every 28 days, THEN, if they have the audacity to get knocked up, WELL!...Preacher says Homos are an "abomination", Guess I need to fire that guy in Production I "inherited"...And those Blacks in the warehouse, why do they stop talking when I walk by? See where your statement of "Why should any employer have to keep someone working for that they don't want to employ?" can lead to?
I'm not saying YOU have thoughts like this, you understand.

Even WITH worker protection laws, you can ALWAYS fire someone for "cause". Nobody, not even me, is saying you have to keep someone who's stealing from you or causing lost production.

I don't understand why you feel threatened by a concept of being prohibited for firing somebody for bullshit reasons. Frankly, it raises a red flag with me. and therein lies the root of what you see as "hostility" towards you.

"...why would anyone want to work for someone who doesn't want them there or would fire them for the color of their socks?"

Uh, maybe because they need to money to keep alive, and haven't been able to find a better situation yet? Been There, Done That.

"Have you ever been an employer?"

No, thank Random Chance. I mark that up to having at least a LITTLE wisdom to understand my own limitations.

"Have you ever worked with someone who sabatoges your work and causes havoc throughout the company but doesn't get fired?"

Oh, HELL yes, Who HASN'T had to work with somenbody like that?
You know what? Last time I saw it happening, we figured the guy who needed to go had embarassing photos of the boss.

Look, I see we are never going to agree on this. You're Capital, I'm Labour. And from our short exchange here, I get the sense that I probably wouldn't want to work for you.

That's Life.

[thinkingwoman]

17. you've done a good job

at painting me with the brush you brought to the party. From our short exchange you have decided things about me not in evidence from my posts.

I agree that we are going to disagree. But for lurkers and other readers I feel it is important to point out some problems with your last post.

1. "Why have any women working for you? they're moody and don't pull their weight every 28 days, THEN, if they have the audacity to get knocked up, WELL!...Preacher says Homos are an "abomination", Guess I need to fire that guy in Production I "inherited"...And those Blacks in the warehouse, why do they stop talking when I walk by? See where your statement of "Why should any employer have to keep someone working for that they don't want to employ?" can lead to?"

There are federal laws which prohibit firing people because they are female, pregnant, black, parents, of a different religion, too old, too young, too middle aged, etc. Those absolutely apply in at-will states. God and Goddess willing, such laws will someday apply to homosexuals as well.

The fact that such laws exist makes your final statement in that paragraph unwarranted and nonsensical.

2. "Even WITH worker protection laws, you can ALWAYS fire someone for "cause". Nobody, not even me, is saying you have to keep someone who's stealing from you or causing lost production."

Yes, you can fire them, but even in an at-will state they can sue and you can pay unemployment that you should not have to. That's a fact in real life business.

Further, in the case of the stealing...I knew this to be true, but could not prove it until 2 years AFTER the employee was dismissed. It took that long to find the ex-employees (who had moved on before I took over the company) that were eyewitnesses to the crime. By then, we'd already had the fired employee draw unemployment for 6 months (thus raising my rate) and bad mouth me all over town for, get this, wrongful dismissal. If she could have afforded to sue, she would have, and I would have had to defend myself for nothing.

3. Re: your remark that you would keep working someplace where you weren't wanted to pay the bills...

Yep, been there done that too, which is why I am not that kind of boss, regardless of the opinion formed by somebody who doesn't know me and read three posts of mine.

However, I only did that once, and learned from that experience that there are always other jobs. Always. They may not pay as well. They may be undesirable. But they are there. I've worked them too.

4. "You're Capital, I'm Labour. And from our short exchange here, I get the sense that I probably wouldn't want to work for you."

I'm not sure what it means to be capital, but whatever. As for you working for me...that would never happen. Since I own and publish one of the few newspapers in the country that insists on high journalism standards, I could not hire you. From our short exchange here you strike me as someone who forms an opinion or judgement first, and gathers evidence later. That's not allowed in my company.

[BiggJawn]

18. OK.

"I'm not sure what it means to be capital, but whatever. As for you working for me...that would never happen. Since I own and publish one of the few newspapers in the country that insists on high journalism standards, I could not hire you. From our short exchange here you strike me as someone who forms an opinion or judgement first, and gathers evidence later. That's not allowed in my company."

Since I'm not trying to palm myself off as a Journalist, I agree with you. I'm a Mechanic, not a Wordsmith, but an opinionated and cynical Mechanic just the same.

Good luck with your paper, and good luck with your employees. May they never sue you, even though the deck is stacked in your favour...

[HoosierClarkie]

8. "a poor Indiana will not be a green Indiana."

I just can't believe he said that! Well Mitch, I would rather be poor than have my children die of health problems related to a polluted Indiana! WTF!

[thinkingwoman]

11. It is important to remember

that there are always mass firings, layoffs, "retirements" and resignations whenever there is a party switch at the statehouse/governor's mansion.

This is not a defense of Daniels. It is just a statement of fact. Nobody in politically affected jobs at the state level should have been expecting to keep their job with a party switch. That's not real life.