Okay. They unions are regional. That explains why they live all over the region.
My point (at least the point I was trying to make) is that we dont need to reserve these projects, protect these jobs for people who do not live in the city. The city is not in the business of protecting people who live in bucks, or chester, or NJ.
As far as the city needing the tax money, of course, the tax money will be available either way, since the jobs will still be worked if they are not reserved for union people.
Nothing against unions (Im sure I will be roundly attacked for it anyway). They provide a livable wage and benefits which people would not be offered otherwise.
My point is that the city's elected officials do not need to protect and reserve jobs for a group of people who live primarily outside the city's boundaries. And that they only do so in order to protect thier own jobs.
But if you can show me that the 30% who live in the city make up the bulk of the workers on jobs in the city. I will stop this thread right now.
Just show me where something says that the majority of the union jobs in the city are worked by that 30%. That will alleviate all my problems with this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KENfmt
I don't get the constant harping of "70% of them don't even live in the city". The "them" to which you're referring are the members of the unions, which are REGIONAL councils. Of course most of their members live outside the city, most of the territory they cover is outside the city.
And one of the problems Philly faces is not having enough jobs in the city itself. Having people who live outside teh city come here to work, and pay our taxes, is a good thing.
Plus that 30% who DO live in the city make up the majority of the union work force working in the city. Most of that 70% who live outside the city work at jobs outside the city.
Leaving the racial issue aside, I really don't understand that complaint.
|