1. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 11:00 am:

   When will we start seeing pity money given to everyone who applied for a job, but didn’t get it?




2. - Kevin Fanning - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 11:02 am:

   These are people who lost their jobs, not denied.




3. - Levois - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 11:12 am:

   This payout should be seen as a penalty for political based hiring. It’s expensive as we see with this settlement. When are people going to be fed up about it?




4. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 11:13 am:

   –To qualify for cash, claimants had to prove they were bypassed for jobs and promotions since Jan. 1, 2000.–

   I don’t read that as people losing their jobs.

   I don’t think you’ll see pity money, VM. But if you can document that the rules were violated, you’ll probably see something. Between Shakman and the Sorich case, it’s clear the wheels have been greased from time to time.




5. - Correction - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 11:22 am:

   Kevin,

   You’re not right. It’s for people who did not get jobs or promotions because of a rigged system, not just people who were fired.




6. - Kevin Fanning - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 11:27 am:

   Yep you’re right. I re-read the article. Thanks for calling me on it.




7. - Snidely Whiplash - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 11:40 am:

   Uhm, just why is everyone happy with a solution that puts the penalty on Chicago taxpayers?

   I think the fairer solution would be a court order dismissing or demoting, as applicable, those who got their jobs or promotions based on the illegal rigging, and replacing them with those passed over.

   I realize that it will never happen, and I’m happy to see some recognition and redress for those who were illegally and unfairly passed over, but I don’t see how this will act to deter this kind of job rigging in the future.




8. - Cassandra - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 11:59 am:

   Unfortunately, there is not enough money involved to influence the voting behavior of Chicagoans, who have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness
   to pour more and more money into the corrupt, patronage-ridden city jobs system. Chicagoans
   just love tax increases, as we have seen again recently.

   The city will consider this just part of the cost of doing business and continue hiring thousands of somebodies that somebody sent. Shakman, schmakman.




9. - Ghost - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 1:42 pm:

   The problem, imagine 1 position is posted and 10 people apply for it. Only one of those ten could get the job. It is filled improperly so now nine people get to claim the were passed over! what about a showing that but for the improper action, you would have recieved the job/promotion! It seems like we have 1,500 claims because every applicant is seeking money, regardless of whether they were themselves the most qualified. It is more a pity handout then redressing a wrong on this scale.




10. - Independent - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 4:45 pm:

    I’m sure Daley and his PR staff believe this is the work of an overly restrictive Shakman decree and an overly aggressive hiring monitor. However it was Daley’s greed and mismanagement of the hiring process that caused this $12 million burden on the taxpayers.

    If a viable mayoral candidate wishes to dethrone Daley he will first have to debunk the myth that Daley is a top-notch manager and wise steward of taxpayer dollars. They can do this by chronicling waste from hiring, Hired Truck, unchecked use of TIFs, sweetheart deals to friends and family, etc. There are a lot of puzzle pieces out there, and the candidate who can assemble those to put a hard dollar amount on what Daley’s waste and corruption has cost taxpayers would have a real chance of winning.




11. - wordslinger - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 5:08 pm:

    Independent, I’d be curious to see a list of truly “viable” candidates against Mayor Daley. And I think the last Chicago mayor to win on a true anti-corruption platform was William Dever in 1923. Big Bill Thompson returned to crush him in 1927.

    Chicago ain’t ready for reform




12. - Independent - Wednesday, Mar 26, 08 @ 5:54 pm:

    That’s the big problem, of course. Who out there would be electable, capable of making those arguments against Daley, and brave enough to risk the consequences of running a vigorous campaign against Daley if he loses? Whoever it is should start now by assembling a coalition of blacks, independent whites, and Hispanics disgusted by the corruption of the HDO.

    Claypool has a strong anti-Cook waste message, but he would probably be hesitant to translate that to Chicago to attack his old boss. His opposition to both Strogers would scare black votes away, too. Perhaps one of the more independent-minded freshman alderman will emerge.

TrackBack URI

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.