Comments on: Oak Ridge: Business Uber Alles

By: Netmom

Netmom — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 23:46:02 +0000

Funny, but someone mentioned to me just yesterday that they’ve submitted a letter to the editor making the very same point. It should show up within a few days.

I’m not opposed to ever investing in economic development, so long as it’s targeted and there’s both a good reason and a pretty firm return on the investment. I know that there was talk at one point about tying incentives to companies with a commitment for employees to LIVE in Oak Ridge… but I honestly don’t know whether it was built into the evaluation matrix.

Glad that Beehan stood up to it.

By: The Bosphorus

The Bosphorus — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 01:55:57 +0000

Yes, I’m glad as well to hear that Beehan opposed it. He also put forward the bill to hold landlords accountable for what their tenants do.

By: Atomictumor

Atomictumor — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 09:32:06 +0000

I don’t see how a company can reasonably expect its employees to live in O.R. tho.

By: The Bosphorus

The Bosphorus — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 14:54:34 +0000

I think it’s a reasonable expectation that your employees live in the community where they work. How this is accomplished is less obvious to me, though. I wonder how such commitments would be made. I certainly would like to work closer to home.
It seems to me that a problem O.R. has is attracting not only industry to the area, but a work force that lives here. I’d also like to see O.R. bring in more industry that utilizes the workforce already here and in the surrounding vicinity. One of the things I noticed about the area of North Carolina we were in was all the furniture facturies. Now, over the past ten years East Tenn has hemoraged similar blue collar jobs. Are there initives that O.R. can put to work that would go against that trend? I don’t know. Perhaps this job loss is an irreversable trend of “globalization”.

By: Joel

Joel — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 15:36:03 +0000

NC has been known for furniture manufacturing for at least 50 years. North Carolina is to furniture what Idaho is to potatoes. OTOH, Detroit used to be the same thing for cars, and that all changed. Wonder if it has something to do with the more *casual* approach to unionization in NC.

By: Atomictumor

Atomictumor — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 19:05:06 +0000

Dude, it all has to do with the mighty American transisition from a manufacturing based economy to a service based economy. My IT monkey job is service. Bos’s dead wood job is service. I’d argue that Joel’s job is a service in a broad sense of the word, but I bet he’d disagree with me.
Who else, Eave’s job is service. GAC’s.. doesn’t count. Shes a student, and as such below all of the rest of us.
I don’t know what NM does, but I’ll bet a pint that its a service.
Blue collar jobs are going to lower priced workers, either overseas, or under the table here.

Bos, I think that an employee has, if not a moral duty, than a civic duty to live as close to work. I enjoy the fact that I’m 2.5 miles from work (yes, I could bike there, and yes, I’m lazy. Take that, civic duty!), and I think that people who commute an hour really shouldn’t. Problem is, in the real world, as opposed to the ideal world, we’re expected to have cars and drive them as necessary. That being said, a company really doesn’t have a voice to demand or expect workers to live in a town, it’d be as ignorant to penalize them for not living in town as it is to fire them for smoking or being gay.

By: The Bosphorus

The Bosphorus — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 21:30:43 +0000

AT, I’d say you could make a moral argument for living nearby your workplace. I also don’t think it’s such a pie in sky ideal. And yes it would be “ignorant” to penalize employees. That’s why you wouldn’t penalize them. I’m sure certain incentives could be found to make local living arangements attractive to employees. City council has a lot of influence here.

By: Joel

Joel — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:38:01 +0000

“Iâ€™d argue that Joelâ€™s job is a service in a broad sense of the word, but I bet heâ€™d disagree with me.”

Well, if the choices are “service” or “manufacturing,” then yes, mine is in the service sector.

By: Netmom

Netmom — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 02:06:16 +0000

You’re correct about the nature of my occupation, AT. I also enjoy living very close to my office… halfway between my bedroom and the kitchen. The people I work for, on the other hand, may be a few miles down the road, or hundreds of miles up the interstate.

I don’t know that any company should require employees to live in the same community (with certain exceptions, like City or School system department heads, principals, etc.), but I really do believe that companies can do a lot to encourage it… and usually don’t.

One glaring example is that the two biggest contractors, BWXT and UT-Battelle, have existing arrangements with national relocation companies with offices in Knoxville. Those relo companies utilize Knoxville realtors, who (obviously) would rather show homes there — closer to their offices and in areas that they’re more familiar with — than homes in Oak Ridge.

That is a correctable problem, and it’s actually in the business’ best interest for employees to live nearby (fewer late-for-work incidents, less lost time generally for things like teacher conferences, dental appointments, etc.) as those things tend to be close to home. Lastly, it’s less expensive for the employee in fuel costs, and less damaging to the air quality that we all have to live with.

By: Atomictumor

Atomictumor — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:29:03 +0000

Good point, NM.