5 ms·

Except that there's no direct evidence of union shenanigans, in this case. Yes, conceivably the DOB could be in backroom cahoots with Local 14-14B, and nixing

Except that there's no direct evidence of union shenanigans, in this case. Yes, conceivably the DOB could be in backroom cahoots with Local 14-14B, and nixing the crane on stated grounds of structural design concerns -- whilst in reality having other motives. And not only "conceivably"; stuff like this happens in NYC all the time. But we'd still need to see some actual evidence of such collusion, please; not just speculation (or arguments on the basis of "unions bad!", more or less)

Dylan16807 10y ago
Who said anything about backroom cahoots? They're openly protesting.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  They're openly protesting. City agencies don't just cave in to protests at the drop of the hat. Especially not NYC agencies. So again, what I request is simply: evidence, not speculation.
  - notgood 10y ago
    That's the thing about "motives", that you can't never prove or disprove one unless confessed by the "motivator" right?. So the only way to gather "evidence" would be to test the system and see if its actually dangerous or if its all bs.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      That's the thing about "motives", that you can't never prove or disprove one unless confessed by the "motivator" right? So... ya might as well just believe whichever side of the coin you like better, right? Works for some people, I guess.
      - kelnos 10y ago
        (Not sure that's the case here, but) when it all boils down to a he-said, she-said argument, the only thing you have at your disposal in decision-making is your perception of the character of the two parties. So yes, whichever side you like better.
        kafkaesq 10y ago
        Not sure that's the case here, but) when it all boils down to a he-said, she-said argument, You might want to question the validity of that assumption. Most likely the truth (was) basically knowable in this case, with a modicum of effort. Just that Crain's apparently didn't want to take even baby steps in the direction of that effort -- i.e. the standard proactive, iterative follow-up that, you know, real journalists do: like contacting the entrepreneurial crane operator before publication to get their response to the DOB's claims about the composition of their rigs; and asking the DOB for their response to his response, etc. Or like, you know, talking to an independent expert or two. That kind of thing. Instead they just did the usual throw-it-at-the-wall, see-if-it-sticks thing -- and presented it as a "he said, she said" story. Which may not have been all that illuminating or informative -- but at least got people to click on it, and (judging by the response here in this forum), to allow their buttons to be pushed.
hehheh 10y ago
Ok. What laws do we need to pass and enforce to allow us to collect and share that evidence? Would any such legislation pass?
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  Most likely there are already processes in place to get down to the truth on matters like these. Slow-moving processes - but processes, nonetheless. You know - formal appeals, FOIA requests, lawsuits, expert testimony - that sort of thing. But this all makes for poor ad copy, of course. "Bold, Crafty Innovator Thwarted, 'Cause Unions!" -- that's what gets people to click on your article. And share it in venues such as this one.
  - kelnos 10y ago
    The problem is that all those things cost money, and the "bold, crafty innovator", after putting $1M of his own money into it, can't afford to pay for all that. The city, and the union, have very deep pockets, and have no incentive to do the right thing and pay for it. Sometimes Goliath stomps David, and we all lose.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      I'm not saying he has no reason to find fault in either the DOB's initial decision about his new crane, or in Crain's coverage of the issue. Just that it's kind of weird (in my view) that so many people seem to be happy to conclude that we somehow "know" that it was union arm-twisting which (at least temporarily) sealed his fate. Despite the complete lack of primary (or even secondary) evidence for such a connection.

Dylan16807 10y ago

Who said anything about backroom cahoots? They're openly protesting.

kafkaesq 10y ago
They're openly protesting. City agencies don't just cave in to protests at the drop of the hat. Especially not NYC agencies. So again, what I request is simply: evidence, not speculation.
- notgood 10y ago
  That's the thing about "motives", that you can't never prove or disprove one unless confessed by the "motivator" right?. So the only way to gather "evidence" would be to test the system and see if its actually dangerous or if its all bs.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    That's the thing about "motives", that you can't never prove or disprove one unless confessed by the "motivator" right? So... ya might as well just believe whichever side of the coin you like better, right? Works for some people, I guess.
    - kelnos 10y ago
      (Not sure that's the case here, but) when it all boils down to a he-said, she-said argument, the only thing you have at your disposal in decision-making is your perception of the character of the two parties. So yes, whichever side you like better.
      - kafkaesq 10y ago
        Not sure that's the case here, but) when it all boils down to a he-said, she-said argument, You might want to question the validity of that assumption. Most likely the truth (was) basically knowable in this case, with a modicum of effort. Just that Crain's apparently didn't want to take even baby steps in the direction of that effort -- i.e. the standard proactive, iterative follow-up that, you know, real journalists do: like contacting the entrepreneurial crane operator before publication to get their response to the DOB's claims about the composition of their rigs; and asking the DOB for their response to his response, etc. Or like, you know, talking to an independent expert or two. That kind of thing. Instead they just did the usual throw-it-at-the-wall, see-if-it-sticks thing -- and presented it as a "he said, she said" story. Which may not have been all that illuminating or informative -- but at least got people to click on it, and (judging by the response here in this forum), to allow their buttons to be pushed.

hehheh 10y ago

Ok. What laws do we need to pass and enforce to allow us to collect and share that evidence? Would any such legislation pass?

kafkaesq 10y ago
Most likely there are already processes in place to get down to the truth on matters like these. Slow-moving processes - but processes, nonetheless. You know - formal appeals, FOIA requests, lawsuits, expert testimony - that sort of thing. But this all makes for poor ad copy, of course. "Bold, Crafty Innovator Thwarted, 'Cause Unions!" -- that's what gets people to click on your article. And share it in venues such as this one.
- kelnos 10y ago
  The problem is that all those things cost money, and the "bold, crafty innovator", after putting $1M of his own money into it, can't afford to pay for all that. The city, and the union, have very deep pockets, and have no incentive to do the right thing and pay for it. Sometimes Goliath stomps David, and we all lose.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    I'm not saying he has no reason to find fault in either the DOB's initial decision about his new crane, or in Crain's coverage of the issue. Just that it's kind of weird (in my view) that so many people seem to be happy to conclude that we somehow "know" that it was union arm-twisting which (at least temporarily) sealed his fate. Despite the complete lack of primary (or even secondary) evidence for such a connection.