Amid all the clutter of negative campaign ads, one thing seems clear: Both candidates for governor get the message that this election cycle is all about jobs.
That’s good. The next governor needs to be focused on improving the economic climate that serves as the soil in which jobs grow.
But the execution is scary. Both sides are busily trying to brand their opponent as a job killer.
For Dan Malloy, his record of job creation while mayor of Stamford is in question. There seems little doubt jobs grew in Stamford during the first part of his term and cratered in the later years. The larger question is how much credit or blame should a mayor get for the impact of economic winds that blow through his community?
Similarly, Tom Foley is still fighting what he says is an inaccurate portrayal of his handling of the Bibb textile mill in Georgia. During Foley’s 11-year ownership, textile mills were being buffeted by global competition. By the time Foley sold out in 1996, Bibb and others like it had been mortally wounded. The facts are that the company filed for bankruptcy two years later; the plant closed; thousands lost their jobs. There’s certainly debate about the extent to which Foley profited when he sold. But the larger question is whether Foley — or anyone else — could have changed the ultimate outcome.
Character is important but judging gubernatorial candidates on such out of context biographical snippets is folly.
A better measure would seem to be listening to what the candidates have to say about HOW they would go about economic development and balancing the state’s budget. Intelligent voters need to get past the noise being generated by both campaigns and focus on the meaningful issues.
Major debates remain and these forums offer hope of getting meaningful responses from the candidates. So do focused interviews with the candidates. Here at the Hartford Business Journal, we’re getting ready to explore business issues with the candidates. Greg Bordonaro’s session with Malloy is scheduled for our Oct. 11 issue with the Foley interview to follow.
This is too important an election to be decided on sound bites and images crafted in marketing shops. In the month that remains, there’s still time to talk about issues and approaches that separate the candidates. Let’s not miss that opportunity.
Â
Speaking Of Jobs Â
AT&T’s recent announcement that it would lay off over a hundred people in its landline unit drew the predictable Connecticut response. Lawyers, unions and state officials circled like vultures looking for a meal.
Is there something in the water here that inspires challenging the obvious ebbs and flows of business?
The fact is that the growth of mobile communications is taking a bite out of traditional phone service. It shouldn’t be a shock that the shift means fewer people doing landline work. Similarly, it shouldn’t be a shock that jobs are being created in mobile sales and service. And it shouldn’t be news that the skill sets are different.
In many cases, it’s smart for an employer to retrain displaced workers for the new jobs. And there’s evidence AT&T is doing just that. But make no mistake: These new jobs are quite different than the ones that are going away. The pay rates have to reflect that changing dynamic. Not everybody can or wants to make the change.
Forcing square pegs into round holes isn’t a good strategy. And the state — and the unions — should know that.
Trying to create as soft a landing as possible for displaced workers is sound policy. Doing it by penalizing a company trying to respond to market conditions isn’t.
