Thursday, July 21, 2011

The images of IQT, the regressive company Governor Haslam and Mayor Dean gushed about, are getting clearer and more unflattering

It is difficult to reconcile the image of IQT in "Bob's Interview" below with the company that Bill Haslam declared on faith as "good-paying" and "high-quality". Notice in the report that the company put bankruptcy signs up on their doors the day they laid off workers even though bankruptcy has never been filed.

Bob: "The way it was done was savage ... to these people who for the most part live check-to-check. They're not high-paying jobs to begin with. Five dollars to them is huge."

Wouldn't Tennessee leaders have to be gullible or lazy not to check to see that IQT's salaries were not high-paying and that the company was not as Governor Haslam claimed "high-quality." Or maybe leadership standards for Tennessee labor are simply low to begin with.

Moreover, in June Mayor Karl Dean's stood next to co-CEO Alex Mortman and declared that IQT would be a "vibrant boost" to the Downtown economy; that is the same Alex Mortman whom laid-off workers called a "criminal" and a "thief" in the Operation Maple interviews during the video below:

Former IQT employee: "Our freedom of speech that we have here in Canada shot down the contract that they were about to get in Nashville, TN, in Davidson County ... and that's because we didn't keep quiet."

Looks like Haslam and Dean missed the boat badly on this one. There were all kinds of outside forces that caused Karl Dean to stop pursuing the deal. What kind of jeopardy do Tennessee leaders put Tennessee workers in by not vetting companies they grease to move here?


  1. How about due-diligence, rather than "What can I use for for my mayoral or senatorial campaigns."

    Dean, you don't really give a damn about Nashville.

    That is obvious.

  2. There's a disconnect here -

    We are given the stories about the people who depended on these jobs for their livelihoods. We mourn their losses, and are outraged at a company that we assume won't (not can't) pay its bills.

    We are told that these jobs are low-paying, low-skill jobs. That the jobs will not be as good for Nashville as advertised.

    Examples: calling potential Nashville workers "scabs" who are "forced to take whatever they can scrounge." Noting that $11/hour is not a win for TN workers. Calling TN leadership standards for labor "low to begin with."

    There is some conflict between the two, and I think it has to do with a reflexive desire to denigrate the Mayor and business, in general. That desire shouldn't affect your analysis.

    If these jobs had materialized in Nashville, they would have been good jobs. Maybe not careers, but solid post-teenage year jobs. Not panhandling, not summer/seasonal help. I might even say better than McDonalds, but I don't want to put-down McDs.

    The focus on the "type" of job comes across as elitist. This situation allows plenty of opportunity to question how Nashville attempts to attract businesses, and the vetting process.

  3. Hey Anonymous above:

    "Solid post teen-age year jobs?"

    I think this article nailed it. And denigration of the mayor in regards to the jobs is not the point the author is trying to make.

    Dean and the gov touted IQT as something akin to Nashville landing a branch of NASA.

    If he would have said, "This company will be great for teens as they consider what to do next in their lives. Thought it is basically a call center serving the hi-tech industry, it will teach them how to get to work on time and as well as some basic business skills," then maybe he wouldn't be catching so much flack.

    Face it.

    Dean deserves the flack for being so disingenuous about this entire matter (from the initial announcement to when the IQT bankruptcy became news).

  4. Hey anonymous above -

    I get the author's main point.

    The tangents that denigrate call center work detract from the main point.