"Damned by faint praise"
is a timeless expression summarizing the tactic of praising someone so modestly
as to cast doubt on both the sincerity and intent of the compliment. How LASER
has had the good fortune of experiencing the reverse: it seems we’ve been
"praised by faint damnation."We point to a recently
discovered opinion column by Jim Pease published way back on June 13, 2001 in
the Wisconsin-based construction industry news organ, The Daily Reporter.
(More later on this tardy discovery.)
Officials of the construction companies we report on sometimes
criticize LASER. By and large, we ignore them. The occasional complaint is only
to be expected, considering the natural antipathy between the watchdog and the
watched. After all, the alert bulldog can generally rely on poor reviews from
the foiled cat burglar.
If the criticism has merit — happily a rare occurrence – we
respond. Otherwise, we ignore them.
However, in this case, because Mr. Pease’s article is so
unintentionally complimentary to LASER’s goals and services, we think it
deserves special mention.
In his article, Mr. Pease first lays out his premise: research
organizations – also known as "think tanks" — compile data on specific issues,
analyze the data, write reports and distribute them to concerned parties.
Mr. Pease, who is affiliated with construction industry
management, concludes that some of these groups are "pro-union," because the
final reports issued are not always flattering to non-union construction
employers. He calls these reports, "attacks."
You can tell by the title, "Are you ready for LASER?" he is
particularly worried about us.
He correctly points out that the information we collect on
companies includes:
• complaints, citations, charges and lawsuits involving the
employer
• claims that prevailing wage obligations have not been met
• Fair Labor Standards Act, tax, licensing and safety
violations
• criminal activities; names and addresses of current and
former employees
• past and present clients
• a list of all hazardous or toxic materials used
• copies of all financial statements, profits and losses,
liabilities and inventories of vehicles and equipment
• environmental permits issued to or applied for by the
employer
• complaints of poor workmanship, delays, mistakes and
overruns on job sites
• breakdowns of all minority employees versus non-minority
employees by craft, man-hours, hourly wage, health benefits and pension benefits
• reports of fires, accidents and injuries
• bankruptcies of the employer or any of its owners or
officers, and
• violations of immigration laws
"An example of one of these pro-union research organizations
is already operating on the borders of Wisconsin and may soon be operating
within the state. It’s called Labor and Safety Employer Research or LASER," Mr.
Pease warns.
Mr. Pease’s implied argument seems to be that the mere act of
broadcasting facts taken from the public record to the wider community so
informed decisions can be made is somehow reprehensible.
Reprehensible, perhaps, in the same way a watchdog barking at
a midnight prowler constitutes a public nuisance because we also wake the
neighbors.
"Attacks by these research groups can be very insidious
because a targeted employer may not know the attack is occurring," Mr. Pease
alleges.
He goes on to claim that, "Organizations like LASER hide
behind a shroud of secrecy."
Mr. Pease is not being entirely frank here. He knows that, in
the interests and spirit of fairness, accuracy and full disclosure, LASER has a
strict policy of providing notice well in advance of everything we expect to
report about the employer. We give the parties ample time to respond and, if
necessary, point out any errors that may have been made.
Mr. Pease reveals this later in his article when he advises
his construction industry readers to make sure they "Carefully review LASER’s
correspondence."
Those most interested in maintaining secrecy are clearly the
employers with all those "complaints, citations, charges and lawsuits" hidden in
their closets.
And here we’d like to point out the sweet irony of Mr. Pease’s
accusation. We only learned about his article in May 2003, two years after it
was first published in the construction industry newspaper.
Had he followed our policy of open disclosure in the interests
of fairness and accuracy, we would have gotten a letter from him and a copy of
his article several weeks before June 1, 2001. But that is water under the
bridge.
Where we take the greatest pleasure in Mr. Pease’s left-handed
compliments is in his final
