What's Worse: A Self-Admitted Snake in the Grass, or Hypocrites Cloaked in Christianity?

I once worked at a place where shortly after I started, people began warning me about the Executive Director. "He lies," one co-worker whispered. "Don't believe a word he says," confided another. While the ED, whom I'll call John had the reputation of being a bit of a snake charmer, he was the first one to admit all his flaws, including the snake charming bit. So for me, his candor was refreshing and we always got along great--because I knew what I was dealing with and he wasn't pretending to be something he wasn't.

Fast forward to my current situation. As many of you know, I have been working for over two months at a company. What started as four-week temp job as a way to make a little money quickly turned into a very enjoyable experience. My direct superior is a former minister who acts more like Jolly Old St. Nick than an imperious clergy member. We immediately bonded over inane trivia and he appreciated (his words) my sharp mind and quick wit.

About a month into the temp job, he and I began having informal talks about my joining the company as an employee. I named my salary requirements, and he didn't balk. My temp contract was extended and St. Nick told me that the company would pay me a differential in salary because he said "if we tell the temp firm to raise the rate by $3, you'd probably get 25 cents of that." The way we left it, we were going to get through May 15th (end of their busy season) and then ink a deal.

In my glee of finally nearing the finish line with this job search, I got to work looking for a new house, which I found. I began showing my house to prospective tenants. I began the paperwork to get pre-approved for a mortgage.

Last Friday, St. Nick takes me to lunch and tells me that the company wants to hire me and wants to offer me a salary -- a range $10-15,000 less than what we had last talked about. It seems they don't have the money, and apparently never had the money. Next, they offered me a consulting contract, knowing full well I wanted full-time employment. "We thought since you file a Schedule C anyway," the President said (WHAT? Since when do I file a Schedule C?), "that you could work for us for 3 months as a contractor."

This whole time, the organization had been smugly patting itself on the back because they never signed a contract with the temp agency. Ergo, in their mind, they don't owe them any money. As you might imagine, the temp agency had a different idea and is now demanding money. The last time we met, the President said, "You know, if we have to pay them a fee, it will come out of the budget for this position (i.e., out of the pathetic amount they've offered me, or will completely scrap the differential they promised to pay me)."

Now, this is a for-profit company, and I expect there to be a little lyin' and schemin' along the way. But this company happens to loudly advertise itself as a "Christian-based" organization. Christian based? Christian based! What Would Jesus Do, indeed. I suspect he's spinning in his grave, with people donning the cloak of Christianity to act in what I can only characterize as un-Christian-like.

The negotiations are still going on, and of course I'm looking for another job. But whenever they're done dithering and actually offer me an employment contract, I may just take their miserable job, work the 90 day trial, close on my house, and then get the Hell out of Dodge. And I think Jesus would understand--and may even forgive me. The "Christians" are on their own, though.

I Bet You're as Happy About This As I am

I have not been following the work on the new casino over on the North Shore, but fortunately for me Nut Bar has and brought me up to speed yesterday at brunch. As you all may know, the original developer's financing fell through, but--no surprise--another organization stepped up with funding and they will be opening the newly-christened Rivers Casino in early August.

Today the Post-Gazette ran a story (it must have been a slow news day) about the first delivery of slot machines--whoo-hoo! Altogether there will be 3,000 slot machines, with nearly half being penny or two-cent slot machines--perhaps a nod to all of the senior citizens who will be making a beeline to the casino, clutching the proceeds from their social security checks.

The Rivers Casino will also have the dubious distinction of also having the most expensive slot machine in the state, accepting a $500 wager, so some sad sack will be able to empty out his bank account even faster!

If having slot machines in Pittsburgh isn't bad enough, you know the day will come (probably shortly after they open) that they want to add table games, especially since their competition, Wheeling Downs, already have table games.

Fortunately the politicos have toned down their rhetoric proclaiming that casino revenue will slash property taxes. But the elephant in the room that no one is talking about is all of the negative aspects of having a casino in Pittsburgh: gambling addiction, increased crime, organized crime, prostitution, and God knows what else--all taking place next to two popular sports arenas. Pittsburgh Pirates fan, meet the neighborhood prostitute. Steelers fan, meet the area mafia don.

If you've never been to a casino, they're noisy, smoking, with the smell of flop sweat in the air. You can make it as "old time country club-y" as you want, but it won't cover the sense of desperation on the look of the senior yinzer faces. Because everyone knows the house always wins.

Updates, Part Deux

In my haste to put together my last post, I forgot these updates:

Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala recently announced that his office will seek the death penalty for the brutal killing of three police officers allegedly caused by Richard Poplawski. Poplawski, who was reportedly on suicide watch in prison, has been recently transferred to another area of the prison, but wisely has not been moved with the general population, where I suspect he might likely have a close encounter with a shiv.

I think a careful examination of the case is warranted to determine if the death penalty is appropriate. I know many people are opposed to the death penalty. My opinion is that in certain instances, it is appropriate: when there is clear and compelling evidence that the person on trial is the person who murdered; when the crime was pre-meditated, when the crime is particularly brutal, and when the victim is particularly vulnerable, such as a child.

There seems to be little doubt that Poplawski did the shooting. It also appears that the act was premeditated, as evidenced by his donning a Kevlar vest. And while it is possible that Poplawski could have had a diagnosed or undiagnosed history of mental health issues (such as depression), currently there is no evidence to suggest that he was insane at the time of the shootings. It remains to be seen if Poplawski expresses remorse, or states his apologies to the families of the victims. Based on the statements of his friends and his public statements (via web postings), this doesn’t seem likely.

Another court-related matter was the failure of the State House bill limiting the use of cell phones while driving. The Bill was narrowly defeated, and the House compromise the State House came up with is giving State Troopers the right to fine those individuals Troopers witness driving in an unsafe manner while talking on a cell phone.

I shouldn’t have been surprised that the right-leaning panelists on “Off Q” were against the bill and limiting the use of cell phones – but I was. Professional political consultant Bill Green suggested that instead of regulating this, we ask drivers to “exercise some common sense.” Bill, I hate to break it to you, but if drivers were exercising common sense, we wouldn’t have legislators introducing bills like this.

I’ll reiterate my original statement and say that I am against all use of cell phones while driving, but understand that this is a rather extreme position and would support a bill (like the one that was just defeated) limiting cell phone use to the hands-free kind. It has nothing to do with taking away people’s rights, or trying to play Big Brother, it has to do with providing a safe driving experience for all. I wish people could exercise common sense and not talk on the phone, eat, put on mascara, etc. while driving, but people can’t. So while I’m not thrilled with the State House compromise, maybe hitting drivers with a fine will be a step in the right direction.