UO leadership holds secret meeting to work on trust problem

Hmm, not posted on the UO calendar. Immediate past senate president and union leadership not invited. And our administrative leaders wonder why they still need to work on trust? Fortunately the SOJC Dean has leaked a little info:

I’m sure Kyle Henley was there, and one of his PR flacks will post a puff-piece about this meeting on Around the O soon.

Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to UO leadership holds secret meeting to work on trust problem

  1. Darby says:

    Environmental initiatives?

    Hm.

    They could start by not throwing the “recycling” into the same garbage as they do trash bins after football games. (I have this from a 100% trusted source – an individual who is instructed to do this).

    • thedude says:

      Recycling rarely helps the environment. Sorry to burst your bubble.

      • uomatters says:

        Yup, aluminum cans, that’s about it. Maybe cardboard too? Anyone know?

        While my ’87 Caballero isn’t recycled, I think keeping it on the road is better for the environment than buying a Tesla. Sure I burn about 500 gallons of gas a year (no oil, yet) but what’s the carbon impact of producing a $50,000 Tesla and its electricity? Not to mention the Caballero’s positive existence value, as measured by the thumbs up I get whenever I take a load of carefully sorted recyclables down to Glenwood – where they presumably wait until no one’s looking, then dump them all in the big pit. Let me know if you want me to stop by your place on my next run.

      • Anonymous says:

        Statements by self proclaimed experts on any issue seems to be a requirement to be an academic. Yet we ask out students to document their thinking …

        https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jiec.12355

        is a good reference that supports the claim – the title of this article is

        Common Misconceptions about Recycling

        and talks about how environmental benefits are often overestimated.

        On the other hand, recycling of resources to conserve the resource is generally a good idea, with steel, a commodity the world will run out of, is a good example:

        https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-016-1081-1

        whose abstract is good generic one for all of these things:

        In a world where the population is expected to peak at around 9 billion people in the next 30 to 40 years, carefully managing our finite natural resources is becoming critical. We must abandon the outdated ‘take, make, consume and dispose’ mentality and move toward a circular economy model for optimal resource efficiency. Products must be designed for reuse and remanufacturing, which would reduce significant costs in terms of energy and natural resources.

      • Darby says:

        the dude: I’m well aware that some recycling is more or less environmentally smart than other recycling. That reusing is better, and not usungbin the first place is best.

        The issue is the *pretending* to recycle.

        This article is about trust, after all.

        • Deplorable Duck says:

          Virtue signaling individuals pretend that recycling will save the world, and virtue signaling organizations pretend to recycle. There’s a glorious symmetry to that.

          I’d prefer to have a committee of esteemed economists consider the issue. Only economically plausible recycling would be allowed, with fines for excessively stupid arguments.

  2. It's classified. says:

    Yes, incentives with seed money, maybe for the labor that keep the machine spinning? Nah… pharmaceutical contracts!

    And of course a “Central Leadership Summit” – preferably at a 5-diamond resort in the Bahamas?

  3. honest Uncle Gangsta says:

    They could start by giving themselves good raises to show how trust-building efforts are recognized!

  4. Fishwrapper says:

    Sir, I must strenuously object to your misleading headline. For reasons unbeknownst to me, you placed the word leadership therein.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.