Comment 73600

By highwater (registered) | Posted February 01, 2012 at 12:45:47 in reply to Comment 73599

As I mentioned, Laura Peddle was the only one who responded. I replied to her with these additional thoughts:

Another issue that occurred to me after I sent my previous email is how this decision will affect the board's ability to attract the best talent in the future.

Let's face it. Most of your staff and trustees are baby boomers, as am I. We are the last generation for whom driving will be the norm, and I think much of the push to move to a car-based campus is based on assumptions that our current car culture will continue in perpetuity.

The fact is, fewer and fewer younger people are choosing to own cars, and even the percentage of teenagers getting their licenses is dropping off. A large percentage of our future work force will not only not own cars, but may not even drive.

Recent graduates are also burdened with levels of student debt that us boomers never had to contend with. It's very unfair to make car ownership a condition of employment at the board for younger people, particularly when the cost of fuel, insurance, etc. is only going to rise.

Young people are increasingly making career choices based on quality of life. If the trend among younger workers for urban, car-less living continues, the board will have a much harder time attracting the best and the brightest when the current crop of baby boomers starts to retire.

This is a bad decision on so many levels. Apart from short term finances and free parking for staff, I'm having trouble seeing the positives.

Thank you for your reply and your efforts.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds