| Author |
Message |
Weatherlawyer
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:54 pm
Post subject: Sinecuree? |
|
|
I just read a Michael Moor article about an infamous missing
president/link, loading all the top Washington jobs with his cronies.
Is there a more descriptive term for people who are given these jobs
for their loyalty more than their ability? What is the term for a
person who takes on a sinecure? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 10:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2005, Weatherlawyer wrote
| Quote: | I just read a Michael Moor article about an infamous missing
president/link, loading all the top Washington jobs with his cronies.
Is there a more descriptive term for people who are given these jobs
for their loyalty more than their ability? What is the term for a
person who takes on a sinecure?
|
Based on its etymology, "sinecurate" would be my stab at it.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 11:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2005 09:54:49 -0700, "Weatherlawyer"
<Weatherlawyer@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I just read a Michael Moor article about an infamous missing
president/link, loading all the top Washington jobs with his cronies.
Is there a more descriptive term for people who are given these jobs
for their loyalty more than their ability? What is the term for a
person who takes on a sinecure?
|
"Cronyism" is a term that means appointing personal friends and
supporters to an office, but the practice of appointing members of the
same party is "patronage".
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 11:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2005, Tony Cooper wrote
| Quote: | On 28 Sep 2005 09:54:49 -0700, "Weatherlawyer"
Weatherlawyer@hotmail.com> wrote:
I just read a Michael Moor article about an infamous missing
president/link, loading all the top Washington jobs with his
cronies.
Is there a more descriptive term for people who are given these
jobs for their loyalty more than their ability? What is the term
for a person who takes on a sinecure?
"Cronyism" is a term that means appointing personal friends and
supporters to an office, but the practice of appointing members of
the same party is "patronage".
|
Those are more accurate terms for the "loyalty payoff" -- but such a
position shouldn't really be referred to as a "sinecure" (that is, a
paid position without any any associated duties).
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 11:27 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On 28 Sep 2005, Weatherlawyer wrote
| Quote: | I just read a Michael Moor article about an infamous missing
president/link, loading all the top Washington jobs with his cronies.
Is there a more descriptive term for people who are given these jobs
for their loyalty more than their ability? What is the term for a
person who takes on a sinecure?
|
Tony's response caused me to re-read this.
I focussed on the "name for a person in a sinecure" (which I
subsequently found in Collins as "sinecurist" rather than my
"sinecurate"), and missed the fact that the positions you're talking
about aren't "sinecures".
Sinecure -- a remunerated position without duties -- is a useful term,
and in my view we lose a useful distinction if one applies it to the
placement of people in paid positions -- *with* duties -- on grounds
other than merit.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Salvatore Volatile
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 11:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | What in the world are you on about?
|
Oy! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ben Zimmer
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2005 11:53 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: | Sinecure -- a remunerated position without duties -- is a useful term,
and in my view we lose a useful distinction if one applies it to the
placement of people in paid positions -- *with* duties -- on grounds
other than merit.
|
Fans of "The Sopranos" will know of the mafia distinction between
"no-show" and "no-work" sinecures. From a Sopranos fan site:
-----
There are essentially two kinds of job scams that the mob, in cahoots
with unions and contractors, pull on major construction sites. There
are, first, "no-work" jobs. These are "workers" who are assigned a job,
like, say, welding; they clock in and out, get a weekly certified
paycheck, and are on site in case any non-corrupt official drops by to
count heads.
Then there are the "no-show" jobs. These are workers who get a regular
paycheck but never even show up and pretend they're working. There are
fewer no-shows than no-works on a typical project because of the risk
involved. One expert told me that the ratio is usually one no-show for
every ten no-works.
-----
In one episode, Paulie notes that the government works the same way with
contracts in Iraq: "They dole out the no-show and no-work jobs to their
own guys and skim their taste off the top." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Salvatore Volatile
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 12:02 am
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | What foreman is going to
say "Get your ass off that lawn chair and get to work" to Rico "The
Icepick" Mazzola?
|
Is "Rico 'The Icepick' Mazzola" supposed to be a plausible mobster's name,
Coop? I'm guessing there's never been a mobster named (= SAfrE
"called") 'Rico' apart from the character in the film _Little Caesar_
(1931) played by Edward G. Robinson. Although there's no proof of this
AFAIK, this no doubt inspired the contrived acronymic naming of the
Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
It's pretty obvious from the legislative
history, and from the rather broad language of the RICO statute, that it
was not meant to be limited in applicability to mafiesque sorts of
enterprises, and was intended to be applicable to all sorts of ordinary
businesses, organizations, and enterprises (and the courts long ago so
held). Actually, this sort of relates to Coop's point above -- RICO
contains a civil as well as criminal remedy; would Congress really have
expected a private litigant to sue a Tony Soprano or a Seamus
"Pretty Boy" Cleary or what have you?
But using the name "RICO" (which probably belongs with other
contrived acronyms like "BASIC" [which some AUErs might argue is actually
'Basic', but never no mind]) may have helped get the statute passed in
a public relations sense. It's been a standard stunt for
corporations sued or prosecuted under RICO, or their political cronies, to
argue that RICO was meant to be restricted to "organized crime" in the
conventional sense.
In any case, I'd say the naming of the RICO
statute is just about the poorest taste instance of statute naming in AmE
legal history until the Gingrich era, when you get things like "The
American Dream Restoration Act" and such. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 12:33 am
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 17:27:39 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
<harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On 28 Sep 2005, Weatherlawyer wrote
I just read a Michael Moor article about an infamous missing
president/link, loading all the top Washington jobs with his cronies.
Is there a more descriptive term for people who are given these jobs
for their loyalty more than their ability? What is the term for a
person who takes on a sinecure?
Tony's response caused me to re-read this.
I focussed on the "name for a person in a sinecure" (which I
subsequently found in Collins as "sinecurist" rather than my
"sinecurate"), and missed the fact that the positions you're talking
about aren't "sinecures".
Sinecure -- a remunerated position without duties -- is a useful term,
and in my view we lose a useful distinction if one applies it to the
placement of people in paid positions -- *with* duties -- on grounds
other than merit.
|
I skipped over the "sinecure" angle on the basis that Michael Moore
doesn't concern himself with sinecures and because the person being
alluded to thinks a "sinecure" is a treatment for a sexually
transmitted disease.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weatherlawyer
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 1:11 am
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | I skipped over the "sinecure" angle on the basis that Michael Moore
doesn't concern himself with sinecures and because the person being
alluded to thinks a "sinecure" is a treatment for a sexually
transmitted disease.
|
I replied to your post because you wrote so little to any effect and
yet insisted on quoting so much that did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 1:31 am
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Weatherlawyer wrote:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper wrote:
I skipped over the "sinecure" angle on the basis that Michael Moore
doesn't concern himself with sinecures and because the person being
alluded to thinks a "sinecure" is a treatment for a sexually
transmitted disease.
I replied to your post because you wrote so little to any effect and
yet insisted on quoting so much that did.
|
Come again?
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jess Askin
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 1:31 am
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Ben Zimmer wrote:
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
Sinecure -- a remunerated position without duties -- is a useful
term, and in my view we lose a useful distinction if one applies it
to the placement of people in paid positions -- *with* duties -- on
grounds other than merit.
Fans of "The Sopranos" will know of the mafia distinction between
"no-show" and "no-work" sinecures. From a Sopranos fan site:
-----
There are essentially two kinds of job scams that the mob, in cahoots
with unions and contractors, pull on major construction sites. There
are, first, "no-work" jobs. These are "workers" who are assigned a
job, like, say, welding; they clock in and out, get a weekly certified
paycheck, and are on site in case any non-corrupt official drops by to
count heads.
Then there are the "no-show" jobs. These are workers who get a regular
paycheck but never even show up and pretend they're working. There are
fewer no-shows than no-works on a typical project because of the risk
involved. One expert told me that the ratio is usually one no-show for
every ten no-works.
|
Really? I would have thought the no-show jobs were less risky. After all,
with a no-work job, everybody on the site is going to know there's something
wrong. With a no-show, nobody even needs to know you're getting paid except
the boss and the people in the payroll dept. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 1:39 am
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Jess Askin wrote:
| Quote: | Ben Zimmer wrote:
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
Sinecure -- a remunerated position without duties -- is a useful
term, and in my view we lose a useful distinction if one applies it
to the placement of people in paid positions -- *with* duties -- on
grounds other than merit.
Fans of "The Sopranos" will know of the mafia distinction between
"no-show" and "no-work" sinecures. From a Sopranos fan site:
-----
There are essentially two kinds of job scams that the mob, in cahoots
with unions and contractors, pull on major construction sites. There
are, first, "no-work" jobs. These are "workers" who are assigned a
job, like, say, welding; they clock in and out, get a weekly
certified paycheck, and are on site in case any non-corrupt official
drops by to count heads.
Then there are the "no-show" jobs. These are workers who get a
regular paycheck but never even show up and pretend they're working.
There are fewer no-shows than no-works on a typical project because
of the risk involved. One expert told me that the ratio is usually
one no-show for every ten no-works.
Really? I would have thought the no-show jobs were less risky. After
all, with a no-work job, everybody on the site is going to know
there's something wrong. With a no-show, nobody even needs to know
you're getting paid except the boss and the people in the payroll
dept.
|
My old buddy and his girlfriend tried the no-show routine at Lockheed, back
in around 1960. Each would clock the other in and out, when necessary. It
worked fine for my buddy when he wasn't there, but his girlfriend, a beauty
and the department secretary to boot, was very conspicuous with her absence
and brought the scheme to an untimely end. Their careers at Lockheed ended
concurrently.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Weatherlawyer
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 2:22 am
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Skitt wrote:
Here I am.
Talking about sinecurists. Would someone in a safe job that required
little input in normal times fail so magnificently as this degenerate
did if he were not just given the job as a reward for services
rendered:
"The hasty appeal yielded one of the most controversial contracts of
the Hurricane Katrina relief operation, a $236 million agreement with
Carnival Cruise Lines for three ships that now bob more than half empty
in the Mississippi River and Mobile Bay. The six-month contract --
staunchly defended by Carnival but castigated by politicians from both
parties -- has come to exemplify the cost of haste that followed
Katrina's strike and FEMA's lack of preparation.
To critics, the price is exorbitant. If the ships were at capacity,
with 7,116 evacuees, for six months, the price per evacuee would total
$1,275 a week, according to calculations by aides to Sen. Tom Coburn
(R-Okla.). A seven-day western Caribbean cruise out of Galveston can be
had for $599 a person -- and that would include entertainment and the
cost of actually making the ship move."
You can guess where the link for this -if there were one, would lead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 2:56 am
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Weatherlawyer wrote:
| Quote: | Skitt wrote:
Come again?
Here I am.
|
You missed the point of my question and deleted the questioned paragraph.
It was your English usage that I was questioning, as your final sentence was
not grammatically sound, and I had trouble figuring it out.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in