Great point Roger. I work in an industry with a high turnover rate but also as one of the most highly rated places to work and to start a career.

Preston, scanning the media for information relevant to local people is a fine idea. But, my objection is taking information (as truthful as they may be), and framing the details as an editorial. The facts of turnover are quickly turned into "worst boss."

I have no standing on support or rejection of Rep Murphy. That is not my point. I merely asked for the bridge between the gap of "turnover rates" and "worst boss." Nothing has been forthcoming.

Most likely this piece was churned out of some paper mill somewhere. It reflects badly on Patch to post this kind of material.

As Bryan points out above, there is no reason to make the connection, other than to make the piece a negative portrayal. I've seen plenty of situations where high turnover is coupled with a very good boss. Perhaps the job was a stepping stone to other jobs, pay was low -- factors outside the control of the boss. On the other hand, I have seen places were turnover rate was very low, with a very bad boss - liked the work, vital to a career path, etc. Rep Murphy may choose to rotate people in and out quickly, giving an opportunity for involvement to many. We have not been told any of this information. But, the reader is given a very direct implication.

Some writer in a back room someplace chose to take one small piece of data, and run toward a desired end. As stated earlier, journalism at its low point.

Duke, how do you know Rep Murphy to be a poor boss? Specifics, please. You may be right. If so, then your assertion requires some basis.

His work as a Representative is available for all to see, public knowledge. But, his work as a boss, not at all. Therefore, you must have inside information to make your statement regarding his employer/employee actions. Please be forthcoming with your inside information.