Volunteer cleanup in parks seen by city union as threat

[WashingtonBay]

Public Unions scramble to save their jobs, over private enterprise that can do it cheaper, and better.

All started when the founder of CleanScapes, a local success story, offered to clean the park in front of their new corporate headquarters, for free.

Excerpt - Last two sentences of article (click and read whole article, it's enlightening!)

"People volunteer in neighborhood parks. This just happened to be a corporation. It's difficult to explain to the public why you're turning down offers of help." (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014809676_cleanscapes19m.html)
(http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014809676_cleanscapes19m.html)
But at Local 1239, officials question why it's called "volunteer" work when it will be done by paid employees of CleanScapes. "A corporate entity shouldn't be doing the work of city employees," Gordon said. (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014809676_cleanscapes19m.html)


WHAT? :huh: City jobs must be saved, even over offers of donated services? The city should only be doing vital work that the private sector CANNOT do cheaper or more effectively. Period. Once you have a city protecting city jobs over competition that is offered either cheaper or for FREE, we see the inherent conflict between Unions and Public Service.

[Tatesgram]

Sounds like the city workers weren't doing the job, or not very well. We've all seen it, five men, standing around talking and one or two actually working. Yet they want to protect their "jobs".

[twofingers]

"The city should only be doing vital work that the private sector CANNOT do cheaper or more effectively."
Can you name the private sector ca not do cheaper or more effectively than government?
:rolleyes:

[WashingtonBay]

You know what, 2f? Up until a moment ago, I might have said the one thing the public sector should do is police work.Scranton police file grievance after chief makes off-duty arrest
Scranton Times-Tribune ^ (http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/scranton-police-file-grievance-after-chief-makes-off-duty-arrest-1.1134453#axzz1K3slqCAz) | 4/19/2011 | Steve McConnell

Excerpt - more at link:
The Scranton police union has filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the city for an off-duty drug arrest made by Police Chief Dan Duffy in March.

The complaint, which was filed with the state Labor Relations Board on April 14, takes issue with the chief arresting a man who was allegedly in possession of marijuana because the chief is not a member of the collective bargaining unit and was "off duty" when the March 20 arrest was made.

"I think it's absurd. I'm not going to turn my head on crime that takes place," Chief Duffy said. "I took the same oath (as a police officer) that everyone else took.

"On my day off and I'm driving around as the police chief, and that's wrong?" he asked.

The complaint states that "the work of apprehending and arresting individuals has been the sole and exclusive province of members of the bargaining unit," and that the city did not inform or negotiate with the union that the chief would be "performing bargaining unit work."

Because of this, the union says the city violated the state Labor Relations Act and the Policemen and Firemen Collective Bargaining Act.^ Probably the silliest thing you'll read all week. :coffee:


Lord help us if we ever try to put out our own fires...

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

[...]

Lord help us if we ever try to put out our own fires...

You probably thought you were just kidding about that.

From jolly ol' England:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3525380.ece

Extinguishers banned as ‘fire risk’

Simon de Bruxelles

Fire extinguishers may be removed from blocks of flats across Britain after they were deemed dangerous by buildings risk assessors at two blocks on the South Coast.
Many residents regard the distinctive red extinguishers as the first response to fire, giving vital time until professional firefighters arrive.

But a review of two residential blocks in Bournemouth has raised concerns that householders could delay their escape to tackle a blaze. There is also concern that the use of extinguishers by untrained people could add to the danger.

[--snip--]

Residents described the ban as ridiculous. Mike Edwards, a 61-year-old retired printer who lives in Avon House, said: “I was absolutely staggered to discover the fire extinguishers were to be taken out. How can removing fire extinguishers be a safe decision?

“The risk assessor said an extinguisher could cause a hazard if the person using it has not been trained. They are worried they will point it in the wrong direction or use the wrong extinguishers on a certain type of fire but if you are trapped in a burning building, you will certainly work out how to use an extinguisher.

“Our eldest resident is 103 but even she said she could quickly work out how to use an extinguisher in an emergency.” He added: “Our block is very high and there is one fire extinguisher in the communal area on every floor. People feel safe knowing they are there. The fire service can’t quickly get their equipment above the eighth floor. If someone is trapped above that level, are they just expected to sit and burn?”

[WashingtonBoy]

Reminds me of the hospital birth scene in Monty Python's Meaning of Life...

Mother: What should I do?
Doctor: Nothing, dear. You're not qualified!

[Tiz]

Ouch, my head hurts.

[natisha]

If the park workers were doing their jobs there would be no need to clean.

There was a Milwaukee County Supervisor named Scott Walker, maybe you've heard of him, anyway he had warned that the court house was filthy & if it didn't start getting & staying cleaned up he would fire all the county cleaning workers there & hire a private service. It didn't & he did. It created quite the uproar but he held his ground.
I wonder what he went on to do...:headscratch:

[mare]

Ha. Even in Wyoming, if there is a fire on your ranch, "officially" you can't put it out or help to put it out because you're not a certified firefighter. It's a liability thing mainly, since most of our fire departments are volunteer.

But, it's also a reimbursement issue since the state agency that reimburses local agencies for costs related to fighting fires are now requiring that only "certified" firefighters be working at the scene. The state agency here gets much of its money from the Feds, and that's where the regulation came from.

Everyone (except a few) ignores it.

There is a group of retired people in a nearby town that cleans the streets year round with brooms and scoop shovels. Of course, this is a right to work state and the town employees aren't unionized. Maybe we're a "right to volunteer" state, too.

[Aina]

Who's John Galt?

[gabhainn]

Who's John Galt?
Indeed.............Kevin

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Who's John Galt?

I am John Galt.

[WashingtonBay]

Ah well, good. That right there saves me a lot of reading. :D

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Ha. Even in Wyoming, if there is a fire on your ranch, "officially" you can't put it out or help to put it out because you're not a certified firefighter. It's a liability thing mainly, since most of our fire departments are volunteer.

[...]


Curious... Somebody I know that built a grand house on the shore of Flathead Lake somewhere in ~extremely~ rural Montana... was actually required by the local fire district to install his own 10,000 gallon firefighting system. In that area, the fire district was pretty clear: there's no way they were going to be able to fight a fire without each house having it's own firefighting capacity. So... he's got a 10,000 gallon tank, firehoses... the works.

In that area... it's a pretty good idea, since the fire trucks and the firemen are probably an hour away, in good weather.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Ah well, good. That right there saves me a lot of reading. :D

No... it doesn't. :)

[offgridgirl]

... was actually required by the local fire district to install his own 10,000 gallon firefighting system. In that area, the fire district was pretty clear: there's no way they were going to be able to fight a fire without each house having it's own firefighting capacity.


Yes it's the same here. We have 1000 gallons of water in a "pond",pump and fire hose for firefighting. The local volunteer fire dept does have a pumper truck but they don't save many houses.:doh:

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Yes it's the same here. We have 1000 gallons of water in a "pond",pump and fire hose for firefighting. The local volunteer fire dept does have a pumper truck but they don't save many houses.:doh:

Well... given the limitations of a rural fire department I don't think they even think in terms of saving the house. I think they assume the house will be a total loss, and their mission is to keep the house fire from becoming a forest fire and endangering anything else.