Seattle Area Outage - Unions

[Tom Schindler]

What was reported:

Union PSE/Contractors would NOT work past 10PM trying to restore power to the area. When asked why? "Contact the Union spokesperson for details". And, interesting enough many crews reported that they didn't have enough supplies to finish the job.

Read the bold part too...



Sounds like both parties are playing the "He said-She said" game.



My wifes father retired from Sprint. When the Tornado blew Newton Falls up, every single repairman worked as many hours the company would allow them to get their customers telephone service back on. They were told they HAD to go home by the company, even though the guys were willing to work longer to restore service.





Tom



p.s. He is also a member of the IBEW.

 

[Gavin Allan]

According to the initial post, the unions were not exactly busting ass to get power restored and people were getting desperate, hence why the unions need to accept some of the blame (if the initial story is true) for people dying from cold/CO poisoning.

This is about the stupidest statement I have read in a long time.

 

[Dale Carlson]

Sorry SST. I saw the part where the radio station reported:

Union PSE/Contractors would NOT work past 10PM trying to restore power to the area. When asked why? "Contact the Union spokesperson for details". And, interesting enough many crews reported that they didn't have enough supplies to finish the job.



However, PSE claimed they were working around the clock to restore power. The largest Sub Station had 100+ trucks sitting in their lot doing nothing.

and assumed the next portion to be yours:

The six trucks that were parked in our neighborhood for 4 hours just sitting around, I guess they call that assessing the damage, letf at 10Pm and showed back up at 8am.

which sounds like an editorial comment to me.

 

[tom prudhomme]

They found a family of four this morning all dead because of a BBQ being used in the house for cooking and heating.

Actually, people that stupid are assigned unionized Guardian Angels so, uhh,,, due to lack of quality work ethics, people are gonna die...

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin, why, exactly, is the quote of R Shek's that you posted "stupid?"



Did I miss something? Seems R Shek was saying that the initial post indicated that union members may have been dragging their feet in restoring power, and if that is true, they should shoulder some of the blame in any tragedies related to the power outage.



Seems logical to me and rather unemotionally unopinionated.



TJR

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

This is about the stupidest statement I have read in a long time.

Really, stupidest? Wow. Go all out on that one, will you? I present logical, fact-based arguments that are well researched, constructed and principly centered. And I get a "stupidest" in responce. I'm not sure if I should be just happy or ecstatic that I have you dumbfounded.



Most dictionaries don't even recognize "stupidest" as being an actual word.



And I get MY POST called stupidest.... Not implying anything here....

 

[Gavin Allan]

Hi all:



It was a stupid statement because:



1. I doubt that union workers would not work hard to restore power quickly.



2. I doubt that the utility company would not work hard to restore power quickly.



and the biggest reason it was stupid:



3. How could a union worker be held responsible for a ******* lighting a charcoal fire or running a gasoline engine inside his house? This could only have been the fine work of Darwin, not a union line worker.



However, in today's litigation / take no personal responsibility society, I guess it could happen.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin, your first two points of "doubt" were seemingly shared by R Shek as he said "as initially reported", and "if the inital story is true". In other words, he said "IF we are to assume the union members dragged their feet in restoring power" (I am paraphrasing).



Then, the point which you say is so stupid is that given that "IF", there is no way that the union folk could be responsible for the ******* things people do to avoid freezing. Note that R Shek never said "responsible for", but instead said they should "share some of the blame."



It seems a logical "IF...THEN" type of statement.



For example:



"IF a policeman stops to eat donuts on the way to an emergency call and because of his delayed response a robber is able to kill someone THEN the policeman should share in the blame of the person's death."



TJR

 

[Gavin Allan]

BS. I'm not buying it. The robber is responsible.



That is stretching things a bit. That is like saying that firearms manufacturers are to blame for people being shot.



I guess if I knock up a lady because the Exxon gas station was out of condoms, she should be able to get child support from Exxon?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin, You are confusing the word's "responsible" with "partly to blame".



You asked:

I guess if I knock up a lady because the Exxon gas station was out of condoms, she should be able to get child support from Exxon?

Of course not. Why be absurd? Exxon has no assumed responsibility in the area of birth control so they couldn't be responsible or even partly to blame.



If, however, Trojans Corp. is lax in its testing and doesn't live up to its duty in quality control, and due to that action a pregnancy occurs when using their product, then they are partly to blame. It doesn't mean they are responsible for the child, but they are partly to blame. The difference between the two cases is the clear assumption of responsibility in the 2nd example, responsibility that when shirked enables the unfortunate outcome.



Likewise, a cop is responsible to protect and serve, and if they are negligent in their duty and someone dies at the hands of a bad guy as part of that negligence, then they are partly to blame. Responsible, no...partly to blame, yes.



Same is true in the sharing the blame example that R Shek states. No one is saying that union members are responsible for stupid things people do with space heaters...but IF it is the case that they didn't restore power as quickly as possible, then they were negligent in duty, and that negligence lead to a tragedy and for that, they are partly to blame.



Not BS at all...just pure logic.



TJR

 

[Gavin Allan]

I guess the union members will be to blame for the increased birthrate in the area in 9 months...?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Gavin asked:

I guess the union members will be to blame for the increased birthrate in the area in 9 months...?

Yes, it is quite common to see birth rates spike within a region that sustained a widespread blackout 9 months prior.



So, common sense and reason would dictate that IF such a phenomena is noted in the Seattle area in 9 months, and IF the severity and length of the outtage was due in some part to stalls and work slowdowns by unions THEN "YES", the unions would be partly to blame.



I doubt you will agree, but it can't really be argued.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

What was reported:

Union PSE/Contractors would NOT work past 10PM trying to restore power to the area. When asked why? "Contact the Union spokesperson for details". And, interesting enough many crews reported that they didn't have enough supplies to finish the job.

Lets read the He said/She said part...

And, interesting enough many crews reported that they didn't have enough supplies to finish the job.

Could the company be to blame? Since you got all these "anti-union" people, they choose to not to even read that part.





Tom

 

[Gavin Allan]

How could a union worker or the company be to blame for a ******* lighting a charcoal fire or running a gasoline engine inside his house? This could only have been the fine work of Darwin, not a union line worker or the company. Somewhere the idiot who lit the fire or started the engine is to blame.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

I can't believe I have to explain it to you, Gavin, but I will try.



If someone does something, even if something stupid, that they wouldn't even be doing if some other party lived up to their responsibility, then, the irresponsible party is partly to blame.



Case in point...my wife and I have an inground pool. We are required to have a fence with a locked gate around the pool. So, I comply with the requirement. From time to time, especially on days when I know the pool is going to get a lot of use, I keep the gate unlocked...closed, and latched, but unlocked. No small kids can get in because the latch is way on top of the gate. A time or two I may have forgotten and left it unlocked overnight.



My wife gets all upset when I do this. She says that teens have been known to go into unlocked pools and do night late night swims. She says:



"If someone drowns in our pool because you forgot to lock it then we will get sued!"



Of course, my reply sounds like yours:



"Hey, if they are stupid enough to tresspass on my property and drown in my closed pool then it's all on them! Besides, if they are teens and want to get in, they will just jump the fence!"



But the reality is, and the law too, is that I have a responsibility to keep the pool locked. If in my failing to live up to that responsibility someone does something stupid, I am partly to blame....and in a court of law will be sued and will lose.



Another example.: maybe you have a no tresspassing sign on your front yard and never clear the ice from your walk. If someone slips and falls on the walkway leading to your house, you are still liable, even though they are doing something they aren't supposed to do.



It's all cause and effect. Back to the original example...The cause is the power outtage that was longer than it should have been due to negligence (assuming that case). That cause allowed for the effect; which is people doing stupid things (which then created another cause and possible effect). However, if you remove or lessen the root cause then you reduce or eliminate the ability for people to do those stupid things you think are all on them!



TJR

 

[Jenn D]

So we are all suposed to live in a bubble? Are you supposed to lock yourself in your own house the exact moment you enter incase a drunken fool accidentaly mistakes your house for his, opens the door, trips on your rug and breaks an arm. Is it MY responsibility to keep MY house locked up so tight that no one can have any dumb accidents? NO, it's their responsibility to stay off my property and out of my stuff.



Or maybe you put something out in the trash that someone else admires and as said person drives by, they are so distracted looking at your curbside treasures, they crash into a parked car. The legal system in the country is CRAP. Stop letting people blame other people for their own stupid actions. Is it MY responsibility to think about what might excite someone else? Or is it their responsibility to prioritize their actions?



TJR, if you accept that stupid people's actions are partly your fault, then you are doing nothing except feeding the problem with the legal system in this world.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Jenn D, as I said, I don't necessarily agree with it, but we are a society that likes to spread blame around. Long ago died the notion that individuals themselves are solely responsible for themselves. Thank the liberal mindset for that.



I am moderate to conservative, and therefore I don't necessarily like the trend, but I am also a realist so I recognize it is here and there is little I can do with it. We can cry about it all we want, but it won't change things. Acknowledging the way things are, even if grudingly as I do, and protecting oneself accordingly isn't 'feeding the problem'...it's being realistic and responsible, the latter of which seems to be being preached here.



Want another example:



We have all heard about the business owner that kept getting broken into. He even put metal bars and mesh over his windows to keep from being broken into, but that didn't stop the thieves. So, finally he resorted to hooking up power to the metal mesh and bars he had covering the windows, with the intent to shock the person breaking in. Of course, it ended up killing an intruder, and the business owner was tried in court and found guilty of manslaughter (all of this reported by memory).



This example is not of negligence on the part of the business owner, but instead of a deliberate act. Do I agree with the verdict...not necessarily. Is it clear that if the criminal wasn't breaking a crime that there would have been no harm done to him...again, clearly. But that doesn't excuse the fact that through the actions of the business owner someone was killed while doing something irresponsible (in this case, unlawful).



Two wrongs don't make a right. Wishing our society were different won't change things. Thumbing one's nose at the whole system, though it may make one feel they are "right" on the issue will only open one up to all sorts of bad outcomes (lawsuits, injury to others, etc).



We are our brother's keeper, especially the really stupid brothers out there.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Maybe I will wait for the next snow fall and if I get into a accident, I will sue the state or city because they are responsible for my accident since they did not clear the roads.



If the local football game gets blocked, I should sue the team owner because I was unable to watch the game so I got my wife pregnent instead of watching the game.



I could sue the city for making me late to work because they time the lights so I have to stop at all of them.



Pretty lame isn't it?



No different then saying the union members are to blame for ******* lighting a grill indoors.



Never mind the fact that it was said the power company did not have enough supplies to complete the job.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen said:

No different then saying the union members are to blame for ******* lighting a grill indoors.

Sure, twist my words and take a stab at the mentally challenged in one step. Nice form, Tom!



All that Shek and I said was that they should "SHARE THE BLAME", or are "PARTIALLY TO BLAME".



I am SUCH a fan of individual responsibility that I think that when a tragedy strikes you can usually find SEVERAL individuals to share in the blame.



Sure, it often takes one dumb thing to cause a tragedy...but that's why we live in a society where there are countless other people that have the responsibility of doing the RIGHT things to help protect people from themeselves...whether that be clearing roads, or patrolling streets, or managing utilities, or marking roads properly (James Kim tragedy).



When people shirk these duties people can die. If the duty wasn't shirked, less people would die. Those are the facts of people in jobs with a high degree of responsibility and safeguarding others. Don't like that responsibility, then don't assume the jobs! But if negligence of duty causes loss of life, even by people doing stupid things, then you are partly to blame.



In that last paragraph I was speaking abstractly, not about unions in general...if you disagree with the principle of the last paragraph then we are done here because you have such a warped sense of responsibility and protecting people that the debate need not continue.



For example...someone that sets themselves on fire should still be saved by a fireman. Someone about to jump from a bridge should still be rescued by a policeman. Someone that might otherwise do stupid things to keep themselves warm in the winter should be protected from that possibility by those who have the responsibility to provide public utilities. They should take their job as a protector with the same level of commitment as a fireman or a policeman, because it frankly protects more lives on a day to day basis.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Sure, twist my words and take a stab at the mentally challenged in one step. Nice form, Tom!

I have a sister that is severely retarded. She lives in a home with other people that is the same way. What is wrong with my comment? I guess it could be offensive to those that are retarded.



Kinda like calling a murderer an animal. I feel that is offensive to an animal. Animals don't act like murders do.

I am SUCH a fan of individual responsibility that I think that when a tragedy strikes you can usually find SEVERAL individuals to share in the blame.

With all the individual responsibility you believe in, why do you blame others when it was the individual was the one that lit the grill in the house anyways?



Maybe the individual is to blame and not those that were not given enough supplies to complete the job.





Tom