New Orleans

Remove all ads!

Once again I must reiterate that the primary fault has to lie either within the state or federal officials. Just last year, Florida was hit by a series of hurricanes in a very short period of time. If I remember correctly, it was four hurricanes in the period of about a month. In none of those instances did it take help 5-7 days to arrive. The fault here is either with the feds for not getting there sooner, or if what the feds claim to be true - that they didn't realize there were so many that needed aid - then it is with the state for not raising their voices loud enough. The disaster couldn't have been avoided. But if you still have people dying, days later, due to lack of basic food and water - those deaths have to be laid at someone's feet.

 

Actually, I do not think that people are necessarily going to try to get those who are responsible. Die-hard Democrats are set on blaming Bush -- and they will do so no matter what evidence is brought. Die-hard Republicans are set on blaming Democrats.

I have friends with families in New Orleans. One lost everything -- including some irreplacable mementos from Mother Theresa.

I just want to say this to the people who are saying we should just let New Orleans sink: SUCK IT UP! If the Italians can keep Venice working -- if the Dutch can keep their heads above water -- then we can keep New Orleans.

It is the only city in the U.S. that I have both visited and want to see again.

 

Just a note -- there's a thread in AoLS that addresses the political responsibilities of who dropped the ball with Katrina -- whether fed, state or local.

 

Ethically speaking, any such investigation should focus on how to better prepare for such an emergency and how to better deliver aid to those in need. Any headhunting is counterproductive and anyone who exploits this situation for their own political agenda is unworthy of public support in future elections. I hope that the voting public remembers that for the next election.

 

Now people are starting to see what life is like in a US occupied Iraq or Afghanistan, only they have lived this way for years now.

 

Gnarf: so what if one of the ways to " better prepare for such an emergency and [...] better deliver aid to those in need" turns out to be firing the incompetents who are responsible for the current disaster? Or you would argue we should give them another chance ?!

Funny, I remember Bush campaining on a platform of responsability. (And taking responsability for oneself actions is one of conservative's mantra - which I do not disagree with, btw). That is not to say that things have worked this way so far (medals for general Franks and the erstwhile administrator of Iraq, Paul Bremer, anyone?).

Moreover, one should remember that one of the big fights in creating the Department of Homeland Security was the insistence of the administration to retain the power to fire employees based on performance (or, as some would say, more or less at will). Should we believe this applies only for the rank and file, while the top people are given a free hand?

from last Sunday's Wash. Post :

full article

You think things are just fine this way?

 

Well, if there was incompetence, then they would need to be replaced, but don't break out the tar and feathers until it's determined that it falls on anyone in particular. The focus should be on getting right the things these boobs screwed up, rather than just finding a scapegoat to skewer to satisfy the bloodlust of the masses...

 

Mmmm ... Bush-kabob.
But I agree that it can most definitely wait. After all, if we're gonna boot someone who's responsible for this, it should be as public, embarrassing, and career-crushing as possible. If we do it too quick, it'll be lost in the general commotion of the aftermath. So we wait until all eyes are focused on retribution, and we can really nail them to the wall.

(That's odd... This started out sarcastic, but I find myself agreeing with it.)

 

This is a comment from a news source that is not a liberal news-weekly:
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050911/OPINION02/50911004/-1/OPINION

 

Katrina Murder Charges

I found this information interesting, if quite saddening. Does anyone closer to the local news sources have anything to back this up, expand on or add to it?

 

NS: Now there's a head that should have rolled. They had the means to get those patients out, but left them stranded, without access to the degree of care that they were entitled to. It's one thing to lose my grandmother to a hurricane, another to imagine the slower, more painful death that she would have endured in the aftermath after being abandoned...

 

Fired for family duties

 

Well, in most cases, I don't think that would matter. Is there even a job for her to have been fired from?

 

Well, this might seem cold and heartless, but quite frankly, the impression I get from the article is the grandmother wasn't a very good employee. She stated that the company grants so many hours of paid time off per year, and she had used all of hers up. The company also grants a certain amount of unpaid time off as well, and she had used all of that up too. Unless there was some medical reason that she needed to take that much time off (and there is no mention of such in the article), there is no reason for anyone to miss that much time from work. I work for a pretty typical company that gives me 40 hours of sick time per year, and 80 hours of vacation time per year. However, I never actually let both of those totals go way down, as you never know when you will need some time off. For the grandmother to be in that position in the first place shows at the very least poor planning, and at worst very irresponsible behavior.

 

And of course we should all be good, hard-working employees. My God, just think what would happen otherwise. The company wouldn't get its maximum profit margins! Can't have that, now; it might cut into the CEO's end of the year bonus. That would be truly irresponsible behaviour .

Why not just dock her salary for the days she was not present. Firing her seems a little bit too drastic.

 

khaavern, you have obviously not worked in an office with a slacker. It has NOTHING to do with the CEO's bonus or profit margins -- very rarely would one employee affect those. Her co-workers have been saddled, for at least this year (although probably for several years), with making up for her lack of effort. All the other employees have to do their job AND hers, it's simply not fair. She should be gone if she's a slacker and she finally gave the bosses a chance to boot her. Go team.

A non-payed leave of absence is docking her pay -- she's already been there to the extreme. Once again, she's been sluffing her job on everyone else at the office, I say good riddance to people like that.

Granted, maybe my rant doesn't apply to the kindly grandmother in the article.

 

I think T2B maybe did a better job of making my point than I did. The company was already cutting her a break when they allowed her to take unpaid leave. Typically, once you use up all of your paid leave time, the company is under no obligation to give you any more time off. (Unless, of course if you get really sick and are incapable of working, or - and espcially - if you get injured while at work.)

Not only did this woman use up all of her paid time off, she also used up all of her unpaid leave - which means she has missed A LOT of time from work. Granted, in this case it may have been warranted, but I highly doubt all the other time she missed was out of dire need as well. Chances are she took time off when she really didn't need it, and now she's complaining that she didn't have any time left for when she really did need it - that's irresponsible. Maybe if she has a medical condition that requires her to miss time from work it is more understandable, but the article makes no mention of this, and considering this woman is only in her 50s, it is unlikely that she is already having a lot of health-related issues that she has to deal with.

Basically people want to point at the company and say what a terrible thing that it is doing, when in reality, it is just as likely that the woman was placed in this position by her own actions.

 

Well, as it has been metioned above we do not know the details of the case. However, if she was a slacker, she could have potentially been let go before this (she's not working for the government, after all ).

I guess what I am objecting to in Aldeth's post is this attitude (prevalent in the US) that we have to do our utmost for the good of the company. If one does not give 100%, one should be fired. If one took all his vacation time (who -hoo, a whopping 10 work days off), and moreover went through his sick days (another 5), he's irresponsible.

I am not sure exactly how many unpaid leave she had taken. Maybe it was too much, and her firing was warranted. So I am going out on a limb here. But by the same measure so are you, guys . From the article, you can hardly conclude that she was a slacker and "she's been sluffing her job on everyone else at the office". And for the argument "there is no reason for anyone to miss that much time from work", well, if you have a family you are responsible for (especially if you are a woman), believe me, one can find plenty of reasons.

 

Hmmm... assembly line worker, this tells me there is good chance she was a union worker. I've had a little experience with union contracts. Violations are added up (any and every violation), once you go beyond a very specific point the company MUST fire you. The union/company contract is typically very specific about when a company fires an employee. The company cannot violate the contract (even if they want to cut someone a break -- that's favoritism in the eyes of the union). This could easily be chalked up to the union instead of the company.