I’ve been planning an article on Baytown’s treatment of its employees who evac’d ahead of Rita for some time. Now word comes today that the City of Houston is also firing employees who left during the emergency. So are there differences between the two? And what are they?
The City of Baytown and its Public Works superintendant Mark LeBlanc have decided to show the peons what it meant to work for the Baron. “Thou shalt be at thy post at all times.” The number of firings now stands at 12 (no, wait, really, it’s only 11) most from the PW dept., but there may have been others. Channel 11 did the usual media
BS, concentrating on one person’s story in order to portray what they wanted, and thereby leaving more questions than answers. The Baytown Sun has been a little more thorough, but not a lot.
Baytown, in the person of Deputy City Manager Bob Leiper, is claiming that a clause involving mandatory overtime in the job description of every employee was sufficient notice that they were essential personnel. The problem with that is, even so, you have to tell an employee when he is expected to show up for the overtime. Did the City of Baytown? Apparently, in several cases, it did not.
It gets worse. The law is plain on this matter. Employers cannot fire employees for failing to report to work during a mandatory evacuation unless that person is essential and they provide a shelter for the employee during the storm. Frankly, it’s the last that’s going to bite the City in it’s ass; Leiper is going to have to show that Baytown had designated such a facility and that it could reasonably be expected to survive a Cat 5 storm with a 20-foot storm surge, which is what was expected at the time. I’d bet there aren’t two dozen structures in the entire metro area that could do that. (HP has one — they were enjoying catered BBQ at their shelter.) Well, the storm surge is easy, be well inland. Like more than 30 miles, because that didn’t work for parts of Cameron Parish, when Rita struck as a Cat 3. And “inland’ doesn’t exactly describe Baytown.
It defies reason to think that these people would have been fired had Rita come ashore in Galveston as a Cat 5 hurricane, but then, I’ve seen a lot of reason defying BS since Katrina dropped in to visit New Orleans. The trick is, Baytown is claiming that all city employees are essential. Total hogwash. During a hurricane and evacuation, how many people are going to:
1. Pay parking tickets.
2. Visit the library.
3. File a construction application.
4. Need their water meter read.
5. Call about a utility bill.
6…. oh you get the picture.
Citizen reaction in Baytown was entirely predictible. A few stood up to sayYawn. “Those meanies!” But mostly, a vast yawning indifference. Then people wonder why they only get served by rude, uncaring, unmotivated employees at City Hall. Somthing about binding the mouths. . . .
So isn’t the City of Houston doing the same thing? They’re firing people for not showing up. Well, yes and no. The difference in Houston’s case, it’s firing only emergency service providers. Fire, police, and dispatch personnel. Now granted, some or all of these lived in the evac areas. But in Houston’s case, all personnel are informed ahead of time if they are considered essential. So you know beforehand that if a disaster hits, you’re stuck at work. Lets take KHOU’s poster child for unfortunate events:
Tonya Locks works at HEC taking calls from people needing help but when Rita was coming, she says she needed help because she’s the sole provider for her family.
That family lives in one of those zip codes and includes a sick grandmother.
“Basically I should have abandoned my family and been at my job,” she says.
If that’s the case, then the questions become:
1. Why did the employee choose to live in such an area? (Granted, this isn’t entirely a fair question–hang on).
2. Knowing that one is an essential personnel, and living in an evac zone, why would the employee fail to make alternate arrangements with family and friends?
3. Finally, if one is stuck living in such an area, and has no one they can rely on to deal with their own family while they perform essential tasks, why the hell did they take the job anyway?
What the hell is a sole provider doing taking an essential emergency services personnel job??? I have to agree with the final poster in a thread over at the Baytown Sun’s forums, Politically Incorrect:
This reminds me of mothers protesting their children being sent to Iraq earlier in the war…they insisted the kids joined the military to get an education and never expected actual active duty and thought it was unfair they had to gok (sic) to war!
While his first paragraph is full of “that’s the way it i, so who cares, it’s their job” tripe, this paragraph is spot on. Bean counters and meter readers aren’t essential personnel, and to force them to be at their post on the specious argument that there might be some use for them in some emergency capacity that they are utterly untrained and unsuited for is just ridiculous. Yeah, lets send my diabetic co-worker out to pull folks out of floodwaters, why don’t we?
So where does that leave us? Hurricanes are a given. Flooding is a given. So, should the City of Houston prohibit its employees from living in evac zones? (Break here for gales of laughter.) Riiiiiiiight. Let’s all move to the Woodlands. As if we could afford it. Please, let me assure you, the pay scale for City employees is not all it’s cracked up to be. As I pointed out way, way back when I started this blog, a 90% pension of City pay isn’t a hell of a lot. (And I for one will have to work something like 40 years with the city to get it).
What I’m getting at here is that a helluva lot of us live in flood-prone areas because it’s cheaper to do so. So if the City demands that all of it’s employees, or even all of it’s essential employees live in areas not likely to suffer flooding during a hurricane (and hey, when a Cat 5 is bearing down on your city, flooding is not the only problem), it would hamstring itself. They can’t afford to do so — so they’re simply not going to get jobs with the City.
That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a better way to go about this. The City of Houston should devote serious thought to a policy of not hiring single parents in essential non-first response positions. Police and Fire protection are serious jobs, and in a perfect world, they would all be able to take care of us, the citizens, while having someone at home to take care of their family in a regional emergency. But this world isn’t perfect and the pool of qualified people willing to wear the badge (or carry the axe, or hypodermic) is not so deep that we can afford to hamstring ourselves by extending such a restriction to them. Even if we did, what happens in case of a divorce or death of the other spouse? “Sorry, but you’re off the force because we can’t depend on you.” I don’t think so.
But for dispatchers and other essential personnel, it may very well be, and the City should consider establishing a policy of requiring the employee to attest yearly that there is a person willing and able to take responsibility for their family in such case, even to the point of requiring the other person’s signature. At the very least, that is going to make the employee understand in no uncertain terms that essential means essential.
As for Baytown, do I think its citizens should care? Hell yes! Outraged is more like it. Especially the way it has been handled, with employees not knowing in advance if they were considered essential. Think about it. . . would you sign on with an employer who treated their employees in that manner? And would you be particularly motivated to put out 100% effort (or even 80% and coast on the rest).
Then why would anyone else?