Not Surprised
UPDATE: I just received this email from the City Attorney's Office. Thank you Oakland!
-------
The San Francisco Chronicle updates on the garbage strike here. Call me unsurprised that pickups have proceeded normally in well-to-do parts of Alameda County while garbage is rotting in the poorer parts. We've had one pickup since the strike here at 63rd and Telegraph and the trash was picked up normally (this was last Friday). I'm curious/nervous to see if anyone comes this Friday. I remember two years ago, WM would skip us, and I'd call every day from work, getting a promise that they'd come "the next day" and then not getting our trash picked up until the next week's pickup day.
So, it's business (or lack thereof) as usual from WM. I'd been impressed by their regularity since that summer two years ago, but this is despicable. A preemptive lockout that leaves thousands of people surrounded by stench (and likely worse as vermin breed) is low. I'm reminded of a sermon on the ethics of capitalism, and that what makes it wonderful (and ethical) is the voluntary drive to improve the lives of others. Congratulations WM, you're failing to improve the lives of the people you have chosen (by contract with the city) to serve.
Feel free to use the comments to report on pickups or failures. I'm also happy to hear a general rant about WM. I'm most curious to help the City Attorney's office draft the complaint for breach of contract, with bonus points for articulating a theory that imposes punitive damages despite the contract nature of the action; I'd want to finesse some tort concept of duty to maintain the public health voluntarily assumed by contract (similar to voluntary assumption of rescue) and then reckless breach of the duty. Given that tomorrow morning is my "learn contract remedies day" this works out pretty well.
PS: Here's the City Attorney's page. You can send them email. Mine was pretty straightforward, more or less "please sue WM."
City of Oakland Goes to Court to Get Trash Picked Up
Oakland, CA – Today, Oakland City Attorney John Russo filed an injunction with the Alameda County Superior Court to compel Waste Management of Alameda County (WMAC) to perform its duties under its contract with the city and pick-up garbage, recycling and yard waste bins (RG 07335086).
“We are entirely within our contract rights and California state law to demand this health and safety issue be addressed immediately,” said Oakland City Attorney John Russo. “We have a duty to protect Oakland’s people and businesses. This situation has gone on long enough.”
Since the July 1st lock-out by WMAC and the subsequent pile up of trash, recycling and food waste scraps in various neighborhoods, more than 1,000 emails and phone calls have been made to the City of Oakland’s recycling hotline.
“We've expressed our genuine desire to help mediate this matter. It is our sincere hope and desire that this matter is resolved expeditiously,” said Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums. “Oakland residents, as well as Alameda County residents, deserve to know the garbage pick up will go forward in an uninterrupted manner. In an urban environment where disease can spread quickly, we ask that both parties resolve these issues now.”
"The garbage is piling up in our neighborhoods, and as a City we have the responsibility to protect the health and safety of our residents, " said Council President Ignacio De La Fuente. “We have to do whatever it takes to ensure that Waste Management complies with their contract."
The City of Oakland contracts with Waste Management because it does not have the facilities, trucks or staff to pick-up, sort or manage trash.
Waste Management informed city officials on July 2nd of a lock-out of Local 70 employees due to concerns about service disruption from the union’s alleged threat to strike. The following day the City issued a Notice of Violation of Franchise Agreement demanding garbage collection duties resume regardless of WMAC’s employee/management issues. After ten days and many formal and informal talks to resolve the problem, the City of Oakland is seeking relief through the courts.
-------
The San Francisco Chronicle updates on the garbage strike here. Call me unsurprised that pickups have proceeded normally in well-to-do parts of Alameda County while garbage is rotting in the poorer parts. We've had one pickup since the strike here at 63rd and Telegraph and the trash was picked up normally (this was last Friday). I'm curious/nervous to see if anyone comes this Friday. I remember two years ago, WM would skip us, and I'd call every day from work, getting a promise that they'd come "the next day" and then not getting our trash picked up until the next week's pickup day.
So, it's business (or lack thereof) as usual from WM. I'd been impressed by their regularity since that summer two years ago, but this is despicable. A preemptive lockout that leaves thousands of people surrounded by stench (and likely worse as vermin breed) is low. I'm reminded of a sermon on the ethics of capitalism, and that what makes it wonderful (and ethical) is the voluntary drive to improve the lives of others. Congratulations WM, you're failing to improve the lives of the people you have chosen (by contract with the city) to serve.
Feel free to use the comments to report on pickups or failures. I'm also happy to hear a general rant about WM. I'm most curious to help the City Attorney's office draft the complaint for breach of contract, with bonus points for articulating a theory that imposes punitive damages despite the contract nature of the action; I'd want to finesse some tort concept of duty to maintain the public health voluntarily assumed by contract (similar to voluntary assumption of rescue) and then reckless breach of the duty. Given that tomorrow morning is my "learn contract remedies day" this works out pretty well.
PS: Here's the City Attorney's page. You can send them email. Mine was pretty straightforward, more or less "please sue WM."
posted by Tom Fletcher at 12:18 PM
4 Comments:
Tom, you ignorant slut.
(Always wanted to say that.)
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
Alive as you or me
Says I, "But Joe, you're ten years dead,"
"I never died," says he
"I never died," says he
"In Salt Lake, Joe," says I to him,
Him standing by my bed,
"They framed you on a murder charge,"
Says Joe, "But I ain't dead,"
Says Joe, "But I ain't dead."
"The copper bosses killed you, Joe,
They shot you, Joe," says I.
"Takes more than guns to kill a man,"
Says Joe, "I didn't die,"
Says Joe, "I didn't die."
And standing there as big as life
And smiling with his eyes
Joe says, "What they forgot to kill
Went on to organize,
Went on to organize."
"Joe Hill ain't dead," he says to me,
"Joe Hill ain't never died.
Where working men are out on strike
Joe Hill is at their side,
Joe Hill is at their side."
"From San Diego up to Maine,
In every mine and mill,
Where workers strike and organize,"
Says he, "You'll find Joe Hill,"
Says he, "You'll find Joe Hill."
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
Alive as you or me
Says I, "But Joe, you're ten years dead,"
"I never died," says he
"I never died," says he
A few points.
3:57, I was more focused on the contract with the city part, but yes, there's a union lockout issue too, about which I know nothing re: legality. And now we have a copyright angle to our debate too (lyrics written by Alfred Hayes, 1930). Kidding... maybe (arguably not fair use commentary in the absence of any commentary other than a lonesome cut-and-paste).
Mad J.D., I warn you that the second half of your comment is libel per se, and I have no need to prove special damages. Sadly, the first half of your comment can wield truth as a defense.
And finally, since it's bar study time, the big outline opines that punitive damages are rarely available in contracts cases and says no more. I'd say they're never available, hence the need to turn this into a tort case. Which is what the city did in part, their complaint is for breach of contract and for nuisance. But could it have been more?
Tom, I'm afraid your fearsome dexterity with a fair use argument has led to some neglect of torts scholarship. Libel per se is a misnomer. No 'per se' element is needed, given the written and permanent nature of the comments. So yes, it is true that special damages need not be proven. But only slander has need of a 'per se' variety, and furthermore, I believe allegations of unchastity are slander per se only if they refer to a woman.
If I'm wrong about this, it's Roger Schechter's fault, as is any other deficiency in my bar scores.
Post a Comment
<< Home