A bylaw adopted last year forces owners to sweep in front of their properties but sweeping is the exclusive domain of union blue-collars, arbitrator Andre Rousseau concluded, and the city has no business enlisting "volunteers" to do the work.
1 Comment Add this link to... Bury
1 Comment Add this link to... Bury
Groxx -- a play on \It Rocks!\ and \I Grok\ -- is a link sharing and voting site on the theme of \weird\ news.
This is probably one of the saddest...and sickest...things I've heard. I...
iam cedrick jr's mother .. i want you to know cedrick jr will be a man and...
Well, I think it would have been polite to ask, or, if he was afraid that...
Any word on the role of the Jack Russell terrier in this caper?? anyone?...
There is a concept in copyright law called fair use. McCain's legal...
Arrested him? Sounds like another ZT case of overreaction....
I read the comments to this story and some of them really frightened me....
Well, at least there were no nude pictures of the user's wife in it....
Comments
While I am all in favor of unions protecting the jobs of workers (my dad was an organizer in NYC in the 50s and 60s), I totally object to the union trying to prevent property owners and other volunteers from keeping the city clean. We have that problem in my town, at least as far as volunteering to keep the parks clean.
There is one thing about protecting your jobs, but quite another for using the union to bully concerned citizens.
Here (at least in South Australia, anyway) we have Scout/church/social clubs and groups adopt main streets or areas to keep tidy - they get signage to promote their group on that main street, and the area is kept clear of rubbish. It seems to work.