Canton on Emergency Management

Ignore Disadvantages - A Tail from the Dog Park

 

Bronson in full flight - Photo: Mariah Evin

Bronson is the canine equivalent of the Energizer Bunny. His guardian usually begins her day with a run of 5 miles or more before joining our group at the dog park. Bronson accompanies her but you would never know it from the way he acts. He hits the gate running, often with all four feet off the ground, and takes on the biggest dogs with impunity. He doesn't stop until his leash is on for the walk home.

What makes this so much fun is that Bronson is a Corgi and has legs that are shorter than just about any of the other dogs. He stands about 10 inches high. His legs and height are distinct disadvantages when he's running with the big dogs. But Bronson never let's that stop him. He comes from Welsh herding stock and uses his speed and cornering ability to compensate.

All too often, we let disadvantages serve as an excuse for not taking action. There's never enough time, you don't have the budget, you're compatriots are unreliable or not doing their fair share. There are always excuses for inaction.

But there are always ways to overcome disadvantages as well. It is challenge that makes us seek creative solutions, not avoidance. These ways may require more thought and more work but they may lead to success, something that will definitely not happen if your do nothing. Besides, if it was easy, everyone would be doing it and you wouldn't be needed.

So take a lesson from Bronson the Incorrigible Corgi. Ignore your disadvantages, be nimble and fast, and seek alternative solutions.

Related articles

Government Conspiracy to Suppress Dissent Revealed! Really?

Disagreement Over Security Grounds for Termination? A Case Study

Risk Is Part of Life - Accept it!

Emergency Management Solutions - January 2015

Featured article: Are We Part of a Conspiracy? Surveillance and private sector coordination are often misperceived.

Emergency Management Solutions Jan 2015

Are We Part of a Conspiracy? January's Featured Article

Download Are we part of a Conspiracy

Disagreement Over Security Grounds for Termination? A Case Study

 

Katz, Marshall & Banks

During pre-flight preparations at SFO last July, United employees discovered a disturbing image drawn on the tail of the aircraft near the access panel to one of the gas turbine engines. The image showed two faces, one of which could be interpreted as threatening, and the words "BYE BYE".

 

Fearing a possible bomb, the Captain opted to hold the flight because of security concerns and passengers, who had not yet boarded, were told the flight was delayed for maintenance reasons. Maintenance inspectors inspected the engine compartment and found nothing suspicious. They did not inspect the rest of the plane. The Captain, suspecting that the drawing was just a bit of ground crew graffiti, deemed the aircraft safe to fly and ordered the passengers boarded.

However, the flight attendants did not agree. They felt that the only way to ensure complete safety was to conduct a full security sweep of the aircraft. They refused a direct order from the United SFO inflight supervisor to return to work, which constituted grounds for dismissal under United rules. Thirteen flight attendants were terminated and the flight was canceled because of crew availability. The attendants have filed a federal whistle-blower complaint with the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration and are considering a lawsuit for wrongful termination.

This incident makes an excellent case study for decision makers. On the one hand, you have a genuine concern for passenger safety demonstrated by the flight attendants. On the other hand, you have United managers using risk analysis as the basis for deciding that a threat was not credible. Or you could describe it as an irrational fear for their own lives by the attendants versus corporate employees placing profits above safety. It all depends on your perspective.

This is what makes this such an great case study. We are taught that safety is always our first priority but the reality is that we can not guarantee complete safety and that safety comes at a cost. We are frequently in a position where we have to weigh that cost against other factors such as the credibility of the threat, expense, and public inconvenience. That sometimes means accepting a certain amount of risk.

Imagine yourself the person that had to make the decision as to whether or not to cancel this flight and conduct a full security sweep. What would have been your recommendation?

Related articles

United Airlines plane's 'disturbing' image led to 13 firings

Risk Is Part of Life - Accept it!

What are you afraid of?

Government Conspiracy to Suppress Dissent Revealed! Really?

Government Conspiracy to Suppress Dissent Revealed! Really?

Police used teargas to drive back protesters following an attempt by the Occupy supporters to shut down the city of Oakland. Photograph: Noah Berger/AP

Early last month I wrote a blog titled How The Media Raises Your Anxiety Over Terrorist Attacks in which I traced the evolution of a story from a largely unsupported series of statements to a full-blown end-of-the-world type story. There is a story currently making the social media rounds that shows once again have different perspectives, bias, and additions can change even the most common sense and routine government action into a conspiracy.

In her recent article Revealed: how the FBI coordinated the crackdown on Occupy, journalist Naomi Wolf claims proof of a coordinated effort by corporations and the government to repress dissent, citing a document obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund under the Freedom of Information Act. Ms. Wolf links this pre-event surveillance and planning to the violent response by many police departments to Occupy activities, even though the original PCJF article and the related document discusses surveillance and coordination meetings, not tactical plans. Ms. Wolf’s implication is that the violence was preplanned at the direction of corporate America rather the actions of individual officers or poor departmental planning.

However, my real issue is the implication that coordinated planning between government and the corporate sector is by its very nature suspect. This is completely contrary to what we in the emergency management community have been working towards for years. Effective response requires cooperation and integration of all available resources, whether private or public. We try to anticipate problems and to develop an appropriate plan of action.

According to the General Accounting Office, 85% of the critical infrastructure in the United States is in the hands of the private sector. Threats to this infrastructure, from whatever cause, can produce significant harm to both the economy and individual citizens and are therefore the legitimate concern of government. To discharge that responsibility, it is essential that the government work closely with the private sector. To gather information on potential threats, to meet and coordinate planned activities, and to work collaboratively during response is essential. To do otherwise would be gross negligence.

Like many Americans, I’m concerned by the overuse of government surveillance and the gradual erosion of privacy. These are legitimate concerns. However, we must recognize that there are times when surveillance is appropriate and necessary and when government and the private sector must work together for the benefit of all.

Watch for a more in-depth discussion on this topic in this month's newsletter, Emergency Management Solutions.

Related articles

How the Media Raises Your Anxiety Over Terrorist Attacks

Risk Is Part of Life - Accept it!

What are you afraid of?