10 ms·

Whenever I read about this I always wonder if this is one of those modern dystopia things where a business is endangering its employees in order to stay open in

Whenever I read about this I always wonder if this is one of those modern dystopia things where a business is endangering its employees in order to stay open in a disaster zone. Like what kind of waivers are people in these Jump Teams signing?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
chrisseaton 7y ago
Presumably they're volunteers and get compensated for it? Some people enjoy that kind of challenge and thrive from helping people and communities.
tpmx 7y ago
Ericsson has a similar response program in place for disasters around the world. They call it "Ericsson Response". The goal is to setup GSM-based emergency networks from scratch very quickly in severe disaster areas where infrastructure is disrupted by natural or other kinds of disasters. For example: Nepal after the devastating earthquake in 2015. They're flying in containers of GSM network equipment, diesel generators, fuel, along with technical people to get things going. Then they'll hand out SIMs/phones to emergency workers ASAP in order to empower logistics in a disaster zone. It's manned by (obviously still paid) volunteers out of their normal working force. This is based from Sweden mostly, I think. I'd expect the usual foreign travel insurance thing, perhaps with an additional hostage negotiation insurance for particular regions. ... Presumably neither of these would be needed for Waffle House employees from the US who travel to another US state? For well-run companies these kinds of things are a win-win thing. The company gets more loyalty, the employees get more motivation and the "end-users" get help. Perhaps the Waffle House is just a well-run company?
- chiefalchemist 7y ago
  > Perhaps the Waffle House is just a well-run company? Forgive me for sounding cynical but I'm going to play Devil' Advocate and ask: Are they well run, or opportunistic? In an area hit by disaster any mom & pops are likely going to be slower to reopen. They have to wait for the insurance company. They have to worry about the homes and family. Etc. WH on the other hand can finance themselves while they wait for the insurance cheque. The out of town employees don't have local home and local family worries. Etc. WH might be well run. But they might also simply be in the best position to rise to the top in disaster areas.
  - tpmx 7y ago
    Damned if you do, damned if you don't? They "only" have about 2.1k locations in the US - one outlet per 163k people in the country. This doesn't seem to me like a "mom & pop"-killer. (Subways has 24k locations, as a point of comparison.)
    - chiefalchemist 7y ago
      To be clear, I did NOT call them a mom & pop kills. I said that __in the context of a disaster__ WH has an __obvious__ and distinct advantage over M&Ps. If you'd like to discuss and/or address that, please do.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    You are inches away from a sudden lightbulb moment that people's ability to have a positive impact is not that closely related to their intentions. It isn't cynical to claim they are being opportunistic as much as it is myopic. If you want all recovery efforts to be done by gloomy stoics who are clawing back at a lifestyle stolen from them by cruel nature while telling heartbreaking stories about how hard it is to rebuild ... that will miss the opportunity that the situation will be quickly and dispassionately sorted out by some faceless corporation exasperated that its profits are down. People like to think of capitalism as some sort of siphon system moving comfort from poor to rich, but it is a very powerful stabilising force. If there was an economic equilibrium and a disaster breaks it, letting capitalism happen will restore most of the status quo extremely quickly. Saying that that is opportunistic is simply framing a positive thing negatively. If people are happy to do something out of their own self interest that is better than them doing it out of a sense of charity; and much more sustainable.
    - falcongod082 7y ago
      Didn't we already try the bread and circuses thing? Capitalism is exploitative by definition, civilizations lasted longer that it has existed so how "stabilizing" it is is certainly not a given, in fact there's evidence for the exact opposite. Capitalism doesn't "restore equilibrium", it dictates it, it's authoritarian and non-merit based.
- trentmb 7y ago
  > They're flying Grunts are, the executive staff, directors, and share holders ain't doin' shit.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    You mean besides planning for it, organizing it and paying for it?
    - _qhtn 7y ago
      No, no one above "director" is doing shit, if that. The customers are paying for it, if only in future higher prices. Wipe that polish off your face before speaking bootlicker.
jandrewrogers 7y ago
That is an exceedingly cynical way of looking at it. People usually volunteer to do this kind of thing and have no small amount of personal pride that they are able to help their neighbors in a disaster. It is a very positive experience for the people that do it, and they are often some of the first people on the ground. This is a manifestation of the self-reliance bias of American culture, they want to fix things themselves when disasters happen. Disaster response in the US is completely driven by these kinds of community-oriented actions by private individuals and companies, and it has a long history of being highly effective.
- ethbro 7y ago
  I've been in the hurricane center at a large retailer (last week, in fact). Aside from freezing prices at before-storm levels, no one who volunteers for the 24/7 emergency staffing is thinking about the dollars. Sales take care of themselves. They're doing it because it feels good to help people. And because rerouting truckloads of supplies effectively at 2 AM means someone in the affected area will be able get to their nearest store and get the things they need. I'm not sure why the comments here are so !%^&ing jaded, but sometimes you do the right thing... simply because it's right.
  - zigzaggy 7y ago
    I totally agree. I think a lot of people think this way and just don’t express their opinions because they have nothing to prove. But there are also lots of selfish people that don’t and they’ll probably never get this.
- CoolGuySteve 7y ago
  How many volunteers are doing it because they need the hours? Does WH pay employees who can't show so they can still cover their bills? Is it ethical to pay someone $7/hour (the average wage of a WH employee) and then ask them if they would volunteer to travel to work in a hurricane?
  - wcunning 7y ago
ryanmcbride 7y ago
If it's _actually_ run by employees who volunteer that'd be cool, but my personal experience of service industry work is that you are are volunteered to do something or you are volunteered to be unemployed. Impossible to know unless some WH employees actually weigh in.
- trentmb 7y ago
  If any profit goes to the employees, I'm on board.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
celticninja 7y ago
I think in general most people would do it to help others, because if things were different you might need the help. ...look for the helpers

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

chrisseaton 7y ago

Presumably they're volunteers and get compensated for it? Some people enjoy that kind of challenge and thrive from helping people and communities.

tpmx 7y ago

Ericsson has a similar response program in place for disasters around the world. They call it "Ericsson Response". The goal is to setup GSM-based emergency networks from scratch very quickly in severe disaster areas where infrastructure is disrupted by natural or other kinds of disasters. For example: Nepal after the devastating earthquake in 2015. They're flying in containers of GSM network equipment, diesel generators, fuel, along with technical people to get things going. Then they'll hand out SIMs/phones to emergency workers ASAP in order to empower logistics in a disaster zone. It's manned by (obviously still paid) volunteers out of their normal working force. This is based from Sweden mostly, I think. I'd expect the usual foreign travel insurance thing, perhaps with an additional hostage negotiation insurance for particular regions. ... Presumably neither of these would be needed for Waffle House employees from the US who travel to another US state? For well-run companies these kinds of things are a win-win thing. The company gets more loyalty, the employees get more motivation and the "end-users" get help. Perhaps the Waffle House is just a well-run company?

chiefalchemist 7y ago
> Perhaps the Waffle House is just a well-run company? Forgive me for sounding cynical but I'm going to play Devil' Advocate and ask: Are they well run, or opportunistic? In an area hit by disaster any mom & pops are likely going to be slower to reopen. They have to wait for the insurance company. They have to worry about the homes and family. Etc. WH on the other hand can finance themselves while they wait for the insurance cheque. The out of town employees don't have local home and local family worries. Etc. WH might be well run. But they might also simply be in the best position to rise to the top in disaster areas.
- tpmx 7y ago
  Damned if you do, damned if you don't? They "only" have about 2.1k locations in the US - one outlet per 163k people in the country. This doesn't seem to me like a "mom & pop"-killer. (Subways has 24k locations, as a point of comparison.)
  - chiefalchemist 7y ago
    To be clear, I did NOT call them a mom & pop kills. I said that __in the context of a disaster__ WH has an __obvious__ and distinct advantage over M&Ps. If you'd like to discuss and/or address that, please do.
- roenxi 7y ago
  You are inches away from a sudden lightbulb moment that people's ability to have a positive impact is not that closely related to their intentions. It isn't cynical to claim they are being opportunistic as much as it is myopic. If you want all recovery efforts to be done by gloomy stoics who are clawing back at a lifestyle stolen from them by cruel nature while telling heartbreaking stories about how hard it is to rebuild ... that will miss the opportunity that the situation will be quickly and dispassionately sorted out by some faceless corporation exasperated that its profits are down. People like to think of capitalism as some sort of siphon system moving comfort from poor to rich, but it is a very powerful stabilising force. If there was an economic equilibrium and a disaster breaks it, letting capitalism happen will restore most of the status quo extremely quickly. Saying that that is opportunistic is simply framing a positive thing negatively. If people are happy to do something out of their own self interest that is better than them doing it out of a sense of charity; and much more sustainable.
  - falcongod082 7y ago
    Didn't we already try the bread and circuses thing? Capitalism is exploitative by definition, civilizations lasted longer that it has existed so how "stabilizing" it is is certainly not a given, in fact there's evidence for the exact opposite. Capitalism doesn't "restore equilibrium", it dictates it, it's authoritarian and non-merit based.
trentmb 7y ago
> They're flying Grunts are, the executive staff, directors, and share holders ain't doin' shit.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  You mean besides planning for it, organizing it and paying for it?
  - _qhtn 7y ago
    No, no one above "director" is doing shit, if that. The customers are paying for it, if only in future higher prices. Wipe that polish off your face before speaking bootlicker.

jandrewrogers 7y ago

That is an exceedingly cynical way of looking at it. People usually volunteer to do this kind of thing and have no small amount of personal pride that they are able to help their neighbors in a disaster. It is a very positive experience for the people that do it, and they are often some of the first people on the ground. This is a manifestation of the self-reliance bias of American culture, they want to fix things themselves when disasters happen. Disaster response in the US is completely driven by these kinds of community-oriented actions by private individuals and companies, and it has a long history of being highly effective.

ethbro 7y ago
I've been in the hurricane center at a large retailer (last week, in fact). Aside from freezing prices at before-storm levels, no one who volunteers for the 24/7 emergency staffing is thinking about the dollars. Sales take care of themselves. They're doing it because it feels good to help people. And because rerouting truckloads of supplies effectively at 2 AM means someone in the affected area will be able get to their nearest store and get the things they need. I'm not sure why the comments here are so !%^&ing jaded, but sometimes you do the right thing... simply because it's right.
- zigzaggy 7y ago
  I totally agree. I think a lot of people think this way and just don’t express their opinions because they have nothing to prove. But there are also lots of selfish people that don’t and they’ll probably never get this.
CoolGuySteve 7y ago
How many volunteers are doing it because they need the hours? Does WH pay employees who can't show so they can still cover their bills? Is it ethical to pay someone $7/hour (the average wage of a WH employee) and then ask them if they would volunteer to travel to work in a hurricane?
- wcunning 7y ago

ryanmcbride 7y ago

If it's _actually_ run by employees who volunteer that'd be cool, but my personal experience of service industry work is that you are are volunteered to do something or you are volunteered to be unemployed. Impossible to know unless some WH employees actually weigh in.

trentmb 7y ago
If any profit goes to the employees, I'm on board.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

celticninja 7y ago

I think in general most people would do it to help others, because if things were different you might need the help. ...look for the helpers