FREEPETEY.COM

Every employer shall:

(1) furnish to each of its employees, employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to its employees and which will provide reasonable and adequate protection to the lives, safety or health of its employees; and

(2) comply with the safety and health standards promulgated under this section. In applying this paragraph, fundamental distinctions between private and public employment shall be recognized.

* * * * * * * * * * 

Comments:  What happens when an internal rule of a municipal department (the inspection rule of FDNY) collides with a statute of the State of New York?  Which trumps the other? A first year law student knows that an internal rule of a department of a municipality yields to a statute of the State of New York.  

No reasonable person would interpret FDNY's internal rule to inspect to mean that FDNY firefighters must inspect regardless of circumstances. Only Bloomberg and Scoppetta would say "Their's not to make reply, Their's not to reason why, Their's but to inspect and die." The circumstances at the place to be inspected determines whether the duty to inspect applies or does not apply.  If the firefighters conducting inspections are not given a plan, training, equipment, etc the lack of which exposes them to deadly and poisonous toxins, there is absolutely no duty to inspect. The FDNY internal inspection rule did not contemplate a deadly and poisonous building.  The assumption of the FDNY's inspection rule was that the buildings that firefighters would enter are safe for entry.

Scoppetta 'sidelined" three fine fire officers purportedly for violating FDNY's internal inspection rule. Why did not Scoppetta 'sideline' those in headquarters who were responsible for making sure that New York State Labor Law §27-a(3)(a) as applied to firefighters was enforced?  There are many, many laws designed to protect the health and safety of firefighters in addition to New York State Labor Law §27-a(3)(a). Over the course of time, we shall present all of them to you. However, the existence of these other laws - laws which Bloomberg and Scoppetta did not talk about at their initial news conferences - proves that there was a rush to judgment here. Doesn't Scoppetta have a law degree?

Bad advice led to the hasty decision to "sideline" three fine fire officers which hasty decision tarnished their reputations.  Bloomberg is getting bad advice. Scoppetta is getting bad advice.  Perhaps the "advisers"  ought to be "sidelined'?

FreePetey's past blogs about the fifteen day rule are found as follows: