Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtbag359
Yeah, putting aside for a moment the moral and legal repercussion the fact remain that a fire department, so dependent on funding and donations, made possibly the dumbest mistake they could make from a financing standpoint. Yeah, they saved some money by not fighting the fire and sure they set an example for all 5 people living in the city. However there's something to be said for goodwill, and it's with good reason that businesses across the country strive to acquire it and protect it.
Next time when that fire department goes to the state asking for additional funding they shouldn't be surprised when they get met with a big **** you. Next time they want a raise in salary, '**** you.' Equipment's not up to date, 'looks fine to me.' Standing outside their local Wal-Mart with a fire boot asking for donations, '**** YOU!" The choice they made over $75 in regards to the Cranick's possibly cost them tens of thousands of dollars in funding.
|
You might very well be correct. Emotional responses like this are borne out of the perception that someone was wronged. To me the way to mitigate the risk of that type of perception is that you set the rules (rules that make sense) and you follow them. They followed the rules here. Rules that are in place in some form or another all over the place. I would like to know how this is handled other places. I know this is a common model but we never hear about this happening anywhere else. Fires aren't so uncommon that this couldn't have happened before. Statistically speaking there have to be many fires every year at households where they didn't make their yearly payment.