why i used to hate DPW

bronco2121 · Post by **bronco2121** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:14 pm

give me a break: safety third... DPW only!! the whatevertheyare-morethanyouare-thing... yeah, it gets old and who the fuck cares if they're FILO? but then i watched this:

http://flight77.info/bm.html

they're BALLS, even if they think saying 'safety third' is still cool.

B!

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:47 pm

Shooter::Bronco2121

bronco2121 · Post by **bronco2121** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:09 pm

SHOOTER:

Name for a friend that "has your back". Another word for "blood brother" used like "niggas" or other terms of brotherhood.

As in: Where my shooters at? I don't see my shooters, are they late?

MikeVDS · Post by **MikeVDS** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:31 pm

Safety 3rd is not "cool" anymore? Well FUCK! Now what am I going to do. I worked so hard trying to look cool and it's come to this. Complete failure. Now I just have to decide which gun to shoot myself with. Let's see if I can figure out a way to use the 50 cal.

robbidobbs · Post by **robbidobbs** » Mon Apr 02, 2007 5:36 pm

I don't personally subscribe to the safety 3rd philosophy, and honestly it's a bad policy for anyone. It's your own dum ass that gets burnt if you're not careful. Still, DPW folks tend to know their limits.

wedeliver · Post by **wedeliver** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:06 am

Couple years ago, crusing around and run into this young couple DPW volunteers. After we got up and brushed ourselves off, they shared their story with me.

They had purchased tickets and were volunteers for DPW (I think virgins) and had arrived Saturday. They came in at night and turned in on the 3 mile road. They got pulled over, almost arrested and held at the greeters station for a couple hours.

They had tickets and their names where on the DPW list but they still had a miserable time when they arrived.

I talked to a couple of BM people at center camp and was told that everything that is being done is for our safety. (sounded like GW bush).

Hey Shooter is it true, I heard that homeland security along with blm might have a problem in the future with this sized event because of the difficulty in proving necessary services. Example. If a major storm... leaves water on the playa there ain't no way out. (some boats and helicopters) or way in for ambulances etc....

MikeVDS · Post by **MikeVDS** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:19 am

It's your own dum ass that gets burnt if you're not careful

True, but it's still 3rd on the list, which is pretty damn high on the list considering it's THE list. We compromise safety every day we get on the highway, or jump out of a plane. If it was truly first, life would be no fun. Which is why I think it's a great policy. Maybe not for the workplace, but to live by. I've adopted the rules #1 and #2 as fun and drunken engineering, respectively. Sometimes either of those can be considered "unsafe" but we can't let that get in the way.

bronco2121 · Post by **bronco2121** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:45 am

wedeliver,

contrary to the magic-like intuition of isotopia, i'm not shooter. i'm bronco - which is why my ID includes the word 'bronco' in it, as bronco is my name.

from what i gather about shooter, you probably won't find him on eplaya - that'd be like catching him reading a copy of the black rock gazette. but who knows?

IMO, homeland security SHOULD shut down burningman. the event is absolutely dangerous - a recipe for disaster. i'm constantly in fear out there, which is why i bring more jack daniels than i can possibly drink (although last year i did run out).

B!

Zhust · Post by **Zhust** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:28 am

bronco2121 wrote:give me a break: safety third... DPW only!! the whatevertheyare-morethanyouare-thing... yeah, it gets old and who the fuck cares if they're FILO? but then i watched this:

http://flight77.info/bm.html

they're BALLS, even if they think saying 'safety third' is still cool.

B!

How about this for a deal: in exchange for better conditions, they have to punch-in and punch-out, can't drink on the job or use drugs -- with testing, and must use safety equipment.

The thing is the DPW job -- while hard -- is also very much a perfect job otherwise for a certain kind of person. If there was a problem finding people, the benefits would be increased.

I have little sympathy. After getting laid off 3 years ago I didn't go back to the tit of corporate desk-job. I took a pay-cut of 100% for a while and now earn about 1/5 what I did before. I'm shooting for earning enough to live comfortably, but without compromising my freedom to work, or my hours, or my work habits, or whether I have a drink on-the-clock. And no, it's not DPW.

Toolmaker · Post by **Toolmaker** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:28 am

bronco2121 wrote:IMO, homeland security SHOULD shut down burningman. the event is absolutely dangerous - a recipe for disaster. i'm constantly in fear out there, which is why i bring more jack daniels than i can possibly drink (although last year i did run out).

B!

Stop going. Problem solved!

jaycerochester wrote:How about this for a deal: in exchange for better conditions, they have to punch-in and punch-out, can't drink on the job or use drugs -- with testing, and must use safety equipment.

It is my understanding that DPW workers are to sober and safe while working. This is repeated throughout their information provided to volunteers and potential workers. There is even mention of the possibility of being asked to leave DPW if you cannot work in a safe and sober manner. People that work hard like to play hard and DPW is one of the jewels in ruff of the playa.

Lassen Forge · Post by **Lassen Forge** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:11 am

Toolmaker wrote:It is my understanding that DPW workers are to sober and safe while working. This is repeated throughout their information provided to volunteers and potential workers. There is even mention of the possibility of being asked to leave DPW if you cannot work in a safe and sober manner. People that work hard like to play hard and DPW is one of the jewels in ruff of the playa.

You're right. May not have been whenever before, but it was accurate last year when I volunteered up there.

The "protest video"?? Both sides were wrong IMO.

From the protesters side - it's a work thing. If you don't like the conditions the company asks of you, don't work there. Confidentiality agreements and waiver are common elsewhere, the org is a private employer / contractor. If you have a legal beef - see them in court. Just like any other group of PO'd employees.

And if that group of "counter-protesters" coming out of the org's HQ - Yeesh. MONDO black eye for the org. If it was organized by someone in the org (I hope to God it wasn't!), and I was on the board, I'd have said organizer fired. Absolutely the WRONG way to handle a protest. If it were a group acting independently, someone official should have gone out, disavowed said counterprotesters, and told them they were not welcome back on company property.

Basic Labor Relations 101. You have 2 immediate and viable options.
(1) An official goes out, invites the protesters leader in for a meet and confer (or agrees at a time and place to hear their greivances), and gets them gone. Handle the complaints, ignore the complaints, whatever, but at least look like you're the mature, responsible company owner on both their and your video. Looks good for the media and for the courts if it goes that way. And other than that - don't say jack SHIT in front of a camera in the middle of a protest.
Or (2) Ignore the huge group of, what, 3 people? They will go home, and you get your work done. If they're disturbing the peace, call the law. But whatever you don, you DON'T go out and antagonize protesters. NEVER. (Oh and "huggy" could have been arrested for battery, which *really* would have made the org look bad. Once the protester said "don't touch me" that person was off limits - you don't get near him.)

Hell - I knew this stuff way before I got into management.

bb

BAS · Post by **BAS** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:47 pm

Basic Labor Relations 101. You have 2 immediate and viable options.
(1) An official goes out, invites the protesters leader in for a meet and confer (or agrees at a time and place to hear their greivances), and gets them gone. Handle the complaints, ignore the complaints, whatever, but at least look like you're the mature, responsible company owner on both their and your video. Looks good for the media and for the courts if it goes that way. And other than that - don't say jack SHIT in front of a camera in the middle of a protest.
Or (2) Ignore the huge group of, what, 3 people? They will go home, and you get your work done. If they're disturbing the peace, call the law. But whatever you don, you DON'T go out and antagonize protesters. NEVER. (Oh and "huggy" could have been arrested for battery, which *really* would have made the org look bad. Once the protester said "don't touch me" that person was off limits - you don't get near him.)

Hell - I knew this stuff way before I got into management. Rolling Eyes

I've never been management, and have always wondered why those concepts are so hard for management to grasp... esp. the first one (which I think is probably the best way to handle the situation most of the time.)

The "counter-protesters" only served to make me more sympathetic to the three protesters.

B.

bronco2121 · Post by **bronco2121** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 4:29 pm

jaycerochester wrote:

>>If there was a problem finding people, the benefits would be increased.
------------

no question that there's no problem finding people to work at DPW. hence the bags over the heads. if you're afraid of being replaced, that means you're replaceable - you're lucky to even have a job there.

i believe people are paid exactly what they're worth. 40-50 bucks a day - you better like it because we can get 10 other people in a minute to do the job for $10 or even for just the price of a ticket.

that's fine in a fee market, corporate society. few would argue. but this is burningman. we take care of our own; we're a family. we don't undercut family because we can get labor a bit cheaper or get it for free. there is an established tradition at this point in the evolution... there must be. it's not about making/saving a bit more - but that's is the way it's going/gone.

i am not pro DPW, by the way. i don't like the way DPW culture strives to be cooler than the general population, that which makes DPW possible. but even as i say that - you have a new watered-down version of DPW happening - those who wander around the playa saying, 'safety third' and making it into something cool-to-be-a-part-of beyond being a bunch of assholes who formed a clique to out-cool the organizers (and don't get me started on THOSE bastards and bitches).

i'm just a guy who watched shooter on the video, and in the end found a new level of respect for DPW in general terms.

B!

Toolmaker · Post by **Toolmaker** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:47 pm

bronco2121 wrote: a bunch of assholes who formed a clique to out-cool the organizers (and don't get me started on THOSE bastards and bitches).

Guess that means you won't be coming to BM this year.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:40 pm

There's an old saying about the free market.
And we don't have a free market when corporations have become oligarchies.

They pretend to pay us.
We pretend to work.

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:30 pm

i'm just a guy who watched shooter on the video, and in the end found a new level of respect for DPW in general terms.

Funny that. Most DPW people I know think the guy's a jerk and not one I've talked to has suggested that he 'speaks' for them in any way. Certainly most will tell you that yeah, he was once DPW but that was some time ago and that he's riding that label to buttress what small amount of legitimacy he has as a 'spokesman' for the larger organization he claims to represent.

bronco2121 · Post by **bronco2121** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:06 pm

toolmaker wrote:

>>>Guess that means you won't be coming to BM this year.

guess again - i LOVE those bitches and bastards.

B!

bronco2121 · Post by **bronco2121** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:22 pm

isotopia wrote:

>>>Most DPW people I know think the guy's a jerk

by DPW standards? i didn't think 'jerk' even registered as a characterization. sort of like saying the playa is dusty. but then there's this new DPW culture happening... ya know - the kinder/gentler types who get the giggles after spreading the tuesday-after-the-burn warning that a 60 MPH dust storm is coming. everyone knows winds on tuesday reach at least 65 MPH. talk about jerks...

B!

Dork · Post by **Dork** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 12:46 pm

If BMORG is in fact violating labor laws, they should be called on it and forced to make corrections. The laws are there for a reason. Attacking the messenger is bogus. If his message is wrong, then attack that.

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 1:30 pm

If his message is wrong, then attack that.

You should check out Tribe.

Dork · Post by **Dork** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 1:51 pm

Isotopia wrote:You should check out Tribe.

How does something that might have been posted on Tribe (I went through 10 pages of posts and couldn't find anyone disputing his claims of illegal treatment, btw) make it ok to attack the messenger and ignore the message here?

MikeVDS · Post by **MikeVDS** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 2:05 pm

How does something that might have been posted on Tribe (I went through 10 pages of posts and couldn't find anyone disputing his claims of illegal treatment, btw) make it ok to attack the messenger and ignore the message here?

I say attack the messenger. I know nothing about the legality of the case but if it holds then why whine on the internet instead of putting things in front of a court? Lots of people put themselves at risk setting up the event other than DPW. Lots of big art and theme camps put lots of work in for free, without insurance etc. Should the lamplighters get paid? There is just a fine line for why some people get paid for what others of us do for free for an event that is completely unnecessary in the first place. Now if there is a specific case of someone who was promised more money than they received or someone hurt on the job who is not being covered under the law, I'll gladly support that cause, but if you want to play burningman (which is hard work for lots of people) for a few months and want to get paid well, good luck. If they start paying well I'd like to sign up for that too.

Dork · Post by **Dork** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 2:34 pm

Taking someone to court costs a lot of money on both sides and isn't guaranteed to change anything long term, which is what Shooter claims to be pushing for. Boycotts, picketing, media presure, etc are used quite often for this type of thing. What he's doing is hardly new.

Following the bare minimum legal requirements for pay, sanitation, etc is hardly "paying well".

I don't know enough about the laws for how employees and volunteers are treated to know if Shooter has a case or not. Most of these online debates have consisted of "They're breaking the law", "He sucks, don't listen to him", and "Forget the laws, those guys know what they're getting into". I haven't seen a real attempt to dispute the legal claims.

I will be putting in the equivalent of several months of full time work this year with my project. One big difference, though, is nobody is telling me how to do it, where to live, when to show up every day, or what conditions to work under.

MikeVDS · Post by **MikeVDS** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:04 pm

I haven't seen a real attempt to dispute the legal claims.

Have you seen any real legal claims? Like they are breaking code abc section xyz?

Isotopia · Post by **Isotopia** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:07 pm

Following the bare minimum legal requirements for pay, sanitation, etc is hardly "paying well".

And you're assuming that the allegations made by several (a total of 3) disgruntled, ex-DPW workers has validity?

I haven't seen a real attempt to dispute the legal claims.

And that might be because no one's interested in providing legitimacy for what's generally considered by more than a few accounts to be nothing more than shit stirring by a disgruntled past employee.

Dork · Post by **Dork** » Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:45 pm

Isotopia wrote:And you're assuming that the allegations made by several (a total of 3) disgruntled, ex-DPW workers has validity?

I'm not assuming anything, which is why I'm so bothered by the tactics used to discredit them. None of it means anything. All it does is deflect, which makes me suspicious.

MikeVDS · Post by **MikeVDS** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:05 am

All it does is deflect, which makes me suspicious.

What are their claims? If they don't make any solid legal claims, you cannot argue against (or for) them.

As to the "counter protest", it looked like most of those people were just out there having fun and seeing what was going on. It didn't look like a conspiracy or anything. It was just the protesters were taking things seriously and the counter protesters were joking and not taking things seriously nor assuming that people with bags on their heads were taking things seriously either. Also things like that bring more attention, not deflect it. I can see doing the same thing in the same situation. The counter protesters just saw something going on and went out razzing and joking about it, thinking burners could have some fun with it. I think the protesters don't come off as if they are treating it seriously, so why would they expect people to take them seriously? Where are their petitions, where are their formal statements? 3 bagged people without any real claims other than "the corporations are corporationy" doesn't inspire me to get behind their cause.

bronco2121 · Post by **bronco2121** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:58 pm

the protestors are going against the grain and causing trouble in general. the burningman organization is NOT focused on the money. knowing that, i will ignore today's email from larry harvey inviting me to the 'black rock arts foundation' fundraiser on 4/19: http://www.donatetoblackrockarts.org/2ndanflyoli4.html

where for just $250 i will get the 'tiara special' including VIP preview. (was hoping for the utilikilt special) if that kind of money makes you IMPORTANT, does it make you cool, also?

if you attend, just don't turn around to see the frowns on the jugglers and the clowns as they all do tricks for you. keep thinking - i'm cool. i'm cool. i'm cool... it's not about the money.

B!

Archantael · Post by **Archantael** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 3:50 pm

Good grief, what's next? Little plaques on all the art stating who funded particular pieces of art? Or wait, how about breaking the no commerce rule and having public television style pledge drives on the playa? No wait, let's import the street kids from the bay area and hire them to apply their panhandling skills towards raking in money for the org...

It's all part of the never ending march towards the ultimate Disney-fication of the event. Since it's all about the $$green$$, they might as well get onboard with the expanded cell coverage that's coming and try to send ads to everyone's phones to ask for money.

If there's a Sprint Nextel rep running an online search for sales leads, here's a contact:
The Black Rock Arts Foundation
1900 3rd Street - First Floor
San Francisco, CA 94158
415.626.1248
[email protected]

By the way does anyone give a flying rat's azz what's going on over on Tribe? And as for Shooter's claims, this is America so if he wants to stand out on a street corner or sidewalk and protest / bitch, more power to him. At least he's exercising his free speech rights instead of watching them get stripped away.

MikeVDS · Post by **MikeVDS** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:33 pm

At least he's exercising his free speech rights instead of watching them get stripped away.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive, but at least it sounds good.

why i used to hate DPW

why i used to hate DPW

shooter

not i

Re: why i used to hate DPW

Re: not i

Re: not i

mmm

Re: mmm

on na

really...

drawing lines