CA SB556 - The "He looked like them" Law

Special thanks to Mr Herrera for bringing this back to the front burner for me.

Just a quick reminder: The views on this website are mine and mine alone and not endorsed, reviewed or supported by my employer, co-workers, mother or hair dresser.

That being said,

SB 556 s a giant load of Gou shi.

"Oh my Happy...language..."

It is Gou shi.

Somehow the legislature is concerned that Erma Fishbiscuit is going to be confused when the nice men from the fire department arrive to take care of her, but then a completely different group of men arrive to take her into the hospital.  The uniforms may seem similar, but if she puts on her glasses she'll see the patch on the sleeve does not say Fire Department, nor does the ambulance, nor does the bill she'll get in a few weeks.


Apparently the law makers want to make sure Erma is aware that her local Fire Department has no interest in taking care of her by making sure the Fire Department employees wear a patch that clearly states "Government Employee."

Oh, wait.

Scratch that.  Reverse it.

This bill would require uniforms that are similar, but only those not a government agency, to read "Not a Government Agency."

Are we that stupid?

Don't answer that.


This bill had obvious beginnings, that being to make sure the guy AT&T sub contracted my install to can be held liable when he screws up, but it was clearly hijacked by someone, likely a Fire Department Union or 2 unhappy with the ambulance contracts in their area.

Disclosure, I'm a union thug myself.

Requiring private contractors to wear a patch or insignia that states "Not a Government Agency" is just as stupid (and would be shot down in a heartbeat) as asking all municipal fire, police and EMS agencies to wear a large orange hat, designating them Government Agencies.

It's good to know we solved the homeless problem and all the children can go to college free since we're passing legislation to make contractors wear patches to tell the public what it already says on the side of their trucks.


This kind of crap makes me want to run for office just to slap them with the patch that says "Government Agency" and make them pay for it.

"That's not fair, Happy" Yeah...I know...get it?


If you are for SB 556, I welcome your comments and ask that everyone commenting be respectful to one another, whether they be union thug or for profit people mover.


JJ Greulich said…
I've been hearing about this quite a bit lately, but is this submitted just in CA, or is this going to be a national thing? I work in the private sector currently, and was on a FD at one time as well. I agree that forcing non Gov't related entities to identify themselves is a HUGE flaw. There is already enough negative associated with working private..."they are just transportation", "are you guys even real EMT's?" are just a couple of the quotes that have been thrown my way while on duty. Hopefully one day the big shots politicians will see this and realize the magnitude of the error they are attempting to create.
Wayne said…
Would this affect not-for-profit providers too? Out in my neck of the woods we have a few fire departments and EMS services that are actually private, not-for-profit providers that are established strictly for the purpose of providing services to a specific area. I work for one, and none of them wear anything other than the logos and gear of their service, which include the Star of Life and Maltese Cross. Due to the laws of our state they have to be contracted to a government entity, but they are ostensibly the government agency.
totally makes sense...
Too Old To Work said…
Just when I think that legislators can't come up with any more stupid ideas for laws, they prove me wrong.