Blog Post < Previous | Next >
Wikimedia Commons
Prop 11 - A Private Ambulance Company Tries to Escape Liability
You've probably seen the television advertising blitz telling you to vote yes on proposition 11. You probably become suspicious whenever someone is spending a lot of money on TV adverts to get you to vote a particular way. Why is there money being spent to persuade people?
Who Could Possibly Oppose Such a Wonderful Sounding Proposition?
Proposition 11 sounds like something no one would possibly oppose - another tip off. The proposition's title is:
Ambulance Employees Paid On-Call Breaks, Training, and Mental Health Services Initiative (2018)
I talked to a friend who works for the emergency services and they shared the real story behind prop 11 - of course all is not what it seems...
The real story behind this case is a legal case from the early 2000’s. A security guard sued her company for making her keep her radio on during a lunch break. The CA Supreme Court ruled in her favor in late 2016 and that put AMR, the states largest PRIVATE ambulance provider on the hook for tens of millions in back wage suits.
AMR's Sneaky Approaches to Avoiding Legal Penalties
First time around, AMR tried to pass AB-263, but it failed to pass in committee in July 2017. Now, AMR is spending $21M+ on TV advertising to pass Proposition 11.
If Proposition 11 fails, the primary ‘cost’ to AMR will be settling dozens of lawsuits. But, had they taken care of their employees from the start, we wouldn’t be here.
Separately the bill includes “active shooter training” could easily be required by each County and / or the state.
AMR treats their employees poorly and now they are spending $25M on this ad campaign to persuade voters to pass Proposition 11.
Won't Prop 11 Mean Emergency Service Response Times are Degraded?
Not so. Despite what the TV adverts say 911 services will still come if proposition 11 fails and response times are negotiated at the County level and not tied IN ANY WAY to Prop 11.
Public ballot measures and elections should NOT be a mechanism corporations use to circumvent legal liability.