Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

South Carolina Officials Ready to Fire Man Over Marriage
Firehouse ^ | 6/11/05 | CHRISTINA LEE KNAUSS

Posted on 06/11/2005 8:11:20 AM PDT by XR7

When Matthew Cooper moved to Rock Hill from Ohio two years ago, he didn't plan to fall in love.

But Cooper, 25, met a woman at a picnic and did just that. Now he and his fiancee, Brooke Lowery, 21, are about to marry - and the June 18 wedding could cost him his job as a firefighter for the city of Rock Hill.

His future father-in-law, Herbie Lowery, also is a Rock Hill firefighter, and city policy says relatives can't work together in the same city department.

Under the policy, Cooper will be terminated 30 days after he marries. He and his supporters are urging the city of 56,000 to change its policy.

"I'll say 'I do' but I won't say 'I quit,'" he told about 60 people, some of them firefighters, at a Rock Hill union hall Wednesday. "They can fire me, but I'm not going to voluntarily quit."

City officials say the policy is designed to keep conflicts of interest out of city departments and that Cooper agreed to the policy when he was hired.

"He was told of the potential conflict as soon as his relationship with Lowery became known and was reminded that he signed this policy," said Linda Alleva, Rock Hill public affairs director.

Cooper's supporters say the policy belittles the institution of marriage.

"They're saying Matt will lose his job not because of a poor work record but because of commitment to love in a Christian marriage," said the Rev. Joseph James, pastor of the couple's church, India Hook United Methodist.

The city's policy, which was last amended in July 2003, prohibits immediate family members from working in the same department. "Immediate family" includes spouses, parents, siblings, children, in-laws, stepchildren, stepparents, nieces, nephews, cousins, uncles and aunts.

(Excerpt) Read more at cms.firehouse.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: boohoo; getprivatesectorjob; nepotism; rulesarerules
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

1 posted on 06/11/2005 8:11:20 AM PDT by XR7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: XR7

That policy is common but also one of the stupidest policies I've heard. I know more than one person who gave up on marrying someone they loved because they didn't want to lose a job.


2 posted on 06/11/2005 8:13:47 AM PDT by RockinRight (Conservatism is common sense, liberalism is just senseless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
"That policy is common but also one of the stupidest policies I've heard."

Not stupid at all. Before widespread passage of these kinds of laws and policies, nepotism was a huge problem in politics and business. Just about every time a new person was elected to office, he or she would "pad the payroll" with their relatives. Some were competent---most weren't. It hasn't eliminated the problem by any means, but it has certainly reduced it.

3 posted on 06/11/2005 8:20:18 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: XR7

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1418649/posts?page=5


4 posted on 06/11/2005 8:22:02 AM PDT by Rippersnapper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XR7

Marry the girl. Get fired. Collect unemployment. Get a new job.


5 posted on 06/11/2005 8:23:13 AM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Exactly right!!


6 posted on 06/11/2005 8:23:29 AM PDT by Eagles Talon IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
....however, it has done nothing to change the one important thing you said;

..some are competent, some are not.....

I see no dif in our "public servants".

7 posted on 06/11/2005 8:23:44 AM PDT by norraad ("What light!">Blues Brothers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GVgirl


Exactly...but there's not many jobs in Rock Hill. He'll probably have to move to Florence, Columbia, or Spartnburg....small state...none of those cities are far.


8 posted on 06/11/2005 8:24:11 AM PDT by in hoc signo vinces ("Soylent green is people!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: XR7
"They're saying Matt will lose his job not because of a poor work record but because of commitment to love in a Christian marriage,"

Well, that's not exactly true.

Matt will lose his job because of a rule prohibiting family members from working in the same department.

9 posted on 06/11/2005 8:27:07 AM PDT by airborne (Dear Lord, please be with my family in Iraq. Keep them close to You and safely in Your arms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: XR7
..."They're saying Matt will lose his job not because of a poor work record but because of commitment to love in a Christian marriage," said the Rev. Joseph James...

Here we go. So, let's get all the local Christians and go down and picket the firehouse. Have all the Christians boycott...something...I know, if you're a Christian and your house catches on fire, don't let this fire department come put it out.

Sheesh.

11 posted on 06/11/2005 8:29:59 AM PDT by FReepaholic (When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

While I agree about the old problem with nepotism, I think this is a little extreme. It's not like his future father-in-law got him the job pending his marriage in the first place. A little common sense would go a long way, but then, we are talking about bureaucrats.


12 posted on 06/11/2005 8:30:09 AM PDT by ABG(anybody but Gore) (I don't hate anybody, except the French....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

"Not stupid at all. Before widespread passage of these kinds of laws and policies, nepotism was a huge problem in politics and business. Just about every time a new person was elected to office, he or she would "pad the payroll" with their relatives. Some were competent---most weren't. It hasn't eliminated the problem by any means, but it has certainly reduced it."



And a newly elected DA in New Orleans (The Hat), fired about 80 people and replaced them all with blacks. They sued him and now the government has to pay the millions in damages.


13 posted on 06/11/2005 8:30:39 AM PDT by need_a_screen_name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: in hoc signo vinces

He can do like most of the other Rock Hill residents do....work in Charlotte.


14 posted on 06/11/2005 8:31:30 AM PDT by csmusaret (Urban Sprawl is an oxymoron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: in hoc signo vinces
I live in a small town, too. If we didn't have policies like this, our government jobs would be locked-up tight by certain families and probably for generations!

He's just going to have to tough it out.

15 posted on 06/11/2005 8:33:01 AM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret


True...forgot how close that is...right down 77.


16 posted on 06/11/2005 8:33:52 AM PDT by in hoc signo vinces ("Soylent green is people!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
That says more about his commitment to her than it says about a policy that makes sense for some businesses. While you can argue the legitimacy of a policy such as this, you would be hard pressed to argue that a company hasn't the right to impose it.
If you have a trade you can always find another job, but can you ever find your soulmate again?
17 posted on 06/11/2005 8:35:58 AM PDT by scars
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: XR7

Really odd one here. In NYC and other cities the Fire Departments have a long, long tradition of family Firemen.

Archaic laws??


18 posted on 06/11/2005 8:36:31 AM PDT by Bean Counter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Just about every time a new person was elected to office, he or she would "pad the payroll" with their relatives.

Actually, this is what our founding fathers wanted.
That way, when you voted some bum out of office, all his cronies which he appointed go out too.

Now, and since the passage of the civil service system, we are stuck with a permanent bureaucracy - bloated with bureaucrats that cannot get fired, state & federal government workers' unions, etc., etc., ad nauseaum.

When the founders stated that there should be no "titles of nobility," they were seeking to prevent the permanent government class. Look around. The problem isn't just with elected officials, although they are largely to blame. But, we can vote them out if we get mad enough. It is the permanent government class that is bleeding us dry. They are the new "Lords" with big paychecks and fat pensions earned sitting on their asses in permamnent government jobs - grinding the wheels of our federal, state, and local governments to a halt with volumes upon volumes of regulations, rules, and endless paperwork and inertia.

19 posted on 06/11/2005 8:36:37 AM PDT by XR7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: XR7

Management by Over-Reaction.


20 posted on 06/11/2005 8:39:19 AM PDT by Ramonan (Honor does not go out of style.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson