Re: "Went To Bed In Camp Curry, Woke In Half Dome Village"

Went To Bed In Camp Curry, Woke In Half Dome Village

Interesting article from Sierra News Online.

I wonder how many other workers that I have known for years lost their jobs.

Quote
parklover
I wonder how many other workers that I have known for years lost their jobs.

I read somewhere (I think in the SF Chronicle) that around 85% of DNC Yosemite employees retained their jobs.

.

I am thinking more about the people that are higher up on the ladder like Chuck and JR that were mentioned in the article in this thread. Those are the ones that usually are axed when new management comes in. Does that include Sean Costello who anyone that has been going to Badger for a long time knows? Aramark said 95% and you read 85% so you have to wonder how many people that have been there for a long time are now gone. I did read that Tom Bopp was told on the 29th that he still had a job.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2016 08:25AM by parklover.

Hope Tom's still allowed to use his old name...DNC might very well claim that it's part of the "Wawona Hotel" trademark!

Quote
DavidK42
Hope Tom's still allowed to use his old name...DNC might very well claim that it's part of the "Wawona Hotel" trademark!

I would really miss him if he was gone. Poor man, I always ask him to sing Wawona Moon for me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIjukIEPUgI and I don't think it is one of his favorites or else a lot of people ask him to sing it. It looks like his schedule is the same.
http://www.yosemitemusic.com/bopsched.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2016 03:47PM by parklover.

I know a lot had to have drug tests. Wow, that would've been disastrous for the workforce when I worked there in '78.

I really don't understand part of this. In that article it mentions improvements that DNC paid for that Aramark should have to purchase.

This is either spelled out in the contracts, or it is not. DNC claims it is part of the contract. Is it? Or isn't it?

The name controversy aside, WTF is going on? Does Aramark have to pay fair market value for the improvements or not?

Who is being the dick regarding this part of the story? The govt, Aramark or DNC?

Quote
hotrod4x5
I really don't understand part of this. In that article it mentions improvements that DNC paid for that Aramark should have to purchase.

This is either spelled out in the contracts, or it is not. DNC claims it is part of the contract. Is it? Or isn't it?

The name controversy aside, WTF is going on? Does Aramark have to pay fair market value for the improvements or not?

Who is being the dick regarding this part of the story? The govt, Aramark or DNC?

Somewhere in the tons of things that I read was the contract and the contract basically says that improving and maintaining the facilitates, such as painting,replacing carpet,remodeling, repairs, etc are part of the responsibility of the concessionaire during the term of their contract. DNC wants to be reimbursed for those costs. It would be like if you go to sell your house and on top of the selling price of your house you also expect the buyer to pay for all the things you did to the house while you owned it.

Quote
parklover

Quote
hotrod4x5
I really don't understand part of this. In that article it mentions improvements that DNC paid for that Aramark should have to purchase.

This is either spelled out in the contracts, or it is not. DNC claims it is part of the contract. Is it? Or isn't it?

The name controversy aside, WTF is going on? Does Aramark have to pay fair market value for the improvements or not?

Who is being the dick regarding this part of the story? The govt, Aramark or DNC?

Somewhere in the tons of things that I read was the contract and the contract basically says that improving and maintaining the facilitates, such as painting,replacing carpet,remodeling, repairs, etc are part of the responsibility of the concessionaire during the term of their contract. DNC wants to be reimbursed for those costs. It would be like if you go to sell your house and on top of the selling price of your house you also expect the buyer to pay for all the things you did to the house while you owned it.

If I were to buy a house, the condition would be important in terms of how much it was worth, especially if there's going to be a big repair bill. However, that's not the case with Delaware North. The terms of their contract were that maintenance and improvements were their responsibility and not compensable. They were basically doing things such as replacing old toilets or carpets, which were their basic responsibility under the contract terms, and not subject to compensation. NPS's response is in 57 to 61:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2690966/Gov-Uscourts-Cofc-31586-12-0.pdf

The feds cited 54 USC 101915(e), which is the following:

Quote

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/54/101915-

(e) Title to Improvements.— Title to any capital improvement constructed by a concessioner on land owned by the United States in a System unit shall be vested in the United States.

Quote
y_p_w

Quote
parklover

Quote
hotrod4x5
I really don't understand part of this. In that article it mentions improvements that DNC paid for that Aramark should have to purchase.

This is either spelled out in the contracts, or it is not. DNC claims it is part of the contract. Is it? Or isn't it?

The name controversy aside, WTF is going on? Does Aramark have to pay fair market value for the improvements or not?

Who is being the dick regarding this part of the story? The govt, Aramark or DNC?

Somewhere in the tons of things that I read was the contract and the contract basically says that improving and maintaining the facilitates, such as painting,replacing carpet,remodeling, repairs, etc are part of the responsibility of the concessionaire during the term of their contract. DNC wants to be reimbursed for those costs. It would be like if you go to sell your house and on top of the selling price of your house you also expect the buyer to pay for all the things you did to the house while you owned it.

If I were to buy a house, the condition would be important in terms of how much it was worth, especially if there's going to be a big repair bill. However, that's not the case with Delaware North. The terms of their contract were that maintenance and improvements were their responsibility and not compensable. They were basically doing things such as replacing old toilets or carpets, which were their basic responsibility under the contract terms, and not subject to compensation. NPS's response is in 57 to 61:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2690966/Gov-Uscourts-Cofc-31586-12-0.pdf

The feds cited 54 USC 101915(e), which is the following:

Quote

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/54/101915-

(e) Title to Improvements.— Title to any capital improvement constructed by a concessioner on land owned by the United States in a System unit shall be vested in the United States.

So DNC is lying.

Quote
y_p_w

Quote
parklover

Quote
hotrod4x5
I really don't understand part of this. In that article it mentions improvements that DNC paid for that Aramark should have to purchase.

This is either spelled out in the contracts, or it is not. DNC claims it is part of the contract. Is it? Or isn't it?

The name controversy aside, WTF is going on? Does Aramark have to pay fair market value for the improvements or not?

Who is being the dick regarding this part of the story? The govt, Aramark or DNC?

Somewhere in the tons of things that I read was the contract and the contract basically says that improving and maintaining the facilitates, such as painting,replacing carpet,remodeling, repairs, etc are part of the responsibility of the concessionaire during the term of their contract. DNC wants to be reimbursed for those costs. It would be like if you go to sell your house and on top of the selling price of your house you also expect the buyer to pay for all the things you did to the house while you owned it.

If I were to buy a house, the condition would be important in terms of how much it was worth, especially if there's going to be a big repair bill. However, that's not the case with Delaware North. The terms of their contract were that maintenance and improvements were their responsibility and not compensable. They were basically doing things such as replacing old toilets or carpets, which were their basic responsibility under the contract terms, and not subject to compensation. NPS's response is in 57 to 61:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2690966/Gov-Uscourts-Cofc-31586-12-0.pdf

The feds cited 54 USC 101915(e), which is the following:

Quote

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/54/101915-

(e) Title to Improvements.— Title to any capital improvement constructed by a concessioner on land owned by the United States in a System unit shall be vested in the United States.

Thanks for posting the link. As for my example of selling a house, it had nothing to do with the next owner having a big repair bill but to point out that if during the time that you owned a house if you painted it, repaired it, changed the carpet, remodeled it or made any improvements that you could not expect the buyer to pay for those things on top of the appraised valued of the house because they those are things that you do when you own a house. Just like DNC had to do those same things and should not expect extra compensation. Maybe I am not explaining my analogy clear enough.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/05/2016 10:41PM by parklover.