The issue in this particular case is whether or not the city should vote in favor or against a particular proposal regarding the buying of the SmartMeters by Precise Parklink. The city would lease the machines back, continuing to receive revenue from the meters without having to pay for the manufacturing or purchasing of parts and software that are necessary in order to allow the machines to continue to function. The original warranty is now up on the machines and the city must make a determination as to whether to attempt to run them on their own or hire someone to do so.
The concern in this case was in regards to the labor union who believed they may lose their jobs should the proposal pass, but the city states that the situation for the labor union will continue as before, with the exception of the fact that it will be Precise Parklink who is paying for the parts, as opposed to the original company manufacturer, whose warranty is now up.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Analyzing a Legal Problem".
The rule appears to be a rational one, should it pass, with Precise Parklink being paid more than the original cost of the machines to rent them out in order to ensure that they are responsible for parts and software upgrades and replacement parts and software in the event of a breakdown. They step in place of the original manufacturer, taking over the same duties of the original warranty, and being paid extra for doing so.
The general ruling will allow the city to continue to pay the union at the same rates for the same job, and will ensure that the city does not have to spend an amount equal to that paid in labor for repairs. It does not appear to break any laws and would appear to be a mutually beneficial relationship for all.
