It is the job that you're not getting paid to do that is the problem. Employers are taking advantage of the high unemployment and culling their staff, expecting one person to do the job of two, or three, or four. Perhaps the unions take it the other way in some cases ... keeping the mediocre alive with some specific members taking advantage by having jobs and not working ... but employers have taken advantage too. Paying management bonuses for cutting costs while those "costs" are providing working safe equipment and people. Where is the limit? When workers physically can't get the job done and die in work related accidents or from the stress? Perhaps employees have it too good ... but returning to the sweat shop mentality where the people seem owned by the company and can be discarded when they wear out (plenty of other people to be the next wave of victims) doesn't seem right. The one case I saw on TV was of a pregnant woman and her baby. The overwhelmed 911 operators (not part of the slow down) had too many calls to handle and did not classify the emergency correctly. By the time the complaint was seen as an emergency it was too late. I'd like to see a fair accounting of how much the "slow down" actually affected response. In years where the response was considered adequate was the staffing level higher? Were the number of deaths lower? Someone dying in a severe weather event shouldn't be a surprise.