The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Firefighters union douses volunteerism
Please let's get this out to as many folks as we can. You don't need to agree or disagree, just please read it and let's begin the discussions. Let's get ides out there about whether anything should be done about it.
I think it should be resisted at all cost, but how do volunteers take up the fight?
Firefighters union douses volunteerism
James Sherk
Heritage Foundation
October 9, 2007
You probably haven't heard that Congress is about to shut down many of America's volunteer fire departments. Not intentionally, perhaps. Yet a little-known bill advancing through Congress would do just that.
Nearly 26,000 volunteer fire departments protect tens of millions of Americans and their homes from fires. Almost three out of every four firefighters in the United States are volunteers, and smaller towns and cities call on them for protection. A town with 3,000 residents simply cannot afford the expense of hiring full-time career firefighters. They rely on volunteers.
These volunteer departments are usually anchored by a core of professional career firefighters. Often they work in another city and volunteer to protect their neighbors in their off-duty hours. Volunteer firefighters risk their lives and sacrifice their time for their communities. Who would want to shut them down?
The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), that's who. The IAFF represents career firefighters. Volunteers who give their time and efforts to their communities allow many communities to do without full-time career fire departments. This means fewer jobs for career firefighters, and fewer dues-paying members in the union that represents them. So the IAFF does everything in its power to stop "two-hatters" from volunteering.
The IAFF constitution prohibits its members from belonging to a volunteer fire department. In the words of IAFF President Harold Schaitberger, the decision to volunteer is a personal choice, but "that personal choice is one that can have serious consequences under our Constitution." Union members who disobey face steep union fines that the courts will enforce. In some cities, the IAFF negotiates, on its members' behalf, contracts stating that they will lose their job if they volunteer in their off-duty hours.
The union's effort to ban volunteering is an assault on our civic fabric. Doctors who provide free care to the poor, lawyers who work pro bono for the disadvantaged, and firefighters who volunteer for their communities make America a better country.
Without career firefighters willing to give their time, many volunteer fire departments would have to close. Look at Connecticut. The IAFF negotiated "no-volunteering" clauses in the contracts of every major city there. Now many of the state's volunteer fire departments are having difficulty finding enough volunteers to protect their communities. Some cities have had to raise taxes significantly to hire career firefighters – exactly what the IAFF intended.
Enter the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, which would make it significantly easier for the IAFF to shut down volunteer fire departments. The bill, which passed the House and is before the Senate, has nothing to do with employer-employee cooperation. This bill requires every state and local government to collectively bargain with their police officers and firefighters, and to negotiate virtually every term and condition of employment.
Those states that have decided collective bargaining doesn't meet their needs would have to do so anyway. States that currently limit what they negotiate would have to negotiate almost everything – including "no-volunteering" clauses.
If this bill passes and forces every local government to collectively bargain with its firefighters, the IAFF's membership rolls will swell and the union will have enhanced powers to negotiate away the freedom of its members to volunteer. Many career firefighters who want to serve their community will lose the ability to do so, unless they want to lose their jobs.
Recognizing that concerns for volunteer firefighters could sink the bill, its supporters added a provision specifying that private sector collective bargaining agreements cannot prevent workers from volunteering. Since virtually every firefighter works for the government and not in the private sector, this actually does nothing to protect volunteer firefighters. But it sounds good.
Instead of adding meaningless provisions that do nothing to defend firefighters' right to volunteer, Congress should let local communities decide if collective bargaining is right for them. Many communities have decided that it is. But others, concerned about how unions would attack their volunteer firefighters, have not. Congress should not make it easier for the IAFF to punish firefighters for volunteering to protect their neighbors.
I think it should be resisted at all cost, but how do volunteers take up the fight?
Firefighters union douses volunteerism
James Sherk
Heritage Foundation
October 9, 2007
You probably haven't heard that Congress is about to shut down many of America's volunteer fire departments. Not intentionally, perhaps. Yet a little-known bill advancing through Congress would do just that.
Nearly 26,000 volunteer fire departments protect tens of millions of Americans and their homes from fires. Almost three out of every four firefighters in the United States are volunteers, and smaller towns and cities call on them for protection. A town with 3,000 residents simply cannot afford the expense of hiring full-time career firefighters. They rely on volunteers.
These volunteer departments are usually anchored by a core of professional career firefighters. Often they work in another city and volunteer to protect their neighbors in their off-duty hours. Volunteer firefighters risk their lives and sacrifice their time for their communities. Who would want to shut them down?
The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), that's who. The IAFF represents career firefighters. Volunteers who give their time and efforts to their communities allow many communities to do without full-time career fire departments. This means fewer jobs for career firefighters, and fewer dues-paying members in the union that represents them. So the IAFF does everything in its power to stop "two-hatters" from volunteering.
The IAFF constitution prohibits its members from belonging to a volunteer fire department. In the words of IAFF President Harold Schaitberger, the decision to volunteer is a personal choice, but "that personal choice is one that can have serious consequences under our Constitution." Union members who disobey face steep union fines that the courts will enforce. In some cities, the IAFF negotiates, on its members' behalf, contracts stating that they will lose their job if they volunteer in their off-duty hours.
The union's effort to ban volunteering is an assault on our civic fabric. Doctors who provide free care to the poor, lawyers who work pro bono for the disadvantaged, and firefighters who volunteer for their communities make America a better country.
Without career firefighters willing to give their time, many volunteer fire departments would have to close. Look at Connecticut. The IAFF negotiated "no-volunteering" clauses in the contracts of every major city there. Now many of the state's volunteer fire departments are having difficulty finding enough volunteers to protect their communities. Some cities have had to raise taxes significantly to hire career firefighters – exactly what the IAFF intended.
Enter the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, which would make it significantly easier for the IAFF to shut down volunteer fire departments. The bill, which passed the House and is before the Senate, has nothing to do with employer-employee cooperation. This bill requires every state and local government to collectively bargain with their police officers and firefighters, and to negotiate virtually every term and condition of employment.
Those states that have decided collective bargaining doesn't meet their needs would have to do so anyway. States that currently limit what they negotiate would have to negotiate almost everything – including "no-volunteering" clauses.
If this bill passes and forces every local government to collectively bargain with its firefighters, the IAFF's membership rolls will swell and the union will have enhanced powers to negotiate away the freedom of its members to volunteer. Many career firefighters who want to serve their community will lose the ability to do so, unless they want to lose their jobs.
Recognizing that concerns for volunteer firefighters could sink the bill, its supporters added a provision specifying that private sector collective bargaining agreements cannot prevent workers from volunteering. Since virtually every firefighter works for the government and not in the private sector, this actually does nothing to protect volunteer firefighters. But it sounds good.
Instead of adding meaningless provisions that do nothing to defend firefighters' right to volunteer, Congress should let local communities decide if collective bargaining is right for them. Many communities have decided that it is. But others, concerned about how unions would attack their volunteer firefighters, have not. Congress should not make it easier for the IAFF to punish firefighters for volunteering to protect their neighbors.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Joe Stoltz on
-
That's $1 more a month than I earn... where do I join?
-
Permalink Reply by Joel C Kelley on
-
As noted above, the author obviously does not have a clear grasp of the structure of much of the fire service in this country, yet the legislation is still before Congress. Author's bias notwithstanding, it seems a pretty far leap to claim that the writer is catering to the fears of such a silent majority as the Volunteer corps of the fire service, especially considering that we claim to put fear aside to do what must be done, and for a dollar a month, no less!
The underlying question is: what is behind this legislation? Is it an attempt to move forward for the growth of the union, or an attempt to secure the CBA status for career departments?
Historically, unions start out working for the membership, and have a way of turning into organizations that exist to serve themselves, and to perpetuate their own agenda, membership or not. Where is the IAFF at this point in their history? Is a union capable of working to make every fire job in the country a paid, union job?
-
Permalink Reply by nita on
-
Not only do CBA's help protect paid FF's, they also can help protect the city in which they serve. Having a safer, better trained, better staffed and better paid dept. is beneficial to everyone and that should be at the core of every CBA. I'm not sure what you mean by "it should be the option of the districts that employ them to work through CBA's" ? I don't want the city I'm employed by to have the option any longer of whether to recognize our union or not. We just won a lawsuit against them that they appealed and still lost.The lawsuit was about state laws they have violated for years and would have continued to violate if they had a CHOICE. Laws that they violated and in turn have set this dept. back years. Having collective bargaining may have stopped that before it had to happen. Having collective bargaining may actually give us a pay plan(we've never had one) and that may help us recruit and possibly retain FF's more than 2 years. It may also help us address safety issues like NFPA suggests, that we don't follow. It may help us push for safe staffing levels. It may also save the city money since they train people and then they leave it may save them money on lawyers. It may help them keep their fire rating lower also...in turn saving the citizens money.
There are so many things HR980 possibly will do for depts. like mine.
I don't see how it could force cities with lower tax bases to employ fewer personnel. It's all about bargaining and being reasonable...on both sides. It's about building better paid depts. Fully paid depts. don't usually have a need for volunteers...or at least in my area they don't. I'm not dissing volunteers but it seems to me ..that would be going backwards.
But for arguments sake...let's say the dreaded bill passes and collective bargaining runs rampant and cities all over this country have to cut back because paid FF's forced (LOL)cities to pay them more and give them outrageous benefits. Where would the volunteers come from, you ask?
Maybe some of the one's that just run around saying they are volunteers would actually fight some fires!! Sorry, that wasn't nice was it?
I still say this bill doesn't pertain to volunteers. Read it and tell me how it does.
Let's stick to the issue. The post states many "facts" that are just plain made up and I want someone to back em up.
-
-
We should be clear that better trained does not necessarily come about as a result of CBA, most often in my experience, it means better paid and no change to the training, the logic being that "we are underpaid for all the training we have to acquire." I have never seen a union department that improved its training as a result of unionizing, only its compensation.
It is the intent of the author of the article to imply that if this legislation passes, volunteers will be forced out of combination departments. Having seen this happen in the Denver Metro area, it is a real possibility anywhere combination departments exist. If this bill passes, I believe volunteerism will suffer in combination depatments. All volunteer departments will suffer too because the union has a policy against "two hatting". One person even called it "Scabbing," which more accurately defined means a worker who crosses a strike picket line to go to work, or a worker who works in place of a striking worker. What a union member does in thier off duty time is or should be, no concern of the union, so if a union FF wants to volunteer in his home district, hey more power to them. But from the standpoint of the union, two hatters are preventing the union from creating jobs in volunteer districts, jobs which will ultimately be filled by union firefighters.
The bill does not mention Volunteers, nor does it need to, in order to paint a picture that could be naturally unsettling to volunteers in combination departments. This is just the way I see it. Please understand, I am very much of two minds about this issue, and hoping that this discussion might help me come to a better position.
-
-
I have contacted the Conservative publication that published Mr Sherk's piece and sent them the following:
Dear Editor(s),
I am writing in response to the recent piece By james Sherk regarding HR 980, the Public Safety Employee- employer Cooperation Act.
Mr Sherk is grossly inaccurate when he states that; "volunteer departments are usually anchored by a core of professional career firefighters. Often they work in another city and volunteer to protect their neighbors in their off-duty hours." Fully 75% of the fire service in the US is all volunteer, and their departments serve their communities with ZERO paid personnel, and often paid departments have mutual aid agreements with volunteer departments to respond in paid districts on larger incidents.
His piece is reactionary and poorly researched, if researched at all. The legislation in question never once mentions volunteer firefighters, nor does it imply any change in the status of these volunteers. In general, the piece smacks of union busting, ignoring the glaring inaccuracies of the legislation, which focuses instead on propagandizing the role of emergency responders as 'agents against terror'. The primary mission of responders is to serve people, communities and districts by managing incidents, minimizing loss of life and property, and doing these things in a safe manner.
Mr Sherk's piece is irresponsible and biased against not only career responders, but the volunteers he claims to want to protect. Had he done any research into not only the structure of the fire service in the US, but even bothered to read the Bill, he might be qualified to speak on this topic, but he obviously has too much time and not enough topics. The writers caveat is "write what you know." I suggest Mr. Sherk find something along those lines.
Respectfully submitted, etc, etc.
Because this is a conservative publication, there will naturally be a bias against unions, as the republican party has been against unions since their inception.
Please understand, I am not against IAFF, but like all organizations with any lobbying power, they must be kept in check.
-
-
I would urge everyone on this discussion to fight your way through the legalese, and read this act, which can be found at: http://www.theorator.com/bills110/text/hr980.html. There are some things that should be explored.
1. Under section 2 of the Bill, paragraph 2 states: "(2) State and local public safety officers play an essential role in the efforts of the United States to detect, prevent, and respond to terrorist attacks, and to respond to natural disasters, hazardous materials, and other mass casualty incidents. As the first to arrive on scene, State and local public safety officers must be prepared to protect life and property and to preserve scarce and vital Federal resources, avoid substantial and debilitating interference with interstate and foreign commerce, and to protect the national security of the United States. Public safety employer-employee cooperation is essential in meeting these needs and is, therefore, in the National interest. "
Did I miss something? Has the NFPA changed our job description? I don't ever remember being trained to Detect or prevent terrorist attacks, only to respond to 911 calls and fulfill the job as defined by NFPA. I am a firefighter, not an anti-terror agent. By this bill the Federal government is implying a level of relationship that does not really exist.
2. under definitions, a firefighter is defined as an: "employee engaged in fire protection activities' defined in section 3 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 203(y)). "
Did you notice that no mention is made of paid or volunteer? This means that because Volunteers are not excluded from the definition, they are included. It is legalese but if you ask a lawyer, you are likely to find out this is the case. Like it or not, because Volunteers are not excluded from this bill, they are by definition included. The legal area this creates is a grey one indeed for volunteers. On the one hand, it might mean that as volunteers we could lobby our municipalitis for more training or better equipment, or new bunker gear. On the other hand it could mean that our days are numbered.
-
Permalink Reply by firefighter1and2 on
-
very interesting do you happen to know what the bill is called or refered to? I have just finished ff1 and ff2 for a volunteer dept.
-
-
"Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007"
-
-
Respond is the key word. This bill says that we detect and deter, we do not, we respond. That is the basis of my exception to the paragraph, not that we do not respond. Here in Hawaii county, I would bet that any funding we have received from either source is minimal, and perhaps nonexistent. Our county is opposed to even writing grants for apparatus and equipment!
I don't need to be told about the post 9/11 world we live in. Read what I posted and be clear that I do not consider myself in any way attached to the department of homeland security. I have signed no agreement to serve them, I serve the county of Hawaii, not the federal government. Now if the county serves DHS, then they have created that relationship for me, but we still don't detect or deter.
We respond, and it is a call like any other, no more or lesss special than a house fire.
-
Permalink Reply by Chief Terry Mills (Ret) on
-
Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007, HR980, There are several links early in the discussion to view it. Keep in mind this is not law yet and may not be considered until after the first of the year, depending on how hard the unions push it. This bill has been attempted several times over the past 8 years, and hasn't passed both Houses yet, but we need to keep a close eye on it.
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Brinkley on
-
As I understand it the right to Collective bargaining is for Paid Departments not Volunteer.
It would mandate that if you "hire" fireman then you have to bargain in good faith contractual issues. It also provides for a neutral 3rd party arbitrator to help solve impasse issues (break the tie if you will)
While non-volunteering clauses are a possibility I think most of these departments would put this way down on the priority list when they finally get the chance to negotiate things like salary, retirement, health care, working conditions, shift configurations etc.
Collective bargaining is not the anti-voulnteering animal you say it is.
Stay Safe
Lt Dan
-
-
Just for shits and giggles what would be so bad If your volly dept became a paid dept and hired you on as full time or Part-time help???
I realize that this would be an amazing and probably impossible feat.
The issue at hand is to take care of those of us that are paid and yes that means to increase our numbers so that we may safely operate.
This also will come into play much more in the heavily populated city areas where call volumes far exceed what a full volunteer department can handle.
Stay Safe
Lt Dan
IAFF 19 years
Started as a volunteer
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
