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 Rob Bowman on
-
All,
I fight fire near Brockville, Ontario, Canada. This has been an issues in my area for a number of years. My department has lost only one of 40 members due to the "two hatter" issue(thats what we call it in canada). Although some other FD's in my are have lost as many as 4 or 5. Firstly, fulltime or volunteer, we are all brothers, I know we all would have any other FF's back wiith the slightest thought, volunteer or fulltime. Whats at issue hear is the IAFF and the locals. You see in Canada the IAFF has the same rule, but up until a few years enforcement of it was up to the local heads. For some reason a few years ago the IAFF started insisting on enforcing it. What I see is a union, which basically wishes to swell its membership and is pockets. One of the resons I often hear for heavy handed enforcement of this, is if a FF was busy responding to calls, training etc. for a volunteer department on his days off, he would be get burnt out or be too tired to be effective for their full time department. This to me is a non issue, just a fly by night excuse. Whats the difference if say that fulltimer was bulding themselves a house on their days off, had a different profession on the days off to supplement their income? No difference, except the IAFF see a possibility of growing. At the end of the day, what a firefighter, police officer, EMT, construction working, secretary, what ever profession you want, their "DAY OFF" is their "DAY OFF", they can do what they want. We already have big brothers in Washington and Ottawa watching over us, we don't need a union watching our days off. But remember, volunteer, part time or fulltime, we are all brother and sisters, and all professionals, lets stand together.
-
-
Joel,
In canada, if you get injured as a volunteer, you get paid by the governement, "workers compensation", and your day job is safe, employers can not fire you or let you go, if you get hurt volunteering.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Montpetit on
-
Well said Brother....By the way....look across the river.......that's me waving....I am from Ogdensburg,NY.......Stay safe........Paul
-
Permalink Reply by Joel C Kelley on
-
I'll add this to the list Of 10,000 ways that Canada is a better country than the US! I would like to see a similar plan in place for the US, but given the current Protofacists running the show, I can't even dream.......
-
-
Joel....it might be bullshit as I said....BUT...if things are as bad for you as you say then I would suggest that you find another "Protofacist" country to call home.....I earned the right to be cynical...I served 2 tours in Vietnam...But....I still love it dearly....its the leadership that makes the messes...not the Country...Lets get back to the point......Regardless....I hope you stay safe.....Paul
-
Permalink Reply by Allen Wahlstrom on
-
Wendy,
That might have been the most well thought out arguement for mutual inter-agency cooperation I have read on here.
My two cents, having been Wildland, ARFF, Municipal, HazMat etc...as career and volunteer over 24 years, its important to remember, we all work together. The fire could care less who's land or property is burning, It doesnt stop and shake in it's boots becasue it's about to cross into a large career municipality, or for that matter speed up as it runs into volunteer country.
Let's get together on this issue and in force. The lobby from America's Firefighters would rival the teachers unions, and we all know they get what they want in Union states...Texas is another matter altogether.
OK so where do we sign up???
-
Permalink Reply by Wendy Neumeyer on
-
Hey Allen, if you want to get something started, I'll back you up! My parents were highly active in politics and I grew up licking envelopes and passing out balloons for politicians and labor union people (my Dad was in mediation and arbitration). I'd love to be on the other side, just not leading it! W
-
-
I'm in! Let me know what to do and I will do it!
-
-
EXACTLY! I love my country and I am ashamed of the MESS our "elected" leaders have created for us to clean up. I have no intention of finding another country, just a democratically ELECTED leader who has the courage to take this nation in a new direction, away from the lies and war crimes of BushCo.
Canada has it all over the US because it has leaders who care for the people, not the Corporations. Nationalized healthcare, you name it, Canada is taking better care of its citizens than the US (that IS one of the purposes of government, isn't it?), and from that standpoint, it is a better country, but I still wouldn't trade it for the US, I just want to see us move in a better direction. Rather than illegal wars and unlimited military spending, let's use our military to help rebuild New Orleans, or build low cost housing instead of occupying foreign nations?
We can do better, but we're not.
-
Permalink Reply by Huw Jones on
-
Town takes stand on two-hatters
Thursday November 8 2007
RICHARD VIVIAN
The Town of Orangeville struck back at the firefighters union this week, filing a grievance over the pressured resignation of seven two-hatters. Days after the Ontario Fire Marshal (OFM) agreed to help broker a local solution, the grievance was filed.
"We need this to come to a resolution. It's got to happen now rather than later. We're the ones that are seven people short," Fire Chief Andy Macintosh says. "I think it's completely unfair -- the whole situation."
Last Friday afternoon, the seventh and final two-hatter -- people who work as full-time firefighters in one municipality and volunteer on departments in their home community -- resigned from the Orangeville Fire Department after being pressured by the union.
The resignations, which were effective immediately upon tendering, came after the two-hatters were warned by their full-time union locals that volunteering in their off time is a violation of the union constitution and can lead to a loss of their full-time job.
However, the town suggests two-hatters are permitted under a contract signed with the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association (OPFFA) earlier this year. The town argues that because the use of two-hatters wasn't challenged during the negotiation process and the agreement includes a clause recognizing the continued use of volunteer firefighters, two-hatters are therefore allowed to volunteer in Orangeville.
OPFFA president Fred LeBlanc couldn't be reached for comment on the grievance at press time.
"We see it as important to protect the rights of our volunteers," comments Mayor Rob Adams. "We were concerned that the actions taken [by the union] are detrimental to the service and we feel we have a responsibility to the taxpayers to provide the best service possible."
During a closed-door session Monday evening, Orangeville council agreed to hire a lawyer to file the grievance. That night, council also agreed to send a letter to the OFM requesting "immediate assistance" on the issue.
"You must get involved now before there are no volunteers left in Ontario," the letter states, noting the Orangeville department "has come under attack from both local and outside professional firefighter unions."
Earlier that day, the OFM agreed to work with Macintosh and the union in an effort to broker a local solution.
"That's the only thing that will work," OFM Patrick Burke says. "I'm not going to make any decree. There's no decree that can be made -- not from my perspective right now.
"We've had these situations occur in other places in the province ... and in each and every case they've been found to be an aggravation, but certainly not to be a threat."
Collectively, the resigned two-hatters have about 80 years of experience. Their departure leaves the department with 10 full-time members, 25 volunteers, a chief, a deputy chief and two fire prevention personnel.
"I'd be lying if I said it doesn't hurt," says Macintosh. "I want to assure the public that we're doing the best we can with what we've got -- and we'll continue to. But obviously, you take that kind of hit, it's going to affect the service."
Burke planned to send someone from his office to Orangeville this week "to gather a whole bunch of facts for me, so that I'm able to take a look at it." Often times, he says, something happened behind the scenes to spur the union into pressing the two-hatter issue.
"I don't know whether that's the case here or not, but I'm going to have a look at doing something," the Fire Marshal says. "I want to see everything that happened, what the reactions were and whether there's some way that we can bring the parties together to reach their own agreement."
Like Macintosh, LeBlanc was pleased to learn the OFM is getting involved.
"I don't know if there is a resolution that would include bringing [the resigned members] back, and if you did, it could only be fo
-
Permalink Reply by Tim on
-
I am a volunteer for my original department and still continue to uphold my responsibilities and then some to be considered active. I am also a career firefighter and union member for a city approx. 10 minutes north. I feel that the bill is a good thing for career firefighters in the line of being able to negotiate all the conditions. Both areas (Winchester and Stephens City) utilize career staff to assist the volunteers. The volunteers still own the stations and the equipment. The volunteers are still a very very vital aspect of both areas. I am in support of it from a career standpoint.
Now, the opposing side. From a volunteer standpoint this would cause me concern. I still continue to volunteer and serve my community. I am a very proud and dedicated volunteer. My reason for becoming career was not due to hatred of volunteering but simply to be able to make a living doing what I love to do. Compensated for it or not.
With both sides being stated, I would have to say that I am in support of the bill in general. Before everyone raises the guns and starts firing, let me explain. I am a firm believer that it is possible to be a career firefighter and still volunteer. As a matter of fact, a lot of firefighters in my area do just that. Work in one jurisdiciton and volunteer in the other. It takes a lot of dedication to the profession but it can be done. Without conflict. Simply by abiding by the viewpoint that we are all on the same team and should proceed with the best interest of the community in mind. It may appear as though the union is attempting to run out volunteers in some areas and in some areas that may be true. I can only base my opinion on my two areas and the unions in them. Both unions realize that the volunteers are a critical part of the system and by enforcing this clause, both unions would merely be robbing Peter to pay Paul. By that same token, we are not required to be members of the union to be employed. The union may likely loose some members if that were inforced. Memberships could simply be withdrawn with no fear of loss of employment. Neither jurisdiction would be able to operate a fully career department if the volunteers were displaced all together. From the aspect of finance or manpower. When contracts are negotiated, that is always kept in mind, and the volunteers are always included in the molding of the contract terms. We as volunteers must remember that if we remain active and continue to assume the responsibilites we have vowed to, both on scene and in station, then the need for more career staffing will not increase as fast. If the volunteers maintain service to community, then the localities will not need more paid staffing and therefore would be able to keep the union in check. This bill will allow the firefighters that are needed to be able to negotiate terms that before they were not able to.
In summary, I fully understand both sides of the argument. The bill will be a good thing to the paid staffing that is needed. The volunteers must remember that it is up to us as volunteers to uphold our end and do what is needed. I do not feel that the solution is to keep the bill from being passed, but that the solution is to remember that the more active volunteers there are in one area, the less paid staff are needed. No jurisdiction would be able to argue saving the salaries that would be paid to career staff if the service was provided appropriately by an all volunteer force.
-
Permalink Reply by Jason G on
-
I think the concept is that if you are a union member in a combination department, you are not allowed to volunteer your time to that department, it does not keep you from volunteering at another department. The department I am in has more the 40% of our membership as volunteers in outlying communities. I am still new to the IAFF so correct me if I am wrong.
Jason Gregory
IAFF Local 4606
Bryant, AR
11 Years Volunteer
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
