The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Laid off Mass. firefighters still getting paid
LAWRENCE, Mass. - When Lawrence laid off eight firefighters nearly three months ago, it was supposed to save the city money.
Instead, those firefighters have been sitting at home collecting a full paycheck.
Mayor Michael Sullivan tells The Eagle-Tribune that the cash-strapped city "dropped the ball" and anticipated savings from the layoffs and the resulting closure of two fire substations have not materialized.
A city lawyer says the laid off firefighters are still getting paid because of a provision in Civil Service law that entitles them to a hearing in which the city must show the layoffs are justified.
But the hearing officer hired by the city more than a month ago has still not released an opinion.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Instead, those firefighters have been sitting at home collecting a full paycheck.
Mayor Michael Sullivan tells The Eagle-Tribune that the cash-strapped city "dropped the ball" and anticipated savings from the layoffs and the resulting closure of two fire substations have not materialized.
A city lawyer says the laid off firefighters are still getting paid because of a provision in Civil Service law that entitles them to a hearing in which the city must show the layoffs are justified.
But the hearing officer hired by the city more than a month ago has still not released an opinion.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
The hearing officer hired by the city more than a month ago must be a firefighter!
Shame on the city council for not dotting their eyes and crossing their legs.
Getting paid to sit at home.
Only in America.
Art
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Another city that hasn't done their homework and while not only depriving citizens of services are also costing money because of their decision.
The hearing officer must be a firefighter? Why's that? Because there was no decision made yet? How about the fact these guys have been laid off for 3 months, but the hearing officer was hired AFTER the layoffs took place. Seems if the city was really justified in the layoffs, they would have had hired a officer before the layoffs took place.
Now instead of saying they made a "bad" or "wrong" decision and have to wait until this hearing so since the FF's are getting paid they will be on duty until this hearing takes place, they instead cost the taxpayers more money, while affecting their safety.
Hopefully voters remember these decisions and antics come election time.
-
Permalink Reply by Chief Dino on
-
I wonder if the hearing officer has been paid yet.
-
-
I was being sarcastic, John.
Surely you would know my stylings by now.:-)
-
Permalink Reply by BillySFCVFD on
-
When those eight FFs were originally hired, there must have been a need. If that need still exists then the city should look for cost cutting in non-public safety areas. I agree with the rest, in the mean time, let the FFs work (serve) when they are still getting paid. TCSS
Left Hand: What are you doing?
Right Hand: You don't know?
Left Hand: No!
Right Hand: What are you doing?
Left Hand: You don't know?
Right Hand: No!
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Shaw on
-
Interesting to note that the Firefighters were laid off THREE months ago, but that the hearing officer was hired just over ONE month ago. This seems to me to indicate that the city did not have a hearing method in place at the time of the layoffs, or for sometime after them. This is fiscal mismanagement at its worst, if laying off the firefighters was truly needed then the city has wasted money by not laying them off properly. If laying them off was not needed then the city has deprived the public of vital public safety personnel and still wasted money that could have been spent paying the same Firefighters to show up for work.
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
Being paid to stay home is not the firefighters fault nor the union, seeing the contract stated what needed to be done before the layoffs would have taken place. The fault is on the city. The other thing to note is the reason the hearing officer has not giving his report is becasue it needs to be justified.... quite often the law doesn't justify laying off to save money as a reason, it has to be reduction in calls or changing services like going to a private ambulance vs fire based EMS, etc.
The city can't be in too dire of straights... seeing they have been paying for them and on top of it all, found out later they needed to hire new position called a hearing officer?
Kudos to the union for sticking to the contract verbage and I am with John, all they have done is jepordized the safety of citizens and the remaining on duty staffing while city hall flubbed this up badly...
Citizens need to speak out and public safety funding comes first, then you look at what is a neccessity or a luxury in the remaining city budget...
-
Permalink Reply by Rusty Mancini on
-
Sounds to me like some real winners in that city government, and their probably not going to like what the hearing officer's recommendations are! He might be in the next round of lay offs???
-
-
If we feel so strongly that they have nothing to be ashamed of nor did anything wrong because it was in the contract, then what might have they have done to ease their consciences and strengthen the public trust during this time?
I agree that there are some real poop heads in their city government, but where I was raised, you had to do something to EARN your pay; regardless of the contract language.
If my contract said: "Your job is to stay home, sit on your arse and collect your salary"; that is one thing.
But, if the other side (city government) didn't know the contract language, well then, it isn't our job to tell them now, is it?
The whole thing stinks. Shame on the firefighters, union AND city government.
Why must we lower the bar to their level?
IMHO
Art
-
-
Shame on the firefighters???? Come on Art. I am sure the very next week the city knew they had to keep paying them, when the lawyer told them they missed the layoff verbage... They should have been recalled.... but I bet that didn't happen either.
Now I ask, you are so respectful of the city taxpayer's trust that YOU would show up to work and demand to put in a full workday after being pink slipped?
Why must we lower the bar to their level? Because they negotiated a CONTRACT in good faith, in which the city didn't uphold. Not to mention the city had years to understand the verbage as well.
-
-
No; they could not return to their job, because they had been furloughed, so insurance and risk wouldn't allow for that. This has nothing to do with MY respect for taxpayers; however, right and wrong come into play. How easy do you think it will be getting those jobs back or fighting more cuts?
The whole reason for it in the first place was to save money.
We all detest public safety cutbacks to balance the budget. So, don't think for a minute that I support cutting public safety services.
Why can't we admit that this was a form of protest and push back for making the cut in the first place?
That's all I'm looking for here. Honesty.
YOU know and I know, don't we, FETC? :-)
Oh; and I didn't just say "shame on the firefighters". I said shame on the firefighters, union AND city government.
-
-
Oh; and I didn't just say "shame on the firefighters". I said shame on the firefighters, union AND city government.
Shame on the city, I can see. Shame on the FF's and the union? No, I don't. This is another classic example of local politicians getting themselves in trouble and the ones who suffer truly ultimately is the taxpayers for their mistakes.
The contract was negotiated in good faith and the hearing was part of that contract, if the city was too stupid or too arogant to look up such issues BEFORE layoffs, then they ultimately bear the repercussions from their error, not the FF's and not the union.
Now in my short time as a career FF and in union negotiations as well as following other FD issues across the country, there is also a point of standing one's ground. In MA, there has been numerous examples of such financial issues where unions have given up more and more to help out such local municipalities. Further I have seen many classic examples of local municipalities playing the same damn "fear" game, they keep saying they have no money and need unions to give more and more up, yet turn around and fund convention centers, flowers in medians, boardwalks, and other non-essential projects.
I have seen unions giving up quite often to help the city and help the taxpayers, much of which the general public never even knows about. Well, in this case the city said we are going to layoff because we have no money, yet because of lack of foresight on the city's part, they screwed up and is costing the taxpayer's money. They layoffs could have been justified, but this is all on the city for failure to follow the contract language negotiated in good faith. I don't agree with anyone just rolling over and give up their job and income because the city leaders are too stupid to not follow the contract.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
