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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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 Jason Koontz on
-
Chief, you and I are talking morals, the others are justifying with contract failures. I see we've demonstrated the difference between the ones that do it for the greater good, and the ones that do it for money.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
I see we've demonstrated the difference between the ones that do it for the greater good, and the ones that do it for money.
Oh palease, give it up with who does this job and for what. What if this was your job and your source of income and the company decided they couldn't pay you and laid you off, but failed to follow the established contract. You yourself stated you worked in a union, I doubt you would just roll over and take unemployment and give the money back.
This is not about paid vs volly, or about who does this for money, this is a simple case of the city screwing up here. This is about the income for people to live on and of which their families survive. This is about actions taken without looking into the impact of those actions.
You see layoffs in the public sector are not like those of the private. This is not about a company where demand is down and thus layoffs are initiated. This is about a vital service to the taxpayer of which have been paying for those 8 FF's to be on duty. The city decided they weren't needed but failed to do their homework before initiating their actions.....yet it seems so easy to bash the brother FF's here isn't it? Spare me the morals crap....12 years in the Army and you think it is fine and dandy to sit back and die without a fight huh? Please.
-
-
So that we all understand this: absent of contract language, this situation and subsequent decisions would be wrong?
Absence of contract language, we would not even be discussing this. This would be another example of a city sacrificing the level of protection to taxpayers by laying off FF's. However, since there is this language, the city screwed up and initiated actions before doing homework.
And if you want to talk about "contracts", then don't all of us have a "moral contract", if you know what I mean?
Moral contract? Yeah, I would expect the management to also follow the rules in an agreed upon contract they also signed in good faith.
Art, you already established that you think these FF's should give back the money, please tell me why you think the city should not be held accountable for their actions here then?
Why is it easy for people outside the situation to point fingers and tell others what they should do? Why should these FF's not fight these layoffs? Are you saying a local council is infalliable? I would beg to differ if you do. Why should these FF's just forget everything they worked for through their contracts and then further put their families at financial risk and just give back the money? What are these "true" savings to the poor ol taxpayer? In the grand sceme of things maybe a couple bucks....wouldn't it be "morally right" for the taxpayer to not throw their fellow man out on the street to save a couple bucks?
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
John, my friend:
Show me one of my posts where I said that the firefighters should give the money back.
I'll save you the trouble; you won't find it.
This is not about paid vs volly, or about who does this for money, this is a simple case of the city screwing up here. This is about the income for people to live on and of which their families survive. This is about actions taken without looking into the impact of those actions.
What about the taxpayers in that city who are WORKING every day and paying the taxes-i.e. salaries of their public safety employees and other city employees. Where they have to make every dollar count, why would they simply shrug off this "city screw up"? Do you honestly think that the firefighters/union can divorce/distance themselves from this? No; they can't. They are city employees. No one will be able to make the taxpayers understand the justifications. Nobody.
And you are saying that, were it not for contract language, we wouldn't be discussing this?
How can you say that with a degree of certainty?
No; my question has been answered.
Were it not for contract language, these firefighters would not be getting paid to sit at home. They would be drawing unemployment and doing a job search like the other millions in this country who are out of work.
TCSS>
Art
-
-
What about the taxpayers in that city who are WORKING every day and paying the taxes-i.e. salaries of their public safety employees and other city employees. Where they have to make every dollar count, why would they simply shrug off this "city screw up"?
What makes you think these laid off FF's also don't pay those same taxes. See that excuse is dead, because the majority of city workers still pay the same taxes that everyone else does and many people fail to see that. Secondly, on that notion, I guess I pay my own salary as well.
Problem is people look at the bottom line of their tax bill and bitch, vs actually looking at what some of the costs are. After breaking things down, these FF's may really only be a couple bucks at the most to the avg taxpayer.
Should the taxpayers just shrug this off? No, instead they should remember that the city screwed up here and to remember that when elections roll around again. See in my own city the city council screwed up big time to the tune of $6.5 million because they failed to read the contract language for letting a store out of their lease. They got sued and were found to be wrong. Instead of paying up, they allowed this to run the course and still collect interest. This depleted the city's reserve funds. You don't think the public realizes that? They are ready for an election today. In this case the contract language was there and all it shows is the city screwing up....will the union be in a bad light? perhaps, but not as bad as the city who FAILED TO DO HOMEWORK. The taxpayer really has no choice but to shrug this off, but remember the ineptness of the city here to fail to realize the language.
Show me one of my posts where I said that the firefighters should give the money back
That is what you are implying though isn't it? Talking about morality and so forth, despite the fact the city is at fault, the laid off FF's should just give back this money.
As for the contract language, yes if it wasn't in there this would be another case of a laid off FF and now drawing unemployment. I believe I did state that very same thing. However, because of the contract language the city screwed up and these guys are still being paid.
-
-
And on that note, I am going to tag off to someone else.
The citizenry is not only going to remember the elected officials who screwed this up, but they will also remember that the firefighters claimed to be innocent/unintended recipients of money that they were not earning, but getting from an administrative "oops".
Good luck with that next tax referendum.
And thanks for keeping the debate respectful.
TCSS.
Art
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
Just want to point out Chief that you highlighted many things I said except that the city management, the city attorney, and the Fire Chief dropped the ball.
The Fire Chief should be especially embarassed because on a regular basis, most bigger city fire chief's refer to the contract verbage to deal with internal issues daily. When the time came to reduce his bottom line by a certain percent, the fire chief should have known what was required to either complete the task or say wait we must do this protect his brothers... Ohh this must be an Us verse Them debate now.
Sadly, you went off on a moral stance on the money. I am with John (I pay ridiculous taxes to the city in which I work for and support) therefore knowing that many people dropped the ball before the firefighters were effected by this Oooops in the LAW, I am totally for the firefighters getting what is due.
Agree to disagree with your opinion...
-
-
I understand.
-
-
I'm not bashing anyone. What I'm saying is that you get just around 3000 a month, at least. The taxpayers, including you and every other firefighter included, deserve something for the money they are paying you. Your point is that someone else screwed the pooch and these guys are perfectly justified taking the money, even though they are no longer part of their dept. Correct so far? My point is that its not free money. Its money from some poor guy that makes 10 bucks an hour, strains to make ends meet, and probably doesn't care about contracts. What he cares about is that his money is basically being given away. He's gonna blame both sides. I'm trying to say make our side look better. Give back to the community in some way. Don't give the money back. They need it to pay bills, and get themselves and their families prepared to be without a job. Sooner or later the cash will stop. They have a unique opportunity here, and need to take it. NOW, as for the other stuff. I served my country, went to war, and got paid about a third of what you do now, guaranteed. I've lost more and paid more for what I am than you could imagine. No one I've ever known died for free. I know all this because I've done my homework. I've worked harder, longer, for less than you ever will. And I'd do it again in a heartbeat, because I believe in something you're forgetting. But that has nothing to do with what we're discussing. So, put your attitude away, and read the posts. This isn't personal, so stop making it that way. Everyone here knows the hardships firefighters go thru everyday, union and vollie alike. We all know how long it takes to get onto a dept as a paid guy. What about the other 5000 that try for YEARs and NEVER get there? Ever think of the time, the effort, the money, the hardship on families they have to endure? This is about how we as firefighters serve our communities. We can either take the money and run, laughing all the way to the bank (because thats what we're going to be painted as doing here) or we can take the money, put in a little effort, and help build a playground, mow the lawn at the park, or whatever nice things you can do for the community thats still paying you because the elected officials they put in there forgot to add an extra sentence. We're in the days when government is trying to take everyones money, we have record unemployment, and our economy sucks. We need to be something good in peoples eyes, not just another govt function screwing them out of money. Does that make sense? Hopefully you see what we're trying to get at here.
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Shaw on
-
The article that started this thing, leave many more questions than it does answers, but most seem to point the blame squarely on the city.
One thing that the article does bring up and it seems most of us missed is that this hearing requirement is apparently included in the local or state civil service law and not in the contract between the city and the union. So this sounds more like a case of the city not following a law that the city itself may have passed through its legislative process than failing to uphold a contract is negotiated with the union, presumably in good faith.
The only possible place that I can see some blame going to the union and/or the firefighters, is in the timing of when the appeal was filed. However this article does not give enough information on that to assess such blame. If the appeal was filed in a timely manner, and the city dragged their heals on hiring a hearing officer (who really should have been in place long before this whole mess started) then the blame is the city's once again.
However, if the appeal was filed in a timely manner and the delay was the city's fault, did the union or firefighters do anything to alert the public to this horrible mismanagement? The article does not say, but I would bet that they did not. Instead using this loophole for all it is worth. I am not saying that I would not do the same thing, but this is where the moral argument comes into play. We often criticize the news media, but then expect them to do all the dirty work in exposing problems with the government.
One poster suggested that the city return the firefighters to work pending the hearing. That would actually be very good for the union and very bad for the city. Since the hearing is not about the money that is being paid now, it is about the layoffs themselves and if they were really necessary, returning the firefighters to work would seem to be an automatic loose for the city. This would be more mismanagement on top of the original batch.
No question the city should have done their homework here. It seems that the union did theirs, and that in the end, is what unions are for, to protect their members. I am not so sure that the individual firefighters who are collecting pay for not working, are anything but pawns here, and that is part of the problem too.
-
-
What I'm saying is that you get just around 3000 a month
Got some hard facts on that? Because in all actuality the last hired tend to be the first laid off and many depts do NOT start at full pay. So your analogy about the poor taxpayer making $10 an hour may very well be these guys.
even though they are no longer part of their dept. Correct so far?
Who says they are not part of the dept? The layoffs had to be justified by the hearing officer to make it official. That decision has not been made yet, so in all actuality they are still part of the dept.
They have a unique opportunity here, and need to take it. NOW
Who says they are not taking advantage of the opportunity right now? Also we don't know if the dept applied for a SAFER grant in which the FF's may be recalled. Maybe they move on, maybe they are waiting, but it is cheaper to hire back someone already trained than some newbie. As for volunteering or giving back in the community, how do you know they aren't? Or is it easier to pass judgement?
I served my country, went to war, and got paid about a third of what you do now, guaranteed. I've lost more and paid more for what I am than you could imagine.
Oh spare me I was in the military crap. I also served in the military and understand what it takes, hence the reason I have no problem calling someone out on that. But spare me the I served stuff, because I did too and made the same sacrifices.
I've worked harder, longer, for less than you ever will
How would you know anything about me? Passing judgements again?
So, put your attitude away, and read the posts. This isn't personal, so stop making it that way.
Who is showing the attitude here? Who's making it personal? You, you basically said I make more than you, you worked harder and sacrificed more than me, and further assuming you even know me or what it took for me to get in this position. Yes, I took offense to your crap about who really does this job for the "greater good" and who does it for the money.
What about the other 5000 that try for YEARs and NEVER get there? Ever think of the time, the effort, the money, the hardship on families they have to endure?
Yes, I have also been quite intimately familiar with that process. Thing is I never gave up to be one of those who "never made it".
We need to be something good in peoples eyes, not just another govt function screwing them out of money.
And again, who is saying they are not doing such things? Problem still remains it is the city that screwed up and sacrificed the public's safety. These layoffs may or may not be justified, but until the decision is made these 8 are still basically FF's, it is the city that is screwing the public by paying them without them working. And more often than not, the public doesn't care what these guys are doing with their time right now.
-
-
The only possible place that I can see some blame going to the union and/or the firefighters, is in the timing of when the appeal was filed.
Actually it doesn't matter because the union most likely fought adamently against the cuts, right on up to when they were made. It isn't the union's place to notify the city about this law, that is why the city has lawyers, the city should have had their ducks in a row long before the layoffs occurred. I also don't see anything about an appeals going on, looks like this was the law and the city dropped the ball. Good catch on the law thing though.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
