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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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
-
Some of you are missing the point.
What makes this situation where firefighters are getting FULL pay after being furloughed morally RIGHT?
I don't give a rat's patoot about contract language, who screwed up or anything else.
What I care about is that no one is willing to step up and say, "It's the right thing to do", or that "It's the wrong thing to do".
I say it's wrong and on this we will agree to disagree.
Slice and dice my comments all you want.
There is no justification for this type of oversight or lack of it in this case.
One was "snuck in" on the taxpayers and nothing can change that.
TCSS.
Art
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
What makes this situation where firefighters are getting FULL pay after being furloughed morally RIGHT?
Well, I do care about contract language because it can essentially be the livelyhood of a person's own life. This isn't furloughed Art, this is a layoff, this was a reduction in services because the city wanted to save money and due to a lack of insight on their part, the laid off FF's are still getting paid.
So what are you suggesting then here Art? Should the FF's just roll over and give back that money that their very lifes and family lives depend upon? Should those laid off FF's, most likely fought touth and nail against such cuts just give the money back because the city screwed up? What makes this morally right? That the average taxpayer may save a couple bucks at the end of the year despite their reduction of services, or that 8 FF's and familes now have to scrape by and should forget about the contract language because it is morally right?
What was "snuck in"? The contract language spelled it out and the city either ignored it or simply didn't concern themselves with it. So what is the "right thing to do"...those laid off FF's just say aww gee...OK, here you go with the money I received because you failed to read the contract, and gee don't worry about the fact I no longer have a job and my family and I need to look elsewhere for income, despite the fact we disagree with the layoffs in the first place?
You're right, there is no justification for this type of oversight and it all falls squarely again with the city. The union's job is to fight for the members and the union is doing just that. They are holding firm to the contract language and the city clearly screwed up here, this is what union members pay dues for, not to just roll over and take whatever the city wants to throw at them.
-
Permalink Reply by Jason Koontz on
-
Interesting argument here. Considering I do this for free, and always will, I can see both points. I've been union, I've been vollie, I've been officer, I've been firefighter. I understand the contracts, and it was the city's fault for not squaring themselves away when they signed it. Thats the legal part. But Chief has a good point too. We spend all our time telling everyone we're the "heroes", yet when it comes to stuff like this, we take the money, sit on our tails, and snicker that we found a loophole. C'mon guys. If you're really that worried about the public good, then while you're getting paid, go do something for the good of the public. You can't play fireman due to insurance. but they're paying you, so go volunteer somewhere. You have a paycheck coming in, so hunting a job is easy. You can do it at your leisure. Then, when the city stands up and talks about how bad the firemen are, you can point that out and get the entire population behind you, because you've shown you're there for them, not yourselves. You've proved that you're committed to them, no matter what happens. You'll guarantee everything you ever ask for on a ballot gets approved for YEARS! Right now, the city can use this to beat you down with. Next time you open your mouths about the public good, and needing something to make them safer, the public will wonder what the catch is. You're teaching them with everything you do, and they get to see this too. you just made yourselves another government bureaucracy out to cheat the public, instead of being the one agency they can trust and believe in
-
Permalink Reply by Rusty Mancini on
-
What has happened to the eight firefighters was bad enough. Now if any of the eight were married, and by giving the money back would have probably caused even a deeper problem. We all know financial problems can cause havoc in a marriage.
I don't know about them, but I'd much rather be back in the station house, and they might be feeling the same way? As hard as times are now, giving the money up, could lead to some more families on the street. It wasn't their fault, so what are they to do?
-
-
We spend all our time telling everyone we're the "heroes", yet when it comes to stuff like this, we take the money, sit on our tails, and snicker that we found a loophole You can't play fireman due to insurance. but they're paying you, so go volunteer somewhere. You have a paycheck coming in, so hunting a job is easy. You can do it at your leisure.
First of all, who is even saying these guys are just sitting around? The article alludes to that, but does not mean that this is truly the case. If you have never been a career FF, nor tried out for a career dept, you wouldn't really understand the time frame it takes to get hired on elsewhere. Who is to say these guys aren't doing that. Who is to say they are not out looking for another job either? Then again, why should these guys just roll on over then because the city wanted to layoff? As mentioned before at one time the city had a need for these 8 FF's, so what has changed?
Then, why is about the image the FF's portray? Again these FF's sitting at home laid off, collecting a check, shows the public that the city was inept here. It shows the public that the city doesn't care about the reduction in their own services and also shows the city can't follow the contract either. It shows incompetence on the side of the city and a good union will use that to show why such leaders should not be in office next time. I could see that showing a much bigger message than a laid off FF volunteering somewhere. In all actuality the general public really could care less what someone does on their off time or even in their job, they care about what they get. In this case, they get reduced services, yet the city shows they can still pay these guys, so why should the public suffer that reduced service then?
As for volunteering, that can truly vary and for the most part does nothing for the citizens of the community that laid you off, it just helps the community that you volly for, if you can even do so. See around here, if the city were to lay off some FF's and they go to volly on another dept, that doesn't show anything to the taxpayers of this city.
You've proved that you're committed to them, no matter what happens. You'll guarantee everything you ever ask for on a ballot gets approved for YEARS!
Hardly. Take NYC for an example especially since 9/11, they still face cuts despite what the FF's have done for the city. Same thing anywhere else, it really doesn't matter the proven committment because FF's for years have shown that committment, but seen cities take more and more what they have worked for. Everything on the ballot gets approved for years? Very unlikely. In this case the FF's can make a great case showing that despite the layoffs and despite the financial issues of the city, the city still has been able to pay these guys, so why were they laid off in the first place? Does the city really care about the taxpayer to not only A) reduce the service to the taxpayer, B) Still be able to fund those laid off positions?, C) were the layoffs and finacial situation truly all the city made it out to be?
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Art,
It doesn't sound as if anything was "snuck in" on the taxpayers; the language was in the contract.
The issue was the city management team and legal advice that let this contract get signed without realizing the possible consequences.
As for the firefighters, if any of us was one of them, we'd do whatever we legally could to make the house payment and feed our families...as the ones in this case seem to be doing.
The city is going to have a tough time enforcing an ex post facto change in this contract or a payroll refund; it's a legal contract and the city is bound by it.
-
-
If this situation felt "right"; then why was it reported and then printed in the local paper?
And if money fell off of the armored truck, would you keep it or turn it in? :-)
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
Bad example: The contract is just that, an agreed upon good faith COMMITMENT to one's work rights, and for those of you who are not in a union, this is where you step out of this discussion because you have no idea what the contract verbage mean to people who invest many long hours fighting for work rights. Now in this case it says be paid until the hearing officer justifies the reasoning for layoff reduction.
Art, money simply falling off an armored car is not contractually yours or anybody's..... but being paid to sit home well in this case, is.
Art, if you were contracted to do a insurance investigation and your contract was for $5 grand, but you solved the case in two days.... would you morally accept lets say 500 bucks from that the city who now says that is fair price regardless of your contracted 5 grand?
Think not in these economic times... I'm turning in an invoice for the agreed upon 5 grand.
Easy answer: The city should just recall the laid off firefighters, work until the hearing is settled, but wait..... that would mean some dumb*ss city hall administrator, city attorney and the fire chief would have missed the firefighters contract verbage and ultimately be spotlighted as being WRONG.
Hmmm easier to pin it on a firefighter for suposedly just sitting home doing nothing, now isn't it.
-
Permalink Reply by Oldman on
-
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.
I think the city should hire an attorney who was not "absent the day they taught law in law school".
A "competent" attorney would have advised the city leaders of the laws when this action was initially discussed, before any action was taken. Then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
This is not a Union, Collective Bargaining agreement thing. The city broke the law. Call it restitution for the "victims".
-
-
If this situation felt "right"; then why was it reported and then printed in the local paper?
And if money fell off of the armored truck, would you keep it or turn it in? :-)
This this would be a local story and a local issue on how tax dollars are being spent then that is why I see the story there. This should also be a part of open records and the paper can print the story.
As for the armored truck analogy, that doesn't apply. This is not "free money" here, this was language agreed upon between the city and the union. The city screwed up, plain and simple, and the union and FF's have every right to fight this in every possible legal way.
-
-
Art, if you were contracted to do a insurance investigation and your contract was for $5 grand, but you solved the case in two days.... would you morally accept lets say 500 bucks from that the city who now says that is fair price regardless of your contracted 5 grand?
Well, I guess that would depend on the contract language, huh?
So that we all understand this: absent of contract language, this situation and subsequent decisions would be wrong?
Hmmm easier to pin it on a firefighter for suposedly just sitting home doing nothing, now isn't it.
No: if you will have noticed, in my earlier post, I blamed everyone involved.
And if you want to talk about "contracts", then don't all of us have a "moral contract", if you know what I mean?
Hey; I'm just askin'...
-
-
ahhh, so this is a union argument. You're right, I've never dealt with a contract in my life, I'd have no idea what to do with one. After 12 years in the army, contracts are totally foreign to me. Dude, seriously?
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
