The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Is it a good thing or a bad thing?
Having not read the entire bill, ( Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act) I am wondering how many others states are looking at this legislation as violating state law.
"We need to make sure that Washington lets Texans run Texas, without the burdens of bureaucracy or union mandates." Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed...
"We need to make sure that Washington lets Texans run Texas, without the burdens of bureaucracy or union mandates." Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott
http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed...
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
I don't have anything against Unions, but I do not want to be a part of one. I can speak for myself, and do quite frequently.
Coming from someone who is a volunteer. This is not a slight towards volunteers, but there is a difference between a private trade union and that of public safety. I have seen some of the anti-campaign rhetoric opposing this and can say much of the crap spewed is exactly that, crap. For instnace such stuff is stated how police and fire will go on strike if they don't get what they want and strong arm municipalities and so forth. Not the case. In fact such safety services can't go on strike, in the events of contract impasse, negotiations would go to arbitration where a neutral third party makes a decision on whos offer to accept, be it the municipality of the firefighter/police. It really comes down to a 50/50 shot.
Also involved is there is nothing mandating that people have to be union. This gives those who are not in unions the opportunity to negotiate a contract fairly, without having leaders who can be clueless in regards to such services, determine what is fair. There is nothing saying a person has to be in a union. Furthermore, there is more saying that a union or negotiating body can't have a clause preventing FT FF's from being volunteers. (however, there is nothing saying management can't make such a clause)
Also, there have been numerous cases of unions renegotiating contracts and making significant concessions because of economic issues, when was the last time you saw a fire dept or police dept strike?
I do think this bill is a good measure and gives FF's a chance to fairly negotiate a contract. This isn't about mandating anyone to be in a union as commonly being touted, but a chance for fair negotiations.
-
Permalink Reply by Oldman on
-
Furthermore, there is more saying that a union or negotiating body can't have a clause preventing FT FF's from being volunteers.
Well, since it would be presumed that new firefighter organizations would become a local for the IAFF, would not this wording in this bill not require the IAFF to change their by-laws?
If this is so, then the federal government will be in effect telling the IAFF how to operate.
-
-
Well, since it would be presumed that new firefighter organizations would become a local for the IAFF, would not this wording in this bill not require the IAFF to change their by-laws?
Actually no. The stance the IAFF is taking is regarding those IAFF members who then go work as POC or volunteer in those depts with other IAFF members, basically doing the work of other union members for less. The issue isn't about a person who lives in a small community covered with a volunteer dept and works for a municipality as a union FF. The person still can volunteer, and many do, and the IAFF has no recourse in the matter as it is. Such issues are just a recommendation, there is no penalizing by the IAFF for anyone who still chooses to volunteer.
The issue with the clause was a concession to the NVFC, by saying that the FF negotiating entity can not make the clause of no volunteering by its members. As I mentioned though, the bill takes no stance on management making such a rule. In Madison here, new hires as of the early 2000's or so, can't volunteer because management forbids it, yet there are several members who do volunteer because they are grandfathered. They are an IAFF local with the 5th district VP working for the dept, and there isn't an issue as you allude to regarding the IAFF. One would think if the IAFF took a huge issue about volunteers, this wouldn't happen in a place represented with a higher ranking IAFF priciple officer.
-
Permalink Reply by Gregory Borg on
-
Well said John. Besides IAFF locals run themselves. There are very few things the International tells the locals they have to do. Our local does not say much to members that volunteer, they do so in small towns and rural areas away from our department and it does not effect our members as a whole. No blood no foul. Everyone needs the right to bargain. There are some states where if you go into the chiefs office and ask for a raise you can be fired. Is that right? No of course not it is un-American. This bill is a good thing and neither the feds nor the IAFF will be telling anyone what to do. The locality will bargain a deal that works for both sides. Having control of your own (collectively) destiny is the American way, that is why unions are good for working people and good for America.
-
-
Appears what way? This is a no cost item to the American taxpayer, this has nothing to do with telling anyone what they should provide or how they provide it, it gives those public safety jobs the opportunity to negotiate a contract fairly and collectively. What is negotiated is between the FF's/cops/public safety and the municipality is up to them.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
"Democracy should be more than two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner." - Unknown
-
-
I have nothing against unions such as the IAFF ( we`re not members here, they want nothing to do with us "non-fire based EMS).
But, being mandated to join a union? NO! The oozes of "Big Brother".
First of all, I would bet that if you actually showed interest in being part of the IAFF, you would be accepted. I know of a couple EMS only based services that are part of the IAFF.
As for being mandated to join a union, this is not about that. It basically gives the opportunity for public safety personnel to collectively bargain a contract. The negotiations don't have to be done by a union nor mandating anyone to join a union.
-
-
In Connecticut - The State of Connecticut has enacted legislation that codifies the right of career firefighters to volunteer during off-duty hours. The bill, An Act Concerning Volunteer Service By Paid Emergency Personnel Or Paid Firefighters (H.B. 5646),
The new law bars municipalities from entering into a collective bargaining contract that prohibits paid emergency personnel, including firefighters, from serving as active members of a volunteer fire department during off-duty hours.
As you can see, this is a State Law and not Federal and does not force the IAFF to change their by-laws, other than to comply with the state law in which they are operating. No different than Federal or state laws on discrimination based on race, et al. In other words Unions can't operate outside of the (prevailing) laws.
As for the Act itself, the right to collective bargaining is protected at the Federal level and Texas does recognize that right by other collective bargaining units. Why then should Public Safety Employees be denied that right? Isn't AFSCME recognized in Texas?
Incidental to the fact that Private sector unions are paid by business profits (the cost of which is indirectly passed on to the public) and Public sector employees are paid by public taxes (directly passed on) why should Public Safety Employees not have the same protections and guaranties? How one's wages are paid shouldn't decide whether or not one can negotiate for them.
-
-
It seems to be a turn in the wrong direction to me
How so?
You do not find many unions below the mason dixon line
Yeah, and? This isn't about mandating anyone be in a union, it gives those public safety personnel who don't have the opportunity to collectively bargain a contract fairly, the opportunity to do so.
-
-
I do not think anyone in fire, ems, or law enforcement would ever strike regardless of what they were told.
The legislation expressly prohibits strikes and lockouts; does not infringe on
right-to-work laws; and does not interfere with existing state laws and collective
bargaining agreements.
Here's the thing, the Act allows for collective bargaining for Public Safety Employees, in line with other collective bargaining units. To allow it means that they have the same right as anyone in any other work sector. To disallow it suggests that Public Safety Employees alone should be held captive to the whims of the taxpayers, unlike any other sector including municipal employees. Hardly seems fair to me and I suspect that the opposition to the Act is really aimed more at the administration from which this emanates than from any real objection to the Act itself. (I enter Ralph and Chief France's comments as evidence to this assertion.)
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
