The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Rock and hard place.....negotiations (what would you rather.....)
I'm looking for opinions from the union brothers and sisters here, as well as some perspective from those in management.
Being as though this is intended to be about union negotiations about contracts, etc, I would prefer those with an anti-union agenda or preference to keep personal opinions at bay.
Some background here is I'm running for our local's wage committee and it is a very important position in the local, being the group to negotiate contracts, review SOG's, union rep etc. While going around to stations promoting my message for the primary, the following question was asked of me....
"If in negotiations management said you need to give something up or layoff 21 FF's, what would you choose?"
This was a hypothetical question and we are not facing any staffing cuts, it is a question as to what one would view as more important. I know there are generational gaps and those who are secure in their position may see giving up pay, benefits as a personal attack and those who are younger and would fall in the chopping block as a loss of a job. So the question is what would your choice be if the question was posed?
For me, I feel I am well paid, but I understand the struggles of those before me to get me what I got. I understand that it is easy to use the economy to say "tough times" and use layoffs to get concessions and then the ploy used over and over until nothing is left. On the other side I honestly believe staffing is the key to safety. We count on each other in the job and besides hating to see someone lose a job....it directly affects my workload and safety. So what are your thoughts?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Oomkes on
-
I almost stopped reading after the second paragraph, but glad I didn't. (I own a company as a full time job and do the fire thing as a part time job FYI)
I would give up bennies or a go with a cut in pay in a heartbeat to save jobs.
IMHO, it is selfish to resist giving something up that would cause a complete loss to others. I realize that the next thing said is that there are plenty of other cuts that can be made before starting on fire\police, which is probably true. But I also think things are veeeeery different than they have been in the past.
I haven't been able to give pay raises out in over 2 years. Otherwise it was every year COLA at least. I have managed to keep supplying health and dental insurance, but my renewal just came in with an increase of 43%. I have not taken a raise or bonus in over 3 years. And if it came to it, I would cut my own pay before laying off one of my employees. On the other hand, all of my costs are going up. Health insurance, fuel, repair costs for my equipment, taxes, fees, etc while my prices have had to drop to maintain a smaller customer base than in the past because I can't drop them anymore. I've rebid work at over 40% lower than a couple years ago and still can't get it because someone else is lower.
So coming from a taxpayer who is a firefighter, I would say cut and\or privatize just about everything else but maintain fire, law enforcement and roads. What is left over after that can be used for "luxuries" such as parks and so on.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
"If in negotiations management said you need to give something up or layoff 21 FF's, what would you choose?"
I would go with the give backs. Whether it was a slight increase in co-pays, or a day off a month or other adjustments to benefits, I think that it would be in everyone's better interest to kick in to save other's jobs. Not sure but it may be called solidarity.
There have been more than a few cases of older FF's on the cusp of retirement that took an early so that one or two younger ones would not get laid off. That may or may not be reflected in his individual retirement package but still, to give up something you love doing so that others can continue, that's the answer right there.
-
Permalink Reply by Gregory Borg on
-
John, As you know I was the union president for a 300 man local for 9 years. We have been cut many times as I have noted in past replys. In 1978 we had 17 engines and 6 trucks (5,500 alarms), now 13 engines and 3 trucks (30,000 alarms). In 2005 we had 50 (we had 327 then) positions cut from the department and they laid off 27 guys. In 1978 I was laid off for 18 months 3 months after I was hired. This year the city says they will lay off 13 FF's if we do not give up our raise, 2% in Jan. and 1% in July. They told us the same thing is 2005.
Here is our, and I say our, because the whole union buys in on this: we voted on what to do. We told the city we keep our raises and you do what you have to do. They laid off people. The last guy came back with in 13 months, most of them within a few months. Now those same guys make a good wage that is keeping up with inflation. If we gave them our raises it affects us next year, the next year and every year until you die because your pension is baised on what you make.
We did take on a new insurance that saved the city about a million dollars and implemented some other savings stratagies. But the bottom line is they want our percentage raises because they compound. I asked the city administrator the other day "what would you do if in five years the city is doing great, lots of money comming in, growth all areound and we are in the middle of a contract. If we asked you to open the contract and give us a 5% raise to share the good times, would you do it?" He said "no way, we have a contract".
They get the same answer, we have a contract! No openers, no give backs. You bargained it, the council approved it and you signed it. No!
The city decides how many stations we have, how many engines, trucks, rescues and staffing. All of that! We negotiagte how much a fireman makes, they decide how many they can have or afford to have. Give backs are for life if they are a percentage, never do it. As Ronnie Raygun's bride used to say, "Just say NO!". We also negotiated a retirement medical suppliment that pay 300 a month toward medical to encourage people to retire, keeping the young guys.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Montpetit on
-
the biggest problem that many donot realize is that once you give up something then you will never see it again....Personally I think you find out what management wants you to "give up" Look at the whole picture and see if it is even a possibility for negotiations and then present the entire picture to your members for discussion and decide with a confidential vote...after all...it is their lives that will be effected. The Gov of New York wanted us to re-open a contract that he signed with us 2 years ago so He could nulify the agreed upon raises for the life of the contract, and he threatened mass layoffs if we didn't....So the union took him to court and the Judge slapped his hand....but layoffs may still be coming for a few....members said NO very loudly to re-opening the contract.....
-
-
No one is asking for a fortune. A mans word is his word, you sign a contract, you keep your word and finish it.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
John, Considering this is a hypothetical question, then what the hell, give them a hypothetical answer. What they want to hear is that people come first, period. But before anyone allows bean counters to dictate anything about your budget and possible layoffs, be sure to spend the time researching the budget from day one to present day. That's the only way you can tell what's what, what things are called and where the slush funds are located. Find these achilles heals and you won't have to worry about layoffs. Everyone has a skeleton in the closet. You just have to do the homework to find out where they are...
CBz
(IAFF Local 2046 x28 years)
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
These answers was typically what I was expecting and shows the dilema of such an issue. Of course the newer guys who's jobs are in question would want to see concessions to save jobs, whereas older FF's would rather see layoffs vs constantly giving up. I agree with you Greg about a contract being a contract and especially agree with the "good times" question, if mgmt would be willing to give more of a raise in a boom. Funny how that issue goes one way though.
The issue with refusing to concede falls in with the "take, take, take" type of theory, not so much as refusing to be "brothers". The theory heard is that the layoff threat would be loomed year after year and while the union concedes to save jobs one year, they (mgmt) will keep coming back holding the layoff threat over and over until there really can't be any more concessions and there will be layoffs anyway. Whereas forcing mgmt to make the decision to layoff puts the ball in their court and to see if they do or don't, with the theory being at least we keep what we earned and the guys will eventually be hired back. The issue with that line of thinking is also believing that the jobs will come back, which isn't a guarantee either.
I do agree with looking at the whole picture as some have pointed out. I agree such a decision is for the membership to vote on, but all issues need to be looked at. Is is possible mgmt would make it easier for those on the cusp of retiring to do so? Is there funding that can be generated with service charge like expanding something like tech rescue or HAZMAT to a broader area, etc. What are some easier concessions that don't impact retirement or health benefits like a vacation day here or there or residency for new hires, etc?
Yes, this is a hypothetical question asked of me by another FF, but it is a polarizing question which puts older and youger at odds in such cases. Personally I don't think there is such an ultimatum without really looking at every detail of the picture, from total budget to current issues. I know how I would vote if faced with such an ultimatum and I will side with jobs. If the layoff threat was again issued the following year, then it makes the fight easier to show that concessions were already made and to force mgmt to really start looking elsewhere. I don't believe in caving by consistent threats.
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
The fact that any city signed a contract in good faith and then decides to not follow through is not the question at hand. I agree, you give back $ and that will never be returned in the future. It will effect your families well-being forever. To include your retirement, with loss of that COLA now compunded over the remaining years of service. And BTW furloughs in the fire service, working for free is against the law. FLSA states that. Therefore if you have minimum manning, you take off a day without pay and they hire in on OT (where is the savings there)
Public safety should be the last thing cut, but often is brought to the table first. Even after watching layoffs around the country, I see beautification projects, lawns mowed, libraries fully staffed... WTF? The fire service needs to take a page from the brothers in blue, and when cuts are suggested, tell them exactly what services will be lost to include how much money each position cut will actually save. Police chiefs can tell you what it will cost to the penny if you cut a single detective or resource officer with crime statistics, and $$$.
Now back to your hypethetical question, it is a loaded gun... you will never please everyone in the body. Therefore, reduction in services through, extending CIP, vehicle replacements, not purchasing equipment, etc. is pennies now... Operational costs are the bulk of all of our budgets.
The correct answer is we would look at all aspects of the organization, to include increasing permiting fee's, billable services like ambulance transport fees, any above and beyond billable services such as haz-mat, rescue, etc, grant funding, and lastly dependant upon any "last in first out" clauses, meaning if you do not have one, would be savings through attrition. Potential consolidation of job functions, fire alarm or fire prevention, deputies, but the determination of minimum manning for suppresion - operations needs to be determined.
Last in first out is the least effective cost saving measure when you could force or "buy out" a chief or senior management postion, consolidate the job functions, and potentially save 3 or 4 new guys from the chopping block.
21 can be much less with progressive labor-management communication and relations.
-
Permalink Reply by Shareef Abdu Nur on
-
This is a simple question for me. I would sacrifice benefits/pay for members' jobs but continue to fight to regain any losses.
-
-
John, What the young guys are not seeing is that a pay cut will last their life time. They need to see past the end of their noses, it is not a new -VS-old issue. It is a do something that won't last a lifetime issue. Some ideas 1) have everyone write the city a check for the amont of the raise, you do not get the raise but you still get the precentage every year comnpounded, one year of pain-VS-life time of loss. 2) Insist on a minumum staffing clause with that money. 3) Give them a few days of your vacation for one year. 4) In 2005 we all worked 2 extra days for no pay (really they lowered our hourly rate to make the books balance because you cannot work for free). 5) Agree to make your overtime rate less for one year.
But remember to have 4 or 5 no cost contract issues that you want for each short term concession you make. Just do not let them trade your wages for layoffs, do not paly their game, say no.
-
-
FETC, You make great points. We have been through all of that, small cuts, penny pinching, going without training officers, reducing fire prevention, cutting other parts of the city. City budgest are crazy as you know. We have done audits by the IAFF and found extra hidden money. We have buy-outs in place and have worked hard to have political friends in city hall. We have worked hard to have a good relationship with management. Still they want our raises. They have not tried asking the citizens for a raise in taxes!
The question at hand is; 1) Do we open a contract to make wage concessions to save positions? 2) In an open contract do we take wage concessions to save possitions? I say no to both, I have stated in a post above that there are many other ways to get there than by wage cuts.
-
-
Greg,
They can choose to take your raises, but on the day it occurs per the contract they would have breached the terms of the contract for which the U-lawyer would love to address. Therefore, management always like to strike up the conversation to re-open contract negotiations before the end when they feel the desire to reduce operating costs.
A few things that are of importance for the decision, how many years left on the contract and terms. If you are close to the end, then Yes, telling them you will re-open but remember it is a give and take situation and EXPECT long term security concessions for doing so.
Opening early may save jobs and be an advantage. But if you just settled in good faith and have a good contract then there is a risk of losing all that hard work so in my opinion, NO. The risk is they will decide to lay off as you stated before. In the end, legally they can't breach the terms of raises. Most will pay you and then decide to strike back in other ways.
Our city has had a 3.5% line on taxation, therefore when they say they held the line, it is not actually zero funded, and the taxpayers actually see an increase for COLA's.
We also conceeded in the past to health insurance changes for big cost savings to the city, the example is a self insured/third party insurance administrator plan that has saved the city tons of money. The benefits are the same per verbage of the contract, meaning same medical benefits but the insurance carrier of the claims have changed.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
