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 John Crabbe on
-
I agree Mike, that is what negotiations is all about, give and take, vs ultimatums. Can't speak for other unions, but the IAFF is very good in providing classes etc on how to negotiate in tough times, understanding municipal budgets, protecting pensions, etc. I don't see such an ultimatum of a question being posed without some serious negotiation being involved. The question was hypothetical.
-
-
Greg, I understand what you are saying here and it is a good point, but it still does come down to an Old vs New in many cases. Yes, if concessions were made it would affect things down the road for newer as well, but so does remaining on the job now. Years of service and having a percentage compounded means little to the ones who will not be falling in that catagory because they will be out of work for sometime.
The reason I say there would still be an old vs new is because of the differences in generations. You do see newer folks with an instant gratification mindset and really don't see the far picture. It is easy to not concentrate on retirement or worry about the cost of insurance when neither is a priority for you. In our dept and union there were many concessions made at the cost of the newest members with the mantra of "you'll get yours". Problem with that mindset is times change and the mindset does not fit, which in turn has created some very polarizing issues never before seen.
Now let's not forget the public perception and image side of things which I think, does come into play too. Today we see an very big anti-union, anti-public worker sentiment, much of which being perpetuated by politicians looking for votes. (in some places, like our state, this is the reality). It is easy to hold strong, but when there is a perception that the union is sucking off the taxpayer dime and refuses to take cuts, which the private sector has seen, there becomes a rift. (I know the stuff said is BS, because we have endured cuts, etc, but that typically doesn't get reported)
The issue I'm talking about here is the perception which can and would be played out in the public. If layoffs were done in lieu of concessions, that does have a direct, immediate, impact on both the public and the firefighters remaining. The city can easily spin the layoffs because the union was "greedy" and failed to try and save the jobs and didn't care about the public safety. The union would have a hell of a time trying to say it is about protecting raises and pensions etc when many in the private sector has already endurred hits.....the sympathy really isn't there. It is difficult for the union to say the city had money or should make cuts elsewhere to save jobs, because more often than not, the avg citizen who has endurred loss could care less and just see the union as greedy. Just another aspect of such a situation of rock and hard place.
Now, I'm not arguing that concessions should be made here, I absolutely understand and agree with you, just adding to the issues of just choosing one over the other. I also agree with looking into many non-cost items to look at and the points about working the the couple days for "free" or the paying back a raise are some good options I never seen proposed before and is a consideration. No, I am not about just giving up concessions for layoffs, not without a fight, and not about opening up a contract in mid term either.
We do have a minimum staffing clause and did lose 15 positions in the past with arbitration. The issue with compared to concessions is we seen the cuts and have not seen the positions come back. So it is difficult for someone to say to a newer FF that you will be hired back if layoffs occur, when we seen that isn't the case. The question posed here was basically going down to 3 man engines vs giving something up.....which means if said layoffs were made, the chances of getting the spots back are minimal.
I do appreciate the perspective here and glad you are holding to the position because it does show a difference to the issue. I suspected initailly that there would be many posts saying give concessions to keep jobs, but these are most definately some valid points and considerations.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Oomkes on
-
Contracts are renegotiated all the time. It's part of business.
-
-
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)
True, but what I think Greg was saying is that the hourly rate was adjusted to basically allow for the days given up.
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?
Couldn't agree more, we seen a loss of positions and a creation of a city deck during such tough economic times....kick to the nads for sure.
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 $$$.
I would agree, but there is a difference in the two and it comes down to tangibility for the most part. What I mean here is people see crime, they understand that fear and they want to see the police out there. They understand that when cuts are proposed and the chief says it would take this much longer to have PD show or indicate the cut, people can directly relate. Whereas the fire service isn't the same, we show up when called, we are not keeping the criminals off the street, people are not fearing fire the same as crime etc. People see where SWAT was done or busts made, they see the K-9 being used, see detectives working cases etc. These are tangible because in turn, they see the drugs coming off the street , they see the "bad guys" coming off, they see there lives being safer, etc.
Whereas in the fire service, we don't have that same tangibility. Most people find us for the first time when they are having the bad day. They don't see the tech rescue need if they aren't involved, they don't see the need for staffing when they see the fire, they don't see the fire prevention measures when there isn't fires, etc. In places where fires and emergencies are not an everyday occurance, it is tougher to make the same case as PD can.
Basically it comes down to the sentiment that "If the neighbor's house catches fire, rarely do you see the other neighbors calling for an increase in fire protection, you don't see them installing sprinklers, checking smoke alarms, doing fire drills etc. However, if the neighbor's house is broken into, now there is a demand for police service, they want to see the cops, etc"
21 can be much less with progressive labor-management communication and relations.
Absolutely and that is what it does come down to, negotiations and looking at every detail of the picture.
-
Permalink Reply by Gregory Borg on
-
John, This is of course a very complicated issue, the negotiations need to be combined with a good PR program, strong political action, member and public education. You make some great points.
We have been faced with rig staffing cuts in the past, some talked about some happened. We have 4 on the trucks and 3 of 13 engines with 4, the rest with 3. We had 4 more 4 person engine in the past and 5 medic squads in service with two on each, they also fought fire. they are all gone now, so are 4 engine companies, 3 truck companies and 5 and 6 man truck staffing that we had at one time. It is also important to remember that the city is responcible to provide fire protection, not the members. We do the work. Hang in there and hope the hypothetical does not become reality.
-
-
There is no requirement to open between dates. As you can see my local has done many things to save the city money all deals worked out without opening the wages in the contract.
-
Permalink Reply by Rick on
-
If you are ok with out a raise then, ask for it and if that question is posed to you turn it around on them and do what we did offer to take a 0% increase for a no lay-off clause.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Armstrong on
-
Now i'm not part of the IAFF but I was part of the uaw for 16 yrs and then teamsters and management always trys scare tactics and very seldom follow through on them and if they did in the fire service I would haave to think that most threats would be temporary if they did occur so it's definately a tough situaton cause nobody wants to see brothers loose their jobs but nobody wants to loose what they have fought to get thus far or what is deserving in the future. And I think that this might be a hypothetical question that started the post but is clearly a true life situation to alot. It might not be worded quite so blatant but it goes on everyday.So I think that maybe this post should have everybody list their cost saving tips as some have and they could be implement before this question needs to be addressed.Here's a few things we used at the table in our talks with the company when they wanted to open early and and some our fire service use. Now these you will need to do some homework and some you may not have the capabilities to find out but it's still a bug in their ear,because you can say it to your blue in the face that negotiations are give and take but the company does not like to reach in thier pockets and won't witout a couple threats but if the homework is done before hand then you can use facts to back your demands.
1--- do the people who do the ordering of supplies use the cheapest supplier or is it their buddy that they wanted to get in there and sell everything for more or it was just the first supplier catalogue that they got so they went with them. It was amazing what the company found when they did a cost of supplies study. And i'm not exaggerating when I say in one month the company saved 2 peoples wage for a whole year.
2--- Now I'm not sure how close together you city guys are with your stations but we here have centrally located fueling stations for Fire,Police,and the city workers and if it is a municipality owned vehicle it gets fuelled at one of these stations.Buying fuel in bulk instead of individuals having credit cards is huge in savings.
3--- Now this is the tough one that we used in the factory but you could use it there and maybe an "anonymous" letter to the paper would get attention.We have an excess of secretaries in the office and we asked them why the workers were going to go and no secretaries were.So you could find out their iffice staff and use thier wage to compare it to a FF's put it in the paper that they are keeping "x" number of secretaries but getting rid of "X" number of FF's because like said in a previous post really the only time FF's are noticed is when they come to you or your neighbours house but the public for the most part doesn't have a clue how it's run so they just assume that if they need 30 guys to run a station then the city will have 30 guys but they might not know that you have 25 guys to save money and it could be your house that they come to and everyone's so fatigued from workin their ass of at the other 5 or 6 fires they were just at and can't preform 100%,but Buddy in the office kept his two secretaries so he relaxed all day.It's nasty politics but that card could be played.
I'll give some more later i gootta get to work,see you tonite.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
