The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Grievance filed... what say you?
[quote]Northampton firefighters claim salvage duty is unfair
By DAN CROWLEY
Staff Writer
Login to post comments
Printer-friendly version
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
NORTHAMPTON - Work to salvage an elderly man's belongings after his roof collapsed under snow this winter is the subject of an unfair labor practice complaint filed by the Northampton firefighters union.
While the union says such work falls outside their job description, city officials liken it to salvaging the possessions of city residents whose homes are ravaged by fire or flooding, which firefighters do regularly.
"I don't see it as any different," Mayor Clare Higgins said. "This is a salvage operation. This is an elderly gentleman in desperate need of help from the city."
Meantime, the city faces another complaint filed by the International Association of Firefighters Local 108 over the transfer of money in April from the Fire Department's Emergency Medical Services fund to cover overtime expenses in the department, which the City Council approved. The money in that fund is generated by ambulance revenues.
The latter grievance was denied by Fire Chief Brian P. Duggan in May and is now before Glenda Stoddard, the city's human resources director. Depending on how Stoddard responds, the matter could move to arbitration.
The complaints come as the mayor negotiates a new contract with the firefighters union, which is the only union not to opt into a new health insurance plan for the next fiscal year. The union is working under a contract that expired a year ago.
"There's often more grievances when we're in the middle of negotiations," said Higgins, when asked whether the two complaints might be driven by difficult labor talks.
Laurel Park operation
The roof of John Masloski's red, two-story home in Laurel Park caved in under the weight of snow in February and city officials later ordered the house demolished for safety reasons. Masloski, 77, lives in Florence and his Laurel Park home, while uninhabited for years, contained many of his belongings.
Duggan dispatched a crew of four firefighters to the scene Feb. 24. The union says the firefighters were "ordered" by the city to help remove personal items from Masloski's small house and put them into a U-Haul truck. They say they shouldn't be doing that work, according to a complaint filed with the state Division of Labor Relations.
Northampton Firefighter Michael Hatch, president of IAFF, Local 108, could not be reached for comment, but the union's complaint states the city "changed the job duties" without providing notice to the union or an opportunity to negotiate, "and thereby bargained in bad faith." Timothy Belcher, an attorney representing the union in the labor complaint, could not be reached Monday for comment.
The demolition project cost Northampton approximately $15,000 as Masloski did not have homeowner's insurance or the financial means to pay for the work. At the time, Building Commissioner Louis Hasbrouck said the city would try to save many of Masloski's possessions, which included old tools, a hand-carved cigar store Indian, an antique Dr. Pepper sign and an old record player. The salvaged items also included an unused Whirlpool washing machine that Masloski won in a contest years ago.
"The building commissioner asked if an engine company could assist, which I assigned," Duggan said. "They were there for the demo and could be pulled away" in an emergency.
Duggan said he viewed the task as "protecting property and salvage," something firefighters do routinely.
"The (firefighters union) sees it as a change in the fabric of what their job description and role is," he said. "The city's perspective is it's salvage of a person's property who really needed assistance. I share the view that this is a project of saving someone's property as we do with fire, flooding, etc."
The City Council last Thursday transferred $2,500 into the city's Legal Services budget, funds Higgins said are directly related to defending the complaints filed by Local 108.
EMS funds
In a separate complaint, the firefighters union alleges the city wrongly used $60,000 from the Fire Department's EMS reserve or ambulance receipts fund to pay for an overtime deficit in the Fire Department. The union contends that money should be spent only for operating and maintaining the department's emergency medical services.
The union points to an article in its contract, which states: "In order to successfully develop EMS within the Northampton Fire Department, the city and union agree that all (EMS) receipts and budgeted surplus will be transferred and held in an EMS Reserve Account." The union is requesting the city pay back the money immediately, its complaint states.
Higgins said the city did not have the cash on hand to pay for Fire Department overtime, which is historically underfunded at approximately $90,000 but hits about $300,000 per year.
Duggan said the Fire Department estimated it would take in $1.56 million in ambulance revenues this year, but that figure is expected to top $1.9 million.
Higgins said it was a tough year financially and she had to use the money with little to no free cash or rainy-day funds on the city's books to pay for the Fire Department's overtime deficit.
Duggan said tapping the EMS reserve fund means less cash will be available in the future to pay for EMS equipment and ambulances, however. He denied the union's grievance on several grounds.
"It's something that clearly was not well received by my people, but it's a decision that was made and implemented," Duggan said. As for city councilors who approved the financial transfer, several said that EMS funds can be used for any lawful municipal purpose, including paying for Fire Department overtime.
"I don't know what they would be complaining about this for," said Ward 7 City Councilor Eugene A. Tacy, who serves on the Finance Committee.
Ward 5 City Councilor David A. Murphy, who serves on the Public Safety Committee said this: "I'm assuming they don't think it's going to be transferred and held forever, or reserved indefinitely."
Dan Crowley can be reached at dcrowley@gazettenet.com.[/quote]
[b]The roof of John Masloski's red, two-story home in Laurel Park caved in under the weight of snow in February and city officials later ordered the house demolished for safety reasons. Masloski, 77, lives in Florence and his Laurel Park home, while uninhabited for years, contained many of his belongings.
The demolition project cost Northampton approximately $15,000 as Masloski did not have homeowner's insurance or the financial means to pay for the work. At the time, Building Commissioner Louis Hasbrouck said the city would try to save many of Masloski's possessions, which included old tools, a hand-carved cigar store Indian, an antique Dr. Pepper sign and an old record player. The salvaged items also included an unused Whirlpool washing machine that Masloski won in a contest years ago.[/b]
Click on the video link to this story.
My humble opinion.... the only reason to enter this structture was to search for victims. As a command officer, the thought of putting someone into a house that was abandoned abandoned decades ago with a structural collapse that caused its demolition to look for "stuff" compromised the safety of the personnel of the Northhampton firefighters.
PS: I know Chief Duggan. He used to be the Chief in the town of Northborough.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
In one hand the fire department has traditionally responded to calls for help to save life AND property, and we always roll, no questions asked. This particular instance is tough.
I don't see it as a tough call at all, this is beyond the scope of dept duties. There is no emergency situation, this is not a life threat, there is no reason for the FD to do the job of a private business and insurance company.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Whether this is beyond the scope of the FD's duties might vary with location.
I see this more as a risk-benefit issue. If the engine is going to be sitting there and the salvage work isn't very risky, then why not participate? If the structure is badly compromised, then the property isn't worth the risk to the firefighters.
Public perception shouldn't be the driving force in this kind of situation, but it is definately a consideration.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
If the engine is going to be sitting there and the salvage work isn't very risky, then why not participate?
Because it sets a precedent, namely; the FD will perform operations outside of their normal scope of operations when a politician/mayor deems it necessary. It further sends/reinforces the message that, should one decide NOT to insure or maintain a structure, the fire department will be available to help that person out. Now where that person spent their maintenance and insurance money, nobody knows but, since they didn't feel their property was worth protecting (storing, selling, giving away), why should the fire department now be tasked with a job that the owner didn't feel was worthy of his time and/or money? [this argument remind you of anything? Like the incident where the homeowner in an unincorporated area didn't bother to pay the fire district tax and so the fire department refused to put out his house fire?)
-
-
My point - this type of operation might not be outside the scope of what some fire departments do.
The answer is to have a policy about if the fire department will even respond to this type of incident or not, and if so, what the scope is prior to the call. That takes care of pressure from whomever to participate. That also begs the question - if the engine company isn't going to actually do anything, why be there at all?
As for your discussion about the fire incident, if you're referring to the Obion County, TN fire, there was no fire tax involved. The citizens of Obion county pay no fire taxes and they have no fire department. If they want fire protection, they pay a private subscription fee and get an individual fire protection contract with a neighboring city's fire department.
Comparing a property owner non-fire salvage incident to an out-of-district fire contract (or no contract) is apples and oranges. The situations are very different and the TN fire department did something - they protected the exposure at the neighbor's, who was one of their subscribers.
-
-
Ben,
I brought up the Obion County incident (thanks, I couldn't remember) simply to point out that in both cases, neither homeowner seemed to care enough about their property to properly ensure that, should something happen they would have both been covered.
It wasn't a case of taxes, subscription or insurance but rather did the homeowner make the effort to protect their belongings? In both cases, the answer is no.
I agree with you regarding policy but then the question is, how do you word such a policy? But, as a chief, how would you have felt had the mayor told you to send an engine to assist? Or, do you have a policy in place?
-
-
First, in regards to Obion Cty and subscriptions, I understand what Jack is getting at. While the issue there is the lack of fire taxes, the fact remains that if there was a life threat or emergency involved the dept would respond accordinly. The Fd responded there because one who did have a subscription called and there was no life threeat where the fire was.
In this case, while the owner is a taxpayer, there is no emergency situation involved which warrants the misuse of resources like this. There is no reason for the dept to allocate resources to retrieve property just because the owner didn't want to or could afford to pay for insurance. The insurance, or lack thereof, is not the concern of the dept. The FD's concern is in regards to an emergency.
Now this incident could have been used as a collapse training, but that also involves some planning, following training standards, and likely additional people to backfill so that emergency response is not compromised to other taxpayers. However, what happened here is the mayor ordering the dept to do this under the guise of salvage, which this falls outside of that definition for FD involvement.
-
Permalink Reply by Oldman on
-
I suppose that there is merit to the grievance, that this was outside the scope of their duty. One thing the grievance has accomplished, which is evident in the news article, is that it generated publicity which might not be very flattering in the eyes of many in the civilian world.
I wonder, if perhaps the department could have been painted in a better light had the report eluded the fact that; while this was outside their normal duty, the crew helped an elderly man salvage some stuff that didn't mean much to anyone but him. Possibly a good human interest story, much like the proverbial "getting a cat out of the tree."
Even though the man hadn't lived in the house for some time, I presume that the taxes were still being paid on the property, meaning the crew was helping a taxpayer that in a roundabout way was helping pay the crews wages. I would however, question the legality of utilizing govt employees to perform work on private property.
It sounds to me that there are bigger problems between the fire department and the city.
-
-
It sounds to me that there are bigger problems between the fire department and the city.
I would say this about sums it up. Sounds like there has been significant disparity between the two entities involved. If one knows the OP here, they will realize this is not the sole site this topic is posted on, so there is definately more opinion than just generated here.
Now, the grievance issue here is not a dept aspect to be painted in a better light, but instead the union filing the grievance. The dept and mayor can put whatever positive spin they want about this, whatever touchy-feely story or what have you. However, the realities of the issue are addressed by the grievance and the union. With every feel good, touchy-feely story lies a reality that isn't as feel good. In a case like this comes the fact that doing this task thus put other taxpayers and visitors at risk if they required emergency services. Also at the same time, such an order can set a precedence for a response that deters from the primary mission of emergency services.
What we see here is the misuse of emergency services for the sake of private, personal gain. As mentioned there is more than this site for opinion, and it does appear the property owner did not have insurance or adequate insurance. Secondly this was not an emergency situation in which a FD response is warranted. It is not the FD's job to recover property from natural disaters etc, that is why there is insurance. It doesn't matter if the person was a taxpayer or not, this is NOT an emergency situation and not one which requires emergency personnel to become movers for personal gain.
The line does need to be drawn about the extent of tax based services. Customer service does not mean kissing the ass of everyone, but instead to provide a professional approach, and a cordial and polite attitude. This means that you don't have to bend to every "customer" suggestion, but instead to also have the foresight to say "no". As I responded earlier, at what point does "customer service" go beyond the mission? Does one call the pizza delivery and have them pick up their dry cleaning on the way to delivering the pizza? Yeah they could, but realistically the answer will be no. Yet, it seems since people are taxpayers that a dept should not have the same ability to say no.....and to that is BS. That is was this grievance does, sets precidence....why sacrifice FF's lives and health as well as other citizens, for someone's personal propert because they failed to have insurance??
-
Permalink Reply by Moose on
-
I don't see it as a tough call at all, this is beyond the scope of dept duties. There is no emergency situation, this is not a life threat, there is no reason for the FD to do the job of a private business and insurance company.
If you would have read the rest of my post, you would see I agree.
I believe in saving peoples possessions as much as I safely can, simply because I do not know the person and dont know if these are ALL of their worldly possessions or not. To us it may be junk, but to others its treasured and valuable, and they have the right to think so. But in this situation, clearly it is dangerous to send in firefighters to an unsafe building, regardless of any shoring or stabilizing, simply to get some old relics this man obviously forgot about and didnt care enough to take better care of. Also. this is the guys summer home...how many homes does he own? How rich is he? Does he realy care about a run down property filled with collected junk and unwanted clutter? These are the factors I would have used as first responding officer, and muy guys would have been sent back to the station after I carefully explained it to the politicians involved in this. As I said in my earlier post, if this were his home (ONLY home) and his valuables were inside and it was all he owned...I would have considered calling for special services like demolition crews and technical assistance to see what we could do to save what we could, but this situation? No go.
-
-
Moose,
I did read your whole post, I chose that part to highlight to bring attention to the PR, feel good aspect that is also getting attention. It really isn't and shouldn't be a tough call to weigh safety of personnel, safety of the public, for the sake of possessions that have been left alone for some time.
Now the OP has posted this article on several other sites and the feedback varies and there are many that will look at the PR angle before regarding the safety issues as well as the risk to the public by taking crews out of service basically. The focus today by many seems to be so in tune with trying to portray a positive image by coddeling the and kissing the ass of the "customer" for the sake of getting brownie points. At the same time as thinking about such points don't realize the impact placed on the rest of taxpayers, nor even going outside the scope of the duties of the dept, such issues as this just is not our job.
That is my point here that such issues like this should not be the "tough call" as some may think it is. In the end customer service is also about saying no, especially when others are placed at risk for a non-emergency as well as now using public resources for private gain. Another comparable would be say a plow driver uses the city's equipment to plow someone's personal driveway, just for the sake of PR. Yeah there are some brownie points, but a precidence can be set for every other taxpayer.
-
-
Agreed. Being a former plow driver for the village I see that point well enough now! If I ever plowed someones personal driveway I would have been suspended. If I did it again fired.
I see what you mean now, Im thinking more in the lines of volunteer department response as opposed to on duty career firefighters. If someone called 911 and asked for help we would respond and assess, than given the information above as a captain I would have said no, unless it met the other criteria I listed, than I would have called for technical assistance from local rescue teams and demo crews. Thanks and stay safe.
Moose
-
-
John,
This may be outside the scope of YOUR department, but I'm not sure that it's safe to assume that it's outside the scope of EVERY fire department.
In other words, the proper way to handle this depends upon the policy of the fire department where the call is located.
I heard the "that's not our job" stuff about EMS 35 years ago, hazmat 25 years ago, and USAR 15 years ago. Where I work, all of those things are definately our job now.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
