Yuku free message boards

lake st wrote:

---

Econ wrote:

---

Dun Fudgin wrote:

---

"Beginning in September, he began closing one or two substations depending on the number of firefighters who appeared at roll call. The assigned count was 18 or 17.

But with firefighters taking advantage of the discretionary absence clause - as many as five could be off - the department either used overtime to bring in firefighters to work the shifts, or officials closed one or more stations."

Something tells me that the fire department doesn't know how to manage! "Allowing" up to 5 firefighters to be absent per shift is not only insane but also a huge safety issue. Granted there are times a firefighter is truly sick or has a family emergency but to allow unplanned absences at that rediculous percentage is foolish!!!!! I'm surprised more citizens aren't up in arms!

Dun - the union is allowed up to 5 absences per shift by contract. This is a case of them playing the system. If X firefighters agree not to show up, then their union buddies get overtime pay. So the firefighters just keep shifting around so that they all, at one time or another, get their shot at overtime and "sick leave" for time off. How many days of work did you miss last year? We must have some pretty unhealthy firefighters in our squads.

Not to mention that, IMHO, it appears what the union is pushing for is their usual "full employment" garbage i.e., we think there should be 96 firefighters taking advantage of this contract. Since you only want 76, we aren't go to make it easy for you to function with 76 - we're going to have to have lots of OT, see, until you put the rest of our union brothers back to work.

Seen it hundreds of times - my dad was a union negotiator for the OCAW. Hey, I like unions when they work well - as a manager, I don't have to deal with individuals. But when they have a hissy fit and start hiding behind their contract, well.....

Except, for the fact that your rant is absent of any fact it is a nice little story. NO OVERTIME, the only firefighters who benefited from taking the night off were,( hold on to your hat now and see if you can follow this Econ ) the ones who took the night off. Even when there was OT available it was not a man for man deal, it was only used when the number of firefighters dropped below a certain number, and that number has been fluid over the last few years. So Econ to sum this up in words you can understand YOUR WRONG.....

First, it is "you're" wrong - a contraction of you are....just a personal gripe, so don't get too offended! !

But, to quote:

"Beginning in September, he began closing one or two substations depending on the number of firefighters who appeared at roll call. The assigned count was 18 or 17.

But with firefighters taking advantage of the discretionary absence clause - as many as five could be off - the department either used overtime to bring in firefighters to work the shifts, or officials closed one or more stations."

So, as I read that, either firefighters were brought in on overtime because of the absences on the night of the game (to man up the equipment to 17 or 18) or they closed stations creating a greater hazard to citizens. Either way, the firefighters aren't covered in glory. If the FF union didn't intend to have this as a benefit or to use it in the manner I described - why put it in the contract? Whatever the reason, it seems it was not intended that they could take a night off to watch the Superbowl.

So, as to being wrong, in the first case above the situation is exactly what I was talking about (bringing in firefighters to cover) and they did get OT if they had already completed their 2 shifts for the week. This is what I understand happened though I will admit there seem to be a number of different versions of events that night. And please don't try to tell me about "clean skirt" unions. As I said, I generally support unions but I also know what they can get up to in trying to enforce provisions of their contract or get new terms during collective bargaining negotiations with management.

Taking a "reasonable man" approach; Is it more likely a coincidence that these firefighters all had to call in sick that night or that they (each individually or collectively) took advantage of the contract to get time off to watch the game? I think we can pretty accurately "guess" what happened.

None of this takes away from the good things firefighters do in saving people and their property - they have my utmost respect as professionals. But I also know they are human beings - and unionized public employees - and I believe all of you know that the sort of mischief I describe occurs on union jobs every day.