# Unions under attack



## AZEMTJUNKIE (Apr 3, 2012)

Hello brothers and sisters of the ems world.
I was just curious about your thoughts on Private ems unions ?


----------



## adamjh3 (Apr 3, 2012)

Sometimes they're needed. Sometimes they're not. 

Sometimes they help. Sometimes they don't. 

In order for them to really have a positive impact, the union, the employees, and the employer need to all work together. However, if the employees and the employer were willing to work together in the first place, there's not much need for unionization is there? 

At my current service, we weren't unionized when I started, and I was there for the unionization. It has it's pros and cons. The union is pretty much there to ensure that when we get disciplined or fired the company had just cause to do so. 

Management is resistant to change, and obviously has their own best interest in mind. The employees don't do anything but complain about management and the union and about how crappy things are without taking any steps to change things. The union is kind of stuck in the middle getting :censored: on from both sides. 

If a union is necessary, the company sucks, and always will suck, and not much can be done about it.


----------



## Lozenger19 (Apr 4, 2012)

adamjh3 said:


> If a union is necessary, the company sucks, and always will suck, and not much can be done about it.



I strongly disagree with this statement. Just because a company has a union doesn't mean it sucks. 
Not everybody likes unions, but being a senior union steward in my work place, I've seen a lot of good things my union has done. 

I'd there weren't unions, there would be a lot of inequalities at work, unfair dismissals & people getting disciplinaries all the time for no good reason.

I feel very strongly about unions and will always support them as I've seen what good they can do in the work place.


----------



## Aidey (Apr 4, 2012)

I also disagree that a union means the employer sucks. No matter how good the overall employer is there will always be politics and petty crap that keep things from being fair. Yes sometimes it can be hard to get rid of a bad employee, but a union can also keep people from being picked on by management because someone got on the wrong supervisors bad side. 

It also means that women and men get paid the same when they have equal qualifications, something that should NOT be an issue in 2012, but still is.


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 4, 2012)

I'm curious as to what the thread title has to do with the content of the OP.


----------



## adamjh3 (Apr 4, 2012)

Lozenger19 said:


> I strongly disagree with this statement. Just because a company has a union doesn't mean it sucks.
> Not everybody likes unions, but being a senior union steward in my work place, I've seen a lot of good things my union has done.
> 
> I'd there weren't unions, there would be a lot of inequalities at work, unfair dismissals & people getting disciplinaries all the time for no good reason.
> ...



I am also a union steward

I've seen them save the jobs of solid professionals who made an honest mistake that anyone else could have made. 

I've also seen them save the jobs of lazy, unmotivated, good-for-nothing employees.

Unions had a time and place, and I think they've outlived their usefulness. There are now laws in place that unions just help to enforce. If employees did their part and educated themselves about labor laws, unions would be well expired.

Most of the companies I've heard nothing but good things about are non-unionized. 

Is it Doctor's or McCormick ambulance that has a position called the "Director of People?" That persons entire job is to bridge the gap between labor and management, to ensure that the employee's are happy within means that the company can provide without significantly impacting their bottom line. So that person, in effect, acts in the same capacity as a union. This is an example of employees and management working together to achieve a common goal. 

When unions step in, one or both parties has already been resistant to helping the other come to an agreeable solution to problems, and there's only so much a union can do when one or both parties are unwilling to give a little, all the union can really do is make sure labor laws are followed. So while things may improve under a union, it is a sign that there has already been a significant failure at the management level and an amount of ignorance among employees in regards to labor laws.


----------



## adamjh3 (Apr 4, 2012)

Aidey said:


> ... but a union can also keep people from being picked on by management because someone got on the wrong supervisors bad side.



This can and does happen even when a union is in effect. I've seen it first hand. Dig deep enough into your CBA and rule book and you can find ways to legally discipline and terminate anyone.


----------



## jon51 (Apr 4, 2012)

I have to agree with Adam.  He stated that if a Union is necessary than the company sucks.  Employees would not get together and vote in a union if everything was wonderful at the workplace.  If the company is run well and treats employees well then it is highly unlikely that a union is necessary.    Employees at good companies don't go around voting in Unions.  It just doesn't happen.


To the OP, 
Unions are bad and good (as Adam said).  If you and your coworkers are not union and feel it is necessary then do some research because you want to make sure you chose one that has a history of taking care of its' members.


----------



## Handsome Robb (Apr 4, 2012)

Never been in a union so I can't really comment but from what I hear and have read they seem to either work really well or not at all. 

Personally I don't want someone telling me whether I can go to work that morning or not but that's just my opinion and probably has no actual basis of fact behind it other than hearsay.


----------



## bigbaldguy (Apr 4, 2012)

The company I work for is the number 1 domestic airline in the industry. We have great benefits ,great pay, good leadership, happy employees, an incredibly good relationship with management, and i honestly believe its all because we're union. 
Here's the problem with the "companies that treat their employees well don't need unions" theory. A union allows a rank and file employee in a massive company to feel as though their voice is being heard. It gives us a sense of ownership that is nearly always lost once a company goes beyond a certain size. I would encourage anyone who thinks companies that keep unions out by keeping employees happy work, to research Delta airlines. They kept their people very happy to avoid unions and now it's a toss up as to whether they'll be around in 5 years (they're northwest now by the way). When a company gets in to trouble or gets taken over, or just gets new management all bets are off.
Now all that said a union is only as good as its membership and it's leadership. An incompetent union can be very bad a corrupt one can be absolutely devestating. The only way to make a union work is to have an active membership who go to meetings, read union updates, and most importantly research and vote for good solid union officers.
Remember there are lots of laws in place to protect us in the work place and all of those laws weren't just put in place by unions but are also defended on an ongoing basis by the labor movement.


----------



## mycrofft (Apr 4, 2012)

*Recessions hurt unions, as do adverse court decisions and laziness.*

Without a union the only way to defend yourself from your employer is to hire an attorney (versus the attorneys they can hire) and sue them, or go to a government regulatory commission (like Civil Service Commission, godbless'em), then play David to their Goliath. And you don't get a slingshot, you get a peashooter.

Employers are people too, and have pressures regarding profit and productivity that run amuck, especially when they get big and there is individual benefit to showing their bosses they are tough and company -minded; unfortunately for you, they (potentially) have the weight of the company behind them. Collective sharing of information, bargaining and potentially legal or job action are what allow the balance to work your way a little.

That said, large unions get to be like large companies. Sometimes to show us they are "for the workers" they can get a little overboard. 

Ideally the company has its employees as shareholders with some say as to what's happening and a means to make sure disinformation and summary firings aren't used to keep employees divided and ignorant, feeling alone. It's like the healthcare debate, you don't want to pay the dues or walk the line, but you're glad to accept the pay raises and benefits having a union (or the threat of a union) bring you.

And as for unions leading to featherbedding, my experience is that competent managers can get rid of slackers if they are taught how and are not lazy themselves.


----------



## MunchkinMedic (Apr 23, 2012)

adamjh3 said:


> Is it Doctor's or McCormick ambulance that has a position called the "Director of People?" That persons entire job is to bridge the gap between labor and management, to ensure that the employee's are happy within means that the company can provide without significantly impacting their bottom line.
> .



It's McCormick that has the position of Director of people. Basically its one of the owners but he primarily deals with the employees & all aspects of employment


----------



## looker (Apr 23, 2012)

Union get in a way. If my company ever becomes unionize i will shut it down and open a new one.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 23, 2012)

looker said:


> Union get in a way. If my company ever becomes unionize i will shut it down and open a new one.


because unions benefit the works, they typically don't benefit the employer (because many employers are only looking out for their own $$$, and couldn't care less about their employees).

Management doesn't like unions, because unions often prevent management from mistreating and taking advantage of the employees.

Unions don't get in a way.... they get in YOUR way, or in the way of management doing whatever they want, often at the expense of the employee.

Unions are a good thing, and if management treats their people right, they shouldn't have anything to fear from a union forming.


----------



## looker (Apr 24, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> because unions benefit the works, they typically don't benefit the employer (because many employers are only looking out for their own $$$, and couldn't care less about their employees).
> 
> Management doesn't like unions, because unions often prevent management from mistreating and taking advantage of the employees.
> 
> ...



Lets make it simple, people get in to business to make as much money as they can. Yes union cost money so yes they would get in my way. My company, my rules. If they want to start bargaining for more they can find a new job. People today should look around and see how high unemployment is. There are plenty of people willing to work for whatever you offer them as long it's legal. There is no reason why EMT should be making much over $10 an hour being) he/she is easily replaceable. If economy gets hot and unemployment drops, chances are that wages will go up being replacing employees will be hard and retaining them will the be goal.


----------



## truetiger (Apr 24, 2012)

looker said:


> Lets make it simple, people get in to business to make as much money as they can. Yes union cost money so yes they would get in my way. My company, my rules. If they want to start bargaining for more they can find a new job. People today should look around and see how high unemployment is. There are plenty of people willing to work for whatever you offer them as long it's legal. There is no reason why EMT should be making much over $10 an hour being) he/she is easily replaceable. If economy gets hot and unemployment drops, chances are that wages will go up being replacing employees will be hard and retaining them will the be goal.



Glad to see how you view your employees.....


----------



## medicsb (Apr 24, 2012)

looker = a reminder why unions are needed.


----------



## SliceOfLife (Apr 24, 2012)

We are not professional enough to talk about politics or edit our own post after five minutes.  So how is it we can be discussing unions?

I'm split on the union issue for many reasons and that is all I'm going to say on that subject.

Here is a scenario for you all to ponder:

I work at a non-union site with more than half the employees being union.  This is shift work.  Recently a shift has opened up that was being held for a service member who decided not to return to the company after coming home from deployment.  For the last year it has been filled by a relatively new hire.  Since we are non-union, management can fill this shift however they would like.  If we unionize the site it would be strictly by seniority.  

Now the only other person who wants this pseudo-new shift, besides the guy already working it, is an employee with more seniority but a bad track record (performs poorly, calls out, policy violations).  So who gets the shift?  The new guy who has been working it for the past year or the poor performer with seniority?

I have had several heated arguments with coworkers about this.


----------



## looker (Apr 24, 2012)

SliceOfLife said:


> We are not professional enough to talk about politics or edit our own post after five minutes.  So how is it we can be discussing unions?
> 
> I'm split on the union issue for many reasons and that is all I'm going to say on that subject.
> 
> ...



If it's union rules then the guy with most seniority will get shift and it's unlikely he will be fired anytime soon as in non union shop he likely would already be gone.


----------



## looker (Apr 24, 2012)

truetiger said:


> Glad to see how you view your employees.....



I view employees as that employees. They get paid to perform specific task(s) and for that they get paid agree amount. If i find an employee to be really valuable and he/she is worth much more I will either have to pay much more or that employee will likely find a new place to work for better wage, benefits etc. There is a reason why free market works. It's all about supply and demand. A company should not have 50 step process to fire someone. It should be pretty simple, a person is not doing his/her job. They get 1 or 2 warning and if they do not start doing what they supposed to they get fired. Why should bad employee be rewarded? 

Let me ask this another way. Suppose there 100 qualified people for position, yet because position is unionized I have to pay xx amount when in reality I can easily find same qualified person for x amount. Why should company not be free to fire this person in at will states and replace them with cheaper qualified person?


----------



## truetiger (Apr 24, 2012)

I'm sure you retain top notch employees with that attitude. Why should I, as the employee, bust my *** or go the extra mile for you, the employer who can't wait to replace me to save money. EMS is a field in which EMT's and Paramedics are asked to go above and beyond and sometimes put their lives at risk. Is it too much to ask that the employer show some loyalty as well?


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 24, 2012)

SliceOfLife said:


> We are not professional enough to talk about politics or edit our own post after five minutes.  So how is it we can be discussing unions?.



Simple.  Political discussions never end civilly, but we do sometimes allow them provided they have an EMS focus.

The edit time is in place because previous members have gone back and deleted their posts for some reason and it totally throws off thread continuity.

This discussion about unions has remained civil, so it has been allowed to continue.  The moment it doesn't, this thread will be closed and someone will get a forum vacation.


----------



## looker (Apr 24, 2012)

truetiger said:


> I'm sure you retain top notch employees with that attitude. Why should I, as the employee, bust my *** or go the extra mile for you, the employer who can't wait to replace me to save money. EMS is a field in which EMT's and Paramedics are asked to go above and beyond and sometimes put their lives at risk. Is it too much to ask that the employer show some loyalty as well?



As employer my job is to make sure you have as safe of working condition as possible. Available tools that you need to perform your work to the best of your ability etc. Those employees that go above and beyond are the employees management see that they can't live without and as result willing to pay more to keep them around. 

If there was union employees would not bust their *** because they would still get paid the same, get scheduled pay raise, promotion etc regardless if they go above what they supposed to or not.


----------



## truetiger (Apr 24, 2012)

That's a very stereotypical answer regarding unions. I'd say most of us give 110% on this job because its our passion and not to get a pay raise. Being union is not about getting ever cent out of the employer and more about due process.


----------



## SliceOfLife (Apr 24, 2012)

ffemt8978 said:


> Simple.  Political discussions never end civilly, but we do sometimes allow them provided they have an EMS focus.
> 
> The edit time is in place because previous members have gone back and deleted their posts for some reason and it totally throws off thread continuity.
> 
> This discussion about unions has remained civil, so it has been allowed to continue.  The moment it doesn't, this thread will be closed and someone will get a forum vacation.



Ironic that the board that host discussions about professional advancement, legitimacy and acknowledgment of EMS in the medical field believes that the whole should be punished for the inappropriateness of the few.  Way to help the cause.

Of all the forums I belong to this is the only one that makes such an issue of it.  No wonder we can't shake the name "ambulance driver" when we hold each other to such low standards and expectations.


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 24, 2012)

truetiger said:


> Glad to see how you view your employees.....


Sadly, many people view their employees as replaceable...  Treat them like crap, pay them poorly, who cares, they can quit or get fired and I can replace them with a newbie in about 6 minutes.  After all insurance doesn't care if the provider has 10 minutes of experience or 10 years.





medicsb said:


> looker = a reminder why unions are needed.


Exactly.





SliceOfLife said:


> I work at a non-union site with more than half the employees being union.  This is shift work.  Recently a shift has opened up that was being held for a service member who decided not to return to the company after coming home from deployment.  For the last year it has been filled by a relatively new hire.  Since we are non-union, management can fill this shift however they would like.  If we unionize the site it would be strictly by seniority.
> 
> Now the only other person who wants this pseudo-new shift, besides the guy already working it, is an employee with more seniority but a bad track record (performs poorly, calls out, policy violations).  So who gets the shift?  The new guy who has been working it for the past year or the poor performer with seniority?


If the employee has such a bad track record, why are they still employed?  just because you are union doesn't mean you can't be fired or disciplined; all it means is that you need to be disciplined according to the rules, which are applied evenly to everyone, not because your boss doesn't like you.

I would ask if the position was offered to anyone before the new guy filled it.  maybe a more senior guy would want it.  After all, just because it was given to the new guy and he did the job well doesn't mean no one else wanted it.

Lets change your scenario a bit: if YOU were the senior guy who had been there for years, always did the job, and the new guy was the bosses son/daughter, who had a bad track record, and was given the shift because of his relationship and because they needed the spot filled and he was the newest guy, and the new guy was given the spot over you, what would your feelings be?





looker said:


> If i find an employee to be really valuable and he/she is worth much more I will either have to pay much more or that employee will likely find a new place to work for better wage, benefits etc.


I throw the BS flag up on this statement.  When was the last time you actually paid any employer more than your company's minimum salary when they started?  After all, you don't make any more money by having a good employee vs a bad employee.


looker said:


> A company should not have 50 step process to fire someone. It should be pretty simple, a person is not doing his/her job. They get 1 or 2 warning and if they do not start doing what they supposed to they get fired. Why should bad employee be rewarded?


bad employees shouldn't be rewarded, but you shouldn't have a different set of rules for everyone.  Union shops HAVE fired people, and will continue to do so.  Cross your Ts, dot your Is, people can be disciplined and fired.

Think of it this way: if I work for your company, and 2 hours after my shift ends, and you receive a complaint about me, you can "order" me to come to the office immediately to discuss it.  I am already home in bed, so I tell you "no."  So you, as the employer decide to terminate me, which you can do as a non-union shop.  

If you are in a union shop, the rules would state you need to be given time to defend yourself, have a shop steward present, and actually not be bullied by management.  You can still be fired after the investigation is completed, but you have to have a legitimate reason for it being done.


looker said:


> Let me ask this another way. Suppose there 100 qualified people for position, yet because position is unionized I have to pay xx amount when in reality I can easily find same qualified person for x amount. Why should company not be free to fire this person in at will states and replace them with cheaper qualified person?


kinda makes me not want to ask the boss for a raise, or even be given a raise by the boss, because he will think that I am now expensive, and I can be fired and replaced with a new hire who has the minimum qualifications needed to do the job.





looker said:


> As employer my job is to make sure you have as safe of working condition as possible. Available tools that you need to perform your work to the best of your ability etc.


haha, and how many of your fellow employers are failing to do that job on a regular basis, often because it's too expensive or not cost affective?  after all, if people complain, you can just fire them and replace them with cheaper staff.  





looker said:


> Those employees that go above and beyond are the employees management see that they can't live without and as result willing to pay more to keep them around.


I believe you said everyone is replaceable, often for a cheaper hourly rate.  


looker said:


> If there was union employees would not bust their *** because they would still get paid the same, get scheduled pay raise, promotion etc regardless if they go above what they supposed to or not.


or you can just not give raises to anyone, even to those who are busting their ***, and doing everything right because it is more expensive for you and doesn't generate any more revenue for your company.  and if they complain, tell them to seek employment elsewhere or just fire them and replace them with a new hire





truetiger said:


> I'd say most of us give 110% on this job because its our passion and not to get a pay raise.


I would disagree with this statement 100%. And it has nothing to do with if you are unionized or not.





truetiger said:


> Being union is not about getting ever cent out of the employer and more about due process.


I agree 100%


----------



## SliceOfLife (Apr 24, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> If the employee has such a bad track record, why are they still employed?  just because you are union doesn't mean you can't be fired or disciplined; all it means is that you need to be disciplined according to the rules, which are applied evenly to everyone, not because your boss doesn't like you.



I have seen coworkers get fired for less.  It's beyond me why some people can fly with golden wings while others go under the bus.  This has been true for every job I have had since I was 18, union and non-union.



DrParasite said:


> I would ask if the position was offered to anyone before the new guy filled it.  maybe a more senior guy would want it.  After all, just because it was given to the new guy and he did the job well doesn't mean no one else wanted it.



It wasn't offered and a few people requested it too.  Since it's non-union the company put the first warm body they hired into it instead of moving people around and causing slightly more work to go into scheduling.  They should have filled it with a someone who wanted it before a new hire for the interim period.



DrParasite said:


> here for years, always did the job, and the new guy was the bosses son/daughter, who had a bad track record, and was given the shift because of his relationship and because they needed the spot filled and he was the newest guy, and the new guy was given the spot over you, what would your feelings be?



That would be horrible and I would find another job.  I find it funny that you are comparing seniority to nepotism as if these are the only options.  What about performance based appointments?  But lets not change the scenario because mine is actually happening and I am wondering what you (collectively) would do if you where management?

For example, if it was me I would give it to the guy who has been doing it for the past year.  When I was in management before I was laid off and started this job, it was easy, performers got the perks.  The fact that we have a majority of union workers at this site but still don't officially vote it in as a union site means we want management to use discretion with scheduling.  If my coworkers want strict seniority based management then vote the damn site in or go work at one of the other union sites. I swear their duality kills me sometimes.

Like I said before I'm on the fence with private unions as they have great advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 24, 2012)

Looker, out of curiosity, have you ever bothered to look into what would happen to your company if you treated your employees like valued people as opposed to replaceable drones?

Let's look at Acadian Ambulance. Decent pay, employees have a stake in the company, and nationally recognized as a Place That's Doing It Right. And what has it gotten them? Profit! How? Expansion! They've gone from central Louisiana to a Southern Borg-like Entity, and they've done it by impressing their customers with the best employees possible, not Drone #2342.

Now let's look at your company. When was the last time your company was seriously considered for more than a local dialysis center contract?


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 24, 2012)

SliceOfLife said:


> It wasn't offered and a few people requested it too.  Since it's non-union the company put the first warm body they hired into it instead of moving people around and causing slightly more work to go into scheduling.  They should have filled it with a someone who wanted it before a new hire for the interim period.


that's very frustrating... seen it happen at my old job.  also saw a company put on a new truck, in a new time period, and had a per diem (the same per diem employee) work it for 3 months straight (friday/saturday/sunday overnight), since it wasn't approved for a FTE spot yet..... and when the FTE was approved, should it go to the per diem who worked the shift consistently, or go by seniority (or to an existing full timer who work another shift)?





SliceOfLife said:


> That would be horrible and I would find another job.  I find it funny that you are comparing seniority to nepotism as if these are the only options.  What about performance based appointments?  But lets not change the scenario because mine is actually happening and I am wondering what you (collectively) would do if you where management?


nepotism, favoritism, sexism, racism, there are tons of -isms you can list.  It was 0400 and it was the first thing that came to mind.

What are you basing your "performance based appointments" on?  If someone does there job properly, like they are supposed to, should they be rewarded?  or are they just doing their job?  

EMS has a very hard time quantifying a good employee, or giving a numerical value to compare the performance of employees.  Or are you considering subjective opinions based on supervisors or management?



SliceOfLife said:


> Like I said before I'm on the fence with private unions as they have great advantages and disadvantages.


If you are management, you don't want unions.  if you are staff, and your management is awesome, you might not want unions.  If you are staff and your management sucks, you wish you had a union.  It might not make the working conditions perfect, but it will probably make it better than they are.


----------



## Chimpie (Apr 24, 2012)

SliceOfLife said:


> We are not professional enough to talk about politics or edit our own post after five minutes.



You actually get 15.



SliceOfLife said:


> Ironic that the board that host discussions about professional advancement, legitimacy and acknowledgment of EMS in the medical field believes that the whole should be punished for the inappropriateness of the few.  Way to help the cause.
> 
> Of all the forums I belong to this is the only one that makes such an issue of it.  No wonder we can't shake the name "ambulance driver" when we hold each other to such low standards and expectations.



And we're still the most active ems-related discussion forum on the web today.

As to not take this thread further off topic, I will send you a PM.


----------



## johnrsemt (Apr 24, 2012)

When a new grocery store chain came into Indianapolis about 20 years ago the existing unionized chain picketed them because the new stores weren't unionized.
   The new stores paid their employees about 15% more than the unionized stores, and had better benefits.  The new store voted down the union coming in about 4 times in 5 years:  why should they want to be unionized when the pay and benefits would go down.

   I talked to an employee at the unionized store that I worked with at the Volunteer FD we were both on:  he said they weren't trying to unionize the new chain to benefit them,  they were trying to unionize them so that the pay would be equal across the board.   He didn't feel it was fair that the new chain paid more.
   I asked him why he didn't go to the new stores;  he answered he didn't want to lose his union benefits.

   Most of the time unions don't make much sense:  here we have a person that was fired for poor job performance;  the union helped him get his job back;  he got a 6 week paid vacation.   and 18 months later he was fired again for poor job performance.


----------



## looker (Apr 24, 2012)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> Looker, out of curiosity, have you ever bothered to look into what would happen to your company if you treated your employees like valued people as opposed to replaceable drones?
> 
> Let's look at Acadian Ambulance. Decent pay, employees have a stake in the company, and nationally recognized as a Place That's Doing It Right. And what has it gotten them? Profit! How? Expansion! They've gone from central Louisiana to a Southern Borg-like Entity, and they've done it by impressing their customers with the best employees possible, not Drone #2342.
> 
> Now let's look at your company. When was the last time your company was seriously considered for more than a local dialysis center contract?



Being i am in socal,there is plenty of room for expansion. I do not need recognition by some national or local organization. All that matter that my customer(s) are happy.


----------



## truetiger (Apr 24, 2012)

$10/hour in SOCAL cannot be a livable wage with the cost of living. Here in MO its rare to see any EMT jobs that pay less than 11.


----------



## adamjh3 (Apr 24, 2012)

Looker, I would swear you owned the company I work for if you hadn't stated your company was non unionized.

A question for you regarding your last post: Why not do all you can to be the best rather than doing just enough to pull in a bit of money each year? Why not try to follow successful business models and management mindsets?

Here's a little article that may help you see things in a different light, unless you need to get back to running an average company and finding ways to squeeze
A bit more out of your drones for free.

http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/8-signs-extraordinary-boss-110223692.html


----------



## looker (Apr 24, 2012)

adamjh3 said:


> Looker, I would swear you owned the company I work for if you hadn't stated your company was non unionized.
> 
> A question for you regarding your last post: Why not do all you can to be the best rather than doing just enough to pull in a bit of money each year? Why not try to follow successful business models and management mindsets?
> 
> ...


 I have degree in business so while I appreciate that article advice, I will go by what I been taught on how to run a business. I have successful business model or I would be already out of business.


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 24, 2012)

Looker, _assuming_ that a degree becomes the minimum standard, how will you remain in business?


----------



## 46Young (Apr 24, 2012)

johnrsemt said:


> When a new grocery store chain came into Indianapolis about 20 years ago the existing unionized chain picketed them because the new stores weren't unionized.
> The new stores paid their employees about 15% more than the unionized stores, and had better benefits.  The new store voted down the union coming in about 4 times in 5 years:  why should they want to be unionized when the pay and benefits would go down.
> 
> I talked to an employee at the unionized store that I worked with at the Volunteer FD we were both on:  he said they weren't trying to unionize the new chain to benefit them,  they were trying to unionize them so that the pay would be equal across the board.   He didn't feel it was fair that the new chain paid more.
> ...



I saw this with my former employer, a hospital based 911/IFT provider in NYC. Whenever FDNY or the local Union hospitals got something, we got it too. Pay, benefits, schedule, etc. My hospital was non union, but stole plenty of employees from FDNY, and was competitive for applicants with other hospitals. The unions actually helped us out by raising the bar on what our pay, schedule, and working conditions were.

As far as ths overall discussion, my evidence is anecdotal, but it keeps me in favor of unions:

Where I work now, my Union President spoke in front of our Board of 
Supervisors in 3/2009, when I was newly released from the fire academy, and would have been one of the 90-something selected for a RIF (reduction in force, or layoff). No one got laid off, but no one got raises other than COLA's until the present time.....

.....which leads us to today. Our same President spoke to the BOS again last week. We were only supposed to get a 2.18% COLA, and no step increases. We're now getting our step increases.

Now, imagine if we weren't Union. We would have lost 90 or more positions, and we still wouldn't have any raises going on four years now. It was smooth how he told the BOS how the President of Japan came here to personally thank our USAR team, how were known internationally, how we have a stellar customer service reputation, but have not seen raises in what will now be four years.


----------



## 46Young (Apr 24, 2012)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> Looker, _assuming_ that a degree becomes the minimum standard, how will you remain in business?



That depends on whether or not these degrees raise their salaries. If there's still a plethora of medics, the degree won't mean much. If there's only a certain profit margin in IFT, there simply won't be enough money to pay medics any more than they get now. Globally, there will be no pay increases, as every IFT would be cash flow negative.


----------



## looker (Apr 24, 2012)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> Looker, _assuming_ that a degree becomes the minimum standard, how will you remain in business?



Degree in it self would not mean more pay. If degree was to be new standard then "old crew" would need to go back to school and get a degree just to keep what they got now(assuming experience would not count as having a degree). New people with degree would get current salary unless company started making more profit as result of employees having a degree. If insurance company, medicare etc started paying more because employees have a degree yes I can see salary going up. But we all know that is not going to happen. So degree standard would not change anything.


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 24, 2012)

What do you pay your employees?


----------



## adamjh3 (Apr 24, 2012)

looker said:


> I have degree in business so while I appreciate that article advice, I will go by what I been taught on how to run a business. I have successful business model or I would be already out of business.



But is it as successful as it could possibly be? You've reached a ceiling and can change absolutely nothing to make yourself the best?


----------



## DrParasite (Apr 25, 2012)

adamjh3 said:


> But is it as successful as it could possibly be? You've reached a ceiling and can change absolutely nothing to make yourself the best?


It depends on his goal (and i can totally see where Looker is coming from).  His goal is to make as much money for himself and his company.  Odds are, raising wages wouldn't help help, nor would having the employees unionize.

Having ambulances with 300k miles, in poor condition, with poorly trained or equipped personnel who are stuck in an ambulance for 8-12 hours straight would generate the same revenue as ambulances with 25k miles, in brand new condition, with highly trained and well equipped personnel (making more money per hour), who are given stations, except the latter costs much more with no additional income.

It's simple income vs expenses.  I don't blame Looker for running his business like that, as it makes good financial sense.  It makes money for him, and until his income starts declining due to the conditions, there is no reason for him to change at all.  But I know I wouldn't want to work for his company.


----------



## SliceOfLife (Apr 25, 2012)

DrParasite said:


> His goal is to make as much money for himself and his company



That is the goal for every buisness including non-profits.  That is my goal when I go to work each day as I'm sure it's yours.  No one is working for free.

He risks everything to run a buisness and should be rewarded with the lion's share.  Why else would anyone start a buisness if the rewards equaled that of a regular employee who assumes no risk.

Assuming an average growth of 3% what would you do with that money?  Invest it in growing your company and adding jobs or disperse it through pay increases outside of what has already been structured in?

Now if he is using the worst equipment and not maintaining anything his buisness will eventualy fail.  But since he is still in buisness he is obviously doing something right.  It's easy to armchair quaterback how things should be done but untill you mortgage your house and burry yourself in debt and possibly go years without paying yourself or seeing a profit, take it easy on someone who is actualy doing it.

If you think you can do it better than by all means start a company, execute whatever buisness model you chose and compete in the market.


----------



## looker (Apr 25, 2012)

adamjh3 said:


> But is it as successful as it could possibly be? You've reached a ceiling and can change absolutely nothing to make yourself the best?



There is always room to expand. That is true for anyone and every business. The only question is what is the cost to expand by entering new market etc and what is the return on that investment.


----------



## Medic2409 (Apr 25, 2012)

Mebbe so, but, you keep treating your people like crap, eventually all you will have working for you, is crap.  When all you have working for you is crap, your service will be crap, and the customers will begin to notice, and begin to go elsewhere.


----------



## looker (Apr 25, 2012)

Medic2409 said:


> Mebbe so, but, you keep treating your people like crap, eventually all you will have working for you, is crap.  When all you have working for you is crap, your service will be crap, and the customers will begin to notice, and begin to go elsewhere.



Have you been to Mcdonalds? Do you know how much they make? Have you try getting a job there? Chances are when you apply you will not be the only one and it will be hard to get a job. It's same thing with EMS industry. Right now I and any other company can replace all of their employees if needed in a day. You make it sound like unless employees get "higher" wage, better equipment etc they going to leave for a new job. The question is what new job? People are having hell of time finding a job. Welcome to the reality of EMS world.


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 26, 2012)

Keep in mind that Looker does not compete for 911 or CCT transport contracts where skilled providers are a prerequisite. He is BLS only and avoids the risk inherent in higher-acuity tasks. Given the likely skill level and equipment of his company and the contracts he has, that makes sense.

Were he to run a 911 system, I think he would be out of business fast.

In addition, he takes a substantial risk with substandard. All it takes is one lawsuit and an EMT pointing to a broken rig or malfunctioning AED, or a compliance check, and his company is hurting badly.


----------



## looker (Apr 26, 2012)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> Keep in mind that Looker does not compete for 911 or CCT transport contracts where skilled providers are a prerequisite. He is BLS only and avoids the risk inherent in higher-acuity tasks. Given the likely skill level and equipment of his company and the contracts he has, that makes sense.
> 
> Were he to run a 911 system, I think he would be out of business fast.
> 
> In addition, he takes a substantial risk with substandard. All it takes is one lawsuit and an EMT pointing to a broken rig or malfunctioning AED, or a compliance check, and his company is hurting badly.



No AED is required here. I am not even sure if private 911 providers even have AED. All rigs are in working order. Could not get away with broken rigs.


----------



## truetiger (Apr 26, 2012)

I take it your rigs don't carry AED's? That's pathetic.


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 26, 2012)

looker said:


> No AED is required here. I am not even sure if private 911 providers even have AED. All rigs are in working order. Could not get away with broken rigs.



How are your trucks even ambulances?


----------



## Sandog (Apr 26, 2012)

It is not uncommon for an agency to not have AED's.


----------



## adamjh3 (Apr 26, 2012)

Sandog said:


> It is not uncommon for an agency to not have AED's.



Especially in socal. I only know of 2 companies (out of 20 something in my county) that carry AEDs


----------



## truetiger (Apr 26, 2012)

Sounds like more of a taxi cab than an ambulance...


----------



## adamjh3 (Apr 26, 2012)

truetiger said:


> Sounds like more of a taxi cab than an ambulance...



In two years I've never needed one, and none of my crews have needed one. BLS is it's own animal out here. But now I'm helping pull the thread off topic


----------



## truetiger (Apr 26, 2012)

That's not to say you won't need one tomorrow.....


----------



## RocketMedic (Apr 26, 2012)

One lawsuit away...


----------



## looker (Apr 26, 2012)

truetiger said:


> That's not to say you won't need one tomorrow.....



I am betting if there was union that is what they would say and force company to buy it. There is nothing wrong with performing CPR.


----------



## looker (Apr 26, 2012)

Rocketmedic40 said:


> One lawsuit away...



Highly unlikely considering it's not required by local EMS agency. It's wide spread industry practice not to have it.


----------



## adamjh3 (Apr 26, 2012)

looker said:


> I am betting if there was union that is what they would say and force company to buy it. There is nothing wrong with performing CPR.



Naw. My company is union. no AEDs. 

A union can't really force anything on a company. A contact is signed by all parties, if that contact is violated that's where the union steps in.


----------



## looker (Apr 26, 2012)

adamjh3 said:


> Naw. My company is union. no AEDs.
> 
> A union can't really force anything on a company. A contact is signed by all parties, if that contact is violated that's where the union steps in.



They can push for it during contract negotiation.


----------



## truetiger (Apr 26, 2012)

It's sad that a union should have to negotiate the most basic of equipment into their contract...


----------



## ffemt8978 (Apr 26, 2012)

truetiger said:


> It's sad that a union should have to negotiate the most basic of equipment into their contract...



Shouldn't a "most basic" piece of equipment be mandated by the EMS agency instead?


----------



## Aidey (Apr 26, 2012)

Most basic of equipment for what? To make us feel better? I bet that the statistical chance of going into cardiac arrest on an BLS transfer ambulance is lower than it is for the general public. Sure the people being transported aren't healthy, but they've usually been assessed in some way prior to the transport and are determined not to be in any acute distress, otherwise they wouldn't be transported by a BLS agency. I've heard of at least 3 cases of people coding on public buses in the last few years, and none on BLS transfers.* Should all public buses have AEDs? 


*I know, I know, n=1


----------



## Chris07 (Apr 26, 2012)

The lack of AEDs in SoCal on BLS rigs isn't the fault of the ambulance companies. 95% of the fault lies is purely with the local EMS Agencies. In LA, in order for a company to put AEDs into service on their rigs, they have to jump through a bunch of hoops. It isn't as easy as just placing an order for 15 AEDs and maintaining them every two years, the EMS agencies make you go through an entire approval process. 

Technically speaking, unless your company is an authorized AED provider, you are not allowed to operate an AED while on duty. Would _I _anyway? Yes, but technically EMTs may only operate them if their service is an authorized AED provider. Why all this hoopla? Well I have two theories. First is that the EMSAs feel that if you give AEDs to IFT BLS companies, it will give them a false sense of security and cause them to accept patients that instead warrant a call to FD. If this is true, I find it pointless, as this sort of stupidity already occurs _without _AEDs on the rig. Second, I remember reading somewhere...maybe the CA EMSA website...that AEDs were still a trial program! I'm hoping I read it wrong or that the page is out of date, because to still have AEDs as a trial program is so...well....California! :rofl:

Even if the EMS Agencies removed all the authorization hoopla, most companies simply couldn't justify spending $1,200 per rig, and another $200 every two years per rig for a tool that is hardly ever used. As been said, we're taxis, and we rarely find ourselves in predicaments where carrying an AED may be justified. 

Also, the only companies that I know of that are authorized to carry AEDs in in LA County are the fire departments and BLS companies with 911 contracts.


----------

