# Unions????



## irish_handgrenade (Aug 9, 2010)

OK I realize this might... Ok, probably been beaten to  death:deadhorse: but I was talking with some old dino medics recently and we were talking about nurses, and how they and their pay checks differ from us and ours. The thing that seemed to come up and not make much sense to me is the good that that the nurses unions have done for them, and how we do not have a union to support us and fight for more appropriate wages. I admit I am absolutely not educated in this area and I am probably speaking out of my ***. So could those of you who understand this or have an educated opinion speak up. I would honestly like to know your thoughts... unless you are going to bash me for my deficiency in this area then keep your thoughts to yourself.

-Jake.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 9, 2010)

When can I join a physician union?


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 9, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> When can I join a physician union?



I think physicians are too smart to be in a union


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 9, 2010)

^
What's the difference between a group of professionals and a group of laborers who engage in price fixing?

Professionals are an illegal monopoly while laborers call it a union.

Example:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/05/nmo.shtm


----------



## usalsfyre (Aug 9, 2010)

Texas being a right to work state, it is highly unlikely there is a nurses union that has that kind of stroke at any facility (with the possible exception of federal facilities).

What nurses do have, is a strong regulatory body (Texas BON) whom with legaslative approval have set minimum standards about who can perform certain nursing care in the acute and long-term care settings, increasing demand and thereby negotiating power of the profession as a whole. In addition minimum standards are set about who they will license to perform that care. Take note that the Board of Nursing is made up of registered nurses interested in the growth of the nursing profession. 

Paramedics? We can't even agree that all patients deserve a Paramedic level assesment, or the level of education needed to become a Paramedic. So instead, we get a government beauracracy that has no interest in our growth as a profession, only protecting the communinty from the hodgepodge of providers that are on the street.


----------



## fortsmithman (Aug 9, 2010)

Unions may be one of the reason why EMS here in Canada is paid a heck of a lot better than in the USA.


----------



## atropine (Aug 9, 2010)

unions are like blow jobs some are better than others, if you can make a  great living without one hey more power to you if not well then do what works best for you.


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 9, 2010)

fortsmithman said:


> Unions may be one of the reason why EMS here in Canada is paid a heck of a lot better than in the USA.[/QUOTE
> 
> I tend to agree a strong membership that does not sit on its hiney waiting for hands outs and pats on the back tends to eat a little better than those which hide in corners whining.
> 
> I look at my IAFF card toting hubby's salary package and the paychecks of Medics who work twice as hard and the answer is as clear as day....find a strong union with a memberhsip that sticks together or forget it. Being a former union organizer I am 100% sure its the workers own fault. EMS workers aren't ready to play in the big-boy sandbox.


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 9, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> ^
> What's the difference between a group of professionals and a group of laborers who engage in price fixing?
> 
> Professionals are an illegal monopoly while laborers call it a union.
> ...



I think the issue here is that it falls under collusion as they were supposedly seperate bodies.

there is a difference between collective bargaining within an agency, as in all members negotiating common wages and multiple organizations conspiring to fix prices.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 9, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> I think the issue here is that it falls under collusion as they were supposedly seperate bodies.
> 
> there is a difference between collective bargaining within an agency, as in all members negotiating common wages and multiple organizations conspiring to fix prices.



What would consider requiring the prevailing wage for government contracts then?

How is "Give us this wage or we'll strike" not collusion and extortion?


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 9, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> What would consider requiring the prevailing wage for government contracts then?
> 
> How is "Give us this wage or we'll strike" not collusion and extortion?



I don't understand the first question, could you please explain what you mean.

"give us a wage or we'll strike, while certainly extortion is not collusion. As I understand collusion requires a seperation of parties in which there is an overt or covert attempt to fix a price.

As well some collective bargaining units to not have the ability to strike. 

A collective bargaining unit is also not a monoploy. You can hire new people if they go on strike under the terms you wish to maintain operations.

If all of the people or corperations that supply a specific good or service in the area collectively decide to fix prices, similar to historical railroads, it can put a stranglehold on that good or service which will affect normal commerce. 

As another historical example, back in the Regan era the Air traffic controllers union attempted such and it was quickly put down. The same could be done with any labor union. You could not do the same if airports colluded to fix prices.


----------



## WVEmt (Aug 9, 2010)

well heres my question for everyone. would you actually stop doing your job during a strike? is that fair to the patients? the ones who really need us anyway.... i think thats why the higher up have us by the balls. but thats just my humble opinion


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 9, 2010)

WVEmt said:


> well heres my question for everyone. would you actually stop doing your job during a strike? is that fair to the patients? the ones who really need us anyway.... i think thats why the higher up have us by the balls. but thats just my humble opinion



There are some that are not in EMS for the benefit of the patient


----------



## WVEmt (Aug 9, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> There are some that are not in EMS for the benefit of the patient



so does that make me wrong? ive dealt with plenty of pita pts but when that 1 pt comes along that truly needs our help, thats what matters to me. once again my humble opinion:unsure:


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 9, 2010)

I was trying to point out that there are some who would put their own interests above that of the patients. 

I am not offering an opinion on whether it is right or wrong, it is a question of indivdual value without a correct answer.


----------



## fortsmithman (Aug 9, 2010)

WVEmt said:


> well heres my question for everyone. would you actually stop doing your job during a strike? is that fair to the patients? the ones who really need us anyway.... i think thats why the higher up have us by the balls. but thats just my humble opinion



Not going on strike and doing something known as work to rule.
Work To Rule means:
Taking all of your scheduled coffee breaks and lunch breaks.
Not working any overtime of any kind for any reason.
Not doing the work of a co-worker when they are absent from the office.
Not performing any duties that aren’t in your job description (we no longer have “other related duties” included in the job descriptions)
Starting work at your scheduled time and not before; and stopping work at your scheduled time and not a minute later (that’s considered free overtime for the employer).

Because here in Canada EMS is an essential service and in cases prohibited by statute from striking.


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 9, 2010)

fortsmithman said:


> Not going on strike and doing something known as work to rule.
> Work To Rule means:
> Taking all of your scheduled coffee breaks and lunch breaks.
> Not working any overtime of any kind for any reason.
> ...



Health services such as EMS cannot participate in a work stoppage anywhere as far as I know.


----------



## looker (Aug 10, 2010)

It's my personal policy not to hire anyone that is part of a union. Being how many EMT's are graduating every month, that is not a problem. So basically it's unlikely that union will make a difference for you.


----------



## DrParasite (Aug 10, 2010)

Unions are only as strong as the collective bargaining agreements that they have with management.  You can form a union if you want, but there not is guarantee that management needs to have a contract with you.  Just ask MONOC & the Professional Emergency Medical Services Association of New Jersey, Local 4610, who fought to have a union 2 years ago, and are still without a contract.  And things still haven't improved.

Do I like unions?  absolutely.  I think it's awesome to have someone who is willing to fight for you when  you are mistreated by management.  Or when you are disciplined without cause, or unfairly.   Even having someone (or a lot of someones) who is willing to shout at management when they are doing something that is unsafe.

That all being said, my agency (which will not be named) is a union shop.  our contract has expired two years ago, we haven't gotten a raise since, we are short staffed, and having issue.  Does our union help us get more money?  maybe, but if there isn't any more money to go around, so we have  two options: fight for more money and risk layoffs (since there is only so much money to go around), or well, accept the status quo.

Do I still support unions?  well, yeah, I like it that management can't mess with you at their whim.  Not that you can't be fire, nor are you invulnerable, but they have to follow the rules, and if they don't, the union will fight for you; but you can be punished for breaking the rules.

just a thought


----------



## fortsmithman (Aug 10, 2010)

looker said:


> It's my personal policy not to hire anyone that is part of a union. Being how many EMT's are graduating every month, that is not a problem. So basically it's unlikely that union will make a difference for you.



Here in Canada private EMS companies providing 911 service are a minority most I believe are run by municipalities and health boards with a 2 or 3 provinces running EMS in their province.  As such they are represented by various unions which may for the most parts be components of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC).


----------



## 8jimi8 (Aug 10, 2010)

usalsfyre said:


> Texas being a right to work state, it is highly unlikely there is a nurses union that has that kind of stroke at any facility (with the possible exception of federal facilities).
> 
> What nurses do have, is a strong regulatory body (Texas BON) whom with legaslative approval have set minimum standards about who can perform certain nursing care in the acute and long-term care settings, increasing demand and thereby negotiating power of the profession as a whole. In addition minimum standards are set about who they will license to perform that care. Take note that the Board of Nursing is made up of registered nurses interested in the growth of the nursing profession.
> 
> Paramedics? We can't even agree that all patients deserve a Paramedic level assesment, or the level of education needed to become a Paramedic. So instead, we get a government beauracracy that has no interest in our growth as a profession, only protecting the communinty from the hodgepodge of providers that are on the street.



completely and exactly wrong.   The board of nursing is a regulatory body whose sole function and role is to enforce the nursing practice act and protect the public FROM nurses.  And it is not made up entirely of nursing professionals.  Sorry, no offense intended; however the above post is complete misinformation.


----------



## firetender (Aug 10, 2010)

*United we stand; Divided we fall*

In 1985, in Central California there was a Professional Association of Emergency Medical Care workers (I am not naming it in particular because I'm not sure how this exists today, if at all). It was an outgrowth of three years of struggle between employee associations and the management of their employer, a (now defunct) private ambulance firm. The Association did an unprecedented thing at the time; it AFFILIATED with an AFL-CIO Union.

(ASIDE: To be honest, as one of the organizers through three different mutations of the associations, the most frustrating part was realizing then [as now IMHO] _*most medics DO NOT see themselves as career professionals.*_ They recognize that at any moment, they could be out of there! Longevity in the field is a distant concept. 

Such things are not spoken about too much, but after 12 years of observation, I started to GET that the average medic has a hard time picturing him/herself still in the profession in 10 years; thus, in terms of investment, it's almost an unheard of concept.!)

Since I crafted the agreement, let me share a little background. I grew up in N.Y. and it was common knowledge "Unions ruined everything!" They expanded the cost of living ten-fold, they were corrupt thieves, yadda yadda yadda. But after three years of reneged contracts, the Association didn't have the clout to make anything stick with the company. So I went along with us seeking out representation.

Now in 1984 I don't think there were any EMS Unions west of the Rockies. We had no guides to follow. The issue of striking came up. At that time the Union wasn't representing any health care workers that were involved in essential (life and death) services. We needed to assure that we wouldn't get sucked in to something like, as was the practice, if the Occupational Therapists struck and get nowhere, to put on the squeeze, in the next wave, the Nurse's Aide's would walk off their jobs.

So I wrote up an Affiliation Agreement (amended in parts but finally approved mostly intact) that assured the Association was autonomous in all activities dealing with promoting paramedic services, raising money, expanding our scope and delivering quality health care to the populace in our areas. That would include a separation of us from other Union entities in the event of a strike. A "No Strike clause was essential to fulfill our duty to our public.

In essence, we paid dues to the Union to represent us in annual negotiations with the company for pay and benefits. They would provide us professional representation and, if necessary, legal representation in the event of reneged contracts.

At the time, Unions were losing ground and they were stretching their standard parameters to attract new members. As Vene said, the Air Traffic Controllers struck, and Reagan said screw the Unions and fired 'em all! So we did a first.

But you know what? Not unsurprisingly, I understand that after a couple of years, the Association lost sight of the importance of that separation! In essence, the Association seemed to have lost steam for anything having to do with actually FURTHERING the profession, which was an important part of its initial design. Once they got their pay and bennies, apathy trumped!

_*I put in on this thread because Union or not, medics are going to have to become willing to expand themselves so they can expand their profession. *_

They have to take steps to help each other prevent burnout, increase their ability to be responsive to the people who they REALLY serve; (unfortunately, not the TRULY sick and injured!) and exert a common voice of protest against exploitation and sub-standard care -- no matter who delivers it. 

Underneath it all, they need to define their own curricula from basic EMT (Associates) through MICP (Bachelors), to Trauma Specialist (whatever - Master's). Get the picture?

Nurses defined their own profession, set their own standards (BOTH through education!), adapted what they became from what they REALLY did and exhibited a unified voice that said "We are worth something!" But they were not casual about it. A core group of them relentlessly kept the momentum going.

*In order for a union to work, there must be unity in the workers.*


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 10, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> I think physicians are too smart to be in a union




in NYC hospitals they have unions


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 10, 2010)

WVEmt said:


> well heres my question for everyone. would you actually stop doing your job during a strike? is that fair to the patients? the ones who really need us anyway.... i think thats why the higher up have us by the balls. but thats just my humble opinion




In New York, Police and Fire have unions but no ability to strike.

Unions does not always equal ability to strike.


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 10, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> in NYC hospitals they have unions



Is that a labor union or a professional association?

If it is a union can you please give a link, I would like to see it. (I want the details)


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 10, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> Is that a labor union or a professional association?
> 
> If it is a union can you please give a link, I would like to see it. (I want the details)



http://www.seiu.org/2010/06/doctors-at-hhcs-coney-island-hospital-join-doctors-council-seiu.php


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 10, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> Is that a labor union or a professional association?
> 
> If it is a union can you please give a link, I would like to see it. (I want the details)



And SUNY: State University of New York, of which has four campuses with public hospitals, Physicians are under UUP.

http://www.uupinfo.org/membership/welcome.html


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 10, 2010)

looker said:


> It's my personal policy not to hire anyone that is part of a union. Being how many EMT's are graduating every month, that is not a problem. So basically it's unlikely that union will make a difference for you.



"Being how" employees can always sign that little card, what is your plan for ensuring this pre-employment condition? What legal way would you keep employees from orgainzing? Unless the business has about 8.7 mil to spend on zealots, mooks and lawyers, once employees sign and vote, you will not be getting rid of the union. Oh, and the bullying it takes to keep people from voting in a union is about another 2 mil. Good luck with that...... 

IMHO; the best and most effective way to reasonably ensure a non-union relationship while keeping good employees is to maintain a positive work envrironment and decent wages. Having a stinky attitude sure won't bring good people to your door. Bottom of the barrell workers is about what you can expect. That will of course, equate to bottom of the barrell profits, more lawsuits and endless headaches.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 10, 2010)

Unions are not always "bad."

I can not find a link for it.

Regarding auto workers unions...

However, I remember reading that any act of sabatoge, even if the person responsible is not established, are paid for out of the salaries of everyone at the plant. 

Because of this, there is peer pressure not to mess with anything and that enabled GM to scale back their internal security force.

I read that in a newspaper about 20 years ago when the GM Plant (now closed) in westchester had sabatoge


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 10, 2010)

*I will state my position on Unions:*

Abuses can occur on both sides, employer and employee.

I think the best situation is unionized workers as it creates a system of checks and balances against abuses by an employer.

It also enables things like on duty drug test co-operation of granted in exchange for $ or benefits.


----------



## usalsfyre (Aug 10, 2010)

8jimi8 said:


> completely and exactly wrong.   The board of nursing is a regulatory body whose sole function and role is to enforce the nursing practice act and protect the public FROM nurses.  And it is not made up entirely of nursing professionals.  Sorry, no offense intended; however the above post is complete misinformation.



Ok, I agree in technicality my post was wrong. The point I was trying to get across was that RNs, with nurse practice acts ect, have made it impossible to opperate in the acute care setting without a certain level of nursing present, thereby vastly increasing their bargining power. 

In the prehospital realm, it's possible to get a waiver from the State of Texas to opperate an ambulance with two ECAs. So where is our bargining power...


----------



## 8jimi8 (Aug 10, 2010)

Like i said, no offense intended.  I just wanted to make sure we are remaining factual.  I don't have any experience with unions, so I am definitely interested in the outcome of this thread.


And it is often mistaken by new nurses with the thought that "the BON is your friend."  When in fact the BON is absolutely NOT the friend of a nurse.


----------



## looker (Aug 10, 2010)

rescue99 said:


> "Being how" employees can always sign that little card, what is your plan for ensuring this pre-employment condition? What legal way would you keep employees from orgainzing? Unless the business has about 8.7 mil to spend on zealots, mooks and lawyers, once employees sign and vote, you will not be getting rid of the union. Oh, and the bullying it takes to keep people from voting in a union is about another 2 mil. Good luck with that......
> 
> IMHO; the best and most effective way to reasonably ensure a non-union relationship while keeping good employees is to maintain a positive work envrironment and decent wages. Having a stinky attitude sure won't bring good people to your door. Bottom of the barrell workers is about what you can expect. That will of course, equate to bottom of the barrell profits, more lawsuits and endless headaches.



Simple, i will fire them. California is at will state. I can fire you as long as i am not doing it because of religion, sexual or age reasons.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 10, 2010)

8jimi8 said:


> Like i said, no offense intended.  I just wanted to make sure we are remaining factual.  I don't have any experience with unions, so I am definitely interested in the outcome of this thread.
> 
> 
> And it is often mistaken by new nurses with the thought that "the BON is your friend."  When in fact the BON is absolutely NOT the friend of a nurse.



I'd argue that a Board of ____ is a friend of the profession, not a friend of any individual as sometimes it's the Board's job to separate the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## silver (Aug 10, 2010)

rescue99 said:


> Health services such as EMS cannot participate in a work stoppage anywhere as far as I know.



Minnesota Nurses had a 1 day strike this past June. This was luckily "planned" and temp nurses were hired, but still they had a strike.

I think unions have good things and bad things. In this day and age much of it is bad. From my view unions help those union reps/leaders the most. Other then that the fees are expensive and the overall benefits/pensions are not well managed. I know a fairly large union mentioned so far has lost a significant amount of their pension in the economy from mismanagement. Like they some people might not be able to retire soon.


----------



## 8jimi8 (Aug 10, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> I'd argue that a Board of ____ is a friend of the profession, not a friend of any individual as sometimes it's the Board's job to separate the wheat from the chaff.




I'm more than willing to keep discussing the Bon on another thread, but just to say. The amount of corruption and politics involved leads me to completely disagree with your statement.


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 10, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> http://www.seiu.org/2010/06/doctors-at-hhcs-coney-island-hospital-join-doctors-council-seiu.php



It says those are only doctors at teaching hospital, being represented as teachers, not as practicing physicians. 

It also doesn't say anything about covering physicians in non teaching capacities or private hospitals.


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 11, 2010)

looker said:


> Simple, i will fire them. California is at will state. I can fire you as long as i am not doing it because of religion, sexual or age reasons.



What are you going to fire someone for, organizing, seeking information, for  signing a card? Those are rights protected by law. In approximately 22 states, right to work laws allows any person to resign or refuse to join a union, not pay dues or fees yet still be represented in bargaining for wages, bennies and such. There are a few professions that still have to pay dues, such as railroads or airlines for example. Right to work does not mean a bargaining unit cannot be present, formed or voted in. 

As long as a supporter/organizer is openly participating, firing him/her for union activity is protected by federal labor laws. The legal costs can skyrocket should unfair labor charges be filed. It's the folks who try to do it all hush-hush or those who act out in hostility during thier efforts that find themselves on the wrong end of right! Regardless of which side wins in the end, it gets mighty costly for employers. People don't quite understand that when it comes to labor organizing, being the squeaky wheel may be thier only protection.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 11, 2010)

rescue99 said:


> As long as a supporter/organizer is openly participating, firing him/her for union activity is protected by federal labor laws.



With my observation of the EMS workforce, finding cause for termination isn't necessarily a difficult thing to do. "Your honor, I did not fire Mr. Smith for wanting to join the union. I fired him for regularly failing to complete truck checkout sheets, having an unprofessional attitude, and regularly not providing care directly from the cookbook. Here's his disciplinary record. The defense rests."


----------



## looker (Aug 11, 2010)

rescue99 said:


> What are you going to fire someone for, organizing, seeking information, for  signing a card? Those are rights protected by law. In approximately 22 states, right to work laws allows any person to resign or refuse to join a union, not pay dues or fees yet still be represented in bargaining for wages, bennies and such. There are a few professions that still have to pay dues, such as railroads or airlines for example. Right to work does not mean a bargaining unit cannot be present, formed or voted in.
> 
> As long as a supporter/organizer is openly participating, firing him/her for union activity is protected by federal labor laws. The legal costs can skyrocket should unfair labor charges be filed. It's the folks who try to do it all hush-hush or those who act out in hostility during thier efforts that find themselves on the wrong end of right! Regardless of which side wins in the end, it gets mighty costly for employers. People don't quite understand that when it comes to labor organizing, being the squeaky wheel may be thier only protection.



In California i can fire you because I didn't like the color of the shoes that you had that day. California is at will, so it means I can fire you if i want to and there is basically nothing you can do about it.


----------



## akflightmedic (Aug 11, 2010)

looker said:


> In California i can fire you because I didn't like the color of the shoes that you had that day. California is at will, so it means I can fire you if i want to and there is basically nothing you can do about it.



Yes, you said that once already. While it is an "At Will" state, most employers will not fire without just cause as they open themselves to a lot of potential for lawsuits.

Not to mention, with all the unemployment claims which the employer will be required to pay/contribute to when randomly firing employees without justifiable cause, you will not be in business very long.


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 11, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> With my observation of the EMS workforce, finding cause for termination isn't necessarily a difficult thing to do. "Your honor, I did not fire Mr. Smith for wanting to join the union. I fired him for regularly failing to complete truck checkout sheets, having an unprofessional attitude, and regularly not providing care directly from the cookbook. Here's his disciplinary record. The defense rests."



Not as easy as ya think. Spent many a hour sitting in the courtroom listening to bosses attempt that and it still boils down to ...was the employee engaging in protected activity at the time of, or in the near time of all the infractions?


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 11, 2010)

looker said:


> In California i can fire you because I didn't like the color of the shoes that you had that day. California is at will, so it means I can fire you if i want to and there is basically nothing you can do about it.



Check your laws...right to work gives no such rights to any employer. Not to say workers are anymore familiar thus employers do get away with breaking those laws.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 11, 2010)

rescue99 said:


> Not as easy as ya think. Spent many a hour sitting in the courtroom listening to bosses attempt that and it still boils down to ...was the employee engaging in protected activity at the time of, or in the near time of all the infractions?



So essentially engaging in protected activities gives an employee free reign to do as they please because they can just claim that everything in retaliation?


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 11, 2010)

looker said:


> In California i can fire you because I didn't like the color of the shoes that you had that day. California is at will, so it means I can fire you if i want to and there is basically nothing you can do about it.



Nobody would ever accuse me of being pro union, but I just have to ask,

Why would anyone want to do that?

Most employers spend a fair bit of money on new employees; interviewing, orientation, training, con ed, and the other myriad of things I can think of that amounts to time and money.

Even in a very bad economy, there is an ambulance company here treating its employees so poorly, they can't get help. No help = lost contracts = no revenue = out of business.

unhappy/stressed employees are not really productive or particularly motivated to take care of things or be nice to customers.

Then to get people to start coming back you have to spend even more money.

I live in a state where I had to pay "fair share fees" if I didn't want to be in the union. I think it is extortion, and it put me squarely in the anti union column. But it doesn't mean if I owned a business I wouldn't try to be the employer everyone wants to work for. It attracts better employees, and the employee pride translates into good performance and good word of mouth advertizing. 

Maybe i am a bit romantic, but i firmly believe if you take care of your people, they will take care of you.


----------



## adamjh3 (Aug 11, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> *Maybe i am a bit romantic, but i firmly believe if you take care of your people, they will take care of you*.



And this attitude is so hard to find these days.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 11, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> It says those are only doctors at teaching hospital, being represented as teachers, not as practicing physicians.
> 
> It also doesn't say anything about covering physicians in non teaching capacities or private hospitals.





I dont know the details.

The union NYC HHC and SUNY only have members in those systems.

NYC HHC is not a treaching hospital as is SUNY. Unless you count residents etc. There is no NYC Medical School.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 11, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> NYC HHC is not a treaching hospital as is SUNY. Unless you count residents etc. There is no NYC Medical School.



Yes, residents count. In addition, medical students go to more than just the university's hospital for their rotations.


----------



## looker (Aug 11, 2010)

rescue99 said:


> Check your laws...right to work gives no such rights to any employer. Not to say workers are anymore familiar thus employers do get away with breaking those laws.



That is the difference between state that is right to work and the state that is at will employment.


----------



## looker (Aug 11, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> Nobody would ever accuse me of being pro union, but I just have to ask,
> 
> Why would anyone want to do that?
> 
> ...



Once you start dealing with union your cost for employees, health insurances etc starts going up. Thx but no thx.


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 11, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> So essentially engaging in protected activities gives an employee free reign to do as they please because they can just claim that everything in retaliation?



Now where did you read that? I said no such thing. Employers do not have the right to fire, suspend or punish a person for engaging in protected  activity. Protected, not stupid. That sword swings both ways. Employers get nasty then workers yelp back instead of heading straight to the NLRB to file unfair labor practice charges. I have absolutely no problems with legitimate charges or legitimate terminations. I have serious problems with employers pounding on employees though. Protected is protected.


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 11, 2010)

looker said:


> That is the difference between state that is right to work and the state that is at will employment.



Again, really read the laws.....


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 11, 2010)

rescue99 said:


> Now where did you read that? I said no such thing. Employers do not have the right to fire, suspend or punish a person for engaging in protected  activity. Protected, not stupid. That sword swings both ways. Employers get nasty then workers yelp back instead of heading straight to the NLRB to file unfair labor practice charges. I have absolutely no problems with legitimate charges or legitimate terminations. I have serious problems with employers pounding on employees though. Protected is protected.



Reading between the lines. It's goes along with the saying that 'something is only illegal if you get caught.'


----------



## looker (Aug 11, 2010)

rescue99 said:


> Again, really read the laws.....



I talked to my lawyer. He confirmed to me that I can fire an employee in the state of California for any reason with an exception of the protective status such as sex, age etc.


----------



## Lone Star (Aug 11, 2010)

looker said:


> In California i can fire you because I didn't like the color of the shoes that you had that day. California is at will, so it means I can fire you if i want to and there is basically nothing you can do about it.



It is that mentality right there why unions are necessary!

The employee might be the best employee that you have, but being able to fire them at your whim is just plain  WRONG!

Union dues are usually 2 hours of pay per month, and with the mentality of looker, it's a small price to pay to be able to protect my job.

It's been a trend that in 'hard times' for the worker, the employers can usually get away with anything they want, simply because there are so many others just waiting for your job.  Protection of the worker's rights is essential and the primary job of the union.

The key to a strong local of any union is their bargaining committee.  These are generally elected from the local membership, so they know the 'problems' that are facing the local membership.

Strikes have to be approved at the national and international (if applicable) levels.  Anything else is considered a 'wildcat strike' and is not sanctioned.

As far as letting 'temps' cross the picket line weakens your position while on strike, as the employer suffers NOTHING.  People who cross a union picket line are called 'scabs' for a reason.  

Unions have historically been very effective in negotiating fair wages, benefits and working conditions.  

The right to organize is protected by federal law, and until the union is 'voted in', the employer still has the right to fire you for any reason they wish, as long as it doesn't violate the right to organize.  Unfortunately, they can make up a reason to protect themselves from this very charge.  This is why organizing is usually kept 'hush hush' until such time that the union can be voted in.  Employers don't want you to organize because they can no longer rule by fear!

Having a union in place doesn't give the union member cart blanche to do what they want, but it DOES protect the member from tyrannical bosses and supervisors.

One of the initial actions of the union is to clearly delineate job descriptions.  In this case, this means that an EMT cannot be pulled off their job to run NEV, wash trucks or work in supply.

Shutting down a business in order to 'break the union' is also illegal.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 11, 2010)

Lone Star said:


> Shutting down a business in order to 'break the union' is also illegal.



Let the union run the business then...


----------



## looker (Aug 11, 2010)

Lone Star said:


> It is that mentality right there why unions are necessary!
> 
> The employee might be the best employee that you have, but being able to fire them at your whim is just plain  WRONG!
> 
> ...



You seem not get it, business is not required to do business with a union. You're welcome to be union, unless employer signs agreement with union it means nothing. There are so many EMT's right now out of work that there are many of them will be willing to be "scrabs". I will pay them double what the new union employees were making. If employer do not want a union and they are willing to hire everyone new, there is nothing union can do about it. That is the best thing about being in at will state.


----------



## CAOX3 (Aug 11, 2010)

looker said:


> I talked to my lawyer. He confirmed to me that I can fire an employee in the state of California for any reason with an exception of the protective status such as sex, age etc.



You need to do some research man or get a new lawyer, ever hear of the Model employment termination act, you may want to go look that up.

"At will" states are a farce, many laws have been passed to protect the employee from such employers as yourself, you only advantage is their ignorance.

And the courts rule with a heavy hand when its proven termination was in direct retaliation against attempted organisation, so you may also want to keep your checkbook handy.

Simple solution, treat your employees well and if you hear rumblings of organisation I would suggest you confront it head on.  Happy employees usually don't organise unless the suits are sticking it to them.


----------



## looker (Aug 11, 2010)

CAOX3 said:


> You need to do some research man or get a new lawyer, ever hear of the Model employment termination act, you may want to go look that up.
> 
> "At will" states are a farce, many laws have been passed to protect the employee from such employers as yourself, you only advantage is their ignorance.
> 
> ...



My lawyer is expensive and experienced. I been in transportation business for over 10 years so have pretty good knowledge on how firing works. As i said before, if they unionized they are walking. They are welcome to sue me, that is what an insurance company is for.


----------



## CAOX3 (Aug 12, 2010)

looker said:


> My lawyer is expensive and experienced. I been in transportation business for over 10 years so have pretty good knowledge on how firing works. As i said before, if they unionized they are walking. They are welcome to sue me, that is what an insurance company is for.



Anyways thanks for proving in a few posts why representation is still needed in this country.  Your simple replies about doubling the pay of replacements and firing your whole workforce when their threatening organization rather then addressing the underlying problem just proves the need for representation still exists.


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 12, 2010)

looker said:


> My lawyer is expensive and experienced. I been in transportation business for over 10 years so have pretty good knowledge on how firing works. As i said before, if they unionized they are walking. They are welcome to sue me, that is what an insurance company is for.



Insurance isn't going to pay for ignorance and deliberate acts of hostility.


----------



## looker (Aug 12, 2010)

rescue99 said:


> Insurance isn't going to pay for ignorance and deliberate acts of hostility.



Insurance will pay to defend me unless/until i am found guilty. The only they will not pay is if it's an illegal act that is not covered under insurance. So the initial defense will cost me zero.


----------



## looker (Aug 12, 2010)

CAOX3 said:


> Anyways thanks for proving in a few posts why representation is still needed in this country.  Your simple replies about doubling the pay of replacements and firing your whole workforce when their threatening organization rather then addressing the underlying problem just proves the need for representation still exists.



What union wants is very simple and there is not much to address. They want more pay, more days off, higher health insurance compensation by the company etc. Basically make more and work less.


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 12, 2010)

looker said:


> Insurance will pay to defend me unless/until i am found guilty. The only they will not pay is if it's an illegal act that is not covered under insurance. So the initial defense will cost me zero.



Somebody is pullin yer leg...I suspect it's poor legal advise. You've made your point so there's no reason to keep pounding foolish notions. It takes only 3 minutes of web searching to realize what right to work and federal labor laws mean. Spend a little time reading case law..ya might learn something worth spouting off about.


----------



## fortsmithman (Aug 12, 2010)

People now play nice or the admins will start the lock.

Looker I mean no disrespect but what type of lawyer is yours does he or she specialize in labour law or is it a non specializing lawyer.  My advice is check it with a labour lawyer.


----------



## looker (Aug 12, 2010)

fortsmithman said:


> People now play nice or the admins will start the lock.
> 
> Looker I mean no disrespect but what type of lawyer is yours does he or she specialize in labour law or is it a non specializing lawyer.  My advice is check it with a labour lawyer.



He is general business lawyer. He is part of a lawyer(s) group, so might talk to one of his partners.


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 12, 2010)

*If I could pose a question*

If an employer treats their employees right is there any need for a union?

I ask because i have always been treated better by employers of non union places than I have in union shops. Could it be the very presence of a union causes employers to be more tyrannical?


----------



## fortsmithman (Aug 12, 2010)

I think it was in the late 1980's or early 1990's there was a strike of federal govt employees here in Canada.  One of the line crossers was an immigration officer who had recently became disabled months before the strike.  At the time he went to the union to see if his job could be saved the union said sorry nothing we can do.  He went to his regional supervisor and his boss said that his job was safe they'd reassign him to other duties.  There are instances where the union is of no use other that taking union dues.  Then again there are instances where the union does defend the rights of its members.  At times the unions are good other time they aren't worth it.  This is just my two cents worth.


----------



## Akulahawk (Aug 12, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> If an employer treats their employees right is there any need for a union?
> 
> I ask because i have always been treated better by employers of non union places than I have in union shops. Could it be the very presence of a union causes employers to be more tyrannical?


I have worked in both environments. When the employer treats their employees right, the employees don't feel a need to unionize. Employees work hard because they _want _to, and their employer has _asked _them to. When the employer doesn't treat their employees right, then the employees start feeling a need to organize. The existing tensions between employer and employee levels of the company get worse and more dug-in. The employees only do as much as needed to avoid getting fired, and that can take time due to the bargaining agreement in place, not to mention that an employer can choose not to fire someone simply because the process of doing it can be... costly and time-consuming.

Under the right set of circumstances, a union can, and does, make sense. Otherwise, I don't care for them.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 12, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> If an employer treats their employees right is there any need for a union?
> 
> I ask because i have always been treated better by employers of non union places than I have in union shops. Could it be the very presence of a union causes employers to be more tyrannical?




Well, if you were a manager at a union shop, why give raises or bonuses unless you had to?

Why introduce any sort of employee comforts outside of bargaining time? 

Unions give little reason for employees to work more than the minimum and give employers little reason to give more than the minimum.


----------



## Akulahawk (Aug 12, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Well, if you were a manager at a union shop, why give raises or bonuses unless you had to?
> 
> Why introduce any sort of employee comforts outside of bargaining time?
> 
> Unions give little reason for employees to work more than the minimum and give employers little reason to give more than the minimum.


Exactly. Of course, if a non-union shop was that way anyway... that's what breeds the "let's unionize" sentiment. I've seen it happen first-hand.


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 12, 2010)

fortsmithman said:


> I think it was in the late 1980's or early 1990's there was a strike of federal govt employees here in Canada.  One of the line crossers was an immigration officer who had recently became disabled months before the strike.  At the time he went to the union to see if his job could be saved the union said sorry nothing we can do.  He went to his regional supervisor and his boss said that his job was safe they'd reassign him to other duties.  There are instances where the union is of no use other that taking union dues.  Then again there are instances where the union does defend the rights of its members.  At times the unions are good other time they aren't worth it.  This is just my two cents worth.



Considering the union had no say-so in the employers right to run their business, the gentleman went to the wrong person in the first place. Of course line crossers will generally get the short term favor from the bosses. It's those long term security issues which historically become questionable. Historically, anti-zealots last about as long as thier services are needed. A few get lucky. In the case of this guy, he's the perfect poster boy for the boss but it's doubtful that his value means much more than that to the bosses. In the mean time, the injured man feeds his family and still holds a job...good for him. 

Just for the record, not that it really means a whole lot; I am not in favor of a union shop where a union shop isn't needed. An employer who treats hard working employees with the respect and thanks they deserve has no reason to be concerned usually. I like the idea of any employer being able to get rid of terrible employees to make room for hard working, respectable workers. I also dislike good people being disrespected and shafted...one outweighs the other unfortunately.


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 12, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Unions give little reason for employees to work more than the minimum and give employers little reason to give more than the minimum.



To this I fully agree, and there is no way to fire them for doing only the minimum. They drag the whole organization and profession down.


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 12, 2010)

Veneficus said:


> To this I fully agree, and there is no way to fire them for doing only the minimum. They drag the whole organization and profession down.



The safe needle policies, changes in mandatory safety equipment, benefits; these things are just a few examples of what dues paying members paid for, or made huge lobbying contributions toward.

 If not for unions working on our behalf we'd still be driving vehicles with no floorboards and sniffing deadly exhaust. There is absolutely no doubt about anything any organized labor union has done to imporve worker safety in this country. The vast majority of our current laws are present because unions were there to help make laws happen. 

If not for organized labor and dues members pay, dispite the negative side, we would be so much further back that we are. Union contributions to  worker welfare, safety and benefits still rings true today....and we can thank a union member. It takes billions of dollars to create national change and it was his/her dues footing the bill and representatives of the membership doing the work. To those who think they'd be better off, I suggest we go back a few decades and live amongst those for whom organization was not a luxury and dying on the job was the expected.


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 12, 2010)

rescue99 said:


> The safe needle policies, changes in mandatory safety equipment, benefits; these things are just a few examples of what dues paying members paid for, or made huge lobbying contributions toward.
> 
> If not for unions working on our behalf we'd still be driving vehicles with no floorboards and sniffing deadly exhaust. There is absolutely no doubt about anything any organized labor union has done to imporve worker safety in this country. The vast majority of our current laws are present because unions were there to help make laws happen.
> 
> If not for organized labor and dues members pay, dispite the negative side, we would be so much further back that we are. Union contributions to  worker welfare, safety and benefits still rings true today....and we can thank a union member. It takes billions of dollars to create national change and it was his/her dues footing the bill and representatives of the membership doing the work. To those who think they'd be better off, I suggest we go back a few decades and live amongst those for whom organization was not a luxury and dying on the job was the expected.



Rescue,

I do not doubt that unions have had a positive effect on both worker safety as well as international liberties and politics, however, those same union actions today are not required.

In the US there are a plethora of national and state safety and regulatory commisions to ensure worker and pt. safety.

Many nations have progressed past the early industrial age mentality of replacing expected workers on the job. The nations that haven't will also not be helped by a union.

Today unions are their own entities. with their own political agendas and actions that have little to do with "workers." Infact the modern world has been changing for some time from an uneducated labor force to move the economy to an educated workforce for some time. That is why more and more people like myself seem to see labor unions as self serving thugs. 

They drive up the prices of goods and services disproportionately to their actual value. Which economically affects everyone. As is always the case with economic hardship, the less you have the more you are affected. 

It is unions today that inhibit the ability to gain employment, whether it is the legacy credit of hiring discrimination of a fire department and the IAFF, the driving up costs of government agencies inhibiting more from being employed or raising taxes to cover costs by AFSME, the legacy costs of unions that makes american manufacturing uncompetative in the rest of the world because quality must be sacrificed to participate in a price category by the UAW, the driving up of food prices which inhibits poor people from eating because the grocery workers union (whatever it is) drives up costs at the market, or tries to stifle independant business or deprives people of a right to make a living on their own from the teamsters, these " labor 0rganizations" are nothing more than syndicates. 

All the benefits they "faught for" in the promise of being paid later can be discharged in one bankruptcy hearing. What organization faced with a union action wouldn't accept "we promise to pay you in 50 years when you retire" knowing that in 10 they can declare bankruptcy or demand restructuring concessions?

How altruistic are the locals that will vote not to accept a pay cut for everyone, including the most senior members forcing the layoffs of junior members? 

I have spent some time on firegrounds, I can tell you it is far safer to have 10 guys there (even if the pay sucks) than to have 4 making upwards of 70K a year. I can tell you I will never buy an American manufactured car again. The price/quality ratio just doesn't compete. When Walmart has the same goods for less than the local grocery store, I shop at walmart. 

those inflated prices in the future will cost more jobs than they have saved. In today's world the value of a job is proportional to the education required to do it, not some psychomotor skill, or longevity in doing it. as technology progresses, right or wrong, it will eliminate many labor jobs. 

Threaded or locktight PVC pipes are really causing problems for union plumbers who cannot hope to compete with copper piping and sauder.

I have to admit, until I couldn't get a letter of recommendation to get to into medical school for all of my hard work and extra sacrifice because the union had a contract that said an employee can only be listed as "satisfactory" or "unsatisfactory" it was an insult to my efforts as well as inhibiting me to advance myself out of the mindless laborer class. Of course they bargained for that to make themselves look better, not to help the "workers," it wasn't personal. But it makes me question how many people are being harmed or held back the the same unions "looking out for their interests."


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 12, 2010)

how about the export of jobs to right to work states or overseas caused by union action and demands?


----------



## DrParasite (Aug 12, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Well, if you were a manager at a union shop, why give raises or bonuses unless you had to?


yes, but if you are a manager at a union shop, you don't have to give raises at all.  a union contract just ensures raises get given, while non-union shops never have to give them.


JPINFV said:


> Why introduce any sort of employee comforts outside of bargaining time?


some don't give any regardless of if unionized or not.





JPINFV said:


> Unions give little reason for employees to work more than the minimum and give employers little reason to give more than the minimum.


yes, but they also prevent  you from getting fired arbitrarily, because the boss doesn't like you, or wants to replace you with a cheaper employee, or his son/daughter.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 12, 2010)

*my two cents*

My LEO job had a union. Aside from wage issues, mostly ineffective.

And while I was there there was a flip flop between competing organizations for the represenatation another issue.

Management was still able to offer favors and comfort outside union contract. That happens anywhere.

IMHO, a union will always be needed as a layer of protection and to have a balance of power.

Without job protection, who is going to run to OSHA ?

I worked at a big car service in NYC area, they only had one fire exit. Nobody was willing to report them, ever, even anonymously. And they used to illegally dock people money. People only complained to labor dept AFTER they left....


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 12, 2010)

DrParasite said:


> or wants to replace you with a cheaper employee, or his son/daughter.



Sorry, but that is not true:

"What is the legacy credit? 
Answer: The legacy credit allows 10 additional points to be added to the final score of any applicant *with a parent *who has died while in discharge of his or her duties as a Police Officer or Firefighter; and a *candidate who is the sibling* of a Police Officer or Firefighter who was killed in service of New York City as a result of the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001. For specific requirements see the Notice of Examination."

http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ff_faq_080106.shtml#legacy


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 12, 2010)

DrParasite said:


> yes, but if you are a manager at a union shop, you don't have to give raises at all.  a union contract just ensures raises get given, while non-union shops never have to give them.


Why do workers deserve to get raises just for being in the first place. Raises are like respect. Earned, and managing not to get fired or die is a pretty poor reason to demand a raise or respect. 


> some don't give any regardless of if unionized or not.


First, don't work with "some." Sorry, but workers deserve just as much fault for the presence of bottom of the barrel companies as anyone else. If no one was willing to work there then they wouldn't exist. 

Of course what happens when the unions fight to maintain unsafe conditions? [insert stock example of IAFF supporting 'right' for their members to show up drunk and on coke in Boston]



> yes, but they also prevent  you from getting fired arbitrarily, because the boss doesn't like you, or wants to replace you with a cheaper employee, or his son/daughter.


Prove that you are worth your pay would be a good way to start.


----------



## 8jimi8 (Aug 12, 2010)

Maybe EMS could take a page from nursing trends.


We have "magnet hospital" designation and no one is unionized in my area.

it doesn't protect us from getting fired.... we do that.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 12, 2010)

*once again, IMHO, the best scenario would be...*

A benevolent employer and a strong union which shares power.

A system of checks and balances.

Dont label everything communism/capitalism. Those are ideals.

If employers get to strong, I could envision a system where nurses etc are paid a percentage of what their employer bills for their service....and then have to pay for supplies.....

Either than union or the employer could create an abusive system. The best scenario is both to balance things out.


----------



## 8jimi8 (Aug 12, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> A benevolent employer and a strong union which shares power.
> 
> A system of checks and balances.
> 
> ...



that is exactly how it works. i'm part of the room charge.   

Definitely need itemized skill based compensation.


----------



## DrParasite (Aug 13, 2010)

dude, you have got to be kidding me.  you are quoting the wrong parts





Veneficus said:


> Sorry, but that is not true:
> 
> "What is the legacy credit?
> Answer: The legacy credit allows 10 additional points to be added to the final score of any applicant with a parent *who has died while in discharge of his or her duties* as a Police Officer or Firefighter; and a candidate who is the sibling of a Police Officer or Firefighter who* was killed in service of New York City as a result of the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001.* For specific requirements see the Notice of Examination."
> ...


aside from the fact that no one is losing their job for one of these legacy people, and in order to qualify to the legacy points, said family members NEEDS TO DIE IN THE LINE OF DUTY.  That doesn't mean a battalion chief's son gets extra points because he is related to someone on the job, or the director's daughter needs a job, so lets fire/lay off the last guy we hired and replace him with her.  The legacy program is completely different.

you have no idea what you are talking about, and you should be embarrassed to have even brought up the legacy points to support your idea.


JPINFV said:


> Why do workers deserve to get raises just for being in the first place. Raises are like respect. Earned, and managing not to get fired or die is a pretty poor reason to demand a raise or respect.


well, there is the those who do the job, day in and day out, and do it well, and still don't get raises.  bosses don't want to pay more money for employees, they don't care.  

No one should have to demand a raise or respect.  then again, no one should have to worry about their employee docking their pay arbitrarily, being forced to work in unsafe working conditions, or being suspended because someone else screwed up, and having no way to appeal it.  





JPINFV said:


> First, don't work with "some." Sorry, but workers deserve just as much fault for the presence of bottom of the barrel companies as anyone else. If no one was willing to work there then they wouldn't exist.


and yet, even the :censored::censored::censored::censored:ty companies will have a line of people who want to work for them, because people need jobs, and people are treated as replaceable.


JPINFV said:


> Of course what happens when the unions fight to maintain unsafe conditions? [insert stock example of IAFF supporting 'right' for their members to show up drunk and on coke in Boston]


can't argue this one, I happen to agree with you 100%.  

However, the union is there to protect the members, all the members, even the members that should be fired.  As as long as you are defending everyone based on principle, that means the union fights for EVERYONE.


JPINFV said:


> Prove that you are worth your pay would be a good way to start.


In a perfect world, I agree, unions aren't needed.  unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and there are many companies that would sooner steamroll over their employees before they treated them well.


----------



## CAOX3 (Aug 13, 2010)

DrParasite said:


> .In a perfect world, I agree, unions aren't needed.  unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and there are many companies that would sooner steamroll over their employees before they treated them well.



This about sums it up.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 13, 2010)

DrParasite said:


> well, there is the those who do the job, day in and day out, and do it well, and still don't get raises.  bosses don't want to pay more money for employees, they don't care.
> 
> No one should have to demand a raise or respect.  then again, no one should have to worry about their employee docking their pay arbitrarily, being forced to work in unsafe working conditions, or being suspended because someone else screwed up, and having no way to appeal it.


...and employees tend to over value their worth, especially at entry level positions. If pay is being docked arbitrarily, forced to work in unreasonably unsafe conditions, or suspended because someone else screwed up, then find someplace else to work. It might suck, but why continue to support crappy companies? Nothing says that you have to sit there and take it and voting with your feet is much more powerful than anything else. 


> and yet, even the :censored::censored::censored::censored:ty companies will have a line of people who want to work for them, because people need jobs, and people are treated as replaceable.


Entry level jobs are replaceable. Want to make EMTs and medics less replaceable? Cut down on the supply. 



> However, the union is there to protect the members, all the members, even the members that should be fired.  As as long as you are defending everyone based on principle, that means the union fights for EVERYONE.


By fighting to protect everyone, including those who should be fired, then it taints the union. Want to make sure that the proper process if completed, fine, but when someone confirms that they are a bad apple, then the union needs to step out of the way and let the plant be pruned. The "fight for everyone" is one of the reasons why law enforcement has such a bad reputation as there are three types of officers. Good officers (rare), bad officers (rare), and good officers who fight to protect bad officers (common). In fact, there's a legal term for that. Accessory after the fact. 




> In a perfect world, I agree, unions aren't needed.  unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and there are many companies that would sooner steamroll over their employees before they treated them well.



...and there are employees and unions who would rather bankrupt their employers instead of accepting a fair wage for the work done.


----------



## CAOX3 (Aug 13, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> ...and there are employees and unions who would rather bankrupt their employers instead of accepting a fair wage for the work done.



What benefit would it be to the union or the employee to put the employer out of business?


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 13, 2010)

CAOX3 said:


> What benefit would it be to the union or the employee to put the employer out of business?



Good question. Ask the auto unions.


----------



## CAOX3 (Aug 13, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Good question. Ask the auto unions.



Ok I may have walked into that one. 

Although Im sure it played a role poor leadership and a less the stellar product has also doomed the American auto maker.


----------



## DrParasite (Aug 13, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> then find someplace else to work. It might suck, but why continue to support crappy companies? Nothing says that you have to sit there and take it and voting with your feet is much more powerful than anything else.


my friend, you are either unemployed (since a FT student), a trust fund baby, or being supported by an outside force.  

Jobs are hard to come by, especially in this field.  the option of quitting a bad job isn't an option for most, since the prospect of having another one lined up is slim.  Not only that, but if you quit, and a replacement is hired before you turn in your ID tag, it really doesn't hurt the employer one bit.  Many people would quit the crappy companies, but we still want to be able to eat, pay bills, and pay our mortgages, which being unemployed would prevent use from doing.





JPINFV said:


> By fighting to protect everyone, including those who should be fired, then it taints the union. Want to make sure that the proper process if completed, fine, but when someone confirms that they are a bad apple, then the union needs to step out of the way and let the plant be pruned.


So if you pay your union dues, and you screw up badly enough, the union shouldn't back you?  

And as for the Boston case (which I don't have all the details) I believe the issue was that said under the influence FFs were tested in a way that went against the collective bargaining agreement, that both the union and city agreed to.

The unions job is to fight for it's members interests.  that's it.  It doesn't care about the city, it doesn't care about employer, it doesn't care about the profession.  The union's purpose is to fight for it's members interests.  In contract negotiations, in disciplinary hearings, in speaking to the press, all a union's actions are done for the benefit of its members.  If those benefits happen to coincide with the public's interests, or the industry's interests, that's great, but the unions job is to fight for the interests of their members.


JPINFV said:


> ...and there are employees and unions who would rather bankrupt their employers instead of accepting a fair wage for the work done.


I throw the BS flag on that one.  the employer AGREED to those wages.  the union didn't tell the employer "we want to be paid $100/hr" and so it was done.  the employer AGREED to those terms.  Now, whether not it was a good agreement, that is another topic.  Agreements that were made when everything was booming vs in a slump, also another topic.  but the employer agreed to the terms, you can't blame the union for getting the best deal possible for its members (see above).

If I ask my employer to pay me $100 an hour to do my job, and he agrees, am I wrong?  and if a year later he decides (without telling me) to change my pay rate to $50 an hour, is he right?  and if the following year the economy tanks, and he lowers it again to $25 an hour, if that right?  and for the final kicker, after the economy rebounds, business is booming, the company is making tons of $$$, and my employer is keeping me at $25 an hour, when he initially agreed to $100 an hour, is that right?  and that is why we have unions to protect us and our interests.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 13, 2010)

CAOX3 said:


> This about sums it up.



this


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 13, 2010)

DrParasite said:


> my friend, you are either unemployed (since a FT student), a trust fund baby, or being supported by an outside force.


Currently employed as a full time student D), however if I had the choice of working for 10/hr at a crappy unsafe ambulance company or 10/hr at Best Buy, I'd take Best Buy while constantly looking for an opening at a good company. 



> Jobs are hard to come by, especially in this field.  the option of quitting a bad job isn't an option for most, since the prospect of having another one lined up is slim.  Not only that, but if you quit, and a replacement is hired before you turn in your ID tag, it really doesn't hurt the employer one bit.  Many people would quit the crappy companies, but we still want to be able to eat, pay bills, and pay our mortgages, which being unemployed would prevent use from doing.


There are jobs outside of EMS. My father is an engineer. There's a reason at one point that he was working as a loan agent at a small, local finance company. Yes, you have to pay the bills, however there also comes a point where you have to ask yourself if it's currently worth it to be at your current company. 



> So if you pay your union dues, and you screw up badly enough, the union shouldn't back you?


Hell yes. Fatty McFatpants who can't seem to get his fat butt into the ambulance in a reasonable time period because it's interfering with his Call of Duty game shouldn't be defended, he should be gone. Suzie who feels that because the company's guidelines to clear within 20 minutes of a call means that any excess time between turning the ambulance around and completing the PCR is break time doesn't deserve protecting. However when the union does a full court press to defend slugs like this, they end up tainting and encouraging everyone else to do it. After all, if you only get a written write up for not clearing, why clear at all? It just means more work. 

There's a reason why even defense attorneys make plea deals instead of going to court with a guilty defendant. The defendant is still going to jail though.   


> And as for the Boston case (which I don't have all the details) I believe the issue was that said under the influence FFs were tested in a way that went against the collective bargaining agreement, that both the union and city agreed to.


The issue was that the autopsy results were leaked. I'd like to emphasize the word "autopsy" and point out that neither fire fighter is currently listed on the National Fallen Fire Fighters Foundation website, despite dying in 2007. However, instead of doing something, anything to keep it from happening again, the IAFF decided to use the issue as a bargaining chip for more money. Apparently money is more important to the IAFF than fire fighters' lives. 


> The unions job is to fight for it's members interests.  that's it.  It doesn't care about the city, it doesn't care about employer, it doesn't care about the profession.  The union's purpose is to fight for it's members interests.  In contract negotiations, in disciplinary hearings, in speaking to the press, all a union's actions are done for the benefit of its members.  If those benefits happen to coincide with the public's interests, or the industry's interests, that's great, but the unions job is to fight for the interests of their members.
> I throw the BS flag on that one.  the employer AGREED to those wages.  the union didn't tell the employer "we want to be paid $100/hr" and so it was done.  the employer AGREED to those terms.  Now, whether not it was a good agreement, that is another topic.  Agreements that were made when everything was booming vs in a slump, also another topic.  but the employer agreed to the terms, you can't blame the union for getting the best deal possible for its members (see above).
> 
> If I ask my employer to pay me $100 an hour to do my job, and he agrees, am I wrong?  and if a year later he decides (without telling me) to change my pay rate to $50 an hour, is he right?  and if the following year the economy tanks, and he lowers it again to $25 an hour, if that right?  and for the final kicker, after the economy rebounds, business is booming, the company is making tons of $$$, and my employer is keeping me at $25 an hour, when he initially agreed to $100 an hour, is that right?  and that is why we have unions to protect us and our interests.



Yep... keep you at $100/hr and see how long it lasts before the entire company is out of business. Sorry, but the employees need to be concerned with how the company is running because how the company is the most important thing. After all, no company, no union, no jobs and everyone is sitting in the unemployment line anyways.


----------



## DrParasite (Aug 13, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> There's a reason why even defense attorneys make plea deals instead of going to court with a guilty defendant. The defendant is still going to jail though.


No they don't.  Defense attorneys make plea deals, but it is still the client who has to accept the deal.  

Also, just because you have a union doesn't mean you can't be fired; Contrary to popular belief you can be fired, you just need to cross your Ts and dot your Is and do it all in the proper way.  The union protects against arbitrary discipline, and unfair actions.  You can still be written up, and still be fired, despite your misconceptions.


JPINFV said:


> The issue was that the autopsy results were leaked. I'd like to emphasize the word "autopsy" and point out that neither fire fighter is currently listed on the National Fallen Fire Fighters Foundation website, despite dying in 2007. However, instead of doing something, anything to keep it from happening again, the IAFF decided to use the issue as a bargaining chip for more money. Apparently money is more important to the IAFF than fire fighters' lives.


wow, uncool.  

So someone leaks autopsy results, and you don't have a problems with that?  Unless I can mistaken, the actual results were never released to the public.  So it's all rumor and speculation, until the formal report is given.  Not saying they weren't under the influence, not saying that wasn't a contributing factor to their deaths, only that someone was sneaky and did something they shouldn't have done.  Something was released that should never have been released.

What the IAFF did afterwards, that's another topic.  but the union should fight for their people.

Lets take this a step further, and ask about another controversial topic. the two FDNY dispatchers who wouldn't help a dying woman.  hypothetically speaking, assuming FDNY has a policy that dispatchers are not to treat patients, and are to call 911, and they followed this policy, and also assuming there is a policy that says if you lack the proper equipment, don't get involved and call those who have said equipment, and they followed policy to the letter (again, this is all hypothetical), the city will still throw them under the bus.  The mayor did so without knowing all the details.  and the administration is not going to admit they followed the policy correctly, esp with all the negative press.  And the city might even try to fire them because of this incident, DESPITE them following agency policy.  A good union would say to the city "woah, these two followed YOUR policy, and now YOU found out the policy caused this issue, and you are blaming these two?  I don't think so, that's unfair" and take the necessary steps to protect them.  This is throwing a few hypothetical in, but try to follow the logic.


JPINFV said:


> Yep... keep you at $100/hr and see how long it lasts before the entire company is out of business. Sorry, but the employees need to be concerned with how the company is running because how the company is the most important thing. After all, no company, no union, no jobs and everyone is sitting in the unemployment line anyways.


ooooooh, I see, we have a fundamental difference of opinion.  You are a good company man.  The company comes first, even at the expense of the employee.  

Profits are down 10%, wage cut across the board 10%.  You are ok with that. Profits are up 20%, wages stay at the below-10%-level.  You are ok with that.  The company requires you to come to work in a uniform, that you have to pay for.  If the uniforms gets damaged, dirty, blood on it, it must be replaced, at the employees expense.  Training that is required by the company must be done during your off hours, and you are not paid for it.  This includes both continuing education and in-services.  You are not paid for  your time, and you have to pay for said classes.  After all the company is the most important thing, you are ok with this stuff happening, "after all no company, no union, no jobs and everyone is sitting in the unemployment line anyways."

You completely missed the point my earlier paragraph. I am not saying an employee or a union should be able to bleed a company dry.  I am saying if an employer is in trouble, he should NEGOTIATE with the worker.  10% pay cuts in exchange for an extra week's vacation. something, but it should be negotiated between management and labor.  

btw, if the company is doing poorly and you need to slash wages, fine, I can see that, but when we are making money, I would expect wages to be returned to pre-slumping time, and if we are making more money than before, I would expect that money to be disseminated to the employee.  If you are going to cut wages when times are tough, you should raise wages when times are good.  that the working man's opinion, I am sure you disagree.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 13, 2010)

*I second what Dr. Parasite wrote.*

Thank you for taking the time.

Again, I think there should be a balance between unions and management.

Would we rely on prosecutors to do their job and eliminate defense attorneys, and just rely on prodecutors not taking action against inncocent people?

Hey , they are educated attorneys...they are elected...so we should trust them only to prosecute the truly guilty.....?


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 13, 2010)

DrParasite said:


> So someone leaks autopsy results, and you don't have a problems with that?  Unless I can mistaken, the actual results were never released to the public.  So it's all rumor and speculation, until the formal report is given.  Not saying they weren't under the influence, not saying that wasn't a contributing factor to their deaths, only that someone was sneaky and did something they shouldn't have done.  Something was released that should never have been released.


I have a bigger problem with the idea that if the results weren't leaked, no one would have known anything otherwise. If they were clean, why wouldn't the family release the autopsy files? If they were clean, why are they not on the memorial? There's too many lingering questions for it to be just a conspiracy theory. 



> Lets take this a step further, and ask about another controversial topic. the two FDNY dispatchers who wouldn't help a dying woman.  hypothetically speaking, assuming FDNY has a policy that dispatchers are not to treat patients, and are to call 911, and they followed this policy, and also assuming there is a policy that says if you lack the proper equipment, don't get involved and call those who have said equipment, and they followed policy to the letter (again, this is all hypothetical), the city will still throw them under the bus.  The mayor did so without knowing all the details.  and the administration is not going to admit they followed the policy correctly, esp with all the negative press.  And the city might even try to fire them because of this incident, DESPITE them following agency policy.  A good union would say to the city "woah, these two followed YOUR policy, and now YOU found out the policy caused this issue, and you are blaming these two?  I don't think so, that's unfair" and take the necessary steps to protect them.  This is throwing a few hypothetical in, but try to follow the logic.


Irrelevant since my belief is to do good when possible, unreasonable consequences be damned. A better scenario is the paramedic unit on an out-of-state transfer who ends up on a still alarm. Practice in a state you're not licensed in, or ignore a patient? While most likely illegal to the letter of the law, I find it doubtful that any actual treatment would be viewed with disdain by the local authorities minus gross negligence. 

Still, in terms of both scenarios, in the end I still have to live with myself and I don't think I could by just walking past someone asking for emergency medical care. 



> ooooooh, I see, we have a fundamental difference of opinion.  You are a good company man.  The company comes first, even at the expense of the employee.
> 
> Profits are down 10%, wage cut across the board 10%.  You are ok with that. Profits are up 20%, wages stay at the below-10%-level.  You are ok with that.  The company requires you to come to work in a uniform, that you have to pay for.  If the uniforms gets damaged, dirty, blood on it, it must be replaced, at the employees expense.  Training that is required by the company must be done during your off hours, and you are not paid for it.  This includes both continuing education and in-services.  You are not paid for  your time, and you have to pay for said classes.  After all the company is the most important thing, you are ok with this stuff happening, "after all no company, no union, no jobs and everyone is sitting in the unemployment line anyways."


If you mean that as in, "Without the company, there is no job" and "Do your best, even if only the minimum is required," then yes. The union doesn't provide the job after all. In the end, what's the name on the top of the check? I highly doubt that it's your union cutting the check for you. 

How many companies (and I don't mean just ambulance companies) supply their workers with a complete uniform? Do you think that law firms supply all of their workers with suits? Do you think that the hospital provides suits for the physicians on staff at the local hospital? Do you think your school teachers wardrobe was supplied by the school? No? Why should EMS companies provide every single piece of uniform for their employees? Company specific things like shirts and jackets? Sure. Boots, belt, pants? Why would they be responsible for those? 

Why should the company be required to provide CMEs? It's your license to practice, not their's. If they're requiring in-services, then complain to the local labor board because if you're required to be at a company function, you should be paid. However it's the professionals (oh, I keep forgetting. EMS is a profession in name only, basic labor in practice) job to maintain their own license, not the company's job. After all, why not demand that the company reimburse you for your EMT course? 



> You completely missed the point my earlier paragraph. I am not saying an employee or a union should be able to bleed a company dry.  I am saying if an employer is in trouble, he should NEGOTIATE with the worker.  10% pay cuts in exchange for an extra week's vacation. something, but it should be negotiated between management and labor.
> 
> btw, if the company is doing poorly and you need to slash wages, fine, I can see that, but when we are making money, I would expect wages to be returned to pre-slumping time, and if we are making more money than before, I would expect that money to be disseminated to the employee.  If you are going to cut wages when times are tough, you should raise wages when times are good.  that the working man's opinion, I am sure you disagree.



How do you verify that your company is doing good or bad to begin with? Should the company be required to open their books at all times to their employees?


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 13, 2010)

*company paying for things*

People at the executive level recive perks, confrences in resort areas, company cars, lap top computers......

Many times things unrealted to work.

So what is so damn horrible about a company buying an EMT a pair of pants...? Pants that can only be worn while working anyway...?


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 13, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> People at the executive level recive perks, confrences in resort areas, company cars, lap top computers......
> 
> Many times things unrealted to work.
> 
> So what is so damn horrible about a company buying an EMT a pair of pants...? Pants that can only be worn while working anyway...?



You don't wear pants outside of work? A pair of black ****ies have uses outside of work. I still use the shorts I picked up for when I worked as an EMT at a water park.


----------



## Veneficus (Aug 13, 2010)

DrParasite said:


> dude, you have got to be kidding me.  you are quoting the wrong partsaside from the fact that no one is losing their job for one of these legacy people, and in order to qualify to the legacy points, said family members NEEDS TO DIE IN THE LINE OF DUTY.  That doesn't mean a battalion chief's son gets extra points because he is related to someone on the job, or the director's daughter needs a job, so lets fire/lay off the last guy we hired and replace him with her.  The legacy program is completely different.
> 
> you have no idea what you are talking about, and you should be embarrassed to have even brought up the legacy points to support your idea.


 

Actually, I do know what I am talking about and I am not embarrassed at all.

In the United States of America, there are no heriditary jobs or titles. If my dad was killed in a war I don't automatically get to be in the military. I would have to meet the same requirements everyone else does and I would receive no bonus points.

The same can be said for any other job or position. If I am killed doing whatever tomorrow my kid doesn't get a bonus for the purpose of getting hired. 

But back to the matter at hand if person X takes the fire test in NYC and scores an 89

and person B who gets legacy credit scores a 80.

The most capable person is not hired because of nepotism.

I am starting to think the entitlement hero factor about the whole 9/11/01 incident is going way to far. At the very least it is a disservice to those who never asked for such status being taken advantage of by people who think they are owed more than they are.


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 13, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> You don't wear pants outside of work? A pair of black ****ies have uses outside of work. I still use the shorts I picked up for when I worked as an EMT at a water park.



Well thank goodness for such an outpouring display of employer generosity! Ya get ta keep the used shorts. ^_^  Gotta love it.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 13, 2010)

rescue99 said:


> Well thank goodness for such an outpouring display of employer generosity! Ya get ta keep the used shorts. ^_^  Gotta love it.



Just like I got to keep the pants I bought to work at my first company. My pants, my shorts. I'm keeping them and don't see expecting employers to supply their employees with wardrobe. Hell, why not complain that there isn't company supplied and laundered underwear?


----------



## looker (Aug 13, 2010)

emt seeking first job said:


> People at the executive level recive perks, confrences in resort areas, company cars, lap top computers......
> 
> Many times things unrealted to work.
> 
> So what is so damn horrible about a company buying an EMT a pair of pants...? Pants that can only be worn while working anyway...?



When you have skills that I can't easily replace is when you will get paid more. EMT's are easily replaceable especially in this market. What skills that you have that makes you valuable to your employer which can't easily replace you?


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 13, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Just like I got to keep the pants I bought to work at my first company. My pants, my shorts. I'm keeping them and don't see expecting employers to supply their employees with wardrobe. Hell, why not complain that there isn't company supplied and laundered underwear?



You bought, fine. That is yours to do whatever with _unless_ it has a company logo ....then it's the company's business as to who may own the items regardless of who foot the cost.   

And yes, if I expect special uniforms, you bet it's my obligation to provide the first set, minimum. As the employer, it most certainly is my responsibility.  Unless one has owned his/her own business, that particular sense of right and wrong is void. A dime spent today is a dollar made tomorrow. Be good to employees and generally speaking, they help cement the building blocks of a growing company. Poorly run companies tend to attract and hang on to equally bad workers. Good one's will attract and keep growth potential employees. The math is pretty easy. Who generates the most profit? Is it the poorly run company that is always on the verge of broke with a boss who   hides come payday? Or, is the other guy? The one with the new trucks, most modern equipment and higher paying contracts who is looking to branch out again???? A business is only as good or bad as the guy at the top. The question is...which would you be?


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 13, 2010)

Rescue, I think you and I are on the same page on this issue. Paying for a full uniform (boots to shirt) and CMEs is an awesome perk, however there's a difference between an awesome perk and something I expect out of every company.


----------



## atropine (Aug 13, 2010)

Well all my ce's get paid for and I get a six hundred dollar a year uniform allowance.


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 13, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Rescue, I think you and I are on the same page on this issue. Paying for a full uniform (boots to shirt) and CMEs is an awesome perk, however there's a difference between an awesome perk and something I expect out of every company.



Not exactly the same page as I believe 100% that uniforms, at least the first set, is the employers resonsibility. I don't think it's a perk in any way shape or form. It is my an expectation as the employer to provide uniforms. Boots n drawers, no. The rest, absolutely. Perhaps I am an employer who does not  want his/her employees to have excuses. Perhaps I simply like a sharp look. Either way, I'm buyin and the employees will wear them as outlined in the employee handbook. There is always a method to the bosses maddness...:wacko:


----------



## BLSBoy (Aug 13, 2010)

atropine said:


> Well all my ce's get paid for and I get a six hundred dollar a year uniform allowance.



IAFF?
I'm EMPACCT, but the FireMedics are IAFF. We pretty much ride their coattails with contracts, but they are well written and provide us well. 

I think our uniform allowance is 400-500, but MUST be spent at the only authorized uniform store, and only on certain allowable items.


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 13, 2010)

atropine said:


> Well all my ce's get paid for and I get a six hundred dollar a year uniform allowance.



How nice


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 13, 2010)

looker said:


> When you have skills that I can't easily replace is when you will get paid more. EMT's are easily replaceable especially in this market. What skills that you have that makes you valuable to your employer which can't easily replace you?



The sword swings both ways. Careful what ya say there BMOC. What if every single employee stopped working everyday...new old, relatives, the whole lot of them? You would be out of business in a week no matter how many people you claim are available for hire. Your position reflects a terrible attitude toward yer fellow man!


----------



## terrible one (Aug 13, 2010)

atropine said:


> Well all my ce's get paid for and I get a six hundred dollar a year uniform allowance.



We all know how much you enjoy the money/benefits/pension/etc. you make at LAFD but at the rate that city is going bankrupt I wouldn't continue bragging about it.


----------



## looker (Aug 13, 2010)

rescue99 said:


> The sword swings both ways. Careful what ya say there BMOC. What if every single employee stopped working everyday...new old, relatives, the whole lot of them? You would be out of business in a week no matter how many people you claim are available for hire. Your position reflects a terrible attitude toward yer fellow man!



With how high unemployment in California is, finding new employees is very easy. I got list of potential EMT's that are read to start tomorrow and getting unsolicited resume daily. People need to feed their family so unless they find something better they will continue working. What you get paid is determined by what the market says you're worth.


----------



## fortsmithman (Aug 13, 2010)

looker said:


> With how high unemployment in California is, finding new employees is very easy. I got list of potential EMT's that are read to start tomorrow and getting unsolicited resume daily. People need to feed their family so unless they find something better they will continue working. What you get paid is determined by what the market says you're worth.



Looker is right.  Law of supply and demand here.  Too many EMT's not enough positions is of more benefit to the employer they have a bigger pool.  If you want to shorten the pool keep on going till you become a paramedic.


----------



## AtlantaEMT (Aug 13, 2010)

I'm new in the EMS field but have a lot of experience dealing with unions.  I use to work at a machine shop and did a lot of work for GM (UAW).  The UAW is what is running Detroit into the ground and the reason why I will never in my life own an "American" vehicle again.  I've seen the quality that goes into GM products and it is absolute crap.  I have seen work that goes into Toyotas, Hondas, etc (which aren't union) and the quality is amazing.  Also the pay/benefits is very similar to UAW but the main thing is that you are held liable for your screw ups.

I wouldn't mind an EMS union but the union would have to realize that the company needs to be protected too and to not protect the sorry employees.  The best example I heard for how a union should operate is that you have an airline pilot flying from NY to England.  A few hundred miles out the pilot notices a warning indicator for what is probably a faulty switch but the pilot turns the plane around and comes back to have it checked out.  Turns out some water just shorted the switch.  But the company is upset that this pilot delayed passengers and cost the company a lot of money and want to fire the pilot.  THEN the union should step in and protect that pilot.

But if you have a pilot who is constantly late or does something dangerous and the union agrees it was dangerous, then they need to stand behind the company and not protect that worker.

The problem is a union that operates like that only exists in fantasy land.

That's just my take of course


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 13, 2010)

looker said:


> With how high unemployment in California is, finding new employees is very easy. I got list of potential EMT's that are read to start tomorrow and getting unsolicited resume daily. People need to feed their family so unless they find something better they will continue working. What you get paid is determined by what the market says you're worth.



And we all know we get exactly what we pay for. Pay for quality, you can expect quality people and demand quality performance. The lowest paying companies tend to have lower profits, fewer contracts and more headaches. None of those things belong in a solid business plan.


----------



## emt seeking first job (Aug 15, 2010)

AtlantaEMT said:


> I'm new in the EMS field but have a lot of experience dealing with unions.  I use to work at a machine shop and did a lot of work for GM (UAW).  The UAW is what is running Detroit into the ground and the reason why I will never in my life own an "American" vehicle again.  I've seen the quality that goes into GM products and it is absolute crap.  I have seen work that goes into Toyotas, Hondas, etc (which aren't union) and the quality is amazing.  Also the pay/benefits is very similar to UAW but the main thing is that you are held liable for your screw ups.
> 
> I wouldn't mind an EMS union but the union would have to realize that the company needs to be protected too and to not protect the sorry employees.  The best example I heard for how a union should operate is that you have an airline pilot flying from NY to England.  A few hundred miles out the pilot notices a warning indicator for what is probably a faulty switch but the pilot turns the plane around and comes back to have it checked out.  Turns out some water just shorted the switch.  But the company is upset that this pilot delayed passengers and cost the company a lot of money and want to fire the pilot.  THEN the union should step in and protect that pilot.
> 
> ...




There could be a contract in place, that both parties agreed to.

For the pilot always late, the union would still defend hi, without breaking rules or laws. The union would ensure the company did nothing illegal or againt the contract regardless of employeees offense.

I would compare it to a criminal who is entitled to a lawyer, even though his crime was caught on tape, he or she still gets a lawyer.


----------



## Lone Star (Aug 18, 2010)

CAOX3 said:


> Ok I may have walked into that one.
> 
> Although Im sure it played a role poor leadership and a less the stellar product has also doomed the American auto maker.



Not only did that contribute to GM and Dodge/Chrysler et al need bailing out, but throw in corporate greed and the simple fact that people have been buying IMPORTS, not because of better quality, but simply because of lower prices.

In today's 'throw away socety' people would rather just toss it in the trash than expend the effort/time to maintain it and fix it as necessary.

As far as auto unions bankrupting companies, how come Ford Motor Company (A UAW 'shop') was the ONLY one that didn't ask for 'bailout money'?

As far as looker goes, THERE is a PRIME reason that unions are needed!

Any employer that BRAGS on how they can fire you for any reason they can dream up, their employees need protection from that kind of  tyranny!  Even with the posts that PROVED that what they were doing was in violation of may federal labor laws, they still cling to the idea that you as an employee are simply some expendable resource.  Once they feel that you've outlived your 'usefulness'....you're HISTORY!

Most of the 'benefits' and 'rights' that you enjoy as an employee have come from the efforts of the unions.  You can thank the guys that in 1937 had the BALLS to stand their ground!


----------



## AtlantaEMT (Aug 18, 2010)

Lone Star said:


> As far as auto unions bankrupting companies, how come Ford Motor Company (A UAW 'shop') was the ONLY one that didn't ask for 'bailout money'?



That is becuase they do so well with their fleet sales.  Look at your construction companies.  My old utility company had all Fords (from F150s-F750s).  We had I think 25+ trucks on one lot.  It wasn't because they were good quality vehicles.  Infact they sucked and were always breaking down.  Especially our John Deere tractors (which is why you always see private contractors with Hyundai or other foreign companies).  They got them becuase they got killer deals on them.  But even the utility companies are going to imports.  The Atlnata Gas Light company uses all Toyota Tacomas and I've seen other companies moving to them becuase they are so much more dependable.

A lot of your ambulances are Fords too.  And look at all of your government vehicles.  Ford, ford, ford.

And those guys in 1937 who had the "balls" to stand the ground did it via thug tactics.  Try parking your Honda Accord at a Detroit GM plant and don't join the Union.  You better become really good at changing tires.


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 18, 2010)

AtlantaEMT said:


> l
> And those guys in 1937 who had the "balls" to stand the ground did it via thug tactics.  Try parking your Honda Accord at a Detroit GM plant and don't join the Union.  You better become really good at changing tires.



People have such odd ideas about what the history of organized labor really is. Everything we know today as a safe, productive and fair (such as it is) work place is thanks to people who stood their ground before you, union or not. Wayne State University has some excellent courses on the subject if anyone is ever interested.


----------



## firetender (Aug 18, 2010)

Unions are not exempt from doing what people do.

What people do is, perceiving themselves as being suppressed, join together to let their voices be heard and, in some way, overthrow their oppressors. The people who led the revolution, once in power, become the next generation of despots needing to be overthrown. Power is neither created or destroyed, it just changes form.

So there are PHASES that most organizations, including Unions, go through. Some get stuck in using power to their advantage. Others make an honest effort to do what they pledge to do; Defend the rights of the worker.

Though it might seem comforting to hold to black and white thinking and arguing about it, it might be more useful to hear about specific examples that are working.


----------



## John E (Aug 20, 2010)

looker said:


> In California i can fire you because I didn't like the color of the shoes that you had that day. California is at will, so it means I can fire you if i want to and there is basically nothing you can do about it.



Complete and utter bull:censored::censored::censored::censored:.

John E


----------



## John E (Aug 20, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> ...and employees tend to over value their worth, especially at entry level positions....
> 
> ...and there are employees and unions who would rather bankrupt their employers instead of accepting a fair wage for the work done.



If you ever get out of medical school, remember not to overvalue yourself.

What a load of pretentious crap.

Get a tiny bit of life experience and then get back to me about how valuable entry level workers are.

John E


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 20, 2010)

John E said:


> If you ever get out of medical school, remember not to overvalue yourself.
> 
> What a load of pretentious crap.
> 
> ...



:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::beerchug: cheers!


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 20, 2010)

John E said:


> If you ever get out of medical school, remember not to overvalue yourself.
> 
> What a load of pretentious crap.
> 
> ...



Value and over value are two completely different things. Even with a college degree and almost done with a masters, when I took a part time job while I finished up my thesis I wasn't asking for $20/hr. Every post where some EMT sits and moans about how "_____ job gets paid more than me," normally picking some hard labor job with a low supply of workers or some sort of outlier pay (i.e. "ZOMG I get paid the same as a burger flipper at In-N-Out") obviously doesn't know the value of their position.


----------



## looker (Aug 20, 2010)

John E said:


> Complete and utter bull:censored::censored::censored::censored:.
> 
> John E



Really? I been in transportation for over 10 years. I have fired plenty of people in that time. California is at will employment which means just that.


----------



## John E (Aug 21, 2010)

You stated that you can fire anyone for anything at any time and that there was nothing they could do about it. That's bull:censored::censored::censored::censored: and if you have in fact have been business for any length of time in the state of California, you'd know that.

I'm sure you've heard of unemployment insurance? The bulk of those premiums are paid by employers, every time a former employee files a successful claim, your rates go up. Only an idiot would fire someone without cause knowing that it was going to cost his company more money. Every time you fire an employee on a whim as you claim you can do, you're opening yourself up for a lawsuit. There are plenty of things people can do if they get fired without a valid reason in California, you claimed otherwise and you're wrong. And find yourself an attorney who actually knows something about employment law in California if you're gonna play with people's lives. 

John E


----------



## looker (Aug 21, 2010)

John E said:


> You stated that you can fire anyone for anything at any time and that there was nothing they could do about it. That's bull:censored::censored::censored::censored: and if you have in fact have been business for any length of time in the state of California, you'd know that.
> 
> I'm sure you've heard of unemployment insurance? The bulk of those premiums are paid by employers, every time a former employee files a successful claim, your rates go up. Only an idiot would fire someone without cause knowing that it was going to cost his company more money. Every time you fire an employee on a whim as you claim you can do, you're opening yourself up for a lawsuit. There are plenty of things people can do if they get fired without a valid reason in California, you claimed otherwise and you're wrong. And find yourself an attorney who actually knows something about employment law in California if you're gonna play with people's lives.
> 
> John E


You're mixing multiple issue together. Yes if someone gets fired for no good cause they can claim unemployment. It still do not mean that I can't fire them just because i feel like it. In California employee can sue if they got fired for one of the following reasons race, age, gender, religion, sexual orientation ,disability and national origin. If employee gets fired for one of those prohibited reason they can sue. Otherwise they can just claim unemployment.


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 21, 2010)

looker said:


> You're mixing multiple issue together. Yes if someone gets fired for no good cause they can claim unemployment. It still do not mean that I can't fire them just because i feel like it. In California employee can sue if they got fired for one of the following reasons race, age, gender, religion, sexual orientation ,disability and national origin. If employee gets fired for one of those prohibited reason they can sue. Otherwise they can just claim unemployment.



Time to stop arguing with the attention seeker. :nosoupfortroll:


----------



## 46Young (Aug 21, 2010)

Looker's attitude shouldn't come as a suprise to anyone. Just use these IFT companies for some quick cash until you can do better. That's all they're good for. I recommend only working per diem for an IFT company and working somewhere else for benefits, preferably a hospital or chain store.  

Edit: If you have a boss like looker, treat them like they treat you. Hold signals, take your time on the floor, take your time on the drop off, use the hospital's cafeteria to make your own meal break while showing at the hospital unloading. Just be smart about it and don't skell out enough to get fired. Also, know your local laws, as to who decides when you run L&S, who determines what hospital the pt goes to when they're critical, etc.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 21, 2010)

46Young said:


> Also, know your local laws, as to who decides when you run L&S, who determines what hospital the pt goes to when they're critical, etc.



Prehospital providers should know that regardless of their views on their employer.


----------



## 46Young (Aug 21, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Prehospital providers should know that regardless of their views on their employer.



True, but the fact of the matter is that these things aren't really addressed in EMt school, and most EMT's will work an IFT job right out of school. These IFT companies will try to order the crew to txp to a certain hospital to satisfy their contract. This won't work if the pt is critical and they're asking you to bypass the closest appropriate ED to keep the customer happy. Or denying a request to run hot when txp'ing a critical pt. Falsifying ppw to qualify for insurance is another big one that EMT school doesn't really address, EMTALA laws, etc. New EMT's are ignorant to many of these things, through no fault of their own, and IFT companies take advantage of this.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 21, 2010)

46Young said:


> True, but the fact of the matter is that these things aren't really addressed in EMt school, and most EMT's will work an IFT job right out of school. These IFT companies will try to order the crew to txp to a certain hospital to satisfy their contract. This won't work if the pt is critical and they're asking you to bypass the closest appropriate ED to keep the customer happy. Or denying a request to run hot when txp'ing a critical pt. Falsifying ppw to qualify for insurance is another big one that EMT school doesn't really address, EMTALA laws, etc. New EMT's are ignorant to many of these things, through no fault of their own, and IFT companies take advantage of this.



It's very much their fault if they don't take action to rectify it on their own. We need to stop thinking that everything a provider needs to know to operate can be delivered by certification courses, canned CMEs, and in-services. EMT school won't teach everything and everyone should have at least read through all of their local protocols and procedures, including the non-treatment ones at least once. What isn't covered in EMT class is the ability to justify decisions past "protocol" and that's the true problem, the lack of critical thinking and ability to convey that thought process to others. Of course, I keep forgetting that EMS is PINO (Professional In Name Only).


----------



## MrBrown (Aug 21, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> What isn't covered in EMT class is the ability to justify decisions past "protocol" and that's the true problem, the lack of critical thinking and ability to convey that thought process to others. Of course, I keep forgetting that EMS is PINO (Professional In Name Only).



While the US remains in the dark ages such practices are not required.


----------



## 46Young (Aug 23, 2010)

Whether unions are good are bad is in the eye of the beholder. One thing remains true, however. Union employees on the whole seem to be a whole lot happier and satisfied with their positions when compared to non union ones. It's important to be happy with your work situation. The stress of having a bad, low paying career with poor job security can wreck your health, both physical and financial.


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 23, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> It's very much their fault if they don't take action to rectify it on their own. We need to stop thinking that everything a provider needs to know to operate can be delivered by certification courses, canned CMEs, and in-services. EMT school won't teach everything and everyone should have at least read through all of their local protocols and procedures, including the non-treatment ones at least once. What isn't covered in EMT class is the ability to justify decisions past "protocol" and that's the true problem, the lack of critical thinking and ability to convey that thought process to others. Of course, I keep forgetting that EMS is PINO (Professional In Name Only).



Ya could always find a better suited position. No one is forced into becoming an EMT. Nice thing about being in the U.S.A. is that we aren't tracked into professions / occupations. We have the ability to pick our poison.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 23, 2010)

rescue99 said:


> Ya could always find a better suited position. No one is forced into becoming an EMT. Nice thing about being in the U.S.A. is that we aren't tracked into professions / occupations. We have the ability to pick our poison.




There's a reason I'm not in paramedic school. :blush:


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 23, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> There's a reason I'm not in paramedic school. :blush:



Therefore your opinion is moot....


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 23, 2010)

rescue99 said:


> Therefore your opinion is moot....



Because I'm not in paramedic school, my experience as an EMT is moot? I won't apologize for actually having standards in a field that want's to be a profession, but any time any decision not completely spelled out via procedure and protocol goes running to a supervisor or on-line medical control in order to "limit liability." Similarly, how can it be a "profession" if a significant number of technicians refuse to go to the source documents that are easily available. Sorry, "My manager didn't tell me about that" isn't an appropriate excuse when a quick look through your local EMS authority (be it state, local, regional, etc) will generally give access to a primary document that could be read, learned, and if need be printed out for later reference. What's sad is the fact that this sort of self-imposed ignorance is accepted and, to a point, encouraged both by the people who are supposed to be leading the trade (including the educators) as well as the culture of the field providers. 

A perfect example of the above regarding liability is the out-of-state still alarm thread. It's amazing the number of people who would rather let someone die than expose them to a minuscule level of liability (not nearly close to the amount of liability exposed to by twiddling their fingers on scene) or expects someone else, anyone else as long as they take on the "liability," to be able to order them to do something technically illegal. Never mind the fact that no EMS authority in their right mind would make a stink out of that.


----------



## rescue99 (Aug 23, 2010)

JPINFV said:


> Because I'm not in paramedic school, my experience as an EMT is moot? I won't apologize for actually having standards in a field that want's to be a profession, but any time any decision not completely spelled out via procedure and protocol goes running to a supervisor or on-line medical control in order to "limit liability." Similarly, how can it be a "profession" if a significant number of technicians refuse to go to the source documents that are easily available. Sorry, "My manager didn't tell me about that" isn't an appropriate excuse when a quick look through your local EMS authority (be it state, local, regional, etc) will generally give access to a primary document that could be read, learned, and if need be printed out for later reference. What's sad is the fact that this sort of self-imposed ignorance is accepted and, to a point, encouraged both by the people who are supposed to be leading the trade (including the educators) as well as the culture of the field providers.
> 
> A perfect example of the above regarding liability is the out-of-state still alarm thread. It's amazing the number of people who would rather let someone die than expose them to a minuscule level of liability (not nearly close to the amount of liability exposed to by twiddling their fingers on scene) or expects someone else, anyone else as long as they take on the "liability," to be able to order them to do something technically illegal. Never mind the fact that no EMS authority in their right mind would make a stink out of that.



And then there are those who talk the talk but won't walk the walk....sorry, rules, codes and policies are there for a reason. Usually the reasons are rooted in mistakes from the past. Anyone who prefers to remain "safe" by staying at a lower level, yet wants an more advanced level opinion, should get a  from people who actually do walk that walk.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 23, 2010)

rescue99 said:


> And then there are those who talk the talk but won't walk the walk....sorry, rules, codes and policies are there for a reason. Usually the reasons are rooted in mistakes from the past. *Anyone who prefers to remain "safe" by staying at a lower level, yet wants an more advanced level opinion, should get a  from people who actually do walk that walk.*


Emphasis added

Are you commenting on the fact that the highest level of EMS training I'm going to achieve is that of EMT or are you surrendering EMS's "fight" for profession status over technical trade?


----------



## akflightmedic (Aug 23, 2010)

Thats funny...he is calling you out for remaining at such a "low level"....well Dr. JP...you can see if he walks the walk or not himself.


----------



## JPINFV (Aug 23, 2010)

akflightmedic said:


> Thats funny...he is calling you out for remaining at such a "low level"....well Dr. JP...you can see if he walks the walk or not himself.



That's what I thought, but I have the habit of reading too far into things and going off half-cocked, so I wanted to give him the chance to clarify before talking about my future scope of practice (and technically current scope in the educational setting) as authorizing me to "use drugs or devices in or upon human beings and to sever or penetrate the tissues of human beings and to use any and all other methods in the treatment of diseases, injuries, deformities, and other physical and mental conditions" (California Business and Professions Code, sections 2051 and 2453)."


----------

