RocketMedic
Californian, Lost in Texas
- 4,998
- 1,462
- 113
Recently, I asked our labor union on its closed-group social media page if there was any word on the union's rotating-schedule proposal. I am not a union member, and certainly do not intend on becoming one after today, but I was surprised by their reaction. It was generally a mix of "stop complaining (by asking about the union's stance), 'new people should be seen, not heard' / "you haven't earned good schedules yet" and this gem.
Now, I have nothing against senior employees. They have, after all, been part of the organization for a long time, generally are fairly intelligent, and from a personnel-management perspective they have demonstrated loyalty to the company. All of these things should be rewarded in order to assist in retaining employees. However, the crux of the argument involves transitioning to a 4/3 3/4 schedule that would give employees an extra 26 days off per month, cut the work week to 42 hours, and give an 18% raise. The union has staunchly delayed the implementation here on the grounds that it 'unfairly changes the work environment and conditions' by reevaluating accrued PTO, wages and brings back the potential for senior employees who long-ago stopped working weekend and night shifts to be placed in the same bid process and potentially working these "newbie" shifts. The union, of course, blames management, but this rings hollow- PPI has our Tulsa division (just as busy and understaffed) on this schedule with few complaints. At the end of the day, a Tulsa medic makes more than an OKC medic for the same work.
Here, our union is comprised of a relatively small minority of people, but if I understand the labor contract correctly, the union is currently contractually-protected. Most of its members are relatively senior employees with a vested interest in preserving the status quo in terms of policy. "We earned our time". What they fail to understand is that EMS is not the military or the fire service; new employees or non-union employees effectively provide the exact same service to the employer and the authority as they do. "But our care is better" rings hollow, we work under identical protocols and generally practice to the same extent (I personally know that I am quite a bit more progressive and friendly than many of the union's patients from personal, anecdotal experience and observation, but for the most part, we work very similarly). This is appropriate, the union should not dictate care, nor do experience or union membership mean anything to the patient (care should be to the highest standards every time). Here, our union's claim is the ever-popular 'join the union, change the union if you're going to complain", but the union is conspicuously absent from the lives and presences of those who do not think in lockstep with the union's membership, and joining the union is essentially joining an echo chamber of the above. Furthermore, there is not a particularly strong incentive to join in the first place, since membership in the union's voting block is not membership in a majority or even a significant minority of employees, but membership within the 'usual people' who tend to float at the pointy end of company gossip. (not the best crowd to run with, IMO).
Many people (myself included) leave my employer due to schedules that essentially commit one to weekend/nights for years on end, many other qualified candidates select other agencies due in part to their more adaptive schedules for all employees, not only the decade + club. This is a shame, because EMSA does legitimately need a fairly steady influx of new employees and does do quite a bit of fairly progressive medicine. Yes, long-time veterans should be rewarded when possible, but when their demands are harmful to the company as a whole, there is very little reason to view them and their organization as anything other than harmful. Union members that subscribe to the "we had to do it, so you do too" train of thought are actively part of the problem- should we bring back hazing too?
Seniority should be rewarded, but there is an obligation that comes with policies like ours that view seniority as the only credential. That obligation is to give new employees (not just new paramedics, but new employees of all certifications) a reason to tolerate the downsides of scheduling. That compensation is not monetary; EMSA will probably never pay enough to offset crappy shifts entirely with money. That generally means taking a page from the military or fire service and actually providing a tangible, real sense of job security and mentoring for new employees and a transition to a schedule that affords even new employees some measure of family-oriented time off. If that manifests itself as "one weekend off a month, to Joe Dinosaur's three", that's quite fair. However, with our current union tossing a fit at anything that changes what they have 'earned', the chances of that happening are low.
We are involved in a contractor bid that will see us either become AMR employees or remain with Paramedics Plus. I do not know who will win, the vote is towards the end of the month. Personally, though, whoever wins, I hope the union breaks.
I will not be joining the EMSA union. It is too small to be effective, too populated with traditionalists and retrogressive paramedics and EMTs for me to have real conversations with their members, and too opposed to my needs with its votes to realistically expect to change. I would rather bargain with management as an individual than as a union member. From my extremely limited interaction with union members, it's better here to simply avoid all talk of the union or what they do and not provoke the 'look down on you because you haven't spent a decade here' crowd. If you have to work with people like this, just show up, prep your truck, work your shift and go home. I've decided that it's not worth the stress to deal with the union, and it's far better to try and improve your work situation as an individual who does not allow unions to taint the relationship between yourself and management than as a member of a union that perpetually obstructs what both the majority of employees and the employer want.
EMTLife, what are your thoughts on unions?
. Please note the condescending attitude and holier-than-thou self-righteousness that simply oozes from attitudes like this. I reckon this paramedic literally carries the company on their shoulders, working three times as often as anyone else.Posted by Union Retard: "minority of the people who keep this company up and running"
Now, I have nothing against senior employees. They have, after all, been part of the organization for a long time, generally are fairly intelligent, and from a personnel-management perspective they have demonstrated loyalty to the company. All of these things should be rewarded in order to assist in retaining employees. However, the crux of the argument involves transitioning to a 4/3 3/4 schedule that would give employees an extra 26 days off per month, cut the work week to 42 hours, and give an 18% raise. The union has staunchly delayed the implementation here on the grounds that it 'unfairly changes the work environment and conditions' by reevaluating accrued PTO, wages and brings back the potential for senior employees who long-ago stopped working weekend and night shifts to be placed in the same bid process and potentially working these "newbie" shifts. The union, of course, blames management, but this rings hollow- PPI has our Tulsa division (just as busy and understaffed) on this schedule with few complaints. At the end of the day, a Tulsa medic makes more than an OKC medic for the same work.
Here, our union is comprised of a relatively small minority of people, but if I understand the labor contract correctly, the union is currently contractually-protected. Most of its members are relatively senior employees with a vested interest in preserving the status quo in terms of policy. "We earned our time". What they fail to understand is that EMS is not the military or the fire service; new employees or non-union employees effectively provide the exact same service to the employer and the authority as they do. "But our care is better" rings hollow, we work under identical protocols and generally practice to the same extent (I personally know that I am quite a bit more progressive and friendly than many of the union's patients from personal, anecdotal experience and observation, but for the most part, we work very similarly). This is appropriate, the union should not dictate care, nor do experience or union membership mean anything to the patient (care should be to the highest standards every time). Here, our union's claim is the ever-popular 'join the union, change the union if you're going to complain", but the union is conspicuously absent from the lives and presences of those who do not think in lockstep with the union's membership, and joining the union is essentially joining an echo chamber of the above. Furthermore, there is not a particularly strong incentive to join in the first place, since membership in the union's voting block is not membership in a majority or even a significant minority of employees, but membership within the 'usual people' who tend to float at the pointy end of company gossip. (not the best crowd to run with, IMO).
Many people (myself included) leave my employer due to schedules that essentially commit one to weekend/nights for years on end, many other qualified candidates select other agencies due in part to their more adaptive schedules for all employees, not only the decade + club. This is a shame, because EMSA does legitimately need a fairly steady influx of new employees and does do quite a bit of fairly progressive medicine. Yes, long-time veterans should be rewarded when possible, but when their demands are harmful to the company as a whole, there is very little reason to view them and their organization as anything other than harmful. Union members that subscribe to the "we had to do it, so you do too" train of thought are actively part of the problem- should we bring back hazing too?
Seniority should be rewarded, but there is an obligation that comes with policies like ours that view seniority as the only credential. That obligation is to give new employees (not just new paramedics, but new employees of all certifications) a reason to tolerate the downsides of scheduling. That compensation is not monetary; EMSA will probably never pay enough to offset crappy shifts entirely with money. That generally means taking a page from the military or fire service and actually providing a tangible, real sense of job security and mentoring for new employees and a transition to a schedule that affords even new employees some measure of family-oriented time off. If that manifests itself as "one weekend off a month, to Joe Dinosaur's three", that's quite fair. However, with our current union tossing a fit at anything that changes what they have 'earned', the chances of that happening are low.
We are involved in a contractor bid that will see us either become AMR employees or remain with Paramedics Plus. I do not know who will win, the vote is towards the end of the month. Personally, though, whoever wins, I hope the union breaks.
I will not be joining the EMSA union. It is too small to be effective, too populated with traditionalists and retrogressive paramedics and EMTs for me to have real conversations with their members, and too opposed to my needs with its votes to realistically expect to change. I would rather bargain with management as an individual than as a union member. From my extremely limited interaction with union members, it's better here to simply avoid all talk of the union or what they do and not provoke the 'look down on you because you haven't spent a decade here' crowd. If you have to work with people like this, just show up, prep your truck, work your shift and go home. I've decided that it's not worth the stress to deal with the union, and it's far better to try and improve your work situation as an individual who does not allow unions to taint the relationship between yourself and management than as a member of a union that perpetually obstructs what both the majority of employees and the employer want.
EMTLife, what are your thoughts on unions?