What you need to do is make your own record of instances where management demonstrates a double standard. Where I work, any verbal/written reprimands require two officers present to meet with the employee in private. The Battalion Chief also needs to approve the reprimand. So, that's three people that the write up needs to go through. If you feel that you're being singled out, you can always go to the Deputy Chief. The union will represent you from the start. Represent you, not make the charge go away. If you did wrong, you'll get the write up. The union is there to make sure that you're not being singled out, that you're treated the same as anyone else regarding SOP's.
The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act
- Thread starter 46Young
- Start date
What you need to do is make your own record of instances where management demonstrates a double standard. Where I work, any verbal/written reprimands require two officers present to meet with the employee in private. The Battalion Chief also needs to approve the reprimand. So, that's three people that the write up needs to go through. If you feel that you're being singled out, you can always go to the Deputy Chief. The union will represent you from the start. Represent you, not make the charge go away. If you did wrong, you'll get the write up. The union is there to make sure that you're not being singled out, that you're treated the same as anyone else regarding SOP's.
Did you have any legal recourse?
I feel that that this bill takes what's good about unions and leaves out the worst part. Collective bargaining is the desireable feature. The worst is a strike of any length, and stalled negotiations in general. Under this bill the negotiations will have third party arbitration.
Why I feel collective bargaining is of prime importance is due to the position my former employers have taken towards labor. I don't remember the exact terminology, but it was written that the needs of the dept will ultimately supercede those of the employee. That says it all right there. They let you know that whatever needs you have outside of work, such as child care issues, the need for paid time off, being mandated forced OT when fatigued, schedulee changes that conflict with family/education responsibilities, and so on are secondary to what the dept needs.
Collective bargaining doesn't mean that you'll do away with every one of admin's policies. Labor will be able to negotiate, however. Give and take. Labor and management ought to be a partnership, not a dictatorship, be it one by management, or one by the union, either. Compromise by both sides is the ideal.
For example, back in Charleston SC, their EMS had many undesireable policies. To be approved for paid time off, it was necessary to have another employee agree to work your spot. Otherwise, the time off is disapproved. On paper, ther policy refers to staffing ratios in approving OT, but everyone knows what the real policy is. We can be held for up to 24 extra hours following a 24 hour shift, every shift if necessary. We need to be available twice monthly to be on call for a 12 hour block. We can't leave the area, and must come in to so the shift. No extra stipend for being available. Training and inservices are on days off. If mandated for OT, that training will need to be done on another day off. We're made available the instant we pull up at the ED. We can do multiple calls with having no e-PCR's done. I've spent the morning and afternoon of my forced 24 trying to play catch-up more times than I care to remember, and doing the same after the 48 hour shift. When being promoted, you interview with the director and he decides who gets promoted. Schedules are changed for everyone every six months, except for the station LT.
With collective bargaining, a contract may look like this: A restructuring of the 24/48 to a WOWOWOOOO, so that you can't do more than 36 consecutive hours. No forced OT when you're scheduled an inservice. No mandated OT if you schedule 48 hours each month. You go inservice when your PCR is finished. A restructuring of the paid time off policy where time will be approved if the staffing ratio allows. A stipend must be given if we're to be on call, not just the OT if you're called in. Schedules will change mainly by employee request. A freeze in pay steps, or perhaps a giveback of a few days of paid time off could be given in return.
There's still forced OT for only 12 hours at a clip.
Why I feel collective bargaining is of prime importance is due to the position my former employers have taken towards labor. I don't remember the exact terminology, but it was written that the needs of the dept will ultimately supercede those of the employee. That says it all right there. They let you know that whatever needs you have outside of work, such as child care issues, the need for paid time off, being mandated forced OT when fatigued, schedulee changes that conflict with family/education responsibilities, and so on are secondary to what the dept needs.
Collective bargaining doesn't mean that you'll do away with every one of admin's policies. Labor will be able to negotiate, however. Give and take. Labor and management ought to be a partnership, not a dictatorship, be it one by management, or one by the union, either. Compromise by both sides is the ideal.
For example, back in Charleston SC, their EMS had many undesireable policies. To be approved for paid time off, it was necessary to have another employee agree to work your spot. Otherwise, the time off is disapproved. On paper, ther policy refers to staffing ratios in approving OT, but everyone knows what the real policy is. We can be held for up to 24 extra hours following a 24 hour shift, every shift if necessary. We need to be available twice monthly to be on call for a 12 hour block. We can't leave the area, and must come in to so the shift. No extra stipend for being available. Training and inservices are on days off. If mandated for OT, that training will need to be done on another day off. We're made available the instant we pull up at the ED. We can do multiple calls with having no e-PCR's done. I've spent the morning and afternoon of my forced 24 trying to play catch-up more times than I care to remember, and doing the same after the 48 hour shift. When being promoted, you interview with the director and he decides who gets promoted. Schedules are changed for everyone every six months, except for the station LT.
With collective bargaining, a contract may look like this: A restructuring of the 24/48 to a WOWOWOOOO, so that you can't do more than 36 consecutive hours. No forced OT when you're scheduled an inservice. No mandated OT if you schedule 48 hours each month. You go inservice when your PCR is finished. A restructuring of the paid time off policy where time will be approved if the staffing ratio allows. A stipend must be given if we're to be on call, not just the OT if you're called in. Schedules will change mainly by employee request. A freeze in pay steps, or perhaps a giveback of a few days of paid time off could be given in return.
There's still forced OT for only 12 hours at a clip.
A good one management needs to be proactive instead of reactive. Drug testing after the fact solves nothing not to mention where then does it stop? Im i unfit for duty if i take anti depressants? should they be privy to my medical history, While i dont do drugs or drink on the job there are instances when they can order a drug screen as spelled out in the contract. but even more important this is an issue for the local to deal with it may be warrented in this case. The point of the bill is designed around making sure that the management in this case city officals are held accountable when decisions about public safety are made, and they need a good reason for changing poicies that affect the safety of the members and community. There are countless instances of guys speaking out against politicians during campaigns, council meetings being fired or prosecuted for bringing up valid safety issues. It is much easier for the politicians to silence one person than a group. You may not see examples of this much in small municipalities but it is a large problem. Google a city of detroit council meeting and watch the embarassment. The former mayor of D.C. was aressted for smoking crack while he held office, the mayor of detroit is now in prision steming from a murder investigation at his inaugrual party, and he fired a police chief for persuing an investigation..... these are the people in power to make decisions and sometimes ones that affect public safety does that bother you? there are cons to unions just like everything else but look at the bigger picture.
JPINFV
Gadfly
- 12,681
- 197
- 63
Because there are no shady union officials? Because IAFF didn't silence oppositon to the KC MAST merger, upto threatening to fire "members" and "brothers" who didn't want to be fire fighters? Ever single bad point about government officials can be turned around and said about union officials. Unions are not some sort of panacea that solves every and all labor problems.
I see it as a catch-22 of sorts.
As I've said earlier, the Bill is about allowing a group of employees (aka bargaining unit) to have the ability to sit down with their employer and discuss their working conditions and collectively make decisions regarding them. Is that really such a bad thing?
My union is concerned about adequate fire protection as well as adequate EMS services. They are also concerned about jobs, membership, and money. These are not mutually exclusive.
I know of all the negative aspects to unionization, as evidenced by the UAW and such. There can be much corruption, waste, and can allow members to do the bare minimum and still remain employed and get promotions/raises.
The thing is, I've also seen firsthand how workers can be treated when there is no union. The favoritism, double standards in discipline and promotion among other things, punitive treatment such as schedule changes and station reassignments, inability to use sick leave for children or a spouse, unlimited forced OT, even when you have vacation scheduled, pay cuts, changes to benefits and retirement, working conditions and such where the employee's needs are not considered. "The needs of the dept come before the needs of the individual" is their typical mantra, as well as "The employee reserves the right to terminate their employment with the dept at any time, for any reason, and we reserve the right to do the same." Seriously? Anyone can quit whenever they want, they don't need to sign an agreement stating such. That document is one of many policies that benefit the employer at the expense of the employee.
Why I say catch-22 is that on the one hand, without collective bargaining, the employer can write policies as they see fit, without opposition. An employer can be a great place to work at the present, but they can change any of their provisions, SOP's, etc to suit their needs. That's my issue. There's nothing to stop an employer from chenging what they were offering when you took the job. At my old hospital, they did away with pensions and gave everyone a flat 10k and started a 403b. How does that affect the 10 year employee who didn't contribute to their deferred comp or IRA's since they had a pension, which may have been why they started working there instead of a municipal employer?
On the other hand, with unions you can have that job security (except for layoffs, of course, but that can happen anywhere), guaranteed contracts that are not subject to change unless agreed upon by the union, a fair and impartial promotional process, and protection from management. But with that may come all the corruption, higher cost per employee, protection of the lazy, strikes, forcing relocation of companies out of country due to cost, etc.
My feeling is that this bill is about as happy a medium as there can be. You have your collective bargaining, and arbitration is done through a third party. Both sided have to accept whatever the result is. We can't strike, so no one gets hurt in the process. There would be no lockout due to stalled negotiations. The bill simply allows labor to partner with the employer to make decisions involving work issues instead of having to accept whatever the employer decides. No questionable policy changes, as the contract would be binding for both sides.
Edit: If I had to choose, I'm going to go with the safe, secure, well paying career with ample opportunity for career advancement and education. With a family to support, that's my main focus. Everything else is secondary. Everything. If I have to deal with a few slugs, at work, then that's acceptable to me. We have our ways of dealing with them, as well as progressive discipline. How many people are out of work, have lost their homes, have taken huge pay cuts, or have been made to do twice the work they were previously? I don't need to worry about that .
Last edited by a moderator:
well said 46 and no unions are not the end all be all the piont of the bill is to allow the right to organize they have plenty of bad points as well but half the problem is that some will never get it. and may you have a safe and happy career where you never need the protection a union provides. Its easy to point fingers from the sidelines and not get involved to change things. Just because life is all well and good where you work forget about where it isn't, let them fend for themselves. Any unoin is only as good as the members make it. and there plenty who stay uninvolved. many site "bad experiences" with a local but how many of you ran for a position? the bill simply allows for unions to exist in those states that do not currently recognize them leaving public safety with no recourse. If you dont like it then don't join or better yet join and work to change those negative aspects but that requires effort.
mycrofft
Still crazy but elsewhere
- 11,322
- 48
- 48
Expect a lot of agencies to hire people part time, per diem, or, in gov., contract.
They've been doing that with nurses for years.
They've been doing that with nurses for years.