Unions????

[8jimi8]

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]

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]

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.

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

Definitely need itemized skill based compensation.

 

[DrParasite]

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

.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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

...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]

This about sums it up.

this

 

[JPINFV]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?