USA9 is reporting that Prince George's county is replacing paid professional firefighters with
volunteer firefighters.

I'm all for Volunteer firefighters in areas where there usually isn't much of a choice, like the township I grew up in back in Ohio. Because of a variety of reasons, my township had a volunteer fire and rescue squad, but it was never staffed 100% of the time. There weren't enough volunteers for this nor housing or funding. Volunteers got called in when something happened. And these guys (all were men when I grew up) lived close to the fire hall. In rural areas, this doesn't sound like a bad idea, but in Prince Georges county?

9NEWS NOW made it from the Calverton Fire Station to an ambulance call on nearby Evans Trail in about 90-seconds after Willie Smith's niece called 911. PGFD Chief Spokesman Mark Brady confirms it took about 8-minutes for the closest ambulance to arrive on the scene. It was staffed by volunteers from Branchville about 4-miles away.

8 minutes doesn't sound too bad to me for emergency response time, but in PG county, it doesn't actually sound that good. I lived only 3 miles from the fire hall in rural Ohio. And this was on the edge of the township. PG should be able to do better than rural Ohio. Again, from USA9 (local CBS news).

With limited money available to pay out overtime, Prince George's County says it can't staff fire stations with paid firefighters the way it used to. Brady says, "We are trying to make the best use of the resources we have".

Best use of resources?

County officials say that worked in at least four stations on Wednesday, but as 9NEWS NOW confirmed the Calverton Fire Station was left unstaffed throughout the day.

PG county should hire new firefighters and stop relying on Overtime. Maybe then, PG can staff the firehouses, 'cause it's not looking as if they're doing it now, "volunteers" or not.

Read More...

I've been struggling with what to say about the incestuous bias in the media against the UAW through the media's repetition of Right Wing lies, distortions and avarice. Problem is that I didn't really know how to sum it up. To boil it down to what I really wanted to say or maybe it was how I wanted to say it.

Until today.

I was over at Dailykos and noticed a comment in a diary on the Bridge loan to automakers:

The lazy, overpaid autoworker stereotype is outdated and tiresome. Just like any other industry, we have our share of slackers, but the overwhelming majority of our workforce "bring it" every day.

You say the UAW needs to accept concessions to help solve this crisis. Apparently you haven't been paying attention for the last 20 years or so. The companies have been asking for and receiving concessions for the last several contracts. The most recent contract allows for a nearly 50% lower wage for the next generation of workers, while also removing health care costs from the company books.

Apparently that's not enough. You want to see us all out of work.

The bottom line is that while the UAW and management have played a part in the past mistakes, both have been working to ensure a solid future for the industry for years.

Over that same time the government has done nothing to help regarding affordable health care, balanced trade and tax incentives that reward companies for keeping jobs here instead of outsourcing. The middle class (led by the unions) tried to sound the alarm years ago. Unfortunately, nobody listened because of their anti-union prejudices.

The comment comes from a 29 year veteran of an assembly line, a UAW member, in the Detroit Free Press.

There is so much anti-union blather out there in the ether that it’s hard to cut threw it and make sense of anything sometimes. Here, on Uniongal, we try to do that. We try to find a way to remind each reader that there is something bigger than the ether, than the anti-union comments you read or the blatant anti-worker bias in the media. There’s something so much bigger out there, it’s solidarity.

This weekend, I read a similar thread on .UnionReview and commented:

We do fight back. Everyday you remember that there are brothers and sisters in your union, you beat folks like National Review. Everytime you talk to some random person about what it means to be in a union, what it means to have brothers and sisters in the stuggle are always victories against these jack asses.
Solidarity means that we come together and everytime we do, they are afraid and when they are afraid, they will take a brush and with broad strokes, they will paint us with the actions they themselves take.
So, when you read their comments and they make their statements, say what you have to, clearly, loudly and with the strength and honesty of those who have come before all of us. From the women at the Triangle Shirt Factory to Wesley Everest and to the current struggles for representation so many are fired for trying to obtain.
And when you do speak, know that you're not alone. We're all with you.
In Solidarity
Uniongal

It was something small. Nothing I haven’t felt or meant to say in the past. It’s just that I don’t think I’ve really thought about it. About what it really means to fight for workers, I just do it. It’s a part of who I am.

Fighting for my brothers and sisters in labor is just something I do, naturally. I have never stopped to think about it and I’m sure many of you haven’t either. I don’t care about the infighting, the dirty laundry, the poaching from one union to another union; it just doesn’t matter as long as workers can bargain, collectively.

Then I met someone who made me actually stop and think about it. I’ve thought about the why and this came about not through the Big 3 or through the constant anti-union sentiments about the UAW or IAM (from the Boeing strike) or how Andrea Mitchell and Tom Brokaw shill for the anti Employee Free Choice Act every chance they get. I started to think about it on Saturday.

You see, I went out with a new friend on Saturday. He's really an absolutely amazing person, just being near him makes me feel this unbelievable electrical jolt, you know, that feeling, when you remember why you do what you do? That jolt from the passion that is taking on the system, or fighting the good fight?

He’d shared some stuff on being a firefighter and me, well, I’ve never been much of a fan of IAFF. On a scale from one to 10 and 10 being my love for my former union (you all know I was a Teamster, right?) and 1 being my feelings toward Right Wingers, IAFF was about a 3, okay, maybe a 4.

But this guy out of the blue had me thinking about stuff. I’m not a retrospective girl. I like things to be clear, kind of orderly and since I’d made up my mind on IAFF, I really just didn’t think of them in the same way that I did IBEW, UFCW, UFW, UNITE-HERE and many others, I just didn’t.

So, he’s read my blog and he and I have had a couple of side conversations about the IAFF. He's told me about the The Secret List.
and how he's seen too many firefighters injured due to new construction issues. He’s talked about how industry standards are so low now, that during a fire, you can’t always head into a building because the materials used in new construction are so flimsy that you fall threw floors or ceilings collapse and roofs as well. Just yesterday, a Firefighter on Staten Island lost his life while battling a blaze when the roof collapsed.


But this weekend for me was different. It started out like any other weekend, busy and then, he sent me an e-mail about solidarity.

Solidarity.

IAFF is as much a brother in the struggle as the 29 year veteran of GM.

Today, I’m reminded of what it is I fight, for my brothers and sisters and there’s no rest on the horizon for any of us and yeah, I also mean you right wingers who idolize the likes of Rick Berman. Be prepared to fight, because I am.

I am now, more than ever, clear that what we need is just a little concept called solidarity.

To my brothers and sisters in Labor, Uniongal Salutes you. And yep, I mean you all in IAFF, too. You’re now a 10 in my book.

Read More...

Are you a Firefighter? Are you searching the tubes looking for debate about IAFF’s endorsement of that Obama guy? Are you looking for why they’d do this?

Well, the answer is simple, he supports a worker’s right to organize.

In a recent AP article now available on line through the Washington Post, Senator Biden had this to say about the Employee Free Choice Act:

Biden also read comments attributed to McCain in a trade publication in which he called for reducing regulation for health insurance markets the way the banking industry was deregulated in the past 10 years. Obama referred to the same comments during his appearance in Florida.

That approach, Biden said, would expose health coverage for workers to the disastrous results that subprime mortgages wrought on the lending industry.

McCain spokesman Ben Porritt responded to Biden's criticisms by saying Obama supports "taking away a worker's right to secret ballots. John McCain wants to protect the democratic rights of those who unionize by preserving their ability to choose and vote freely."

Actually, the bill supported by Obama and opposed by McCain would make it easier to unionize. The bill would allow employees to form a union when a majority in the workplace sign union cards, without having to go through a second step _ a secret ballot vote that companies now can demand. Many employers oppose the bill because they say workers who don't want a union could be intimidated into signing up for one without the cover of a secret ballot.

I’ve been watching a notable uptick in google searches for “IAFF Obama endorsement” and I thought, let’s take a look at the Firehouse forum and tackle some of the issues on their site and why IAFF is now out there trying to convince their membership to vote their best interest:

Let’s start with Scarecrow57

ScareCrow57
vbmenu_register("postmenu_978790", true);


Forum Member

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 632
What amazes me is that any union would endorse a candidate who proposes to take more money from the working class to give it to the poor. It should be more about what will this candidate do for my union members. Just one more reason to hate unions.

A return comment really broke it down pretty damn well:

scfire86
vbmenu_register("postmenu_978795", true);


Forum Member


Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: HB
Posts: 4,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScareCrow57
What amazes me is that any union would endorse a candidate who proposes to take more money from the working class to give it to the poor. It should be more about what will this candidate do for my union members. Just one more reason to hate unions.
I read some of the comparisions on the website. I'll look for other sources but I believe that is exactly what occurred.McCain supports placing firefighters into the Social Security which would be an immediate hit of about 16% on income. He wants to overturn FLSA which would have an impact on how overtime is calculated.Most curious to me is his opposition to defined benefit pension plans. He campaigned here in CA to support an initiative that would have demolished defined benefit plans in 2005. It lost. The Governor has expressed regret over supporting the issue but McCain has not. What is curious to me is his belief in this matter given that he collects a pension for his years of service as a naval officer and qualifies for another as a legislator. If he believes defined benefit pension plans are so wrong why isn't he now advocating eliminating them for federal workers. Especially those in the DoD?Like it or not, he has a record of opposing what I call very much bread and butter issues for working people.
__________________1-20-09.....End of an error.

Scarecrow seems to equate (and does in other posts on this forum site and in this thread) Democrats to taking money from the middle class to give it to the poor. This is blatantly untrue. Yes, we all have a responsibility to ensure that our friends, neighbors and family members don’t suffer; that where ever we can, we lift them up; but that doesn’t mean that it should be done at the loss of another group. I’m all for repealing the Bush tax breaks that were given to the ubber rich. And I’m straight up for an inheritance tax for estates that exceed $250k. Capital gains should also be taxed especially since that isn’t money you’ve earned, but rather, it’s money received.

If scarecrow is a unionized firefighter, he lacks a grasp of the very issues that SCFire addresses, pensions, overtime calculations, and bargaining rights (addressed in later posts). And it is this lack of understanding of these issues that actually makes me think that he isn’t a firefighter at all, or at the very least, isn’t a unionized firefighter (think those without collective bargaining rights or perhaps volunteers).

What I also find fascinating in the Scarecrow’s comments are his complete ignorance of the Republican domination of Congress since 1994. Congress, not the President, controls the purse strings of the government. Congress approves the budget and passes it. It is congress who apportions money to states for infrastructure, Medicaid, SChip, schools and an entire host of things that can be added to this list. The services provided to Scarecrow through his locality may in fact have been funded through community block grants or municipal bonds, partially made available (or entirely) through funding from the Federal Government.

Then there’s comments from the genius who writes as TXGP17 (he’s from the North Carolina)

I am a member of the IAFF, but on a personal level, I'm anti-compulsory-Union. In my State, it's open shop, or voluntary. I choose to be member to take advantage of some of the benefits offered by them, such as legal representation in the event of a motor vehicle crash. My Union has no collective bargaining ability.

A closed shop or union shop monopolizes the workforce, which leads to an inefficient cost of services. This produces higher wages at the expense of fewer jobs or excessive costs to the customer.

Not everything a Union does is golden. Look at some of the things that have happened in Boston. The Union opposed the Firefighters being drug tested. Maybe I didn't read enough details, but that's still hard to comprehend...

What I especially love about his post are the links at the bottom where he refers to Senator Obama as Barack Hussein Obama, because his middle name makes him a terrorist, obviously. This poster is really interesting. He’s posting on a Firefighter’s site about IAFF but then goes on to spout right-wing anti union talking points. What I find most interesting is the reference to closed shops.

In a closed shop, all employees are members of the union. When I was a Teamster, I worked in a closed shop. This is the fairest possible advocacy. Unions fight for the rights of everyone in that workplace through collective bargaining. When workers benefit from those negotiations without having to pay dues, well, it’s just plain wrong. In an “open shop” employees don’t have to pay dues to the union, however, the union then also has a balancing act to deal with in terms of numbers. They need to maintain 50%+1 to remain a union which is the situation my nurse friend is in a they have 53% of the nurses in the union. All the nurses in the hospital benefit from the collective bargaining and work that the union has done in terms of leave, patient ratios and benefits, but only 53% of the workforce who benefits from that work pays for the work. And this just sucks.

I’m always fascinated with the anti-union comments from wingers. Most of the time, they are the kind of out of touch comments I’ve come to hear so often from the Limbaugh and Hannity set that I just have to walk away. In the end, it’s just no use bothering because they simply don’t get the idea of solidarity. The concept that we’re all in this together and that together, we have power.

What I like about reading posts on the Firehouse is that there are a number of Democratic firefighters (these are the only ones I’ve ever known) who are willing to combat the egregious behavior and sheer ignorance of many on the Firehouse Site. They engage writers in discussion and hold their ground with links, facts and unbiased evidence and my favorite example of this kind of forthright discussion appeared in this same Obama endorsement thread:

scfire86
vbmenu_register("postmenu_981902", true);


Forum Member


Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: HB
Posts: 4,637

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScareCrow57
The economy is a slow chaotic system. Policy changes do not have an immediate effect. If the government decides to invest more in the nations businesses through tax breaks and incentives it will take several years to show. Just the annual budgetary process and strategic planning will slow things down. Probably the most recent evidence of this was the stimulus checks. While I welcome the cut in taxes these checks will do nothing unless it becomes a permanent reduction.

According to you we won't know the effects for another 10 - 15 years. I love how prosperity under a Dem is the result of actions taken 15 years earlier by a GOP, but a decline in the economy is the instantaneous reaction to a Dem's policies. It's the best of both worlds. Unfortunately it is a total fallacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScareCrow57
Nope, we had absolutely no business being there, those people did absolutely nothing to the U.S.

Same as Iraq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScareCrow57
Absolutely self inflicted. He chose to have an affair with a little girl while being sued in a civil court for sexual harassment. He then made the matter worse by lying in a court of law.

And no one cared except folks like you. Also, could you explain why conservatives believe perjury is such a big deal? Their subsequent reactions to those GOPs who have committed the act have been non-existent. Yet they were outraged (OUTRAGED I TELL YOU) when Clinton did it. And he was ultimately acquitted of all the bogus charges brought against him. Something that didn't occur with the GOP. Bush commuted the individual's sentence and there were praises instead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScareCrow57
The 9-11 commision

Where? What's funny is your own contradictions. Earlier you criticized Clinton for taking military to take attention off his personal issues resulting from an overzealous Special Prosecutor. Then you criticize him for not taking action to combat terrorism. When he did go after Bin Laden folks like you accused him of "wagging the dog." Sen. Phil Gramm (R-TX) responded to the cruise missile attacks which barely missed Bin Laden as Clinton's pursuit of "something unimportant." Your statements only continue to prove your lack of any understanding. You should stick to what you know. Which is a mystery at this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScareCrow57
Yes, by doing nothing and failing to provide proper oversight. Bush found it and shut it done quickly.

That's a hoot and a half. Enron melted down internally when it's overgrown Ponzi scheme imploded. Bush had nothing to do with it. To the contrary, the Bush administration sought the advice of Enron executives in the formulation of its energy policy. Which has given us $4/gal gas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScareCrow57
Job security in the public sector is the exact reason a lot of government workers are slackers. Those are my tax dollars at waste

Welcome to America. There are many things I pay for that I don't like. I do my part knowing that with all its faults its still the best place to live. Whenever I've asked folks like you to point me to a place with a better quality of life and has lower taxes I get no answer.

If you’re looking for a discussion on the issues, the Firehouse forum probably isn’t for you, however, if you’re a firefighter and maybe looking for some discussions and interesting ones at that, I’d suggest that you add your voice to Firehouse. It’s really very entertaining and could really use some more voices of Solidarity.

Read More...

McCain gets Graham to stick it to first responders and their union representatives then tries to get IAFF to endorse him? Yep, it’s true, he’s McSame, nothing new here, well, nothing new except for once IAFF didn’t take the bait.

Immediately before voting on several GOP-sponsored amendments to the bill, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) attempted to attach Senator John McCain’s (R-AZ) GI Bill of Rights Bill to S.2123, a move designed both to sidetrack debate on the bill and boost the candidacy of presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

I rarely agree with IAFF, or maybe it just feels that way, however, reading their endorsement made me, well, not just excited but gave me points that might actually work on my dad, here, take a read:

“Once Senator Dodd stepped aside, we needed to talk to our members, gauge the candidates and examine their positions on the issues critical to fire fighters. Senator Obama has shown fire fighters nothing but support – in the Illinois state senate and in the U.S. Senate,” Schaitberger said.

In addition to collective bargaining rights, the economy emerged as a key concern among fire fighters, according to a poll conducted in June of IAFF members by Zogby.

The poll also found fire fighters believe Senator Obama will be a more effective president on economic issues for working people like them, by a margin of 63 percent to 23 percent.

Senator Obama also supports the right of fire fighters to collect overtime pay, a right established by the Fair Labor Standards Act, while Senator McCain has indicated he favors appointing judges to the federal bench who may overturn court decisions that guarantee overtime pay to fire fighters and other rights outlined in the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Senator McCain’s opposition to collective bargaining for fire fighters was negatively received by 74 percent of fire fighters, according to the Zogby poll, and his vow to appoint judges who would overturn court decisions that ensure overtime pay was viewed negatively by 71 percent of fire fighters.

Senator Obama opposes forcing fire fighters into Social Security and wants to strengthen the system of employer-provided health care that fire fighters earn.

Senator McCain’s health care plan encourages elimination of employer-sponsored health care, preferring to place the burden on individuals to find and purchase their own health care. Employees who do continue to get health care coverage through their employers would have to pay taxes on those benefits. McCain has refused to sign a letter opposing mandatory Social Security coverage for fire fighters, a change that would impose an additional payroll tax on first responders.

Senator Obama has also worked to increase funding for the SAFER grant program, which provides funding to local jurisdictions to hire fire fighters. Senator McCain has sided with the Bush administration in its attempts to zero out that program.

BTW, Dodd was also my first choice. But like IAFF, I’m not only okay with Obama, I’M THRILLED!! Go, Obama, GO!!

If you get a minute, head over to IAFF and check out the entire endorsement and their endorsement video. I'd also suggest you hear Schaitberger, it's long, but I can't think of anything I don't agree with, like he says, it's your union. The union belongs to the membership. I think we all should remember that more often.

Read More...

Labourstart has a story up from the Chicago Tribune. The story is about how the Democratic nominee for governor isn't getting the kind of support from unions that she should at this point due to in fighting. I get it. SEIU backed her (Thompson) and the UAW backed her opponent...Thompson won. Either support her or get the kind of crap you've gotten out of Daniels, like the loss of collective bargaining rights for public sector employees in Indiana.

After reading the article and feeling that the UAW and the local AFL-CIO just don't get it, I found this little ditty tucked into the end of the story:

Daniels, meanwhile, has garnered some union support of his own, including individual leaders in various building trades, the Professional Firefighters Union of Indiana and the Indiana Fraternal Order of Police.

Cam Savage, spokesman for Daniels' campaign, said the biggest reason behind their union success is that people see Daniels is creating jobs.

"There is plenty of room in this movement for anyone who wants Indiana to get on track and succeed," Savage said.

The unions that would get the most out of collective bargaining, Police and Firefighters are supporting a Republican, again. Reminds me of the fight in 2006 to get Sherrod Brown elected to the Senate in Ohio. The locals and firefighters all over the state were supporting Sherrod, campaigning for him, holding fundraisers, and just getting out and getting the vote out. But the national leadership who'd cultivated a "relationship" with DeWine wanted IAFF to support DeWine, so they did, despite what their membership wanted.

So, I'm curious, are firefighters and police supporting Daniels in this race, or is it their leadership? And if that answer is leadership, then isn't it time to change the leadership? I'm just saying, maybe first responders should take a look at who the union's been supporting lately and think about how that works for and against them.

Oh, and UAW, grow up. Support Thompson now. Pissing contests with SEIU serve no one's agenda, except maybe people like Daniels.

Read More...

Well, I hope the AFL-CIO doesn't mind me cross posting their stuff, cause I'm going to do it anyway:

The U.S. Senate today moved a step closer to approving legislation that would protect the collective bargaining rights of tens of thousands of firefighters, police officers, emergency medical technicians and other public safety officers.

By a 69–29 vote, the Senate killed a filibuster led by several extreme anti-worker Republican senators against the workers’ rights bill. Eighteen Republicans joined all Democrats in backing the move to end the filibuster. The vote on final passage is expected later this week.

Some 20 states do not fully protect the bargaining rights of firefighters, police officers and other first responders. Two states—Virginia and North Carolina—prohibit public safety employees from collectively bargaining.

With final passage near certain, the only thing that stands in the first responders’ path to securing the workplace rights most other workers enjoy is a veto threat from the Bush administration. But today’s veto-proof vote, coupled with last July’s 314–97 House vote, provides more than the two-thirds majority needed in each chamber to overturn a veto.

Says Fire Fighters (IAFF) President Harold Schaitberger:

More than 80,000 of our brother and sister firefighters in more than 20 states do not currently enjoy basic employment rights. This bill will ensure that every firefighter has the right to collectively bargain.

The bill, the Public Safety Employee-Employer Cooperation Act of 2007 (H.R. 980), guarantees first responders:

The right to join a union.
The right to have their union recognized by their employer.
The right to bargain collectively over hours, wages and terms and conditions of employment.
A mediation or arbitration process for resolving an impasse in negotiations.
Enforcement of the bill’s provisions through the courts.
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) says:

Fairness means firefighters and police officers having a voice at the table in life-and-death discussions about their work. They know best how to do their jobs effectively, efficiently and safely. Everyone benefits when they’re given the chance to share that knowledge at the bargaining table.

But last week in a letter to Senate leaders, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff wrote they will suggest that President Bush veto the bill. In addition to the veto threat, the trio wrote that if first responders were allowed to join unions, it would hinder the nation’s ability to respond to terrorist and other threats.

Says AFL-CIO President John Sweeney:

This claim impugns the integrity of first responders who risked and sacrificed their lives on 9/11 and in the aftermath of Katrina. Every one of the 343 firefighters who perished at Ground Zero was a card-carrying union member.

In a May 12 response to the letter by Chao, Mukasey and Chertoff, Schaitberger said:

Your decision to attack the integrity of America’s firefighters cannot be left unanswered. Claiming that the legislation will hinder the nation’s ability to respond to terrorist attacks is both factually inaccurate and offensive. Every one of the 343 firefighters who perished at Ground Zero on September 11, 2001, was a card-carrying union member who enjoyed collective bargaining rights. Most of the responders to the horrific tragedy were not even on duty that day. They simply did what firefighters always do: They put their own safety at risk to save the lives of others.

The same is true of the courageous responders to Hurricane Katrina. Despite losing their own homes and fearing for the security of their own families, union firefighters waded into the toxic floodwaters for days on end searching for survivors. To suggest that their collectively bargained contracts hindered these life-saving efforts flies in the face of reality.

Says Kennedy:

Collective bargaining is good for our national security, and it’s good for public safety officers. These heroic men and women deserve more than just our gratitude and respect. They deserve the right to be treated fairly on the job

The reason this is so important is that even when unions exist for firefighters, they still run into cities and other municipalities screwing them over kind of like the way that Calitics pointed out 2 months ago and CBS also ran a story on it...

Vallejo Fire Department temporarily closed two fire stations on Thursday in a deal with its firefighters union aimed at helping the city avoid bankruptcy, officials said.

>snip<

Firefighters described the closings as a sad situation.

"Everyone's moving, everyone's getting new crews and we're all going to get a lot busier," said Fire Capt. Eric Diaz, who had been working out of station 22.

In addition to the closure of the fire stations, minimum staffing levels will be reduced from 28 firefighters to 22 firefighters per day as well as staffing reductions in Fire Administration, Fire Prevention and Fire Training Divisions, officials said.

From the Vallejo Firefighters local 1186

City Hall has not rescinded the paramedic layoffs - they have simply postponed their decision. Threatening lay-offs is an attempt to force firefighters to agree to the city's demand to reduce Vallejo 's minimum staffing requirement. Even paramedics who may lose their jobs will never agree to cut minimum staffing, because any cuts would jeopardize the safety of their fellow firefighters and the public. Firefighters took this job to protect the public, and they will gladly lose their jobs for the same reason - if City Hall persists in their threats.

To protect the city, we must have a combined total of 28 firefighters scheduled daily. The City wants to eliminate 4 positions per day. This would take us from 28 to 24 firefighters per shift. These cuts mean shutting down the ladder truck, closing additional engines/stations, laying off 13 paramedics, and an emergency services coordinator.

Communities like Vallejo have opted for lower taxes. Maintaining lower taxes means less revenue to pay for necessary services like Fire and Police. As a mom, this isn't an acceptable level of risk for my family.

A few years ago, my 12 year old was propositioned and then touched by a high school student as she walked home from school. The police in DC were so helpful. Although they never caught the kid who did it, my daughter felt like she had a safe place to go and someone she could call if she were in danger again. Not only did a horrible incident bring about her ability to find help and believe in herself, but it also illuminated for her and I the kind of work that our police do on a daily basis.

I won't try to sugar coat the lack of solidarity I see among 1st responders, it's there. They are called on to turn hoses on protests or to arrest demonstrators and I don't think we need to revisit the images of the recent American Axle Strike rally and a Detroit Police Officer chokeholding a woman crossing the street or the vile things he said to the strikers. There's work to do with First responders. Of course, I think the first step is to make sure that they can be represented by a union. Like the fire fighters in Vallejo. If they hadn't had a union, I have no doubt that the staffing numbers would have been further reduced.

When our safety is concerned, isn't it worth ensuring that 1st responders are able to be represented? I think it is. And now, let's work on that darn solidarity thing. Cause I have to also point out here that in typical McCain fashion, he didn't even bother to show up to vote on this. Clinton and Obama both voted yea. That should speak volumes to every American interested in their safety and it should be even more important to Police, Fire fighters and other first responders who often vote Republican. In the end, who's really got your back?


picture credit: local 1186 website

Read More...

I've been reading Fire on the Mountain again and a comment linked to Calitics. I've read the site before but never really got hooked by it, I mean, I don't live in California. Higgins mentioned that Calitics had some amazing coverage of an issue that is dear to my heart, so I headed over and was more than amazed, I was hooked.

Ah, those greedy firefighters. How dare they ask for a middle-class income? What gives them the idea that they can extort such wages?

Firefighters say their earnings are high because the department is so short-staffed they're forced to work huge amounts of overtime.

Since 2001, 30 firefighters have retired or left the department, and only three have been hired, said Vallejo fire Capt. Jon Riley, vice president of Fire Fighters Union Local 1186. And after rumors of bankruptcy began circulating, 14 more retired, fearing that their benefits and salaries would be cut, he said.

"We're having to work an extraordinary amount of overtime," he said. "We make great salaries, but if you're not able to see your family, what good is it?"

Firefighters typically work 48-hour shifts with four days off between shifts. Many Vallejo firefighters are now forced to work 96-hour shifts with two days off, he said. Sleep deprivation, divorce and child-care complications are common, he said.

"I'd say morale has hit rock bottom," he said. "But we're still committed to providing the highest level of service to the citizens of Vallejo."

Oh. They mean to tell us that firefighting is hard, grueling work, and that they should get fairly compensated for protecting the community?

To most of us, the firefighters' stand is common sense. Fire protection is something you just don't skimp on - unless you're Orange County conservatives (more on them in a moment). And it's not as if the firefighters are unwilling to help:

Firefighter union President Kurt Hanke told the council that the union reached an agreement late last week with city negotiators for wage cuts that would have reduced Vallejo's deficit to zero. But he said Tanner on Monday vetoed the deal....Leaders of public safety unions say the salaries of police officers and firefighters are high because they must work large amounts of overtime because of staff shortages. The unions have offered to cut the employees' pay if more officers and firefighters are hired.

Instead Vallejo's leaders prefer to play hardball and blame public safety employees for the city's crisis. And unsurprisingly, nobody in Vallejo seems to be discussing a tax increase to stave off these crippling cuts - which will not only compromise public safety, but further damage the city's economy. Firing workers and cutting everyone else's pay is not exactly going to help Vallejo's restaurants and small businesses weather the storm.

So, having read all of this, I went to the IAFF site and was disappointed, there's no mention of this. This city is using first responders as bargaining chips. I wonder if the Farm Bill's IAFF amendment had been passed in December, if this city would still be able to be such asses.

Prior to beginning debate on the Farm bill, the Senate unanimously agreed that each political party would be allowed to offer up to 20 amendments to the bill on any topic they chose, as long as those amendments were approved by a super-majority of 60 Senators. The two leading sponsors of the IAFF’s bargaining bill — Senators Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) — jointly agreed that the the collective bargaining bill would be offered as a Democratic amendment.

After more than two dozen amendments were debated and voted on, Democrats moved to bring up our amendment. To the surprise of leaders of both parties, anti-labor senators, led by Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Mike Enzi (R-WY), refused to honor the unanimous consent agreement which would allow the Senate to consider the amendment. Additionally, they vowed to engage in parliamentary guerilla tactics to tie the Senate in knots.

Complicating the process, five key Senate supporters of the collective bargaining proposal are spending most of their time in Iowa and New Hampshire as they run for president. DeMint and Enzi knew that the IAFF would have a hard time meeting the 60-vote threshold without Senators Biden, Clinton, Dodd, McCain and Obama. While the presidential candidates had agreed to return to Washington last night, canceling their scheduled events for a significant portion of today to vote on the amendment this morning, there was no way the Senate leadership on both sides of the aisles could put the presidential campaigns on hold to remain in Washington indefinitely.

Of the list of Senators who "supported" collective bargaining rights for firefighters, only McCain is from a right-to-not-work state. Fascinating. He'd go against the will of his constituents in Arizona and support the collective bargaining rights of firefighters? Good thing his freidns DeMint and Enzi stepped in and made sure he didn't have to prove this. How very convenient.

Mr. McCain, if you support collective bargaining rights for firefighters, you should support them for all workers and you should also ensure that first responders aren't painted with a bright red target symbol by city councils.

Read More...