Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 51
  1. #21
    the 4-1-4 Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    We can argue paid or unpaid, but he is not on a rig or even pulling light duty in an office until it's confirmed - which in that case he is fired - or cleared.

    Funny, I never mentioned paid or otherwise, at least you continue to show your foolishness.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Sorry, but if watching a guy lose a job because he brings a drug issue to the firehouse, or letting my vollie chief know that this guy was drinking 5 minutes before the tone makes me an ******, fine.
    You know, if you were half as smart as you think you are, never mind...

    The fact is that guys who aren't using come up positive. The fact is that mistakes happen in the testing process, and to say otherwise is ignorance, stupidity, or outright lying; which is it for you?

    You made yourself into a self-serving, ignorant mutt well before this topic, make no mistake about that.

    We're not talking about a guy who was boozing five minutes before a run, we're talking about false positives, mistakes in testing accountability, and those effects on a guy, his career and work environment. It happens.


    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    they don't give a damn about me.
    That's what we say about you.


    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I guess I should be worried about constitutional rights as doing what I want in my free time has been taken away by the feds.
    Well, considering that those laws are there for a reason, you should be thankful. Are you so ignorant as to think that your rights are being violated by the FLSA?

    Man, you are one stupid f*ck. Take a look at the history of labor. If you have a positive work environment, without a union representing you, you should be grateful, because people before you endured countless hours of misery and sacrifice so that you could work in a positive work environment.

    You think you would like to work 96 hour work weeks? How about your turnout gear? You like it? Make use of it? You have any fringe benefits there? Enjoy knowing there is workman's comp, or heart and lung, presumptive cancer?
    You are one selfish, self-serving SOB, but you're right, it's only YOUR "civil" rights being violated by not being allowed to volunteer for your employer.

    If it bothers you so much, quit and return to working for free; no one is stopping you.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Don't worry though, as we are being forced into becoming a civil service fire department I'm sure that will be addressed and will no longer be allowed. Employee protections are such wonderful things, ya know.
    Employee protections are wonderful. It's too bad you are too stupid, selfish, and ungrateful to realize it.
    Don't worry, people who have come before us, who forged the way, like my grandfather who pensioned in 1964, they would just say "you're welcome".

    Do you have any clue as to how many civil rights were being violated by employers, before you were prevented from volunteering for your employer? GFY
    Last edited by jasper45; 06-30-2009 at 10:13 PM.


  2. #22
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    You know, if you were half as smart as you think you are, never mind...

    The fact is that guys who aren't using come up positive. The fact is that mistakes happen in the testing process, and to say otherwise is ignorance, stupidity, or outright lying; which is it for you?

    You made yourself into a self-serving, ignorant mutt well before this topic, make no mistake about that.

    We're not talking about a guy who was boozing five minutes before a run, we're talking about false positives, mistakes in testing accountability, and those effects on a guy, his career and work environment. It happens.


    So then, what's your answer? How do we catch the scumbags who come to work hepped up? How do we keep them off the fireground and kick their a**es to the curb where they belong if we don't do random testing? What's your answer? And please don't deny that this is a problem.

    Well, considering that those laws are there for a reason, you should be thankful. Are you so ignorant as to think that your rights are being violated by the FLSA?

    This was an issue that was brought up by a bunch of union ****** who didn't like their union brothers volunteering on the same department on their off-time. This wasn't about Walmart making workers work for free and some corporation seeing a profit because of it. This became an issue because firefighters were volunteering in a fire department. Not making money for anyone but simply serving the community, of their own free will, when they were not getting paid, and nobody was getting hurt by it. That's the problem I have with it. That is why it bothers me so much. And exactly who I am hurting, or any of our other full time personnel hurting, by volunteering in our freetime in a primarily volunteer fire department? The fact is nobody is profiting off what we do in our free time, so please tell me where this massive issue is?

    Is it just the concept that we care so much about what we do that we want to do it beyond our working hours that offends you? Or is it the fact the it stands opposite of what the union says about giving nothing away for free?

    Do you have any clue as to how many civil rights were being violated by employers, before you were prevented from volunteering for your employer

    Again, this whole issue in the fire service came about because a bunch of full-time firefighters wanted to volunteer in the same department and some other fireman got their panties in a wad about it. No sweatshops. No 96-hour workweeks. Just some union guys that somehow felt what their brothers did of their own free will was wrong and they decided to make an issue of it. Something that really wasn't any of their damn business. That is what gets me so fired up about it.

    As far as civil service, we don't need the "employee protections" that come with it, and none of us want it. because we don't need it. We watch firefighters in the 2 area cities use civil service to protect thier asses when they should be fired and get away with crap because "procedures were not followed as specified" even though everyone knows what they did should be a termination. I know this first hand. Sorry, that's not employee protection. That's a bull*** system that does nothing but weaken the fire department by protecting those who screw up and still get to stay on the job. That is the last thing we want or need in our department.

    Civil service will change how we have to run our FD. It will break a system that is far from broken. Right now we provide Class 3 fire protection for far less per resident than any other department in this part of the state. Being forced to go civil service will change that not too far down the line. It likely will drive away volunteers and more than likley will force us to hire additional fulltime employees down the line. That benefits nobody. It certainly does not benefit the FD. It does not benefit the taxpayers who more than likely will see either taxes increase as we have to hire additional fulltime members 5-10 years from now as the vollies leave or will decease services. Either way, the taxpayers lose.

    Right now I can walk into the chief'sa office and be dealt with fairly. I don't need a civil service board to go running to like a little schoolgirl.

    Our system works. And it doesn't require civil service rules and regs. We don't want it and it's being forced on us. That's the damn issue.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 07-01-2009 at 05:35 PM.

  3. #23
    Forum Member BCmdepas3280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    873

    Default

    Good I hope your #4 on the list.......
    IACOJ Membership 2002
    {15}

    Mike IAFF

    The beatings will continue until the morale improves

  4. #24
    the 4-1-4 Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    So then, what's your answer? How do we catch the scumbags who come to work hepped up? How do we keep them off the fireground and kick their a**es to the curb where they belong if we don't do random testing? What's your answer? And please don't deny that this is a problem.
    I can only speak of the issues here, but random testing doesn’t work. No one is against getting people off the job who are dirtballs. There are just too many questions raised with many random policies and testing practices. You obviously have no clue how larger departments get saddled with BS and fairness issues.
    Right now, members are tested when hired, when promoted, or when they’re involved in an accident, or randomly when administration decides they want to implement the policy.

    Mistakes happen, as it is a “low-bid” contract. I’m not willing to trash a guys career needlessly.
    I don’t have the perfect solution, but random doesn’t work and is a waste of money, in many cases. We are trying to come up with a good system that protects the members here.
    Remember, you are talking about taking a guys career away from him, his ability to feed his family, along with years worth of savings and pension; you had damn sure be 100% positive they are a dirtball before you fire them at the most, or trash their reputation, at the least.




    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    This was an issue that was brought up by a bunch of union ****** who didn't like their union brothers volunteering on the same department on their off-time.
    You are clueless, completely clueless. You don’t know or understand the difference between resolution 43 and the FLSA.
    Until you actually are able to discern the difference, there is no point in even “discussing” the issue with you, as it is obviously way over your head.

    What were you saying about ******, again?


    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    No sweatshops. No 96-hour workweeks. Just some union guys that somehow felt what their brothers did of their own free will was wrong and they decided to make an issue of it. Something that really wasn't any of their damn business.
    Again, you’re not understanding the issue at hand. Go back a few years, say to the 1960’s, when the members of this department worked more than a 72 hour work week, earned no over-time and a pittance of a pension, along with a ****-poor workers comp package. The firehouses were borderline “sweat-shops”, with a minimum of pay, poor safety conditions, excessive hours, and very little workers rights.
    That is my damn business.

    The only reason you have a positive work environment at all is due in large part to the FLSA.
    The problem is that you are too arrogant and blinded by ignorance to understand it. It truly is hard to believe that you are an “educator”.


    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Right now I can walk into the chief'sa office and be dealt with fairly.
    And what happens when you can’t do that? You see, unlike you, this is a career for us, and we’re here for 25+ years, with our entire lives and families invested.
    We have non-stop issues with management, who sometimes grinds an axe on a personal issue with members, violate due process rights for an employee, engage in unfair labor practices, and I could go on.
    The FLSA exists for a reason, and you should be grateful. And until you actually learn a little about it, it is pointless to discuss it with you.

    Many places have issues and tension between labor and management, and it would be far, far worse without the FLSA to protect workers rights.

  5. #25
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post

    ........We're not talking about a guy who was boozing five minutes before a run, we're talking about false positives, mistakes in testing accountability, and those effects on a guy, his career and work environment. It happens.


    So then, what's your answer? How do we catch the scumbags who come to work hepped up? How do we keep them off the fireground and kick their a**es to the curb where they belong if we don't do random testing? What's your answer? And please don't deny that this is a problem.
    Yes there's a problem. Probably not as big as you think it is.

    Well, considering that those laws are there for a reason, you should be thankful. Are you so ignorant as to think that your rights are being violated by the FLSA?

    This was an issue that was brought up by a bunch of union ****** who didn't like their union brothers volunteering on the same department on their off-time. This wasn't about Walmart making workers work for free and some corporation seeing a profit because of it. This became an issue because firefighters were volunteering in a fire department. Not making money for anyone but simply serving the community, of their own free will, when they were not getting paid, and nobody was getting hurt by it. That's the problem I have with it. That is why it bothers me so much. And exactly who I am hurting, or any of our other full time personnel hurting, by volunteering in our freetime in a primarily volunteer fire department? The fact is nobody is profiting off what we do in our free time, so please tell me where this massive issue is?

    Is it just the concept that we care so much about what we do that we want to do it beyond our working hours that offends you? Or is it the fact the it stands opposite of what the union says about giving nothing away for free?
    You really aren't very bright. The origins of FLSA has pretty much nothing to do with the fire service. It wasn't about "Union ******" not wanting co-workers to volunteer to do their jobs for free. It was about stopping employers from FORCING workers to work additional hours for no additional pay and other abuses.

    Do you have any clue as to how many civil rights were being violated by employers, before you were prevented from volunteering for your employer

    Again, this whole issue in the fire service came about because a bunch of full-time firefighters wanted to volunteer in the same department and some other fireman got their panties in a wad about it. No sweatshops. No 96-hour workweeks. Just some union guys that somehow felt what their brothers did of their own free will was wrong and they decided to make an issue of it. Something that really wasn't any of their damn business. That is what gets me so fired up about it.
    But it IS their business. For one, how can you effectively negotiate over things like wages and benefits when you have co-workers willing to work for free?

    Second, the "can't volunteer where you work" thing isn't just because of the IAFF.

    As far as civil service, we don't need the "employee protections" that come with it, and none of us want it. because we don't need it. We watch firefighters in the 2 area cities use civil service to protect thier asses when they should be fired and get away with crap because "procedures were not followed as specified" even though everyone knows what they did should be a termination. I know this first hand. Sorry, that's not employee protection. That's a bull*** system that does nothing but weaken the fire department by protecting those who screw up and still get to stay on the job. That is the last thing we want or need in our department.
    Sorry, that is EXACTLY "employee protection" and these situations aren't the fault of "Civil Service". If the administration didn't follow the procedures in the disciplinary process, then it's their own fault that they couldn't discharge the employee.

    Civil service will change how we have to run our FD. It will break a system that is far from broken. Right now we provide Class 3 fire protection for far less per resident than any other department in this part of the state. Being forced to go civil service will change that not too far down the line. It likely will drive away volunteers and more than likley will force us to hire additional fulltime employees down the line. That benefits nobody. It certainly does not benefit the FD. It does not benefit the taxpayers who more than likely will see either taxes increase as we have to hire additional fulltime members 5-10 years from now as the vollies leave or will decease services. Either way, the taxpayers lose.
    Maybe it's an LA thing, but how will "Civil Service" break your system? Civil service stuff is usually about hiring, promoting, etc. So if you now have to do a civil service test to hire, how will that "drive away volunteers"?

    Right now I can walk into the chief'sa office and be dealt with fairly. I don't need a civil service board to go running to like a little schoolgirl.
    That's great, but not everybody is in that same position. At the same time, some of us with civil service jobs can also do the same.

    Exercising your rights isn't about being "like a little schoolgirl".

  6. #26
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    You know, if you were half as smart as you think you are, never mind...

    The fact is that guys who aren't using come up positive. The fact is that mistakes happen in the testing process, and to say otherwise is ignorance, stupidity, or outright lying; which is it for you?

    You made yourself into a self-serving, ignorant mutt well before this topic, make no mistake about that.

    We're not talking about a guy who was boozing five minutes before a run, we're talking about false positives, mistakes in testing accountability, and those effects on a guy, his career and work environment. It happens.


    So then, what's your answer? How do we catch the scumbags who come to work hepped up? How do we keep them off the fireground and kick their a**es to the curb where they belong if we don't do random testing? What's your answer? And please don't deny that this is a problem.

    Well, considering that those laws are there for a reason, you should be thankful. Are you so ignorant as to think that your rights are being violated by the FLSA?

    This was an issue that was brought up by a bunch of union ****** who didn't like their union brothers volunteering on the same department on their off-time. This wasn't about Walmart making workers work for free and some corporation seeing a profit because of it. This became an issue because firefighters were volunteering in a fire department. Not making money for anyone but simply serving the community, of their own free will, when they were not getting paid, and nobody was getting hurt by it. That's the problem I have with it. That is why it bothers me so much. And exactly who I am hurting, or any of our other full time personnel hurting, by volunteering in our freetime in a primarily volunteer fire department? The fact is nobody is profiting off what we do in our free time, so please tell me where this massive issue is?

    Is it just the concept that we care so much about what we do that we want to do it beyond our working hours that offends you? Or is it the fact the it stands opposite of what the union says about giving nothing away for free?

    Do you have any clue as to how many civil rights were being violated by employers, before you were prevented from volunteering for your employer

    Again, this whole issue in the fire service came about because a bunch of full-time firefighters wanted to volunteer in the same department and some other fireman got their panties in a wad about it. No sweatshops. No 96-hour workweeks. Just some union guys that somehow felt what their brothers did of their own free will was wrong and they decided to make an issue of it. Something that really wasn't any of their damn business. That is what gets me so fired up about it.

    As far as civil service, we don't need the "employee protections" that come with it, and none of us want it. because we don't need it. We watch firefighters in the 2 area cities use civil service to protect thier asses when they should be fired and get away with crap because "procedures were not followed as specified" even though everyone knows what they did should be a termination. I know this first hand. Sorry, that's not employee protection. That's a bull*** system that does nothing but weaken the fire department by protecting those who screw up and still get to stay on the job. That is the last thing we want or need in our department.

    Civil service will change how we have to run our FD. It will break a system that is far from broken. Right now we provide Class 3 fire protection for far less per resident than any other department in this part of the state. Being forced to go civil service will change that not too far down the line. It likely will drive away volunteers and more than likley will force us to hire additional fulltime employees down the line. That benefits nobody. It certainly does not benefit the FD. It does not benefit the taxpayers who more than likely will see either taxes increase as we have to hire additional fulltime members 5-10 years from now as the vollies leave or will decease services. Either way, the taxpayers lose.

    Right now I can walk into the chief'sa office and be dealt with fairly. I don't need a civil service board to go running to like a little schoolgirl.

    Our system works. And it doesn't require civil service rules and regs. We don't want it and it's being forced on us. That's the damn issue.
    I am third in command for my department and as member of management not being represented I for one appreciate the efforts of my local. I may not always agree with them and at times we are at odds. However, because of their efforts, My employer typically applies the same rules and wage scale to non-represented management ranks.

    When it comes to discipline, my local does not oppose it, as long as I follow the rules and the action is justified.

    How does the taxpayer lose when full time staff are added to the ranks in order to provide adequate fire protection? Please explain this one. Increase in costs? If the taxpayer demands a better level of protection, then the taxpayer is willing to pay for it.

    I do not understand your logic being against civil service or some other form of third party verification. Should we not raise the bar and hold ourselves accountable? What is there to be afraid of?

  7. #27
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    How does the taxpayer lose when full time staff are added to the ranks in order to provide adequate fire protection? Please explain this one. Increase in costs? If the taxpayer demands a better level of protection, then the taxpayer is willing to pay for it

    To prevent this thread from being derailed, I will only say that full-time personnel does not always guarantee any better fire protection when compared to volunteer fire protection.

    This is true in our case. The volume of calls we run, and are projected to run for the next several years, could not ever justify increased paid staffing. We have trained a cost efficient volunteer force to provide the bulk of our staffing for significant incidents, and the system here works exceptionally well.

    A high level of fulltime staffing works well when there are sufficient runs and a sufficient level of intensity of those runs to justify the expense of fulltime staff. Where the volume and level of intensity does not exist, fulltime staffing is wasteful and inefficient, and the community would be far better served with a volunteer department.

    I do not understand your logic being against civil service or some other form of third party verification. Should we not raise the bar and hold ourselves accountable? What is there to be afraid of?

    Because we have run very well for the last 25 years hiring from within, promoting from within and dealing with personnel issues from within. We have adopted our policies to our system. In LA, it is well known that civil service does not work well with small combo departments, and because of civil service rules, most smalll combo departments have historically hired more FT staff and phased out volunteer staff to get away from those issues.

    The fact is history states that civil service will deem significant changes to our operations. Right now we provide excellent fire protection for much less per citizen than any other department in the area. based on the changes we have seen in other departments our size, after going civil service, that will change.

  8. #28
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    How does the taxpayer lose when full time staff are added to the ranks in order to provide adequate fire protection? Please explain this one. Increase in costs? If the taxpayer demands a better level of protection, then the taxpayer is willing to pay for it

    To prevent this thread from being derailed, I will only say that full-time personnel does not always guarantee any better fire protection when compared to volunteer fire protection.

    This is true in our case. The volume of calls we run, and are projected to run for the next several years, could not ever justify increased paid staffing. We have trained a cost efficient volunteer force to provide the bulk of our staffing for significant incidents, and the system here works exceptionally well.

    A high level of fulltime staffing works well when there are sufficient runs and a sufficient level of intensity of those runs to justify the expense of fulltime staff. Where the volume and level of intensity does not exist, fulltime staffing is wasteful and inefficient, and the community would be far better served with a volunteer department.

    I do not understand your logic being against civil service or some other form of third party verification. Should we not raise the bar and hold ourselves accountable? What is there to be afraid of?

    Because we have run very well for the last 25 years hiring from within, promoting from within and dealing with personnel issues from within. We have adopted our policies to our system. In LA, it is well known that civil service does not work well with small combo departments, and because of civil service rules, most smalll combo departments have historically hired more FT staff and phased out volunteer staff to get away from those issues.

    The fact is history states that civil service will deem significant changes to our operations. Right now we provide excellent fire protection for much less per citizen than any other department in the area. based on the changes we have seen in other departments our size, after going civil service, that will change.
    Nice dodge. If you don't want to derail the thread, then start a new one to answer the questions.

  9. #29
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    Medic ..

    I may have gone beyond the simple answer I was looking for.

    I was attempting to explain the situation to frosty as briefly as possible.

  10. #30
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Medic ..

    I may have gone beyond the simple answer I was looking for.

    I was attempting to explain the situation to frosty as briefly as possible.
    Ok????, but you still didn't answer my questions.

  11. #31
    the 4-1-4 Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frosty42 View Post
    When it comes to discipline, my local does not oppose it, as long as I follow the rules and the action is justified.
    This is a great point that you make, and somehow seems to get lost when someone tosses out the 'ole union ****** mantra.
    Anytime punishment is handed out here, the local is not trying to prevent punishment, it is there to verify that the law is followed, and an employees due process is recognized. No more, no less.

    I realize it may be hard to believe for some, but not all administrations are fair and free of personal grudges. Sometimes, an extra nudge or two is given from forces outside of the chief's office, like say the mayor.

    Just because it hasn't happened in a place ever before, that doesn't mean that it can't change with a change in chiefs, a change in the mayor's office, or any of another bunch of variables.

  12. #32
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,582

    Default

    Posted bylafireeducator

    This was an issue that was brought up by a bunch of union ****** who didn't like their union brothers volunteering on the same department on their off-time.
    I'll say it loud.. I'm a union ***** and proud!
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  13. #33
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    That's fine Gonzo.

    My point was that the two-hatting issue in Price George County that brought this issue into the courts for the fire service was brought up by union members who had an issue with other union members volunteering in their off time of their free will.

    They stuck their noses is not something that simply wasn't affecting them, as their was no requirement to volunteer in place. In other words, they got involved in a situation that didn't involve them.

    Sorry, to me that's a *****.

    I have minimal problems with the union as long as they stay out of our (the volunteers) business.

  14. #34
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    FireMedic ...

    Maybe it's an LA thing, but how will "Civil Service" break your system? Civil service stuff is usually about hiring, promoting, etc. So if you now have to do a civil service test to hire, how will that "drive away volunteers"?

    I am assuming these are the questions to which you are referring.

    We currently run 1-man shifts. There are no plans to add a 2nd firefighter in the near future.

    Civil service is about hiring, which will change our system. Currently, we hire 100% from within. When an opening occurs, a job posting is put up. There are training and length of service requirements. There is a scoring system in place that evaluates those. The top 3 take a skill evaluation test which is timed with deductions for procedural errors. The system combines the training/experience score and the time. The chief, however, is free to hire who he wishes of those top 3.

    Because all applicants have been members, they are known commodities. We know their strengths and weaknesses. We know their work ethic and we know hoe dependable they are first hand. The system works very well because of that.


    Because we hire from within, and the person that is hired has worked 24 hour relief shifts and fully understands how we operate and how the system works, there is no training or "break-in period" required. He can immediattly go to work alone. Obviously, this makes for a very smooth system and eliminates any training period, which saves us money.

    Under civil service, we will not only be forced to pay for a written test, but we may also be forced to hire someone who has in an unknown quantity, and in addition, will need him to work alongside someone on shift until he learns the system. This will cost us money.

    In addition, many of our volunteers to stay with us as a potential stepping stone to fulltime. Knowing they they only have to compete with those within the department is a factor in their motivation to excel as volunteers.

    Promotional tests pose another issue. We are still looking for answers on that, however, based on some early conversations with other combo department, under LA civil service, there are issues with volunteers.

    There are some other issues that we are still investigating, and as of yet, have no firm answers as to how they will affect us

  15. #35
    Forum Member nyckftbl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    On a Hill, overlooking George's Kingdom
    Posts
    2,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    That's fine Gonzo.

    My point was that the two-hatting issue in Price George County that brought this issue into the courts for the fire service was brought up by union members who had an issue with other union members volunteering in their off time of their free will.

    They stuck their noses is not something that simply wasn't affecting them, as their was no requirement to volunteer in place. In other words, they got involved in a situation that didn't involve them.

    Sorry, to me that's a *****.

    I have minimal problems with the union as long as they stay out of our (the volunteers) business.
    Would you like to buy a vowel?

    Proud East Coast Traditionalist.

  16. #36
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    I would like to buy an "A" please.

  17. #37
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    That's fine Gonzo.

    My point was that the two-hatting issue in Price George County that brought this issue into the courts for the fire service was brought up by union members who had an issue with other union members volunteering in their off time of their free will.

    They stuck their noses is not something that simply wasn't affecting them, as their was no requirement to volunteer in place. In other words, they got involved in a situation that didn't involve them.

    Sorry, to me that's a *****.

    I have minimal problems with the union as long as they stay out of our (the volunteers) business.
    But what you still fail to understand is that it WAS affecting and did involve them!

    The fact that these FFs were volunteering WASN'T the issue. It was the fact that they were volunteering in a fire department of another Local and their conduct within that department towards the members of that Local.

  18. #38
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    Please tell me how it was affecting THEM?

    Driving down wages because there were volunteers? You could argue that but I don't buy it.

    Preventing the hiring of additional full-time personnel because there was a not a need because of the volunteers?
    That affects the union and the number of union members but does not affect them.

    Probably the same arguments against us (besides the legality issue) volunteering in our own department that simply don't hold water.

  19. #39
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Please tell me how it was affecting THEM?

    Driving down wages because there were volunteers? You could argue that but I don't buy it.

    Preventing the hiring of additional full-time personnel because there was a not a need because of the volunteers?
    That affects the union and the number of union members but does not affect them.

    Probably the same arguments against us (besides the legality issue) volunteering in our own department that simply don't hold water.
    Before I answer, just so we're clear, who are the "them" you refer to above?

  20. #40
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,557

    Default

    Before I answer, just so we're clear, who are the "them" you refer to above?

    The career personnel who were not volunteering who decided to make a stink about those who were.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. New recruit drug testing and random drug testing
    By cpt312 in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-20-2013, 12:38 PM
  2. Drug Testing
    By FFPotenziano in forum Florida
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-10-2009, 01:38 AM
  3. Drug and Alcohol Policy
    By jeo995 in forum Health and Wellness
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-31-2002, 12:55 PM
  4. Drug Testing?
    By JD in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-08-2000, 01:22 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts