1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Greenport, Long Island, NY
    Posts
    1

    Default Drug & Alcohol Testing

    What are the paid FFs in Boston afraid of ? A drug & alcohol testing program will protect everyone; FFs and citizens. The union leaders want extra pay or other enhancements! Outrageous!

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    sfd1992's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wa
    Posts
    407

    Default

    Wow, first post and it's a molotov cocktail....

    Go away...Troll.

  3. #3
    Permanently Removed

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    28

    Default Refuse.

    Refuse to take the test. Go as soon as you can to your doctor and have him do a drug and alcohol test on you. Dont let them have control over you. Dont let them say your guilty, put in a greivance ASAP and hire a lawyer.

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,429

    Default

    Or you could just take the City's test and not argue about it....That is, if you have nothing to hide!!!!
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimboKalin View Post
    What are the paid FFs in Boston afraid of ? A drug & alcohol testing program will protect everyone; FFs and citizens. The union leaders want extra pay or other enhancements! Outrageous!
    Are they afraid? Obviously you read some of the article, but I guess you missed 2 key things. 1) They feel whatever is being proposed is unconstitutional. 2) They don't oppose drug testing, but feel that it is subject to the collective bargaining process (at the local level). This means if management wants something, then they normally have to give the employees something in return.

    What's so outrageous about opposing something you believe to be is unconstitutional or wanting something in return for giving something big like this to your employer?

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,586

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JimboKalin View Post
    What are the paid FFs in Boston afraid of ? A drug & alcohol testing program will protect everyone; FFs and citizens. The union leaders want extra pay or other enhancements! Outrageous!
    Hey numbnuts....

    #1 Boston PD and EMS have drug tesng. It was negotiated in their contracts.
    #2. Boston has been without a contract for at least 3 years, maybe 4.

    Mayor Mumbles wants to institute this arbitrarily without negotiations. Funny.. I have yet to hear how he handled the leak of the autopsy results from FF's Cahill and Payne to the media before the families were contacted.
    Last edited by CaptainGonzo; 06-30-2009 at 08:12 PM.
    ‎"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

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    HeavyRescueTech's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainGonzo View Post
    Hey numbnuts....

    #1 Boston PD and EMS have drug tsrting. It was negotiated in their contracts.
    #2. Boston has been without a contract for at least 3 years, maybe 4.

    Mayor Mumbles wants to institute this arbitrarily without negotiations. Funny.. I have yet to hear how he handled the leak of the autopsy results from FF's Cahill and Payne to the media before the families were contacted.
    Not for nothing cap, but it shouldn't have to be negotiated. It's a public safety issue. and not public safety like firefighting, but for the safety of the public, and the safety of each and every firefighter.

    Should the Boston FD be operating without an contract for over 3 years? absolutely not.

    Should the BFD be opposed to drug testing, saying it should be negotiated? Well, every day it isn't done potentially puts the public in greater jeopardy, as well as every FF and apparatus operator in great jeopardy.

    They should accept the drug tests, it is in the best interests of everybody.
    If my basic HazMat training has taught me nothing else, it's that if you see a glowing green monkey running away from something, follow that monkey!

    FF/EMT/DBP

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrParasite View Post
    Not for nothing cap, but it shouldn't have to be negotiated. It's a public safety issue. and not public safety like firefighting, but for the safety of the public, and the safety of each and every firefighter.

    Should the Boston FD be operating without an contract for over 3 years? absolutely not.

    Should the BFD be opposed to drug testing, saying it should be negotiated? Well, every day it isn't done potentially puts the public in greater jeopardy, as well as every FF and apparatus operator in great jeopardy.

    They should accept the drug tests, it is in the best interests of everybody.
    Holy $hit....I agree with Dr. Parasite! Once again, the only ones who need be afraid of random drug testing are the ones with something to hide!
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrParasite View Post
    Not for nothing cap, but it shouldn't have to be negotiated. It's a public safety issue. and not public safety like firefighting, but for the safety of the public, and the safety of each and every firefighter.

    Should the Boston FD be operating without an contract for over 3 years? absolutely not.

    Should the BFD be opposed to drug testing, saying it should be negotiated? Well, every day it isn't done potentially puts the public in greater jeopardy, as well as every FF and apparatus operator in great jeopardy.

    They should accept the drug tests, it is in the best interests of everybody.
    Not to be nitpicky, but unless the number of FFs who ARE actually "high" at work increases, then nobody is actually in "greater jeopardy" than they are right now without the drug testing in place.

    I would disagree that drug testing of public safety personnel doesn't need to be negotiated.

    I am not in a position to say if MA FF Association's assertion that a State mandate would be unconstitutional or not. However, I think that the overall process of drug testing should be negotiated at the local level. I'm not talking about whether or not employees will be drug tested, but the how, why, when of doing so.

    I'm of the position that there needs to be clearly defined parameters for this. It needs to be clearly defined as to when testing will take place - like annually, monthly, a percentage of the EEs each month, following an "incident", a formal accusation, etc. It can't be a situation in which they can just come up to any specific employee at any time and request a sample. It's too easy for this to become a "harassment tool" for management if an employee falls "out of favor".

    It also needs to be clearly defined as to what substances are not allowed. For example, alcohol is a legal substance, but would it's presence automatically constitute a "failed" test, particularly if the sample was taken while the employee was off-duty?

    It needs to be clearly defined as to who gets to see those results or has access to them.

    It needs to be clearly defined as to what happens when a "failed" test is reported. Will the employee be retested to confirm the result? Will the employee be interviewed to determine if there are factors that created a "false positive" result? What disciplinary action can be taken? Will the employee have the opportunity to participate in an employee assistance program before being disciplined or fired? What's the appeal process?

    I agree that drug testing is in everybody's best interests, but it's also in everybody's best interests for the process to be clearly defined upfront to avoid inconsistent handling of such.

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    nyckftbl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    On a Hill, overlooking George's Kingdom
    Posts
    2,579

    Default

    typical.....
    Last edited by nyckftbl; 06-29-2009 at 12:36 AM.
    Proud East Coast Traditionalist.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    nyckftbl's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    On a Hill, overlooking George's Kingdom
    Posts
    2,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Not to be nitpicky, but unless the number of FFs who ARE actually "high" at work increases, then nobody is actually in "greater jeopardy" than they are right now without the drug testing in place.

    I would disagree that drug testing of public safety personnel doesn't need to be negotiated.

    I am not in a position to say if MA FF Association's assertion that a State mandate would be unconstitutional or not. However, I think that the overall process of drug testing should be negotiated at the local level. I'm not talking about whether or not employees will be drug tested, but the how, why, when of doing so.

    I'm of the position that there needs to be clearly defined parameters for this. It needs to be clearly defined as to when testing will take place - like annually, monthly, a percentage of the EEs each month, following an "incident", a formal accusation, etc. It can't be a situation in which they can just come up to any specific employee at any time and request a sample. It's too easy for this to become a "harassment tool" for management if an employee falls "out of favor".

    It also needs to be clearly defined as to what substances are not allowed. For example, alcohol is a legal substance, but would it's presence automatically constitute a "failed" test, particularly if the sample was taken while the employee was off-duty?

    It needs to be clearly defined as to who gets to see those results or has access to them.

    It needs to be clearly defined as to what happens when a "failed" test is reported. Will the employee be retested to confirm the result? Will the employee be interviewed to determine if there are factors that created a "false positive" result? What disciplinary action can be taken? Will the employee have the opportunity to participate in an employee assistance program before being disciplined or fired? What's the appeal process?

    I agree that drug testing is in everybody's best interests, but it's also in everybody's best interests for the process to be clearly defined upfront to avoid inconsistent handling of such.

    Bingo.....
    Proud East Coast Traditionalist.

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    sfd1992's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wa
    Posts
    407

    Default

    If they are not currently subject to random testing, it's a change in working conditions and has to be negotiated. Period. If your employer wanted to change your work week from 42 hours to 53, that would be a change in working conditions, and would have to be negotiated. Drug testing is no different, it's just a hotter topic.

    As far as, "If they're clean, they have nothing to worry about", sorry, that's a horse$hit argument. If you really want to go there, then lets suspend the 4th amendment, and do away with that inconvenient "probable cause" thing. That way, the FD can search your POV when it's parked at the firehouse, after all "If you're clean, you got nothing to worry about."

    Mass. brothers, be glad you live in a state where labor has rights, I thank God everyday I do.

  13. #13
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfd1992 View Post
    As far as, "If they're clean, they have nothing to worry about", sorry, that's a horse$hit argument. If you really want to go there, then lets suspend the 4th amendment, and do away with that inconvenient "probable cause" thing. That way, the FD can search your POV when it's parked at the firehouse, after all "If you're clean, you got nothing to worry about."
    My thoughts exactly. I also agree with the sentiments that it can be used to harass an employee if it can be done at anytime they wish. FF Joe filed a grievance about something, lets drug test him and maybe it'll come back positive some time.


    Personally I find the policy of testing after an injury/death or a damage/injury causing accident is a good balance of the employees rights and the employers. Since an injury or some sort of accident can happen at any time it means a test could happen tomorrow, but since there needs to be an event for the employee to get tested it doesn't turn into some constant threat on the employee's mind.

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    Firegod343's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    The other Washington
    Posts
    255

    Default

    I have a close friend who was recently offered a Chief's position with one condition.... he had to take a drug test.

    So he told the commissioners, "I don't take drugs, you can take my word for it, or you can pay me $500.00 for calling me a liar, and I take the test and prove you wrong."

    4 of the 5 commissioners relented and he got the job.

    When politicians are required to pass mandatory psyche tests, I'll give into peeing in a cup.

    FG
    IACOJ.... "Carpe Elkhartem"
    (Seize the Nozzle)


    "Victorious warriors win first,
    and then go to war,
    while defeated warriors go to war first,
    and then seek to win."

    SUN TZU

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Firefighters, EMS and cops should be screened for drugs.

    Was randomly tested at my FT ambo gig. Randomly tested at my current FT fire department job.

    I have absolutely no problem with it and never had.

    Sorry, but we are in the public service filed and we lose the right to that privacy when we take the job.

    You fail. You get fired. No second chances. To me, it's that simple.

  16. #16
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post

    You fail. You get fired. No second chances. To me, it's that simple.
    Oh, I didn't realize drug tests were never wrong.


    You have to at least give the guy a retest.



    Ibuprofen has been well known to cause false positives for THC. Want to dismiss a guy becuase he took Ibuprofen because he has a sore muscle after busting his *** at a fire?

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    BCmdepas3280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Posts
    873

    Default

    Bite me D1ckhea9 you do not surrender your rights for a job...I was just tested and found the experience humiliating ( I came on the job clean 24 years ago and will leave the job clean) If you screw up than you should be tested, but too randomly stress people out just because you can is total BS. Our local screwed the pooch on this one and somebody will take it on the chin because of it.

    For those of you who preach zero tolerance.... I hope all your test are clean I wouldn't want to see a Jesus freak lose there job
    Last edited by Ltmdepas3280; 06-30-2009 at 09:37 AM.
    IACOJ Membership 2002
    {15}

    Mike IAFF

    The beatings will continue until the morale improves

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,586

    Default

    Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

    You fail. You get fired. No second chances. To me, it's that simple.
    Originally Posted by nameless
    Oh, I didn't realize drug tests were never wrong.
    You have to at least give the guy a retest.

    Ibuprofen has been well known to cause false positives for THC. Want to dismiss a guy becuase he took Ibuprofen because he has a sore muscle after busting his *** at a fire?
    He would.. it meant the firefighter he would terminate actually did his job instead of being a yellowbellied yardbreather!
    LA is the same guy who would fire someone for a traffic violation.
    ‎"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

  19. #19
    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
    Sorry, but we are in the public service filed and we lose the right to that privacy when we take the job.
    Really? I don't seem to remember giving up my constitutional rights when I took this job, maybe it's different where you live, but here the constitution still exists.

    This means I have the right to fair labor practices, among other things. I realize you have no problem violating Federal labor laws, so save your preaching. Don't you have some bars in firehouses to go defend, again?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    You fail. You get fired. No second chances. To me, it's that simple.
    That's great. I guess you've never seen guys who've had false positives, or results that were lost and or mixed up.
    You're talking about guys careers here. You're talking about their reputations on the job.

    In a perfect world, that system would work, but this is far from perfect. I have seen guys taken out of firehouses because they were "dirty" on a drug test, only to be reinstated and exonerated after further testing. You know what though? People still look at them funny, guys don't trust them, and look at them with a wary eye.

    Yes, it happens. I understand you don't care about that, mostly because people can't stand a snitch that's also a holier than thou mutt.

    And you know what? When your rig gets detailed out for a random drug screen, it makes you pucker just a bit, because you just never know. I have never smoked marijuana in my life, I have never done any kind of narcotics without a prescription. And yet, when we are sent for the screening, it makes you think, and wonder, because the clinics make mistakes, results get screwed up. It happens, and will continue to happen. And as long as there is a chance that a mistake will happen, I will say that you are wrong, because you are.

    You can't just tarnish a guys career on a witch hunt. Of course though, you have no problem selling guys out and throwing them under the bus.

    That's nothing we don't expect out of you.

  20. #20
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    I have no issue with a retest.

    And yes, there are false positives, but while those retests and investigations are happening, the guy goes home. 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.

    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. Both men are compromising my safety, and that overrides friendship and brotherhood, because obviously, they don't give a damn about me.

    Funny, I've been tested several times on a random and one post-accident, and never worried.

    This means I have the right to fair labor practices, among other things. I realize you have no problem violating Federal labor laws, so save your preaching. Don't you have some bars in firehouses to go defend, again?

    Ya. Laws that don't allow me to volunteer in my off-hours for a non-profit fire department.

    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.

    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.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 06-30-2009 at 10:50 PM.

  21. #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 11:13 PM.

  22. #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    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 06:35 PM.

  23. #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

  24. #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.

  25. #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    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".

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

Log in

Click here to log in or register