This is much like the paper mill my father in law retired from. It was a non-union shop among several other union shop mills. Wages and benefits were comparable for the simplistic reason that the proximity of union shops were there. Face it, you are basically enjoying the efforts of union personnel while your spit your venom.
I was incorrect. Really doesn't make any difference in my life as to their civil service status.
I was under the impression that municipal departments covering more than 400,000 and less than 5,000 were exempt. I know the very small city neighboring my combo department is exempt from civil service because they are below the minimum threshold.
The only reason we are now civil service and utilize the civil service holiday and vacation schedule, hiring system, the mandatory 2% and the civil service promotional process for career staff is because we were ordered by the court to do so after one of our career members were fired (and the firing was upheld) but the court determined that we should have been civil service. Other than that, we would still be using our own holiday/vacation schedule, pay raise schedule, hiring and promotional system.
The 17% pay raise came about to compete with the non-union neighboring fire districts. We had not lost any members to either city.
Obviously those folks were wrong and I was wrong.
Doesn't matter to me one way or the other.
And given that we are talking primarily about my department, which is 6 hours north of NO, it really has no bearing on that discussion either.
Thanks for once again proving you lie, fabricate, bs, and spin everything to try and make yourself look good. Too bad you can't just tell the truth or actually supply facts that you can substantiate.
Nice work making yourself even more irrelevant.
I guess I have more important things to worry abou than the civil service status and the pay of department 6 hours away.
The information that I had received - not sought - while involved in a conversation with 3 or 4 other people was wrong.
Do I look concerned?
Makes me feel good though that we seem to be making more $$$$ for doing less runs and likely having better working conditions, and we don't even have to pay union dues.
You get paid for holidays and you stay home, whats the difference? When I go in on Christmas eve and day this year, my pay stays the same. In lieu of that, I and most unions are given "Holiday Hours" that we can burn at our liesure. The pay for me stays the same, the guy covering me, unless he is on relief on that shift, will get OT.Quote:
Originally posted by LAFE
I have been anti-union from the get go. And I have been anti-some departments that seemingly have held their cities safety hostage for unreasonable benefits, such as one very large northern city, where unions tend to run the joint, where their members get holiday pay whether they work or not and get something called "recall pay" though they are very, very rarely ever recalled.
I am for firefighters being paid fairly. I am not for benefits that the general public would consider unreasonable, and often with good reason.
As far as your baseless comment about "recall pay", that sounds like a total fabrication for effect on your part. You only get recall pay when you are recalled for whatever reason. No city in their right mind is going to bump a fireman's pay on a chance they might be recalled.
So if we are to believe your theory, when they recall a few guys, do they get "double recall pay"? And what about the ones that don't get recalled? Do they just get "regular recall pay" for not being recalled? Name the department and I will look up their MOU, either that or you are welcome to prove me wrong.
You really need to educate yourself before spouting off. Your'e already branded as a mutt, now you want to lower yourself to lying mutt?
I believe you are wrong.
According to the LA Office of the Examiner, New Orleans does not have a Civil Service Board, meaning the department is not civil service.
Here is the link and the actual list in their website: http://ose.louisiana.gov/jd_select1.asp
Again it appears the information I had was correct. They are not civil service due to the pre-Katrina population.
Prove me wrong.
Civil service revamp planned in New Orleans
Published: Thursday, September 13, 2012, 11:00 PM
Bruce Eggler, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune By Bruce Eggler, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
"Almost from the day he took office in 2010, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu has talked about his desire to change what he saw as an outdated and inefficient civil service system that made it hard for the city to hire, promote and retain top-quality employees. So far, Landrieu has done little to turn that desire into action, but it appears that is about to change. A recent memo circulated among top officials in Landrieu's administration outlined a plan to present sweeping changes in the city's personnel management system to the city Civil Service Commission next month, with the goal of getting them adopted by November and implemented by the start of 2013."
It took me less than 5 minutes to find this.
Per state law cities over 400,000, which No was pre-Katrina, was not eligable to to be a part of the state civil service system, which is supported by the fact that they are not on the STATE Office of the Examiners, who handles the state's system, list.
It is in fact possible the city had it's own civil service system since it was not eligible, due to it's population, for the state civil service system.
In light of the info on the State Office of the Examiner's webpage, we both may in fact be correct.
In fact, here is the RS Statue from LA law that defines who is eligable for the state civil service system:
§ 2471. Applicability
This Part applies to any municipality which operates a regularly
paid fire and police department and which has a population of not
less than thirteen thousand nor more than two hundred fifty
thousand according to the latest regular federal census for which the official figures have been made public.
Under that RS Statue, New Orleans would be ineligible due to population'
They have the right to set up a city system, which may mirror state civil service laws, but would not fall into the same system as any other department in the state, unless they serve less than 13,000.
"I do know that New Orleans is not civil service due to the fact that thier population is over the maximum threshold, or at least was pre-Katrina. They are now under the threshold, but nobody has made an issue of the fact that they now should be civil service. I believe Baton Rouge is."
You may have been attempting to allude to participation in the "State Civil Service System", but you clearly stated that New Orleans was not "civil service". Civil Service is Civil Service regardless of who is administering the program. So while you may be correct that New Orleans is not participating in the State Civil Service System, you were clearly WRONG that New Orleans isn't Civil Service. Therefore, on the matter of whether or not New Orleans is Civil Service, we were not both correct and YOU were the one that was WRONG.
The fact is the folks that I was having the conversation with were in a position to know as both of their departments are in the process of being being forced into civil service status, and had done a tremendous amount of research on civil service. So yes, I took their information as the truth, and lookeeeee lookeeeeee it turned out that it was in fact the case.
And no, we are not on the list as we are still in the process. We are taking every moment that we can to go civil service as we know it will have consequences on the volunteer/career relationship in our organization.
And just out of curiosity, give me an example of some those other "unsubstantiated" statistics.
Again, did I follow it with a great deal of interest? No, as it has zero affect on my life, and have I have no interest in labor relations, especially when they are 6 hours south of me, but I heard the matter discussed when i was with those that had more interest in the subject. Yup, I was wrong they are civil service, but possibly not under the same rules to which we will, once we fully adopt civil service, along with every other civil service department in the state is subject to.
We are dealing with the state civil service system in my current situation, and that is the only system in which I have any interest, and frankly, the only system pertinent to the discussion regarding the need for a union in my department.