Run along. I'm sure there are forums for faux firefighters like you who will be in rapt attention at the nonsense you spout. Those of us who did the job realize you're pretty worthless and have yet to offer anything of value to the conversation. Sadly, the taxpayers that foot the bill for your "expertise" have no idea a fraud is being funded by them.
So LA, I guess you can't refute the truth about your dad not knowing how to do his job as a supervisor so you won't respond to me about it.
Being "almost impossible" is not the same thing as being "impossible". If the employee was that much of a problem, then management would jump thru those hoops.Quote:
As was already pointed out, if workers aren't doing their job properly and their supervisors allow that to continue to happen, then that's not the union's fault. Many union workers have been disciplined and/or discharged when the employer had just cause and did their due diligence on the matter.
And here's a surprise. there are places where it's almost impossible to do that, and the state where my father worked was one of those places. The hoops and documentation required was enormous, and the union had significant power, and everybody knew it.
Funny thing is that here in this part of LA with the civil service system it's the same way. The vast majority of the suspensions and disciplinary actions regarding fire and police that come before their civil service boards are overturned and members reinstated. When I say vast I'm talking over 90%,
If over 90% of the disciplinary action going before the civil service board is being overturned, then that says to me that management isn't doing their job properly.
And that only covers part of what a union is for.Quote:
That point is not even close to being reached. As long as their are employers and employees, there will always be a role for unions.
Disagree. There are now more than enough laws and agencies that protect worker rights.
Guess what? I get a nice chuckle out of people like you who know nothing about my Union telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about regarding it.Quote:
You would be correct that there has been no change in position regarding IAFF members volunteering in combination departments in which an IAFF Local exists. I'm not specifically aware of any issue with volunteering in communities that could afford career staff so I would agree that there hasn't been a significant change in position on that. VFDs are not viewed as "rival organizations" simply because they are VFDs. Any that have been designated as such, have been because they were engaging in conduct that negatively impacted a Local. As far as I know, there's never really been an issue with members volunteering in the small rural departments.
Guess what. Wrong.
While this may be true, it was at best the position of that one Local and not specifically reflective of the IAFF in general.Quote:
Just before I left Vermont, the IAFF local got the city to prohibit their members from volunteering. The reason was simple - and this came directly from the mouth of one of the local union leaders - was to reduce the number of members on the surrounding volunteer departments so that they would be in a position where they would have to hire career personnel.
It didn't work.
I guess that you can't comprehend that the Local not wanting their members volunteering may actually have nothing to do with having "issues with suburban volunteer departments". Besides, discouraging your membership from volunteering does not automatic equate to actually having issues with volunteer departments and/or their firefighters.Quote:
Just this winter I was talking to some volunteers outside of a meduim sized city in NY (my home). I asked about the city guys volunteering and they told me it just didn't happen because it wasn't allowed by the local.
So please don't tell me that the local, or the union, doesn't have issues with suburban volunteer departments that surround the cities.
And while there are no rules here regarding career members from the 2 city departments volunteering, it is highly discouraged.
I won't even attempt to tell you that "the union is anti-volunteer", because I know that it is not "anti-volunteer". You should probably proof-read your posts better.Quote:
The IAFF is so worried about its members volunteering that it leaves enforcement of that rule up to the discretion of its Locals rather than handling it themself.
Maybe in the end it is up to the locals, but please don't try to tell me that overall the union is anti-volunteer. They are coming to the realization that in the rural areas, career members simply won't happen, but they do target suburban volunteer departments with the money to potentially hire career staff.
Please provide verifiable proof that the IAFF is targeting "suburban volunteer departments with the money to potentially hire career staff".
I call you ignorant because that's exactly what you are regarding the IAFF.Quote:
Your ignorance is astounding, but if you want to be that guy shouting at the wind, have at it.
If you want to call me ignorant about where the IAFF sees fire protection in this country, fine, but I have talked to enough strongly pro-union guys and have seen the union is action enough to know that they really aren't concerned about fire protection. They are simply concerned about more jobs.
Damn right they are! But guess what, they are also concerned with the safety of ALL firefighters too and there's plenty of evidence to prove it.Quote:
You say the IAFF's only concern is about jobs. They are also concerned about the safety of those who do the job with the intent of making a difference. Showing up and looking at a fire burn a house down or watching someone get incinerated in a car is not doing the job.
They are concerned about the safety of the minority of the firefighters who happen to be career and happen to be union.
The reality is that the volunteers really aren't their "concern". Why would they be expected to be concerned with the issues of non-members? You are mistaking member advocacy (essentially the primary role of a union) for contempt of non-members.Quote:
They have no concern for volunteers.
The primary purpose is not to pressure those departments into hiring more career personnel as you assert. The primary purpose is to not have fellow union members engaging in activity that can negatively impact the union members working for that department.Quote:
When they tell union members that they cannot volunteer at combo department, they are decreasing the safety of thier union members who work there for the primary purpose of pressuring that department to hire more career personnel rather than using volunteers. That also affects the safety of the public at large as there are fewer responders than there could be.
What's wrong with wanting "safety" on your own terms? The IAFF's concerns regarding safety is not merely about boosting membership. Any increase in membership that results from safety initiatives is simply a bonus. However, if you've been paying attention to the industry the past couple of years you'd know that there's been a lot of firefighter jobs (aka union members) being cut across the nation, but the IAFF's safety work is still going strong.Quote:
When the locals makes rules against career members volunteering in thier off time, they decrease the safety of volunteers by limiting the pool and decrease the safety of the public by limiting responders.
That sounds like an organization that is concerned about safety on thier own terms and only if it boosts union membership.
I would wager his tune would change dramatically if a volunteer group of seniors came forth to the city and proposed volunteers take over his non-essential job for free.
Bottom line is that my contemt for any union has zero affect on what happens in the worrld, yet is seems to get more than a few folks rilled up on here.
If a union should ever come uop for a vote here, I will lobby with my fellow firefighters against it and vote against it. If it pases, there is a strong liklihood I would quit unless I am very close to the point where I would be vested in the retirement system.
If you don't like my reasons, so be it, but in the long run, my feelings for the union really have no affect on anyone else or the state of the union as a whole.
By the way, I am still waiting for you to respond to the fact that your Dad didn't follow work rules and then whined about his inability to discipline people. Funny how you completely dodged that...Says tons about your ignorance of Unions and once again your hypocrisy.
Unions are destroying companys with outlandish demands as well as this country.
There is simply no need for a union at my combo department, and given the likely progression in leadership, i see no reason in the forseeable future as such.
We are garunteed raises and promotional procedures by law. We have input on wage and benefit increases such as uniform allowances and certification incentive pay schedules. And we have a tremendous amount of inputat the Cap[tain and Senior Firefighter levels on SOPs, policies and procedures and equipment/apparatus purchases.
There simply is no need for the interference of a union, and I stated, the majority of the career staff feel the same way.
As far as the IAFF, I have seen thier anti-union feelings and efforts at the local level. You can say all you want that is the the locals, but it's still the union. Sorry, but I have no need and very little respect for the IAFF and what it stands for.
Sorta like civil service currently is here in LA.