Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33
  1. #21
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1

    Default overdue reply

    After a week, I figured there'd be no responses.

    O.K., I am management, upper echelon, or whatever you want to call it. I was a union member for 12 years, and have been non-union for 8.

    I never forgot where I came from, and the union often states I'm the only one from "the other side of the table" who is on their side, which in itself is a problem.

    I am also a former Marine infantryman, and know the command structure in that respect, its successes and limitations. To me, it's the best structure in the world.

    Now, for the one who claims this is "command" or "paramilitray" and not "management versus labor." There are differences, and you're right, "be careful what you ask for."

    The problems I see is a uniformity with the chain of command. It is a well understood principle that in a "command" structure, as one put it, that the lower ranks have a complete understanding that orders, when lawful, are to be obeyed without question, right?

    Well, I believe it is one of any union's responsibilities to negotiate for pay, benefits, and security of its members. For years, our union, and I can only speak to mine, while in meetings, will cast open statements that the "chief," or "white shirts," or whetever nomenclature you prefer, are never on their side. Never have their backs.

    Those types of statements are what cast doubt and a lack of faith in the integrity of the command structure, and when your top department-ranking members, be they Captains, BCs or Shift Commanders, sit in and fail to quell that kind of talk, they are in effect contributing to it.

    Now remember they are in "brother" capacity, and can't infringe in open discussion due to their rank, which at that time doesn't exist.

    I can't even imagine a meeting to include my platoon commander (LT), my company commander (CAPT), and my battalion commander (LTCOL) all present while fireteams and squads say how the regimental and division COs and the Commandant don't give a crap about the little guys, all the while my COs that are sitting next to me are hearing this, and sometimes contributing to it. It would never, ever happen, which is why it works.

    I believe officers should be out of the union, or at least BCs. The lower ranks should absolutely believe their superiors have their backs, and would never put them in jeporady. If someone feels otherwise due to a complete lack of confidence in their superiors, then it is already too late.

    For those who've never served in the military, it is hard to envision how strict the system is about insubordination and/or insolence. Within our union, it is "freedom of speech."

    All members of the department should respect the structure, keep bitching only on an "uphill" direction, and openly support the wishes of their superiors to their subordinates. I find it hard to see how that can happen with the atmosphere some of you have drawn about your superiors.

    So, I guess the answer is that most of you have lower-level chief officers in the union. Thanks.
    Last edited by mcnally; 03-13-2008 at 03:03 PM.
    "The less a man makes declarative statements, the less apt he is to look foolish in retrospect." -Quentin Tarantino


  2. #22
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    California Central Coast
    Posts
    11

    Default Imho

    In my humble union opinion the answer to the question of should BCs be in the union (or same bargaining unit as suppression) boils down to who is in charge of discipline. A key role of the union is to protect it's members from unfair, inconsistent discipline amoung other things. Depending on the structure of a given department the BC's are often in charge of discipline. While it can be argued that a captain may be the first level decision maker typically in the progressive discipline model they are only involved in verbal warnings, verbal reprimands and written reprimands but substantial discipline (i.e. time of w/o pay, y-rating, termination, etc.) typically falls into the role of BC, admin or higher.
    Protecting the rights of, and providing representation for, both parties would become a conflict of interest for the stewards and union itself. Given the situation that the BCs were not in charge of discipline, and this responsiblity fell into someone else's role (such as an ***. Chief) then it would be more resonable to allow them into the unit.
    In the experiences on our department of approx 50 union members that at one time included our BCs... there was coersion and intimidation which occured at general membership meetings thus requiring the use of secret ballots and the sense of members at large not feeling free to express there feelings at the podium or during open florr discussion. Just one of the reasons that our BCs were voted out of our union years ago.

    don't get me wrong... we're all brothers. But some brothers are closer than others.

  3. #23
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,555

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slocityhoseman View Post
    In my humble union opinion the answer to the question of should BCs be in the union (or same bargaining unit as suppression) boils down to who is in charge of discipline. A key role of the union is to protect it's members from unfair, inconsistent discipline amoung other things. Depending on the structure of a given department the BC's are often in charge of discipline. While it can be argued that a captain may be the first level decision maker typically in the progressive discipline model they are only involved in verbal warnings, verbal reprimands and written reprimands but substantial discipline (i.e. time of w/o pay, y-rating, termination, etc.) typically falls into the role of BC, admin or higher.
    Protecting the rights of, and providing representation for, both parties would become a conflict of interest for the stewards and union itself. Given the situation that the BCs were not in charge of discipline, and this responsiblity fell into someone else's role (such as an ***. Chief) then it would be more resonable to allow them into the unit.
    In the experiences on our department of approx 50 union members that at one time included our BCs... there was coersion and intimidation which occured at general membership meetings thus requiring the use of secret ballots and the sense of members at large not feeling free to express there feelings at the podium or during open florr discussion. Just one of the reasons that our BCs were voted out of our union years ago.

    don't get me wrong... we're all brothers. But some brothers are closer than others.
    As a Deputy and a member of my Local...

    If the Brothers and Sisters follow the rules and regulations, and adhere to the SOP's and SOG's, there should be no need to discipline anyone. That being said... there are those that like to "push the envelope" and force the officers to reprimand.

    I hate doing it, but sometimes we have to.
    Last edited by CaptainGonzo; 04-26-2008 at 03:50 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

  4. #24
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5

    Default Chief = NON Union

    How many supervisors outside the fire service are in the same union as their own "subordinates"?

    Anyone with a chief title means non-union. Or at least not the same local!

    NO union local can be a chief or even a captain. way too much on the line.

    Gonzo: who is interpreting the rules? exactly.

  5. #25
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    8

    Default

    BCs and above are out of the union, here.

  6. #26
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,555

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by beachfiremanFL View Post
    How many supervisors outside the fire service are in the same union as their own "subordinates"?

    Anyone with a chief title means non-union. Or at least not the same local!

    NO union local can be a chief or even a captain. way too much on the line.

    Gonzo: who is interpreting the rules? exactly.
    The rules and regs, sop's/sogs are spelled in in plain language....

    exactly.
    ‎"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. #27
    Forum Member PharaohTet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Jacksonville, AR USA
    Posts
    2

    Cool The NLRA weighs in...

    With regards to Union membership, the National Labor Relations Act has some pretty specific definitions about who is a Supervisor and who isn't. Notably, the NLRA test for being a Supervisor asks questions about the manager's ability to hire/fire, set wages, make assignments, suspend employees, etc. In the case of our Battalion Chiefs, they can do NONE of these things. Yes, they can make recommendations for disciplinary actions or assignments, and these recommendations are almost always backed by the Department Chief, but they cannot singly make these decisions. By definition, they're not Supervisors.

    They can make assignments or approve leave time, but there is at least one court case that supports the "non-supervisor" theory by describing this sort of thing as "minesterial in nature and ...[not involving] any exercise in discretion."

    My Local is currently negotiating a new contract; it currently includes Captains and below, and we want to add the Bat Chiefs rank. All our our Bat Chiefs are old-hand die-hard Union members who came up through the ranks. They've maintained their memberships out of principle. In one of our negotiation meetings, the Chief announced that he could not support this contract item. Eventually he made clear that the reason was that he needed the Battalion Chiefs to be on his side of the table in the event of a Union dispute.

    A lot of Locals here seem to feel differently about these issues; I respect each one's position (and please respect MINE, thank you!), mainly because we all don't have circumstances that are exactly the same. From my Local's standpoint, we feel that the only employees who should be excluded from our Union are the Chief and the Assistant Chief, since they are (by FLSA definition) Supervisors.

    Ironically, our Asst Chief insists on maintaining his membership. Another "die-hard" Union member, he was a Union Officer at one time. The only person in our 148-man department who IS NOT a regular member is the Chief, whom I suspect got "flipped" a few years ago from his membership by the Chief at the time, who was labor-hostile. Our members all fully support the Local.

    As I said, we are currently arguing for inclusion of the Battalion Chiefs in contract. Some of you may call them "shift commanders", "district chiefs", etc. If anyone has any insight or past experience in this matter, I'd appreciate hearing from you here or via email.

    One last thing: my source for info is The Rights of Firefighters by Will Aitchison. If you're a firefighter, it's nice to have. If you're a Union firefighter, it's a SHOULD have. If you're an Officer of the Union, it's a MUST have. (And no, I'm not a paid endorsee for their publisher.)

    PharaohTet (IAFF Local #35, North Little Rock, Arkansas)
    Last edited by PharaohTet; 06-25-2008 at 09:28 AM. Reason: Reference Error: used FLSA, meant NLRB/NLRA

  8. #28
    the 4-1-4 Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,783

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainGonzo View Post
    As a Deputy and a member of my Local...

    I said it before and I'll say it again, chiefs should be organized, just with their own association.



    If the Brothers and Sisters follow the rules and regulations, and adhere to the SOP's and SOG's, there should be no need to discipline anyone. That being said... there are those that like to "push the envelope" and force the officers to reprimand.

    I hate doing it, but sometimes we have to.

    To give you an example from here, as we are in the midst of a significant battle/war with administration and the mayor's office.
    We are taking steps, and I choose my words carefully as all of our actions are completely LEGAL, our steps are designed to stop helping the city and administration out as we have done in years past. The city and administration have stopped meeting us halfway, and are jeopardizing our safety by cutting our line firefighting capabilities. As such, we have collectively decided to stop handing out freebies to the city, or benefits of cooperative labor, as in the past. No more details than that will be provided, but it is all legal.

    Administration is obviously pushing back, further than just the cuts. The COD's tool of choice for that is the departments chiefs, both battalion level and deputy. That is their job here, they are the chief's hands, etc...
    They are the ones dealing out punishment, they are the ones checking to see if off going shift members left early, etc... The chief level officers are a part of administration, and are not labor.
    When Local 215 went on strike in 1981, the chief officers crossed the strike line.

    My point with this post is that chiefs are looking for ways to pinch guys, here. It is beyond just following the rules. They are the "middle-man" here, between the chief and the local, but they are his guns, so to speak. I will say that they are also "at-will" employees of the city because they have no union affiliation. As such they could be "forced to retire" at the beckoning of the chief.

    Sorry for the rant.

  9. #29
    Forum Member PharaohTet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Jacksonville, AR USA
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Jaspar45,

    I certainly see your point. Between us, we both illustrate what I said earlier about how different Locals have different circumstances to deal with.

    We don't exactly get along with our current Mayor (an understatement), but we enjoy a good "help each other out" relationship with our Department administration. I regret that your folks are having the problems you describe; keep fighting the good fight.

  10. #30
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    17

    Default

    Unions were an absolute necessity at one time, otherwise labor would have starved. Those days are long gone - and NAFTA, the movement of businesses from the north to the south & bankrupt businesses are proof. GM says some $1800 of the cost of each vehicle goes to worker benefits. Unions are, and have been for some time, an ongoing part of the problem, not a part of the solution. Be grateful you have a job. Do your best. Don't equate pride with money.

  11. #31
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1fyrboy View Post
    Unions were an absolute necessity at one time, otherwise labor would have starved. Those days are long gone - and NAFTA, the movement of businesses from the north to the south & bankrupt businesses are proof. GM says some $1800 of the cost of each vehicle goes to worker benefits. Unions are, and have been for some time, an ongoing part of the problem, not a part of the solution. Be grateful you have a job. Do your best. Don't equate pride with money.
    I hope that your attitude works in your department. Here, we would've already had our salaries cut, positions eliminated, and trucks shut down. Please do not equate your situation to others, from my experiences and interactions with firefighters around the country yours is the minority experience.

  12. #32
    Forum Member bfdhoser1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    69

    Lightbulb Where's the line ?

    Lets just roll with this here - please don't feed the need to correct these titles or rolls - its just a "For instance" type thing.

    Lets look at Buffalo New York:

    The Department starts with the :
    Commissioner
    Deputies
    Division Chiefs
    Battalion Chiefs
    Captains
    Lieutenants
    Fire Fighters
    For all intents and purposes everyone above Firefighter is a part of "Management Personnel" - the Fire Fighters are the "Workers"

    Now our Union Local:
    President(Captain)
    Board Members(Firefighters and Officers)

    Now Ford Motor Company:

    Workers(Union Members)
    Foremen to C.E.O( Non-Union)


    U.S.Military:
    Sargent to Pentagon(Management)
    Soldiers(Workers)


    Most Fire Departments seem to use a convenient mix of all these norms. When it comes to "Non-life and death" situations - I believe the standings should reflect the Industries standards of organization.

    By having "Management/Admin/Officers" running your Union - its no different than having the C.E.O of Ford Run the U.A.W. !

    It seems that to often the "Admin" wants it both ways - they want the "Prestige - Authority and privilege of Rank and all the Benefits of the Unions Contract." - But for the most part "Admin" is not obligated to "Enforce" the Unions contract rights in any job dispute or action - quite the opposite - "Admin" is usually the ones who the Union is pitted against when issues arrive or its time to negotiate a contract. (Yes , many Officers help both sides)

    Makes no sense to me , who does "Admin" Represent ? Union or Employer?

    But , be careful who you discuss this with - like many other issues in the Fire Services - its easier to get rid of the questioner than to actually answer the question.

    www.bfd-firedepartment.com
    23 years B.F.D. Local 282
    13 years U.A.W
    U.S.Military - Joined.

  13. #33
    Forum Member bfdhoser1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    69

    Lightbulb Undo influence / conflict of interests.

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainGonzo View Post
    As a Deputy and a member of my Local...( So wrong on so many levels)

    If the Brothers and Sisters follow the rules and regulations, and adhere to the SOP's and SOG's, there should be no need to discipline anyone. (Interpretations , perceptions and as long as you agree.)
    That being said... there are those that like to "push the envelope" and force the officers to reprimand.

    I hate doing it, but sometimes we have to.
    Lets take out all the dramatic life and death maybe's - The SOP's and SOG's are all subject to interpretation , personal perceptions and feelings of those enforcing them in disciplinary situations.

    The Fire Service has taken the "Authority of Leadership" so far to extremes! Too many , (Not all or even most) of these people wearing Stars and Bars have never served in the Military - yet believe their acting under the "Military Chain of Command and Respect" -

    The Ego of their "Perceived Authority and knowledge" takes them far beyond what was meant to be.

    Many Firefighters are worried about their jobs - thats why they sit back and swallow this dual role - Union/Admin nonsense.

    In no other "Job" situation can a person be charged with "Disrespect" for "Disagreeing" with a member of "Admin/Supervision."

    Where else can a "Employee" be isolated and discriminated against if they question the day today "Admin" actions or decisions ?

    In no other job I have ever heard of where the Local Union paid for a lawyer to defend a member of Supervision - when that person was charged with "Racial Discrimination" by "Union Dues Paying Employees"

    There is to much obvious "conflict of interest" not to have a clear separation between Admin and Union and the Union benefits Admin Enjoy.


    Oh My God - I think I done it this time !
    www.bfd-firedepartment.com
    23 years B.F.D. Local 282
    13 years U.A.W
    U.S.Military - Joined.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. World Of Fire Report: 01-30-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-31-2005, 08:23 PM
  2. World Of Fire Report: 12-18-04
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-30-2004, 08:33 AM
  3. World Of Fire Report: 03-24-04
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-26-2004, 07:53 AM
  4. World Of Fire Report: 03-11-04
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-12-2004, 06:40 AM
  5. World Of Fire Report: 10-20-03
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-21-2003, 06:46 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