1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Springfield, TN
    Posts
    193

    Default Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act

    Bothers and sisters asking for some help from all of you in the US. Please contact your United States Congressman and Senators reguardless if there Republican or Democrat and ask them to co sponsor or support the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.

    It does not restrict volunteering at all. This act would be good for firefighters nationwide. One it does not restrict volunteering. And it also ensures that career firefighters get their chance to have their voice heard by the City leaders that they work for concerning working conditions, hours, ETC. It is a good bill and anyone that is a firefighter reguardless if your in the IAFF, volunteer, paid or not you should contact your United States Congressman and Senators and ask them to sponsor this bill as this will help your brothers and sisters out. And beleive me the municipalites and the counties are coming out against this bill because they do not care what we as firefighters think or about any of our concerns pertaining to our safety or anything else and they do not want to have to listen to us talk about it and that is exactly what this bill would do. it would require the different cities and municipalities to sit down and let us voice our concerns. So I am asking anyone that is a firefighter please contact your United States Congressman and Senators in person or by phone, or email and ask them to sponsor this bill. This will help your brothers and sisters out more that you will ever know.

    Any firefighters out there that will support their brothers and sisters please post and show your support. Also please copy and paste this at any firefighter sites that your might visit.

    Sincerely
    Tann
    Last edited by Tann3100; 03-03-2007 at 07:26 PM.
    IACOJ
    FTM-PTB

  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Dickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,111

    Default

    So tell me the details and why I should support it then.
    Jason Knecht
    Assistant Chief
    Altoona Fire Dept.
    Altoona, WI

    IACOJ - Director of Cheese and Whine
    http://www.cheddarvision.tv/
    EAT CHEESE OR DIE!!

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Springfield, TN
    Posts
    193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dickey View Post
    So tell me the details and why I should support it then.

    Bro it will make Local Governments collectively bargain with firefighter unions. This is something that alot of areas to not have the privilege of and therefore the Governments do not listen to any concerns pertaining to anything we have to say Ex.. Manpower shortages, safety issues, working conditions. It will enable us to have a voice. Some places have this luxury but there are alot more that donít and struggle with city leaders everyday to try and get them to talk. Here its to much to explain so I will post the text of the bill

    110th CONGRESS

    1st Session

    H. R. 980
    To provide collective bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by States or their political subdivisions.


    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


    February 12, 2007

    Mr. KILDEE (for himself and Mr. DUNCAN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    A BILL
    To provide collective bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by States or their political subdivisions.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the `Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007'.


    SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE .

    Congress finds the following:

    (1) Labor-management relationships and partnerships are based on trust, mutual respect, open communication, bilateral consensual problem solving, and shared accountability. In many public safety agencies it is the union that provides the institutional stability as elected leaders and appointees come and go.

    (2) State and local public safety officers play an essential role in the efforts of the United States to detect, prevent, and respond to terrorist attacks, and to respond to natural disasters, hazardous materials, and other mass casualty incidents. As the first to arrive on scene, State and local public safety officers must be prepared to protect life and property and to preserve scarce and vital Federal resources, avoid substantial and debilitating interference with interstate and foreign commerce, and to protect the national security of the United States. Public safety employer-employee cooperation is essential in meeting these needs and is, therefore, in the National interest.

    (3) The health and safety of the Nation and the best interests of public safety employers and employees can be best protected by the settlement of issues through the processes of collective bargaining.

    (4) The Federal Government needs to encourage conciliation, mediation, and voluntary arbitration to aid and encourage employers and the representatives of their employees to reach and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, hours, and working conditions, and to make all reasonable efforts through negotiations to settle their differences by mutual agreement reached through collective bargaining or by such methods as may be provided for in any applicable agreement for the settlement of disputes.

    (5) The absence of adequate cooperation between public safety employers and employees has implications for the security of employees, impacts the upgrading of police and fire services of local communities, the health and well-being of public safety officers, and the morale of the fire and police departments, and can affect interstate and intrastate commerce.


    SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:

    (1) The term `Authority' means the Federal Labor Relations Authority.

    (2) The term `public safety officer'--

    (A) means an employee of a public safety agency who is a law enforcement officer, a firefighter, or emergency medical services personnel;

    (B) includes an individual who is temporarily transferred to a supervisory or management position; and

    (C) does not include a permanent supervisory or management employee.

    (3) The term `firefighter' has the same meaning given the term `employee engaged in fire protection activities' defined in section 3 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 203(y)).

    (4) The term `emergency medical services personnel' means an individual who provides out-of-hospital emergency medical care, including an emergency medical technician, paramedic, or first responder.

    (5) The term `law enforcement officer' has the same meaning given such term in section 1204(5) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b(5)).

    (6) The term `supervisory employee' has the meaning given such term under applicable State law on the date of enactment of this Act. In the absence of such State law on the date of enactment of this Act, the term means an individual, employed by a public safety employer, who--

    (A) has the authority in the interest of the employer to hire, direct, assign, promote, reward, transfer, furlough, lay off, recall, suspend, discipline, or remove public safety officers, to adjust their grievances, or to effectively recommend such action, if the exercise of the authority is not merely routine or clerical in nature but requires the consistent exercise of independent judgment; and

    (B) devotes a majority of time at work exercising such authority.

    (7) The term `management employee' has the meaning given such term under applicable State law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act. If no such State law is in effect, the term means an individual employed by a public safety employer in a position that requires or authorizes the individual to formulate, determine, or influence the policies of the employer.

    (8) The terms `employer' and `public safety agency' mean any State, political subdivision of a State, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United States that employs public safety officers.

    (9) The term `labor organization' means an organization composed in whole or in part of employees, in which employees participate, and the purpose of which is to represent such employees before public safety agencies concerning grievances, conditions of employment and related matters.

    (10) The term `substantially provides' means substantial compliance with the rights and responsibilities described in section 4(b).


    SEC. 4. DETERMINATION OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

    (a) Determination-

    (1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Authority shall make a determination as to whether a State substantially provides for the rights and responsibilities described in subsection (b). In making such determinations, the Authority shall consider and give weight, to the maximum extent practicable, to the opinion of affected employee organizations.

    (2) SUBSEQUENT DETERMINATIONS- (A) A determination made pursuant to paragraph (1) shall remain in effect unless and until the Authority issues a subsequent determination, in accordance with the procedures set forth in subparagraph (B).

    (B) Upon establishing that a material change in State law or its interpretation has occurred, an employer or a labor organization may submit a written request for a subsequent determination. If satisfied that a material change in State law or its interpretation has occurred, the Director shall issue a subsequent determination not later than 30 days after receipt of such request.

    (3) JUDICIAL REVIEW- Any person aggrieved by a determination of the Authority under this section may, during the 60-day period beginning on the date on which the determination was made, petition any United States Court of Appeals in the circuit in which the person resides or transacts business or in District of Columbia circuit, for judicial review. In any judicial review of a determination by the Authority, the procedures contained in section 7123(c) and (d) of title 5, United States Code, shall be followed.

    (b) Rights and Responsibilities- In making a determination described in subsection (a), the Authority shall consider whether State law substantially provides rights and responsibilities comparable to or greater than the following:

    (1) Granting public safety officers the right to form and join a labor organization, which may exclude management and supervisory employees, that is, or seeks to be, recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative of such employees.

    (2) Requiring public safety employers to recognize the employees' labor organization (freely chosen by a majority of the employees), to agree to bargain with the labor organization, and to commit any agreements to writing in a contract or memorandum of understanding.

    (3) Providing for bargaining over hours, wages, and terms and conditions of employment.

    (4) Making available an interest impasse resolution mechanism, such as fact-finding, mediation, arbitration, or comparable procedures.

    (5) Requiring enforcement through State courts of--

    (A) all rights, responsibilities, and protections provided by State law and enumerated in this subsection; and

    (B) any written contract or memorandum of understanding.

    (c) Failure To Meet Requirements-

    (1) IN GENERAL- If the Authority determines, acting pursuant to its authority under subsection (a), that a State does not substantially provide for the rights and responsibilities described in subsection (b), such State shall be subject to the regulations and procedures described in section 5.

    (2) EFFECTIVE DATE- Paragraph (1) shall take effect on the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act.


    SEC. 5. ROLE OF THE AUTHORITY.

    (a) In General- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Authority shall issue regulations establishing procedures providing the rights and responsibilities described in section 4(b) for public safety employers and officers in States which the Authority has determined, acting pursuant to its authority under section 4(a), do not substantially provide for such rights and responsibilities.

    (b) Role of the Federal Labor Relations Authority- The Authority, to the extent provided in this Act and in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Authority, shall--

    (1) determine the appropriateness of units for labor organization representation;

    (2) supervise or conduct elections to determine whether a labor organization has been selected as an exclusive representative by a voting majority of the employees in an appropriate unit;

    (3) resolve issues relating to the duty to bargain in good faith;

    (4) conduct hearings and resolve complaints of unfair labor practices;

    (5) resolve exceptions to the awards of arbitrators; and

    (6) protect the right of each employee to form, join, or assist any labor organization, or to refrain from any such activity, freely and without fear of penalty or reprisal, and protect each employee in the exercise of such right; and

    (7) take such other actions as are necessary and appropriate to effectively administer this Act, including issuing subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary or other evidence from any place in the United States, and administering oaths, taking or ordering the taking of depositions, ordering responses to written interrogatories, and receiving and examining witnesses.

    (c) Enforcement-

    (1) PETITION BY AUTHORITY- The Authority may petition any United States Court of Appeals with jurisdiction over the parties or the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to enforce any final orders under this section, and for appropriate temporary relief or a restraining order. Any petition under this section shall be conducted in accordance with section 7123(c) and (d) of title 5, United States Code, except that any final order of the Authority with respect to questions of fact or law shall be found to be conclusive unless the court determines that the Authority's decision was arbitrary and capricious.

    (2) RIGHT OF ACTION- Unless the Authority has filed a petition for enforcement as provided in paragraph (1), any interested party has the right to file suit in a State court of competent jurisdiction to enforce compliance with the regulations issued by the Authority pursuant to subsection (b), and to enforce compliance with any order issued by the Authority pursuant to this section. The right provided by this paragraph to bring a suit to enforce compliance with any order issued by the Authority pursuant to this section shall terminate upon the filing of a petition seeking the same relief by the Authority under paragraph (1).


    SEC. 6. STRIKES AND LOCKOUTS PROHIBITED.

    Notwithstanding any rights or responsibilities provided under State law or under regulations issued by the Authority under section 5, a public safety employer, officer, or labor organization may not engage in a lockout or strike.


    SEC. 7. EXISTING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS AND AGREEMENTS.

    This Act and the regulations issued under this Act shall not be construed to invalidate a certification, recognition, collective bargaining agreement or memorandum of understanding which has been issued, approved, or ratified by any public employee relations board or commission or by any State or political subdivision or its agents (management officials) in effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act, or the results of any election held before the date of enactment of this Act.


    SEC. 8. CONSTRUCTION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT.

    (a) Construction- Nothing in this Act or the regulations issued under this Act shall be construed--

    (1) to preempt or limit the remedies, rights, and procedures of any law of any State or political subdivision of any State or jurisdiction that substantially provides greater or comparable rights and responsibilities described in section 4(b);

    (2) to prevent a State from enforcing a State law which prohibits employers and labor organizations from negotiating provisions in a labor agreement that require union membership or payment of union fees as a condition of employment;

    (3) to preempt any State law in effect on the date of enactment of this Act that substantially provides for the rights and responsibilities described in section 4(b) solely because--

    (A) such State law permits an employee to appear in his or her own behalf with respect to his or her employment relations with the public safety agency involved;

    (B) such State law excludes from its coverage employees of a state militia or national guard;

    (C) such rights and responsibilities have not been extended to other categories of employees covered by this Act. In such circumstances, the Authority shall only exercise the powers provided in section 5 of this Act with respect to those categories of employees who have not been afforded the rights and responsibilities described in section 4(b); or

    (D) such laws or ordinances provide that a contract or memorandum of understanding between a public safety employer and a labor organization must be presented to a legislative body as part of the process for approving such contract or memorandum of understanding;

    (4) to permit parties subject to the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) and the regulations under such Act to negotiate provisions that would prohibit an employee from engaging in part-time employment or volunteer activities during off-duty hours;

    (5) to prohibit a State from exempting from coverage under this Act a political subdivision of the State that has a population of less than 5,000 or that employs fewer than 25 full time employees; or

    (6) to require a State to rescind or preempt laws or ordinances of any of its political subdivisions if such laws substantially provide rights and responsibilities for public safety officers that are comparable to or greater than the rights and responsibilities enumerated in section 4(b) of this Act.

    For purposes of paragraph (4), the term `employees' includes each individual employed by the political subdivision except any individual elected by popular vote or appointed to serve on a board or commission.

    (b) Enforcement- Not withstanding any other provision of the Act, and in the absence of a waiver of a States sovereign immunity, the Authority shall have the exclusive power to enforce the provisions of this Act with respect to State employees and employees of arms of a State.


    SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
    IACOJ
    FTM-PTB

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Springfield, TN
    Posts
    193

    Default

    BUMP please do this
    IACOJ
    FTM-PTB

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    I'll ask the same question I asked in the other copy of this thread that has since mysteriously disappeared...

    Why now? Both the Senate and House versions of this bill have been in committee for 2 years now. There has been virtually no recent activity and less than 1/4 of Congress has signed on to these bills so far.

    What has happened that there is suddenly an interest in pushing for these bills now?
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    32

    Default

    The answer to why now is a two part answer.

    First, this is getting attention because the IAFF Legislative Conference is next week and 700 to 1000 IAFF members will be on Capitol Hill lobbying their elected officials.

    Second, it has a much great chance of getting out of committee and/or even having hearings on it because the Dems control the house and senate now.

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RE33FFX View Post
    First, this is getting attention because the IAFF Legislative Conference is next week and 700 to 1000 IAFF members will be on Capitol Hill lobbying their elected officials.
    Ah! I forgot that was coming up so soon... I haven't read the latest issue of the IAFF magazine -- it's probably in there.

    Quote Originally Posted by RE33FFX View Post
    Second, it has a much great chance of getting out of committee and/or even having hearings on it because the Dems control the house and senate now.
    I'm not sure I'd count on that. My recollection is that most of the so-called "right to work" states this would effect have long histories of Democratic control already. Those are the states that this law would effect. It's not as if Democratic support for the bills has been all that enthusiastic up until now. (Oddly enough, the Senate version was proposed by a Republican and about a quarter of the co-sponsors are Republicans. Go figure...)

    Personally, I think that there are major "state's rights" issues here that won't go unnoticed even in the name of benefitting public safety employees.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber
    JHR1985's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    DFW
    Posts
    1,917

    Default

    I stay out of the politics mainly but I work in a right to work state.... and the union has no power what so ever. Every benefit would be appreciated BUT... what would the downside's to this be?

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Springfield, TN
    Posts
    193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    I'll ask the same question I asked in the other copy of this thread that has since mysteriously disappeared...

    Why now? Both the Senate and House versions of this bill have been in committee for 2 years now. There has been virtually no recent activity and less than 1/4 of Congress has signed on to these bills so far.

    What has happened that there is suddenly an interest in pushing for these bills now?
    The anwser is first because it has not been in committee for 2 years. It did spend 2 years in committee when it was introduced in 2005 back when the republicans had control.

    So this is a brand new bill that was just introduced February 12 2007 it is HR 980.

    Heres the deal for those that do not know. Once a bill is committee for a whole term of congress it is killed. Meaning if a bill doesnt make it out of committee during the 2 year election cycle the bill is killed. If the bill makes it out of committee and is voted on in the house and passes and then it goes to senate and they put it off to last minute and dont vote on it again it is killed. When a bill is killed it has to be reintroduced and you have to start back at square one.

    This bill is the 2007 act. They have until the next election to pass it I think at 12:00 am on jan 1 the bill is officially dead.

    I hope this explains it. Now will you please call your congressman and senators this is the best chance that we have ever had to pass this bill. The republicans have had control of congress since 1996 (not knocking republicans). So this is the firest time the democrats have had control and democrats have always been for labor. So please call your elected officals or email them as it will make a big difference.

    Take care
    Tann
    IACOJ
    FTM-PTB

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Springfield, TN
    Posts
    193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    I'm not sure I'd count on that. My recollection is that most of the so-called "right to work" states this would effect have long histories of Democratic control already. Those are the states that this law would effect. It's not as if Democratic support for the bills has been all that enthusiastic up until now. (Oddly enough, the Senate version was proposed by a Republican and about a quarter of the co-sponsors are Republicans. Go figure...)

    Personally, I think that there are major "state's rights" issues here that won't go unnoticed even in the name of benefitting public safety employees.
    Hrmm the senate version hasnt been introduced yet? And it will affect any state that does not currently have collective bargaining rights includeing non right to work states. And most democrats support labor however if you have a republican governor and depending on laws within different states the hose and senate can pass it on a state level but the governor in some states can do what they call a pocket veto which means he just doesnt sign the bill as was the case back in 1957 in TN. So please quit second guessing it. Evedentally you do not stay up on none of this Deputy and I bet you are a chief seems like you dont wont this bill to pass. And guess what it doesnt affect the right to work laws read the bill.

    Not only that if you are in a right to work state and your employer has specific procedures to fire you like a discipline board etc.. then you are not a at will employee.

    Look up at will employee on the internet here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will

    also look up loudemill rights.

    Take care sorry to do so much talking

    Sincerely
    Tann
    IACOJ
    FTM-PTB

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default Brotherhood My ***

    It figures that some of our "Brothers" care so much about their fellow firefighters that they don't believe they deserve a chance to sit across the table from their employers to negotiate wages a basic work rules. Tann I really hope it works out for you and all MY BROTHERS and SISTERS who deserve this legislation.
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    DeputyMarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,638

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tann3100 View Post
    Hrmm the senate version hasnt been introduced yet?
    I was referring to the bills' last incarnation in 2005. Over their 2 year life, they garnered support from just 21 Senators and 121 Representatives. (mostly Democrats overall but with Replubicans well represented)

    Quote Originally Posted by Tann3100 View Post
    And it will affect any state that does not currently have collective bargaining rights includeing non right to work states.
    I believe that you will find that it is the Right-to-Work states where it will have the most impact as the other states tend to have equitable collective bargaining rights in place already.

    So please quit second guessing it.
    I'm not second guessing, I'm just commenting that the bill hasn't had a history of strong support even among Democrats and has had little support from the states where it would have the most impact.

    Evedentally you do not stay up on none of this Deputy and I bet you are a chief seems like you dont wont this bill to pass. And guess what it doesnt affect the right to work laws read the bill.
    I've read it, thank you. It's not a question of wanting the bill to pass or not. I do question whether it's a realistic fight to take to the federal level. There are larger issues at stake in this bill than bargaining rights -- that's why I question the liklihood of seeing it pass.

    Don't get me wrong; the so called "at will" employee model is outdated and unfair and I feel for any employee stuck in a "right to work" state. I just have serious reservations about the chances of forcing those states to change through federal legislation. "States Rights" is a bigger issue and I think that will tend to hold this sort of bill back in anything but an ideal political climate.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"

    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

  13. #13
    Rabble rouser
    Kobersteen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Fairfax County (VA) Fire & Rescue Dept.
    Posts
    529

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    "States Rights" is a bigger issue and I think that will tend to hold this sort of bill back in anything but an ideal political climate.
    Considering it is the IAFFs number one legislative priority and they enjoyed a very successful Senate and House election this past November, the political climate right now is nearly as ideal as it had ever been since the debut of Nationwide Collective Bargaining Legislation.

    Despite the fact some view the legislation as a long shot, does not mean that the IAFF and its members should not concentrate heavily on it. As Mikey said, the option of management and labor sitting at a table and discussing health, safety, benefit and working condition issues is a BASIC need.

    I hope to see my brothers and sisters on the Hill next week!
    Member IACOJ - Building crust and full of lust...

    "It's okay to to scared, just don't be chicken." - Clark

  14. #14
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Under Republican control, this bill just missed gaining a supermajority in the Senate. You need to 60 votes to break the threat of a filibuster. The tide may have changed. As for "state rights" keep in mind that in the South, unions are historically week because the Chamber of Commerce in the various states are well organized and have a powerful lobby. This is a good bill, and it truly is time that firefighters had a right to job security in states where they are "at will" and can be fired for any reason OR NO REASON AT ALL! Think about that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kobersteen View Post
    Considering it is the IAFFs number one legislative priority and they enjoyed a very successful Senate and House election this past November, the political climate right now is nearly as ideal as it had ever been since the debut of Nationwide Collective Bargaining Legislation.

    Despite the fact some view the legislation as a long shot, does not mean that the IAFF and its members should not concentrate heavily on it. As Mikey said, the option of management and labor sitting at a table and discussing health, safety, benefit and working condition issues is a BASIC need.

    I hope to see my brothers and sisters on the Hill next week!

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Springfield, TN
    Posts
    193

    Default

    Lets not forget this
    IACOJ
    FTM-PTB

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Thoughts On General Safety And A Few Other Things
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-27-2005, 10:42 AM
  2. U.F.I. Safety Notes
    By MalahatTwo7 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-10-2005, 11:29 AM
  3. Capitol and Whitehose Briefly Evacuated
    By Maverick9110E in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-13-2005, 09:37 AM
  4. SPECIAL PUBLIC SAFETY RIBBONS
    By LDCFM_FireCop in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-13-2001, 09:28 PM
  5. PG County Public Safety Communications
    By F/FJunkett in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-04-2001, 01:42 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