gamewell45

Let me expand on that If I may. The chances are very real that this may not be just a veiled threat, it may become reality as municipalities and fire districts look for other ways to shift the burden of fire protection to private corporations and thus move the responsibilities fire protection, payroll, benefits, pensions and so forth on to fire protection corporations; while they are very few in numbers at this time, they could grow as time marches on. While consolidation may reduce costs short/long term, still there is the private sector to compete against and if the cost is lower then that of the public sector it will be presented to the taxpayers as such and we all know how the taxpayers feel about taxes these days. If its sold to the public by the politicians that it'll save money, the public will embrace the concept and we will be witnessing some of the most radical changes in the fire service that we've ever seen. I'm not saying that I agree with the concept, but it is something that all of us in the fire service need to consider, especially those in career or those seeking career positions.

You are correct; its all cyclical.

I remember when 60 Control was staffed by volunteers and parkway police when they were at Hawthorne Traffic Circle.

I agree completely; if they are going to consolidate, it has to be all county-wide; none of these so-called exceptions. All firefighters should be fungible was well if its going to be a county fire department.

I feel bad for the cleaners from Metro-North who get stuck cleaning those cars on Saturday; they'll most likely have a real mess on their hands.

I think probably to have a full understanding of the issue at hand, one would need to have a copy of the court transcripts to fully see what the circumstances were as provided by both sides in the matter. Otherwise its most likely speculation on our part; tho' i admit that it would be interesting to see the rationale on why this was filed in the first place.

Likewise I agree. That is why most of them who do not agree are guests of the government at this time.

Cogs, I have to agree with you on this; attempting to "force" communities to be served exclusively by paid firefighters is not going to be viable since in the public's eyes, the cost outweighs the benefits regardless of ISO ratings or any other benefit which is fed to the public. The politicians aren't that stupid; they know that they'd be strung up by their thumbs by the taxpayers. We could attempt to petition the DOL for a change in law, but at this time and juncture (at least in NY & the Feds) both houses are not really in a very cooperative mood with each other, so its unlikely that they'll be able to make changes in the labor laws. I think that the programs will offer an opportunity to revitalize the volunteer fire service, tho' the term "volunteer" should go away if they are being paid for responding to calls. The terms "volunteer" and "career" are really nothing more than terms of division; hence the term "firefighter" for all regardless of employment status. Obviously training standards will have to be reviewed and increased where deemed necessary (city/industrial vs. rural); indeed the concept could help the so-called combo & "volunteer" departments in improving manpower staffing and at the same time possibly reducing overtime costs to the taxpayers in the combo departments. While i can't forget the whole mess, I'd love to have a beer.

Using a knife and a gun are not accepted mechanisms to settle disputes in this country regardless where you have worked.

This is the accepted mechanism used in our country to settle disputes when they arise. Of course we could use the mechanism used in some Mideastern countries where you settle your differences with a gun or knife.

I think that replacing the term "volunteer" and "career" with the generic term "firefighter" regardless of employment status would be appropriate.

I would tend to agree with you; the volunteer fire service is evolving, albeit slowly and its quite possible that in time many towns and cities will adopt this mindset,which initially could show some promise of a new revitalized fire service. It wouldn't surprise me if the title of "volunteer" disappears from many departments and instead of volunteer or career you could see a generic title of "firefighter" regardless of employment status. Plus you might actually seen training standards more in line with what many feel firefighters should attain since their would be some form of compensation paid and prospective firefighters would embrace that concept. Either way it'll be interesting to see how this all flushes out over the next 10-20 years.

I'll PM you because i'm not going to dignify your post in public.

Well if you had presented your opinion in a respectful way, then perhaps you might have gotten responses that were more respectful.

Since when does NEA speak for all of organized labor?? Do you know what the term "Stereotyping" means?

Federal law prohibits mandatory membership in labor unions, however if you opt not to join the union (except in right-to-work states, where no membership/dues/fees are required), you are still required to pay a fee equal to what the dues and customary fees would be, unless you are an agency fee payer objector (see Beck vs. CWA), then you are only required to pay a fee based on contract maintenance/negotiations, etc which in most cases results in 15% reduction in the fees. New York is an Agency Fee Payer State.

Are you possibly aware that perhaps the rank and file who voted on the contract felt that it was a wage offer theyf could accept? You could work for a company paying you $25 per hour and if you have no job security, the $25 per hour really has no meaning. Its not all about money, but of course I wouldn't expect you to comprehend that based on your followup postings.

Typical attitude of someone young and ignorant. Where's your so-called "proof" or "evidence" that union's are nothing but a "bunch of mafia thugs" Do you know anything about union's or have you been listening to the typical company mantra or maybe your a manager who's deathly afraid of unions? Crossing a picket line? It just shows low character and poor moral fiber on your part. So you go on line and trash those who want to have better working conditions in the workplace? Well Merry Christmas to you too. I do agree with you on one part of your post; yes, your opinion is biased and you should have stopped right then and there as opposed to sharing your biased screed with us.

I think the mindset of many taxpayers is that they could care less about staffing, until their home catches fire and then suddenly fire staffing becomes a priority.

I see no down side to the union, my opinion of course. Keep in mind that its the company who hires the "problem" employee, not the union; the union has an obligation to represent the employee. Any employee can be fired for just cause, only the company has the burden of proof; no easy firings because the manager is having a bad day or has a personal grudge against the employee.

Working union is really the only way to have any say over the terms and conditions of your employment. Non-union employees live and work at the behest of the company; New York State is an "employment-at-will state, so there are no guarantees aside from the federal, state and city discrimination laws, which are designed not to work in favor of the employee. With a labor contract, you'll what what the rules are at your job, you'll know what your base wages will be over the term of your contract,s o you'll be able to plan financially, you'll know what your benefits package will be and you'll have a mechanism in place to deal with issues that arise between the employer and the employee. Most of your colleagues in the public sector are union because they recognize the importance of collective bargaining and the job security which it brings. To this day, it amazes me that people are so afraid of unionizing; of course the companies don't make it easier by routinely violating labor law, even though they know its illegal; those seeking to organize must remember that they are protected by labor law and the NLRB/PERB will actively pursue all valid charges filed. Now the companies will tell you that unions are responsible for everything from economic destruction to bad weather, but the fact of the matter is that they don't want you to have a say over your career since it means less control they have over your professional and personal lives. I've always worked union my entire life, so I can testify to the benefits of being union; my son works for a non- union commercial ambulance company and I am fully aware of the low pay and horrible working conditions that those professionals have to endure. Unfortunately many of the employees are very young and naive and honestly think that the company will look after their best interests; they are sadly mistaken; the company will look after its own interests whether or not it benefits the employee. Many of you who work commercial ambulance will no doubt give the company the best years of your life, health wise and energy wise, and while its not the complete panacea for all the issues, unionizing is a very good start. After all, you are owed something aside from low pay and horrible working conditions. Just my two cents from a veteran union member.

While I agree with you; it looks like they are doing a great job of eliminating career Fire & Police. What's really bothersome is that I feel more of this is coming down the pike; particularly in states like Arizona where the politicians are trying to eliminate collective bargaining altogether in both private and public sector.

.....now if only their tie rods wouldn't fail...hmmmmm......................

Union's have a legal obligation to represent their members; the member pay dues and for the union to fail to do so could result in a charge filed with the NLRB or PERB as the case may be and additionally they could be sued for failure to represent, so they have to represent them whether or not they are "good" employees. Keep in mind that while in any job there might be sub-par employees, the union doesn't hire them, rather administrators and/or management hire them and if they are not "good" employees, its an indication that whoever hired them didn't do their job properly. So the blame should not rest upon the union, although the public in ignorance tends to blame everything from economic destruction to bad weather on unions. If management did their job right in the first place, in most cases you wouldn't have poor performing employees. Work rules were put into place for a reason; in many cases due to safety concerns. Most unions recognize that in some cases they do become antiquated and need to be adjusted. Many companies, in response to either the market conditions or in the case of public employees, need to balance the budget and its not uncommon for the administration to make a claim of work rules that are too restrictive, but what it really comes down to is that they want the employees to do more with less and in many cases, it could place lives in jeopardy.

Just for clarification its 34-67