gamewell45

Probably the reason they all have so much money is that they never spend any of it.

You are correct. Fortunately laws can be changed. If there was enough groundswell, I think the laws could be changed to remove legal conflicts when it comes to fire districts and fire protection districts.

People have a right to be stupid I guess.

It's only going to get worse as taxpayers become more and more frustrated with the costs associated with providing services; particularly in Westchester County, which is rapidly becoming unaffordable for the middle class to live in. People are only willing to open their wallets only so much before they become fed up and demand elimination of non-essential services and sharp reductions of essential services. Especially since many non-union workers are not receiving pay raises or are on layoff status. We may not want to admit it can happen, but I honestly believe its not too far down the road.

Legislation protecting volunteer Firefighters and volunteer EMT's from disciplinary action resulting in either being late or not reporting to work due to a bona fide emergency to which they were dispatched. The bill now sits on Governor David Patterson's desk awaiting his signature which would make it law within the state. Thank's to FASNY for helping this bill to come to fruition. For more information, click on the link furnished. http://www.fasny.com/legislative-alert-jobprotectbill.aspx

In this case I'd definitley agree with you. That's why unions tend to do better in the northeast as most states up here have horrible labor laws.

I don't believe the purpose of the bill was to retain volunteer firefighters; rather I believe it is merely supposed to make it a little easier for those who want to respond to calls without fear of termination. Is it feel good legislation? I guess we'll find out. If its never used, then you might be correct but lets wait and see. Btw, I've yet to hear anyone from my firehouse or friends in the volunteer community go "WOO HOOO" over this legislation.

Its important to realize that outside of urban/suburban areas, many small-town rural fire departments have members who work in the same town they protect and this bill will no doubt benefit them. Obviously tapping into accrued sick or vacation time (for those fortunate enough to have that benefit) is a personal choice. It could be possible that someone actually doesn't mind using a vacation day for the benefit of the public in certain circumstances. When you think of it, why should we even be concerned about how someone spends their sick/vacation days?? In essence, its really none of our business. I think, as spin_the_wheel eloquently stated above, if the bill saves even one job, then its all worth it.

I'm sure you meant Blind as opposed to deaf.

As I read it, yes.

Not true; those volunteers who are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement at their place of employment would be covered by the bill.

That would be determined by the current collective bargaining agreement and/or department policy in place at the time.

Tell me, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

So my store or business is in Yonkers or White Plains or New Rochelle or Eastchester or NYC (on fire or not)....how does them running back to there village help my business? I think those business would rather they stay at work and volunteer on there own time....not company time. If your store or business is in Yonkers or White Plains or New Rochelle or Eastchester or NYC (on fire or not) its not relevant because as I understand the law, the volunteer is not compensated for time lost at work. How many volunteers commute to NYC or the other cities listed above and leave there communities unprotected? If this is so important, then maybe they should not commute out of the community. I have no Idea how many volunteers commute to New York City nor am I aware of any survey's or polls regarding such. Perhaps if you have access to that information, you could share that with us?? Now what happens if your mom's in the hospital, I hope the RN or MD is not a volunteer who now can leave the job to cover a fire call, because you would rather they show up to your store/business and put out the fire? Whether my mom's in the hospital or not is not relevent; either way I don't think by law, Nurses cannot leave their post until relieved. The volunteer who works at the county jail, would rather they show up to your store/business and put out the fire or stay to protect the other DOC members and the public in general? That's an extreme analogy; DOC members who are working would remain on the job until relieved. What about the medic who work for a municipal or commercial EMS service? Sorry he could not get to work on time and missed the call, but there was a call back at the VFD or VAC and that was more important. Again, that's an extreme analogy; the workers from the previous shift would remain on duty until relieved. Now we have volunteer firefighters who are employees of my career department. Does the legislation mean they can come to work late or leave work to cover calls back in their volunteer community? To cover them the citizens of my city will have to pay overtime to cover this. That means that my taxpayers (who are willing to fund proper fire protection) will be subsidizing a volunteer community that if they utilize this law (if signed) shows they are willing to let our taxpayers fund their dept. Not according to your IAFF; career fightfighters are not supposed to volunteer in their communities so its obviously a non-issue. The real truth of the matter is that this bill goes a long way to assisst volunteers in serving their communities without fear of retaliation or termination for performing their duties as volunteer firefighters. Everything you've mentioned is in all honesty a non-issue.

Question; if your store or business is on fire and your protected by volunteers, would you rather they go off to work or show up to your store/business and put out the fire?

As I expected, the usual hysterics from the usual people who as a rule generally have issues with the volunteer fire service and anything that benefits them.

Not everyone wants to be a career firefighter.

If the union attorney's are resting on the those cases, then I wish them all the best.

I briefly read all four of these cases you cited and not one has anything to do with modification of employee benefits; one case you cited is private sector; another one deals with "double dipping"; another one deals with "payroll lag" and the final one deals with the ability of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to subsidize rail passenger transportation from revenues and reserves pledged as security for consolidated bonds issued by the Port Authority as far as a signed covenant goes. I sure hope that the union does not cite these examples because if they do, they will have a very weak case and are wasting the members dues money. Hopefully the union can find more direct case law examples that deal more directly with the issue at hand.

Can you provide a link to where i can read up on this particular section regarding benefits for retirees??

Unless Public sector labor law (aka civil service) is much different from private sector, the employer has the right to determine the level of benefits and cost to the employee/retirees, unless there is a stipulation in the most current collective bargaining agreement between the parties that spells out what benefits and costs associated with may be charged. In this particular case it may be possible that the employer and the union at the time of collective bargaining agreement was ratified, there was a "meeting of the minds" in which it was understood that the retirees as of a certain date would enjoy the current level of benefits at retirement as they maintained during active service. It may be what the retirees are banking their claims on and if there are contract negotiation notes sufficient to back up their claims, then they stand to prevail in court. Obviously, The City of White Plains officials and/or their attorney's feel that this Isn't the case, however this is why we have the courts to settle important disputes like this one.

Brings back lots of memories; I've always thought that monochrome pics of the day were better then color.

Lets hope that all of us in here remember this come election time.

I don't think any union is better then another; each serves its membership according to its mission statement and agenda. If you do some research, you'll find that many unions, both private and public sector have a history of making concessions, whether temporary or permanent to save jobs. The unions are run basically by the membership in most instances and the membership sets the agenda that the union follows. In the instance of Governor Patterson mandating unpaid furloughs, the unions were right to challenge him in court; not just because they were legally right, but out of principal; you don't' change an agreement once its been negotiated unless both sides voluntarily agree to it. To do so under pressure from either side would violate the spirit of the contract and bargaining process. It would be the same thing if the bank, that has the mortgage on your house, decides that you should give them 2 extra payments per year or raise your interest rate a few points because they are in financial difficulties and might have to lay off employees. You have a signed contract that says otherwise. Would you be inclined to go along with the banks requests?? Most likely not I assume. I agree that 100% paid insurance nor a 5-7% increase per year is a given right; however if the bargaining parties agree that it is what they are willing to pay, then a deal is a deal. Its not the unions fault the company/public agencies are incompetent and can't project revenue. Unions these days don't bully companies; they realize that for companies to survive they have to be realistic in their contract demands, otherwise it can have a negative impact on the employment of their members. The same goes for the public sector; unions in most cases realize that they have to make feasible proposals at the bargaining table, lest you chance having it end up in the hands of the arbitrators. In that case your rolling the dice. I don't know what the percentages are (perhaps you can supply a link to your source?) but in my union if the rank and file don't think the President (or "union boss" in your lingo) is doing his job, then we vote him/her out of office and put someone in who'll do the job as the membership deems necessary. Its all a very democratic process with checks and balances. Union officials don't come close to making what Corporate executives are paid and most union leaders are responsible for the job security of hundreds of thousands of members. I've read your postings in here on this thread and IMHO, and either you are not well versed in how unions operate or your an apologist for management. Make no bones about it; its tough times for union members and non-union members alike, just that we as union represented employees have an edge over our non-union counterparts because we bargain collectively. As one poster in here remarked to me earlier, we have to "suck it up and try again in the future"; well as union members with binding contracts, we don't have to suck it up and try again. The more people who realize that (are you listening TransCare workers?), the more working conditions will improve for all workers.

Somehow I don't think most of the posters in here would tend to agree with you nor do I think you really have a clear understanding of what unions are and their function; if you did you'd most likely never have made your prior posting which in all honesty insults those in the public and private sectors who work hard for their money/employers.