Update on Stamford Merger

[FFPCogs 863]

So much like your stance on L786 barring SFRD firefighter from volunteering in stamford (when in fact FLSA prevetns it), You have no documentation showing where L786 declared anyone a rival orginaztion?

Thats what your response feels like to me.

As the example cited shows I really don't need a specific statement from L-786. Your Union General President on numerous published occasions has explained the Union's official and his personal stance vis a vis volunteers. So unless L-786 is going to go against your duly elected General President and the decisions of the Conventions the proof is quite clear to anyone with eyes to see.

Let's look at this another way. Are you saying unequivocally and in an official capacity that L-786 does not now and never has viewed Stamford's VFDs as rivals? And are you also saying the L-786 does NOT prohibit it's members from volunteering in Stamford and that prohibition is due solely to FSLA?

Cogs

Edited June 19, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

One must be very careful with this one. The telling case is from Mongomery County MD. The county operates a combination FD with career houses and volunteer houses (that are seperate incorporated entities contracted to provide service). A career FF complained that as a 10-20 volunteer in another station he was entitiled to overtime pay for all his volunteer hours over those 10-20 years. The county had no employees in that fire station and did not even own it. The courts determined that not only was he to be paid, but so was any other career ff's who volunteered.

If the SVFD is in anyway an "arm" of the City of Stamford, then FLSA appears to apply to employees of both SVFD & SFRD

Also so everyone understands the FLSA was not written for emergency services, it was written based on general employment and one of the main examples that the feds use is an employee of a church (a book keeper), they may not volunteer for the church in an "office" capacity as it is too close to their job.

How long ago was ther case you refer to decided? I did find references to a case in Montgomery Cty from the 1980's and while looking found this rather interesting article pertaining to career FFs volunteering from 2002 (especially the italicized paragraph)

http://firechief.com...t_labor_adopts/

I also found this bit of the article to be of particular interest:

""The casual reader might conclude from this bulletin that “within their employer's jurisdiction” means the jurisdiction of any fire department employer. And many casual readers did. Within a day or two of the release of McCutcheon's opinion letter, I'd fielded at least 20 phone calls from fire chiefs of combination fire departments who wanted me to confirm that DOL had seen the light and freed them from the shackles of FLSA's overtime requirements.

But I couldn't help them. The “jurisdiction” that DOL's Lockhart and McCutcheon addressed was limited to

• A county or city fire/rescue department,
• With career employees,
• Who volunteered with an independent private non-profit corporation fire (or rescue) department in the same county or city,
• Which “exercise day-to-day control over what positions volunteers hold, what they do and when they do it.”

If your fire department jurisdiction meets all four of the criteria listed above, your career firefighters — like those of Virginia Beach and Montgomery County — have new volunteer opportunities. If not, hang onto your FLSA reference materials, because you still need them."

So much like your stance on L786 barring SFRD firefighter from volunteering in stamford (when in fact FLSA prevetns it),

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no labor lawyer but the Federal DOLs decision letter on FSLA as it applies to career FFs volunteering in the same jurisdiction does seem to me to allow SFRD employees to volunteer with Stamford's VFDs when using the above criteria:

A county or city fire/rescue department,

SFRD is a city fire department

With career employees,

SFRD is staffed by career employees

Who volunteered with an independent private non-profit corporation fire (or rescue) department in the same county or city,

Stamford's VFDs are independent private non profit corporation fire departments in the same city

Which “exercise day-to-day control over what positions volunteers hold, what they do and when they do it.”

The VFDs do excercise sole day to day control over what positions volunteers hold, what they do and when they do it

So using the above as a guideline it would appear that as I have stated in fact it is the union's stance not FSLA that prohibits SFRD members from volunteering in Stamford.

Cogs

Edited June 19, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FireMedic049 597]

As far as your questions in point one, well since I am not a member of 786 I cannot answer them. I can say in regards to L-786 citing of the VFDs as rivals that this is a commonly held belief. Although to be fair it seems that while most believe a document exists stating such apparently no one has actually seen it. But we do have the fact the CT saw the need to pass a law in regards to career fFFs volunteering as stated earlier and statements from the IAFFs General President to that effect such as:

"Let me be as clear as possible. We as a union, by Convention actions, do not represent or condone volunteer, part-time or paid on-call fire fighters. This is also my personal position, as it has been from the time that I first joined the IAFF. It remains my position today as your General President, and I have reiterated this position to affiliate leaders on a number of occasions."

Definition of CONDONE

transitive verb: to regard or treat as acceptable

So if your General President and by Convention your union does not condone volunteers, by definition it regards and will treat them as unacceptable..or in other words, rivals.

I think you may be misinterpreting his statement. I don't believe that his position is that he is absolutely against the existence of volunteer, part-time or paid-on-call firefighters and their departments. I believe what he was saying was that as a union, we don't specifically represent these 3 classifications and that by our "rules" as voted upon by the delegates, selected by their membership, do not believe our members should be performing in those 3 classifications.

By the way "unacceptable" does not equal "rival".

[Flyboy69 1]

How long ago was ther case you refer to decided? I did find references to a case in Montgomery Cty from the 1980's and while looking found this rather interesting article pertaining to career FFs volunteering from 2002 (especially the italicized paragraph)

http://firechief.com...t_labor_adopts/

I also found this bit of the article to be of particular interest:

""The casual reader might conclude from this bulletin that “within their employer's jurisdiction” means the jurisdiction of any fire department employer. And many casual readers did. Within a day or two of the release of McCutcheon's opinion letter, I'd fielded at least 20 phone calls from fire chiefs of combination fire departments who wanted me to confirm that DOL had seen the light and freed them from the shackles of FLSA's overtime requirements.

But I couldn't help them. The “jurisdiction” that DOL's Lockhart and McCutcheon addressed was limited to

• A county or city fire/rescue department,
• With career employees,
• Who volunteered with an independent private non-profit corporation fire (or rescue) department in the same county or city,
• Which “exercise day-to-day control over what positions volunteers hold, what they do and when they do it.”

If your fire department jurisdiction meets all four of the criteria listed above, your career firefighters — like those of Virginia Beach and Montgomery County — have new volunteer opportunities. If not, hang onto your FLSA reference materials, because you still need them."

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no labor lawyer but the Federal DOLs decision letter on FSLA as it applies to career FFs volunteering in the same jurisdiction does seem to me to allow SFRD employees to volunteer with Stamford's VFDs when using the above criteria:

A county or city fire/rescue department,

SFRD is a city fire department

With career employees,

SFRD is staffed by career employees

Who volunteered with an independent private non-profit corporation fire (or rescue) department in the same county or city,

Stamford's VFDs are independent private non profit corporation fire departments in the same city

Which “exercise day-to-day control over what positions volunteers hold, what they do and when they do it.”

The VFDs do excercise sole day to day control over what positions volunteers hold, what they do and when they do it

So using the above as a guideline it would appear that as I have stated in fact it is the union's stance not FSLA that prohibits SFRD members from volunteering in Stamford.

Cogs

Well you do not need to look to opinions from other departments, you only need to look at the opinion handed down from the Department of Labor back in 1993 to the volunteer fire departments in Stamford. The Department of Labor ruled that all career firefighters working for any of the Fire Departments in Stamford could not volunteer their time to any of the Volunteer departments. So starting in the summer of 1993 the career staff were paid overtime for responding to calls and drills. The employees did not need to be paid a minimum of "X" hours for responding, they could and in BFD case were paid quarterly for all time spent responding to calls and drills.

This practice ended when the employees of the volunteer fire departments became city employees because the city was not going to fund an unlimited and uncontrollable amount of overtime.

[FFPCogs 863]

Well you do not need to look to opinions from other departments, you only need to look at the opinion handed down from the Department of Labor back in 1993 to the volunteer fire departments in Stamford. The Department of Labor ruled that all career firefighters working for any of the Fire Departments in Stamford could not volunteer their time to any of the Volunteer departments. So starting in the summer of 1993 the career staff were paid overtime for responding to calls and drills. The employees did not need to be paid a minimum of "X" hours for responding, they could and in BFD case were paid quarterly for all time spent responding to calls and drills.

This practice ended when the employees of the volunteer fire departments became city employees because the city was not going to fund an unlimited and uncontrollable amount of overtime.

Well it would appear that the U.S. DOL reversed or should I say amended that 1993 decision in 2002.

The criteria established by the U.S. DOL in response to challenges to FSLA prior to 2002 and the CT law passed in 2008 prohibitiing CT City's from entering into CBA's that prohibit itheir career FFs from voluntering have created the legal justification for SFRD FFs to volunteer in Stamford. Should any choose to pursue that option and face ther wrath of their Union is another matter entirely.

Cogs

Edited June 20, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

By the way "unacceptable" does not equal "rival".

OK fair enough, but don't the IAFF By-laws state that volunteer FDs along with a host of other "secondary jobs" are considered rival organizations?

Cogs

Edited June 20, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FireMedic049 597]

OK fair enough, but don't the IAFF By-laws state that volunteer FDs along with a host of other "secondary jobs" are considered rival organizations?

Cogs

No. It states the affiliation with a "rival organization" is prohibited, however it does not specifically identify any organization as a "rival".

The By-Laws state that “working a secondary job part-time, paid on call, volunteer or otherwise as a firefighter, emergency medical services worker, public safety or law enforcement officer, or as a worker in a related service, whether in the public or private sector, where such job is within the work jurisdiction of any affiliate or which adversely impacts the interests of any affiliate or the IAFF."

As such, VFDs are not considered rival organizations simply because they exist and IAFF members are not prohibited from affiliation with VFDs in which there isn't an IAFF affiliate - which would be the case if it was an all volunteer organization. However, some VFDs have been declared rival organizations by IAFF Convention Resolution - specifically some VFDs in PG County, Maryland due to DC Metro area IAFF members volunteering at the PG County VFDs in violation of IAFF rules and causing problems for the PGFD IAFF members.

[FFPCogs 863]

No. It states the affiliation with a "rival organization" is prohibited, however it does not specifically identify any organization as a "rival".

The By-Laws state that "working a secondary job part-time, paid on call, volunteer or otherwise as a firefighter, emergency medical services worker, public safety or law enforcement officer, or as a worker in a related service, whether in the public or private sector, where such job is within the work jurisdiction of any affiliate or which adversely impacts the interests of any affiliate or the IAFF."

As such, VFDs are not considered rival organizations simply because they exist and IAFF members are not prohibited from affiliation with VFDs in which there isn't an IAFF affiliate - which would be the case if it was an all volunteer organization. However, some VFDs have been declared rival organizations by IAFF Convention Resolution - specifically some VFDs in PG County, Maryland due to DC Metro area IAFF members volunteering at the PG County VFDs in violation of IAFF rules and causing problems for the PGFD IAFF members.

Thanks for clearing that up. Upon rereading the info it seems that I was reading an older version of the By-laws from prior to Resolution 43 being passed. My apologies if I was in error.

[Alpinerunner 61]

So a question to my fellow union brothers and those familar with the ongoings in Stamford. There has been a lot of talk how L-786 declared the VFD's rival organizations. My question is this, does the union body have to vote on something like that? Does the E-Board have the authority to just declare something like that? If so, does something have to be put into writing? I have spoken to several past E-Board members that state that nothing of the kind was ever done. So, where is it coming from? Proof?

I have seen the document first hand. It exists, and it's addressed to the Union President and says something along the lines of TRFD, LRFC, Springdale, Belltown have been approved as rival organizations.

[CTFF 65]

As the example cited shows I really don't need a specific statement from L-786. Your Union General President on numerous published occasions has explained the Union's official and his personal stance vis a vis volunteers. So unless L-786 is going to go against your duly elected General President and the decisions of the Conventions the proof is quite clear to anyone with eyes to see.

Let's look at this another way. Are you saying unequivocally and in an official capacity that L-786 does not now and never has viewed Stamford's VFDs as rivals? And are you also saying the L-786 does NOT prohibit it's members from volunteering in Stamford and that prohibition is due solely to FSLA?

Cogs

My comments here are never in an official capacity.

I have never heard the term "rival organization" used to describe any volunteer organization by members of local 786, Vollies are the only people I've seen use the term.

No.

Edited June 21, 2011 by CTFF

[CTFF 65]

I have seen the document first hand. It exists, and it's addressed to the Union President and says something along the lines of TRFD, LRFC, Springdale, Belltown have been approved as rival organizations.

Have you seen a mountain lion running around in CT (since the Greenwich one was hit) as well?

[Alpinerunner 61]

Have you seen a mountain lion running around in CT (since the Greenwich one was hit) as well?

Are you calling me liar? I'm not commenting about its importance or FSLA or any of that. Just confirming its existance.

[FFPCogs 863]

Well I had heard and suspected it existed, in fact a former BFD member supposedly has a copy of the letter from the IAFF to Stamford's local supporting the rival designation, but I had not seen it. Now we have a person that actually has seen a document that specifically cites Stamford's VFDs (sans Glenbrook what a shock) as rivals. An interesting turn of events to say the least with potentially far reaching implications.

Cogs

Edited June 20, 2011 by FFPCogs

[CTFF 65]

Are you calling me liar? I'm not commenting about its importance or FSLA or any of that. Just confirming its existance.

No, I would never do that. I was just wondering if you had seen a mythical ct mountain lion as well.

[CTFF 65]

Well I had heard and suspected it existed, in fact a former BFD member supposedly has a copy of the letter from the IAFF to Stamford's local supporting the rival designation, but I had not seen it. Now we have a person that actually has seen a document that specifically cites Stamford's VFDs (sans Glenbrook what a shock) as rivals. An interesting turn of events to say the least with potentially far reaching implications.

Cogs

Yeah because a Random guy on the internet claims to have seen a document it must all be true!

[Alpinerunner 61]

No, I would never do that. I was just wondering if you had seen a mythical ct mountain lion as well.

haha, well no I haven't seen the mountain lion. But I'll report it here first if I do!

Seriously though I don't know why it's so hard to believe. I mean SFRD's higher ups have been the ones that were first saying it existed, as a reason for disallowing the volunteer departments' paid staff to continue helping their old departments. Ask Keatly, as it's addressed to him!

[FireMedic049 597]

Thanks for clearing that up. Upon rereading the info it seems that I was reading an older version of the By-laws from prior to Resolution 43 being passed. My apologies if I was in error.

You're welcome.

Unfortunately, far too many people are operating with bad information, speculation or uninformed opinions on this matter.I think a lot of the animosity towards the IAFF is a direct result of this misunderstanding. Some people are so dug in on their view that nothing can change it.

[sqd47bfd 20]

haha, well no I haven't seen the mountain lion. But I'll report it here first if I do!

Seriously though I don't know why it's so hard to believe. I mean SFRD's higher ups have been the ones that were first saying it existed, as a reason for disallowing the volunteer departments' paid staff to continue helping their old departments. Ask Keatly, as it's addressed to him!

Wouldnt it be something if this could actually be produced?

[FFPCogs 863]

Yeah because a Random guy on the internet claims to have seen a document it must all be true!

Well the truth of a random guy on the internet saying he has seen the document is really no different than the truth of a random guy on the internet saying it doesn't exist and he has never heard of it. But like you I believe the proof is in the pudding so an effort is underway to track down and produce said documnent...I guess only time will tell if in fact it does exist.

Cogs

[FD828 77]

Very well written article....

From the Advocate

[FFPCogs 863]

Very well written article....

From the Advocate

I couldn't agree more, very well written and insightful article

Fact is despite all the debating many of us here have unofficially already started the process Rep Heaphy speaks of. Now if we could just get the powers that be to follow suit we'd be well on the road to a lasting solution.

Cogs

Edited June 30, 2011 by FFPCogs

[CTFF 65]

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Stamford-Fire-Rescue-chief-departs-with-1450695.php#page-1

Stamford Fire & Rescue chief departs with concerns over city fire service's future

Jeff Morganteen, Staff Writer

STAMFORD -- Tuesday marks the end of a 41-year career for Robert McGrath, the departing chief of Stamford Fire & Rescue and a Stamford native who worked his way through the ranks from a firefighter to captain before taking the helm of the city fire department 11 years ago...

Edited July 3, 2011 by CTFF

[sqd47bfd 20]

So,

Any more news about this new "joint venture" ??

I thought Springdale was tweaking a few details and would be signing on to join the band as well?

[CTFF 65]

So,

Any more news about this new "joint venture" ??

I thought Springdale was tweaking a few details and would be signing on to join the band as well?

Keeping true to our witty nautical banter...

Rumor is the plan is headed to Davy Jones locker. I've tried to work in a beasties boy reference as well but just gave up.

[FFPCogs 863]

Keeping true to our witty nautical banter...

Rumor is the plan is headed to Davy Jones locker. I've tried to work in a beasties boy reference as well but just gave up.

Batten down the hatches, thar be stormy seas ahead.

[pjreilly 6]

Every day this mess is prolonged, it is one day closer to CHARTER REVISION. 2012 is less than 6 months away

[IzzyEng4 427]

Every day this mess is prolonged, it is one day closer to CHARTER REVISION. 2012 is less than 6 months away

So's the end of the world.

[FFPCogs 863]

Every day this mess is prolonged, it is one day closer to CHARTER REVISION. 2012 is less than 6 months away

Agreed, but what form that change ultimately takes is still open for consideration. A more mutually acceptable alternative may yet emerge,much to the benefit of everyone, not the least of which being the public we all serve.

Cogs

[sqd47bfd 20]

Every day this mess is prolonged, it is one day closer to CHARTER REVISION. 2012 is less than 6 months away

oooooh wow thats extra scary when you type it in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS !!!

see what i mean:

charter revision

... meh, whatever.

And now,

CHARTER REVISION !!!

well, thats just plain frightening! apocalypse! head for the hills!

[sqd47bfd 20]

This just in ....

http://boardofreps.org/committees/publicsafety/2011/items/ps28035.pdf