New York Disaster Job Protection Bill Signed Into Law

[x635 4,066]

From the FASNY Email List:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FASNY LEAP Team <fasny@fasny.com>
Date: Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:30 PM
Subject: Emergency Job Protection Bill Signed into Law

We are proud to report that the bill that protects the jobs of volunteer firefighters and EMS personnel in times of declared disasters, such as hurricanes, wildfires and other prolonged fire operations has been signed into law by the Governor! We would like to thank each and every FASNY member for your support and advocacy and the over 800 members who sent letters to the Governor urging he sign the bill. It was your efforts that pushed this victory over the line.

The bill, S07111-B, sponsored by Senator Mark Grisanti (R – Buffalo), and A09849A, sponsored by Assembly Member Fred Thiele (I – Suffolk) will ensure that volunteer firefighters and EMS responders will not lose their paying jobs simply because they were late or missed work while performing volunteer duties during a declared emergency (as declared by the Governor, City, Town, Village or County executives).

This law ensures that volunteer firefighters and EMTs who are called to assist in times of a major emergency have a job to go home to. A thank you to Governor Cuomo for recognizing the need to allow our first responders to operate without worrying if their ‘day job’ is safe when called to help their fellow New Yorkers in a declared disaster; as well as Senator Grisanti and Assemblyman Thiele for their leadership on this bill that will help protect the men and women who protect this State.

Read the full legislation here: http://www.assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A09849&term=&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Votes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y

[Dinosaur 844]

So you're a FF and take a month off to volunteer at a declared disaster like Sandy or Katrina. You get the leave but no pay. How're you supposed to survive with no income for a month?

This doesn't cover the "sorry I'm late boss but there there was a fire last night". Only declared states of emergency. How much of an impact will this really have on anything?

[spin_the_wheel 460]

I'm not sure the intent for this bill was for the firefighter taking a month off.

I think it was created to protect the firefighter who takes a day or two off if the community he serves in is hit with a major emergency situation.

[thebreeze 194]

If your employer is crappy enough that you even had to worry about this in the first place, then I don't think the bill will realistically be able to do much for you. If in the past they would have fired you for taking off to help at a declared disaster, then in the future, sure they won't fire you after you go donate your time for a week, its illegal. What they WILL do then, being such a shining star of an employer, is wait for a while after you come back to work, and drum up a reason to leave you high and dry, unrelated to the disaster. Am I saying every boss will do this, no, but with people with attitudes that poor to begin with, they will find a way around this law to do what they want.

[bad box 371]

It should not be the responsibility of a business owner to provide personnel to respond to emergencies at the expense of his / her business. Granted the business owner is not mandated to pay the employees who choose to volunteer at a disaster scene, but businesses depend upon their employees showing up to work to insure a profitable operation. Business owners are already required to pay their fair share of taxes, this law results in forcing business owners to contribute more via lost productivity which will cause him / her to suffer reduced revenue.

Edited September 28, 2014 by bad box

[Remember585 815]

It should not be the responsibility of a business owner to provide personnel to respond to emergencies at the expense of his / her business. Granted the business owner is not mandated to pay the employees who choose to volunteer at a disaster scene, but businesses depend upon their employees to a profitable operation. Business owners are already required to pay their fair share of taxes, this law results in forcing business owners to contribute more via lost productivity which will cause him / her to suffer reduced revenue.

In a disaster, how many businesses will even be open?

[bad box 371]

In a disaster, how many businesses will even be open?

As was the case after Hurricane Sandy, volunteers from outlying areas went to the areas that were impacted. The businesses in these outlying areas were functioning.

[spin_the_wheel 460]

You know I just don't get it. We are all suppose too be fire service brothers and sisters. Yeah I know BMA, its very real.

BUT why would people here on this forum be against this? On one hand people here argue about short staffing and not having enough people to do a job. THEN when something gets passed, that may help manpower in a catastrophic emergency, there are people against it.

Wow. JMO be safe all.

Edited September 30, 2014 by spin_the_wheel

[spin_the_wheel 460]

It should not be the responsibility of a business owner to provide personnel to respond to emergencies at the expense of his / her business. Granted the business owner is not mandated to pay the employees who choose to volunteer at a disaster scene, but businesses depend upon their employees showing up to work to insure a profitable operation. Business owners are already required to pay their fair share of taxes, this law results in forcing business owners to contribute more via lost productivity which will cause him / her to suffer reduced revenue.

Your right. But in a catastrophic emergency its called doing the right thing. JMO be safe.

[Dinosaur 844]

Your right. But in a catastrophic emergency its called doing the right thing. JMO be safe.

Doing the right thing shouldn't be legislated.

JMO

[Dinosaur 844]

You know I just don't get it. We are all suppose too be fire service brothers and sisters. Yeah I know BMA, its very real.

BUT why would people here on this forum be against this? On one hand people here argue about short staffing and not having enough people to do a job. THEN when something gets passed, that may help manpower in a catastrophic emergency, there are people against it.

Wow. JMO be safe all.

I'll tell you why I'm skeptical about this and don't really support it. It has absolutely nothing to do with FD's being short staffed or having enough people to do the job. This is focused exclusively on responding to declared emergencies. How many fire or EMS calls qualify for that? I'll go out on a limb here and say none.

Flooding, ice storms, hurricanes, and blizzards are what we usually see reaching the level where some elected official declares a state of emergency. Perhaps this will help a few agencies get a few more SEFU's on the road to go elsewhere in the state but that will be it.

And, as others have said, this is simply passing the cost of providing emergency service on to someone else. It is totally unknown what (if any) economic impact this could have on a private employer or even a municipal employer if they have to backfill this worker. Likewise, how many of us can afford to take a week off - or even a few days off - without pay?

So, unless someone can show me how this is really going to make a difference to a disaster response, I think it is just more feel good legislation that ignores much bigger problems.

[thebreeze 194]

I'm not against the idea, I just don't think it's actually going to accomplish anything. Another law passed to make politicians look good and everyone feel all warm and fuzzy, but like I said, it's not going to protect you from those real a$$hole employers who it's directed at in the first place.

Edited September 30, 2014 by thebreeze

[bad box 371]

Your right. But in a catastrophic emergency its called doing the right thing. JMO be safe.

Many folks who own businesses can't afford to curtail their operation due to no show employees.

[AFS1970 504]

Doing the right thing should not have to be legislated, but in this day and age few do the right thing. At the very least they weigh doing it against their own needs first.

I would bet that this law is in response to a coulple of incidents where people were told to choose volunteering or working but not both. So like scoolhouse rock said they called up their representative and he said you;re right there aught to be a law.

A few years ago when Long ISland was having the big brush fires I read an article that the post office initially told their employees that they could not respond. Meanwhile apparatus was responding from other states. It took a lot of people calling various government officials to get the post master to reverse that decision.

Times have changed, years ago a town that had a volunteer fire department was all local and when the bells went off the town shut down. People left their stores and offices and homes and went on the call then returned and finished their work day. Many times they did so along side of their boss. That is now a rare occurance.

The end result is needing a law that says you can't fire someone who responds to a disaster. I for one would like to see this expanded to include working fires.