Last week I introduced you to the Fire Officer II course that I recently attended. This week we pick up at the ‘interesting’ discussion about the Fire Act grant. Day one of the course discussed government structure and fire service organization. Being in a room of paid firefighters, of course the IAFF had to come up, and when you put the IAFF with the Fire Act Grant, you end up with quite a discussion.
For those of you who have missed the controversy, the proposed authorization language for the Fire Act Grant included a provision that states that departments who limit their employees’ right to volunteer are not eligible for grant monies. This is a very common way for the US Federal government to change issues that legally they have no way to regulate. While the common monies they play with are the highway funds to states, in this case the Fire Act Grant accomplishes what they are looking to do.
This issue was brought to my attention in an email that included a link to http://www.minnesotafireservice.com/granthf_4107_fire_act_grant.html#OPENING_STATEMENT When you read the comments from Kevin O’Connor from the IAFF I am sure you will understand I was ready to have a debate. :) I also happen to live just 10 minutes away from Hartford Connecticut, which many of you may know as one of the departments that made national headlines with their decision to add ‘anti-volunteer’ language in their contract.
I will admit that I am not a big fan of unions. I am a fan of proper management and addressing issues before they have to come to a union debate. There is power in numbers but remember that power corrupts. Not all unions are bad, but it is easy for a union to be abused to protect those who are slackers and troublemakers rather then addressing true employee issues. The crowd I was sitting with in Fire Officer II was heavily pro union and anti volunteer. (Let the fireworks begin.)The first point up for discussion was whether it was the unions or the management truly pushing for this issue. The debate is that if management truly sees their employees being hurt on their downtime by volunteering then why not by doing construction, sky diving, etc, etc... I give Mr. O’Connor credit that the courts have decided that there is a direct connection between firefighting and heart and hypertension problems. That being said, there is also a connection between cholestorol and heart/hypertension problems, does that mean I can’t stop at McDonalds on my way home? :) While I believe that it is truly the IAFF pushing the issue, my classmates were reluctant to come straight out and say it was the IAFF not town governments pushing it. That being said, if you read between the lines, this was something we agreed on.
Originally I was a strong proponent of the proposed lanuage in the AFGP. I have to give credit to one of my classmates for softening my stand. It was the first time I managed to find an opponent to debate with who used real facts and issues rather then ‘you suck because you are a volunteer’ as debating points. Too often we get caught in this paid/volunteer debate and it results in name calling rather then a discussion. This gentleman, who is a Lieutenant in a paid department, and active in politics, did a great job at representing the paid side.
His point was one I hadn’t considered. His outlook on the legislation was that it was restricting the ability of employees and employers to negotiate contracts and the clauses within them. He went on to explain that it has little to do with the issue itself, it is more a problem with the fact that the federal government is sticking their nose in where it didn’t belong. I hate to admit it, but he does have a point.
This is where I revert to Mr. O’Connor’s comments that there are “very few fire departments in the nation, perhaps less than 10, have such clauses in their contracts”. I have to disagree with his numbers as I can think of almost that many departments in Connecticut alone that restrict volunteering. We’re back to name calling if you want to accept his statement at face value.
The debate raged on and on and I was happy to take a beating for the volunteer side. I threw back at them the fact that I would like to join the IAFF. I challenge the IAFF to bring volunteers in as members. We’ll pay dues, and they can help us with insurance, recruitment and retention, safety, and many other isssues, the same as the paid guys.
There are 140 posts in the VolunteerFD.org Volunteer Union discussion board. ( http://www.volunteerfd.org/phorum/list.php?f=16 ) Even a debate on paid versus volunteer ( http://www.volunteerfd.org/phorum/read.php?f=16&i=56&t=56 ). Anyone who hasn’t read this discussion needs to. I will be doing an update on their activities shortly. We all need to work together so that we have real represenation and I don’t have to fight alone. :)
The Fire Officer II class spent quite a bit of time on the first day talking about representation and working with your local governing body. This is an area that volunteers are very weak on and that’s why I spent two articles on just one day of the class... Next week I will pick up with the second day of class and hopefully more good points that we can all put to use.
Discuss this column at: http://www.volunteerfd.org/phorum/read.php?f=20&i=234&t=234
By: Jason Zigmont, VolunteerFD.org