Unions? What do you think?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric DePoto on August 27, 2009 at 10:24pm

...And you know my answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael Emillio on September 10, 2009 at 2:04pm

Chief,

This I have actually ranted on in the threads for the local. As I am sure you are aware, we are recipient of at least 2 individuals who had to be given extra turns to pass their newboy physical requirements. I purposely use the term recipient, because in fact we as a collective body will have these mounds of incapability on the job for at least 20 years. I'm really disheartened by this fact, and the hiring of late. Bringing this up though gets the knee jerk response from Union reps and VP's and such: "They're brothers and we shouldn't do anything to foresake a brother...."

This makes me wanna puke. I've got brothers on this job, they've all made the same committment that I did; to excellence, to performance and dedication to duty and foremost to me, as I to them.

My brothers can do this job. My brothers are not supernatural in strength or necessarily rocket surgeons. My brothers made a committment and are always ready to perform at the very pinnacle of society's norms. The fireman standard is high, probably the highest among those average people who are not special forces or demigods, and it is nothing to take lightly or to hide behind a Union brand.

Job performance is paramount and with that comes an absolute dedication to potential sacrifice "risk a lot to save a lot" and simultaneously, safety "whatch your brother's back." How can we continue when this very dedication to self sacrifice and protection of one's own is compromised at the beginning? I am tired of flack from the union when they protect the brotherhood as a nominal state protected by legal definitions and jargon, my brothers needn't seek protection, I'll get their back. All this being said, I am not the keeper of this brotherhood (obviously) and it is indeed far reaching, (as it should be). We should protect the brotherhood and it should always be exclusive.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Walker on September 10, 2009 at 5:52pm

Hey Mike

Have you ever heard of the FOOLS? I'm a proud member and you'd fit right in.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael Emillio on September 10, 2009 at 6:35pm

Chief, I've really been giving it consideration. I'll have to talk to you and Spence more about it. Thanks.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dave LeBlanc on September 10, 2009 at 7:01pm

The unhappy answer is that when considering union issues, you have to take the personalities out of it and deal with the problem based on the issues. Was there a violation or wrong? What is the solution?

Everyone is afforded the same level of protection. Everyone is "equal".

As a past union President have I gone in a fought for a member that was less than stellar in their performance? Yes. Have I also allowed the Administration to deal with a problem child when they had him/her dead to rights. As long as the punishment fit the crime...you betcha.

The hardest lesson I had to learn as a Union Officer was being impartial when dealing with my "brothers". I had a good teacher. Probably the finest person I have ever known and the best Union Firefighter you could ever meet.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Walker on September 10, 2009 at 7:31pm

Hey Dave,

Being a Union President is a thankless job and I'm sure you did a fine job at it.

I look at progressive discipline in a different light. The goal is to get an employee who has messed up or is continually messing up, back on the right track. It should never be the point to go on a witch hunt. But in the name of "representation" I keep hearing about and going through instances where the supervisor trying to correct the employee is accused of discrimination, creating hostility and forgeting where they came from.

Unless every thing on the Administration side is completely perfect, the employee isn't held accountable. What ever happened to the preponderance of evidence?

I'll go as far as to say this; sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes, when the union negates logic and inisists an employee be vindicated, they enable the employee to continue or even worsen their behavior.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Todd Trudeau on September 10, 2009 at 9:32pm

Unless every thing on the Administration side is completely perfect, the employee isn't held accountable. What ever happened to the preponderance of evidence?

That is the unfortunate part of the "perceptions" of unions. We are portayed as protecting bad employees, but in reality, we are protecting the process of discipline. The problem I've seen as a former secretary and just as a believer in "do your job and more", is the employer (and its' reprsentatives...aka.bosses) let things go and go..and then one day they decide to do things by the book and have no past behaviors documented or anything.
I'm all for cutting the lazy, useless from our ranks. But the same protection goes to all of us.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Walker on September 10, 2009 at 11:30pm

Alas former secretary

the point isn't to "cut" anyone. It is to get them back into the fole.

You seem quick to jump to the conclusion that management is always wrong and to lump all representatives of management into a single stereo-type.

I agree that some bosses have been lazy in doing their part of the process, which is properly documenting, but that isn't always the case. I've experienced times when an officer has documented out the waahzoo and the brothers (and I do mean brothers) from the local have found nothing more then a loophole instead of looking at the particular situation and seeing it for what it is.

Is it the union's job to act like "defense attorney's" defending the one, even if their actions harm the remainder of the union body by allowing whatever it was that the evil empire was trying to stop to continue? Or is their job to love a brother or sister enough to tell them to pull their heads out of their asses and do their jobs? Just a thought.

Any by the way, thanks for jumping into the conversation. Nothing like a good debate.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Todd Trudeau on September 12, 2009 at 5:55pm

Mike, I was referring to exactly what you said. I just didn't word it well. The goal is corrective actions for bad behaviors and/or actions. My point was that if those actions are allowed to go on for some time and then someone wants to go to the extreme of discipline, the unions job is to protect the integrity of the process, not protect people who refuse to "cooperate"

Certainly, the sooner corrective measures take place, either by peers or management, the better.

Mike Walker said:

Alas former secretary

the point isn't to "cut" anyone. It is to get them back into the fole.

You seem quick to jump to the conclusion that management is always wrong and to lump all representatives of management into a single stereo-type.

I agree that some bosses have been lazy in doing their part of the process, which is properly documenting, but that isn't always the case. I've experienced times when an officer has documented out the waahzoo and the brothers (and I do mean brothers) from the local have found nothing more then a loophole instead of looking at the particular situation and seeing it for what it is.

Is it the union's job to act like "defense attorney's" defending the one, even if their actions harm the remainder of the union body by allowing whatever it was that the evil empire was trying to stop to continue? Or is their job to love a brother or sister enough to tell them to pull their heads out of their asses and do their jobs? Just a thought.

Any by the way, thanks for jumping into the conversation. Nothing like a good debate.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Walker on September 12, 2009 at 6:07pm

I get it now Todd and you are so right. If the behavior is corrected when it first begins, the monster is never born.

The officer must do their job. They can't lead from an emotional standpoint, it creates knee jerk reactions

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dave LeBlanc on September 12, 2009 at 6:20pm

The Officer must be allowed to do their job, which means the administrationhas to have their back all the way. Otherwise the monster is 30 years old...and non-productive.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff Schwering on September 12, 2009 at 9:02pm

Dave, thanks for summing my frustration into two sentences Brother!

KTF
Jeff

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page