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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 a**** and do their jobs? Just a thought.

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

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 a**** and do their jobs? Just a thought.

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

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

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

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

KTF
Jeff

Permalink Reply by Ben Fleagle on September 16, 2009 at 1:59pm

Same world. I'm not a union firefighter, although we may be some day. We have it good, we're normally treated well, and it has been hard to approach our management with the whole union issue because of the way things are handled by both union and management.

However, much of what I see you brothers discussing is really just very poor leadership. Ineffective leadership is often at the root of all of these issues. I think the union will generally back a union president who will demonstrate good leadership. Whether we're talking management or the labor side, or in the non-union departments, the wounds are created by poor leadership decisions. If I understand you right, good Brother, your desire is to lead your people effectively, union or not, and in this case, you are not permitted to do so due to union policy or action.

Ineffective leadership is hidden by the long cloak of union or "management policy". The Lack of brotherhood is a miss-understanding or unwillingness to give in to brotherhood. For reasons that I won't elaborate on here, I believe that the "Brotherhood" we speak of is not wanted nor is it understood by many of the people in leadership positions and I include union presidents in that lump. I'm not saying all, I'm saying MANY.

I can say these things a little more freely than some. Pandora's Box this is.

Permalink Reply by Mike Walker on September 16, 2009 at 6:19pm

I couldn't agree with you more Ben, and well stated by the way.

To be fair to this discussion I do need to share the other side of the coin. I think when it comes to working to improve working conditions, wages and benefits, most unions, including my local, do a really good job. I greatly appriciate what they have done,and continue to do, in that regard.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page