I mean there is more than one issue facing this country. I don't imagine that's hard to understand. IDC who you vote for being a one issue voter is pretty dumb. It's about the body of work.
Yes. Please. Let's examine the body of work of the two candidates. Lets compare and contrast who stands with our profession and who does not. Let's check who tried to raise federal firefighters' pay and who didn't.
"....to acknowledge their work not only in words but with the pay that recognizes the value of the skill and the dignity of the work that they perform"
I'm not arguing about who is for the profession and who is not. We know that. But that is still looking at one issue. There is more to people's lives than this job. There is more to the United State than this job. Regardless of who stands with firefighting or not you'd still be voting on one issue alone to solely care about who is pro firefighting union and who is not. That's my only point. I don't think that is hard to understand.
The IAFF's role is to look at one issue though, labor rights. Make whatever decision you want that aligns with all the issues you care about but frankly the IAFF should filter all of that out beyond labor issues. In that case, it's a clear choice.
Exactly. The fact that the IAFF did this really pisses me off. I don't know one person who thinks that Kamala is amazing and the best candidate that ever lived, but Jesus Christ people... Vote pro labor.
I think you're making a great point and are for some reason getting slammed. THIS IS NOT THE CASE, but if one candidate was incredibly pro-union and pro-firefighter but also wanted to cut all funding to education and close the interstate highway system in favor of bringing back horse travel, that might not be the candidate to vote for.
(btw I'm using those crazy examples to avoid bringing up actual political issues that people tend to feel strongly about)
Some people vote for a candidate for one single issue, and some people vote for a candidate for the wide range of things that candidate represents, supports or opposes.
Less MVA’s and pro union, you’d be an absolute idiot not to support that candidate! How can people be so dumb! Who needs easy affordable transportation of goods and people when the union is strong!
In the extraordinarily rare event you lost your job directly due to a presidential election, there’s other jobs out there. You would be fine, and you’d likely should be scrutinizing your local politicians if you’re that worried about it.
sorry, to clarify what i meant, for the more literal folk: if your job quality, pay, or safety is reduced, it can have a negative impact on the rest of your life, which was relying on said job.
decreased federal funding can mean wages that don’t increase to keep up with inflation / cost of living, can mean that OT isn’t available because the dept doesn’t have the money to afford it, can mean that you’re using outdated equipment because your dept doesn’t have the money to do so
Yeah that’s where I’m at. And not that I support trump, but I see the amount of political divide that exists in this country that really shouldn’t, no matter who you vote for. Saying “hey we support _______” is only gonna create more of that, and we need unity in the fire service.
The best way to get unity in the fire service is explaining to other firefighters and getting them to understand why voting for the one particular candidate could mean a catastrophic failure of funding for most of the fire companies in this nation.
labor laws, supreme court rulings, etc. I'm far from a political/union whiz so I'm probably going to get some of the intricacies wrong, but the supreme court janus ruling a few years back gave everyone nationwide the right to work in a union job without joining the union.
I am not making any comments about whether or not this is a good thing, I'm just going to try to explain how that decision affects unions.
so before this janus decision, especially in union states, if you worked for a job that was all union and for which the union collectively bargained for benefits and rights, you had to be a member of the union. after that ruling, you could decide to not become a member of the union and still do that job. so since the union was still required to collectively bargain for your salary/benefits/etc, you'd be getting that benefit without paying membership dues for it.
this weakens union strength (again I'm making no comment on whether this is right or wrong)
additionally, there are labor laws that may be applied to the whole country that are significantly influenced/supported by unions. if a politician is pro-union, they're likely going to listen to the unions when it's time to determine minimum wage/worker benefits/when overtime must start getting paid/etc
298
u/Datbunnydo FF/Paramedic Probie Oct 04 '24
How is this even a question when we have one pro-union candidate and one anti-union candidate?