New union contract is disappointing/dangerous

[u/RustyShackles69]

Im not going to give too much info since who knows who's reading this and can track it back to me. I saw info on the changes to our contract, and to say my jaw dropped is an understatement. I can't for the life of me understand how the city can think its okay to try and count chiefs toward maning and use a nearby jurisdiction's 2 man apparatus as emergency staffing.

I get it. We work alot of ot, but another officer in a pickup doesn't help us on a fire scene in the same way as a 3rd or 4th on an engine.

Well survive we are cowboy company and have made small staffs work so far but the city is gaining population not losing people.

Also, shame on the old men running the union prioritizing the dollar bills paid over obvious nfpa safety concerns. I guess the city will wait til people die and they get sued to make changes.

[u/Mysterious_Poem_5169]

Vote it down get everyone together to vote no and then run for the union president spot when it comes up and be the change

[u/RustyShackles69 → u/Mysterious_Poem_5169]

Im voting no. But it will pass half the guys are there for a paycheck and nearing retirement. They care but not enough to turn down the raises.

Ill run for a spot next year. This is absurd

[u/richyrich5501 → u/RustyShackles69]

Does this contract benefit the older guys? If it doesn’t benefit everyone, vote it down and go into impasse. They’ll call a third party in to decide what’s “fair” depending on money, call volume, resources and what neighboring departments have

[u/Excellent_Idea43 → u/richyrich5501]

This is a good plan, but just make sure it applies to you. Every department does arbitration differently (I think it's laid out in your current contract with the city, or maybe it's state rules?). Who is paying the third party? Who gets to choose the third party? How has the third party ruled in other similar circumstances? Is the third party's decision binding or non-binding if either or both parties dont like his decision?

Third party sounds like a great idea, but there are still ways for this to go unfairly

[u/richyrich5501 → u/Excellent_Idea43]

Should be a state thing. I’ve been through impasse before, it’s a neutral third party that the city will be responsible for paying for. The third party gives a recommendation to the city but I’ve never heard of them not taking the recommendation. It would probably look very bad on their part not taking the “fair” deal

[u/kyle308 → u/richyrich5501]

Depends on the state and your contract language. Some states have binding arbitration that requires the members and city to accept whatever the arbitrator says.

Some have no ruling that means the arbitration may be binding or just a recommendation depending on if you have binding arbitration in your contract.

Lastly is states that explicitly forbid binding arbitration. Makes the arbitration just a recommendation the city can ignore at their leisure and there isn't shit you can do about it. These 3 things alone are why politics are important and why we should all vote for people who strongly support unions and collective bargaining rights.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk.