Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Contract Prohibits Hartford FFs From Volunteering Or Working In Other Towns

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • drparasite
    replied
    contradict was the wrong word. but as you posted, people might have strong feelings about wanting to continue to volunteer, but they weren't going to risk their jobs for their volunteer departments. everyone has their priorities (and i wouldn't disagree with paying job and food on the table being on of the high ones) but don't tell me that just because someone's prioritizes his paid job and family over his volunteer activities, that he doesn't feel strongly about them all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Adze39
    replied
    I didn't contradict George's quote in my last post, don't know if that is what you are referring to but that is what I'm assuming...

    He said "it appears that things like salary, benefits and work conditions were more important to them". If anything, I supported that claim. If my friends lost their jobs then there would be no salary, benefits or work conditions. So those things were more important to them.

    Leave a comment:


  • GeorgeWendtCFI
    replied
    so comment all you want about my posts, but do not think because I am new, that I am without teeth, without a spine, or without a brain
    GO back and read every post in every thread. I NEVER said a word about you. I was commenting solely on the issue at hand. The WT wants us to act like that and I will.

    You questioned my belief. I set you straight. I don't know you, know your background or know your knowledge level. So I don't have any judgement about you whatsoever.

    If I am wrong, and I did comment about you, please point it out and I will edit it out. And I expect that you will edit out your condescending BS above as well (in keeping with the WT's desire so they don't shut the thread down).

    Leave a comment:


  • drparasite
    replied
    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI


    Your new. Let me explain something to you.

    I NEVER post something that:

    1. Isn't a fact or
    2. Isn't my absolute fervent belief.
    omg, stop the presses. GeorgeWendtCFI, has discovered that I, me, the one known as DrParasite, am new. this is a code red, we must notify the pentagon. this should probably be on mentioned on the home page of firehouse.com, as well as in the new york times. this is a shocking discovery.

    ok, no more making fun on George and his amazing detective skills. I appologize, it was a rhetorical qustion, designed to make you think that maybe you aren't right. then you would read the other two paragraphs, and think "you know, maybe this new guy has a point." or not.

    It would seem Adze39 has some knowledge that would support my idea. we know what you said wasn't a fact, since you can't read another person's mind. your #2 comment is very true. "I NEVER post something that isn't my absolute fervent belief." and i'm sure you believe this 100%. Adze39 has some info that contradicts you belief. this info doesn't make you believe in what you think anyless, but it does say that there is a possiblity that you are not 100% correct.

    Your old. Let me explain something to you.

    1) just because I'm new, doesn't make what I say any less valid that what anyone else says.
    2) don't reject what I say because I'm new. read my posts. many are detailed and well thought out. some moreso than others. if you disagree with what I say, then by all means post your opinion, and give your reasons. and no, because "my gut tells me so" or some other baseless belief isn't a good reason.
    3) if you want to go by experiece on these pages (number of posts), then go to the juniors i'm sure you will find a bunch of people who have several hundred posts, yet havn't even been to a real fire yet. or if you want to go by time, then you are excluding people who registered late.
    Last edited by drparasite; 07-08-2003, 02:38 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Adze39
    replied
    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI
    If a guy felt strongly that he wanted to continue to volunteer, he could cast a NO vote. However, it appears that things like salary, benefits and work conditions were more important to them. Since those things feed my family, I would have voted for the contract, too.
    I know people who wanted to continue to volunteer but were told if the contract didn't pass that they would be laid off, so they voted for it...I would have done the same thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • GeorgeWendtCFI
    replied
    hmmm, do you really believe this?
    Your new. Let me explain something to you.

    I NEVER post something that:

    1. Isn't a fact or
    2. Isn't my absolute fervent belief.

    Leave a comment:


  • Adze39
    replied
    Ok Mr Chairman...the NVFC isn't happy about this...so what are you going to do about it? Probably absolutely NOTHING, like usual.

    Leave a comment:


  • drparasite
    replied
    Originally posted by GeorgeWendtCFI

    If a guy felt strongly that he wanted to continue to volunteer, he could cast a NO vote.
    hmmm, do you really believe this? not that we have peer pressure in the fire service, but if i was a union member, i would feel really uncomfortable voting no on a contract, because the reason I would be voting NO would be going against my union's purpose. and your fellow FFs might then think your interests and the unions interests aren't the same, which could have informal reprocussions at the fire house.

    not to mention that if 10% of the union members are also volunteers, only those 10% would be affected by this ban. furthermore, the other 90% would vote for it, since they aren't affected by the rule, and they are satisfied with everything else.

    I don't know the numbers, but i don't think it's as cut and dry as you think it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • RyanEMVFD
    replied
    i've seen several paid departments around here ban smoking on or off duty. granted this was established by the administration but in hartford it was voted on by the firefighters.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bones42
    replied
    No Mike, not missing the point at all. And I am not arguing for or against what Hartford FD did. As you said, I'm not there, it's not my problem. I don't like the wording in it, I don't like the "feeling" I get from it, and I stated that. I am not expecting my opinion to change anyone's mind, I'm just simply saying I don't like it. Hartford FD agreed to it. They made their choice and I am sure they had very good reasons to choose it. It's their's to deal with. I have no problem with that. I just don't like seeing Volunteer Firefighting being targeted, and it was, plain and simple. I would expect the NVFC to also not like volunteer firefighting to be targeted, and would expect them to let that be known. I would not expect them to get Hartford FD to change their contract as that's not NVFC's job. And if I see another article about a contract that prohibits volunteer firefighting, I will make the same comments.

    Stay Safe.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ltmdepas3280
    replied
    Eating a piece of pizza could be harmful to your health and may cause obesity

    Everyone is missing the point its there contract if they choose not to volunteer than who are you to question that. You dont pay there bills, feed thier family and you certainly dont work for Hartford. Since I have started let me say this if my employer told me that I couldn't swim this summer or I'll be suspended what do you think I would do ?(no brainer) I wouldn't swim, they give me a pay check. This issue is different than the IAFF membership rules also....that has to do with(IAFF) membership requirements to be in the union..this has to do with an employer asking for there employees not to do a certain thing such as volunteering for another FD, which was approved by both ie; A CONTRACT!

    Do you think Philip C. Stittleburg, NVFC Chairman would stop volunteering if they told him not to swim also.

    Leave a comment:


  • CollegeBuff
    replied
    You're right Bones. Sending that to the Hartford Courant might get it noticed, but not a website that no one in Hartford has any reason to go to.

    Preaching to the choir rarely wins converts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bones42
    replied
    Nice letter. Was it sent anywhere other than being posted on a site that no one has to go to and no one other than NVFC members would see? If not, then it's pointless. If it was, then good.

    Leave a comment:


  • NVFCMember
    replied
    Hartford Union Contract Prohibiting Volunteering is Unconscionable

    I came across this statement on the NVFC Website.


    Hartford Union Contract Prohibiting Volunteering is Unconscionable
    By Philip C. Stittleburg, NVFC Chairman

    WASHINGTON, DC (July 1, 2003) -- On behalf of volunteer firefighters across the country, I condemn in the strongest possible terms the new contract between the city of Hartford, Connecticut and the Hartford Fire Fighters Association forbidding full-time firefighters to serve as volunteers in their home communities. It is amazing that in a time when there is a revived push led by President Bush for volunteerism across the country, the city of Hartford and the local union have the gall to try to tell firefighters they cannot serve their local communities during off-duty hours.

    We are told by advocates of this policy that it is a "health and safety issue" and that firefighters are given time off to recoup and relax. I haven't heard anything about a clause in the agreement barring firefighters from strenuous second jobs in construction and other trades. There appears to be nothing in the contract prohibiting a Hartford firefighter from partaking in potentially dangerous hobbies like skiing or skydiving. What about career firefighters who work or volunteer for state or local fire training agencies? Are they not allowed to educate fellow firefighters during their off-duty hours?

    We are told that union and city leadership are worried that families will not be able to collect benefits because the firefighters may be injured or killed volunteering outside the jurisdiction of their employer. In reality, a large majority of volunteer fire departments have their own benefits that would cover the firefighter or their family. In fact, the likelihood of that firefighter being covered is much greater in a volunteer fire company than in some other part-time job.

    We have also constantly been assured by union leadership that the "two-hatter" issue is only about possible loss of union membership and that a career firefighter's employment or benefits are not in jeopardy if they continue to serve their hometowns as volunteers. Wrong again. The Hartford contract, and others like it across the country, clearly states that firefighters who volunteer to save lives and property with volunteer fire departments will face disciplinary action from his or her employer, not just the union.

    Finally, time and time again we are told that anti-volunteer efforts by local unions are limited to just a few areas of the country and the friction is based on local disputes and personalities. However, this issue has surfaced in Maryland, Virginia, New York, California, Oregon, Washington State, Florida, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Ontario, Canada and now Connecticut. It appears to me that this is not a "local" issue.

    Well, enough is enough. The leadership of the volunteer fire service, including myself, are sick of beating around the bush and not exposing this policy for what it is -- an organized campaign against the volunteer fire service aimed at destroying our ranks in the hope of increasing union membership and power.

    I have never heard of a case where a volunteer firefighter was discouraged from pursuing a career in the paid fire and emergency services. In fact, it is encouraged. So why do big labor bosses strong arm their members to keep them from remaining affiliated with the departments in which they started?

    As this campaign expands, the results will be devastating to the protection of communities in suburban and rural areas. These departments will surely lose firefighters, many of whom play key roles in firefighter training and safety.

    Nobody should have the right to tell firefighters how they should or should not spend their off-duty time, which is their own time, especially when they are spending that time doing good in their community. I call on firefighters across this country to steadfastly fight these abominable union actions wherever they may arise. I furthermore urge firefighters to educate their elected officials at all levels of government about the destructive effects this policy will have on communities nationwide.



    Hartford Union Contract Prohibiting Volunteering is Unconscionable

    Leave a comment:


  • Trafficjockey93
    replied
    Amen George

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X