New Conn. Contract $%^%#@#%^&*

[CharlieRFDPres]

This has undoubtedly already been discussed, shouted about, ad infinatum but with the new contact clause barring paid Ff's from volunteering...... Here it goes again...
The idea, on the face of it,to prohibit their paid fire fighters from volunteering in their communities, 'to protect them and the city in case of injury', would sound to have some reasonable basis and thought behind it but...... IT DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH- why only prohibit them from serving other fire dept's., gee, lets see here, next contract lets add lion taming, wilderness rescue teams, scoutmastering, how about volunteer ambulance squads,(gotta get the ones that aren't connected with fire depts, too), etc.. Next they can work on their hobbies and home duties, too can't have them hurt themselves there either, soon they won't allow them to have potentially injurious hobbies etc, what if they fell rock climbing, or drownded white water rafting, wait a minute, can't work on your own house either, they might fall off the roof or electricute themselves fixing the plug in the living room. Oh yeah that chief is worried about the hearts, no more barbeques in the back yard, those steaks are bad for your heart's, and if your grill catches on fire don't you dare put it out, you could be fired, wait for the volunteer company that covers your home that now has even worse manpower problems.
Is fire fighting a hazardous duty (be it paid or volunteer), of course it is, but to single it out to prevent their paid fire fighters from participating outside of their "jobs", is a disservice to the firefighters, their 'other' depts. and their communities.
I think that chief, and whoever else is in on this with him, is #1 - attacking their fire fighters freedom of association, and #2 is attacking a great piece of America, the volunteers fire service has a great history and is a large piece of America, they should be charged with treason, and that still carries the death penalty.

[MIKEYLIKESIT]

You act like this is some type of "new fangled" concept. There are quite a few Paid departments in Illinois that prohibit their employees from serving as volunteers. The employer DOES have a right to have a say in what an employee does in their off time. Mass. Fire and police personnel are not allowed to smoke on or off duty. It has been held up by the courts. This provision of the collective bargaining agreement in CT. doesnt take effect until 2008. Plenty of time to make other arrangements. I must say you casually throw the word "treason" around. It all seems pretty democratic to me....Unless your side loses.

[E229Lt]

Maybe you'd rather not have a presumptive illness covered?

[KeithA8]

Read my responce in the post titled "New contract prohibits Hartford firfighters from volunteering" I'm sure I'll get a lot of hate mail for it.

[BCmdepas3280]

This contract has nothing to do with any one on these boards except the brothers in Hartford and the city admin. What they agree to or not agree too is there business and should in no way have any effect on outside parties. Thats what they wanted, thats what they got a binding contract.

[Duffman]

Sorry Charlie

I think that chief, and whoever else is in on this with him, is #1 - attacking their fire fighters freedom of association, and #2 is attacking a great piece of America, the volunteers fire service has a great history and is a large piece of America, they should be charged with treason, and that still carries the death penalty.

I was actually taking your opinion seriously, until I read the part shown above. Assuming you stand by what you posted, I don't need to bother pointing out the flaws in your arguments. You have exposed yourself sufficiently.

The inability to volunteer is a small price to pay in order to retain presumption heart/lung language.

The employer would have a pretty good case against presumption if the employee served elsewhere. It simply is not worth risking it.

[Dalmatian90]

The inability to volunteer is a small price to pay in order to retain presumption heart/lung language.

Connecticut State Statutes, 7-314(a)

(d) For the purpose of adjudication of claims for the payment of benefits under the provisions of chapter 568, any condition of impairment of health occurring to an active member of a volunteer fire department or organization certified as a volunteer ambulance service in accordance with section 19a-180 while such member is in training for or engaged in volunteer fire duty or such ambulance service, caused by hypertension or heart disease resulting in death or temporary or permanent total or partial disability, shall be presumed to have been suffered in the line of duty and within the scope of his employment, provided such member had previously successfully passed a physical examination by a licensed physician appointed by such department or ambulance service which examination failed to reveal any evidence of such condition.


In this specific case, applying to Connecticut, Presumption is not an issue for the individual -- the two employers (career & volunteer) may end up with their lawyers arguing who gets apportioned what on their worker's comp insurance policies, but the individual will get paid either way.

[Duffman]

Ok Dal, but...

In this specific case, applying to Connecticut, Presumption is not an issue for the individual -- the two employers (career & volunteer) may end up with their lawyers arguing who gets apportioned what on their worker's comp insurance policies, but the individual will get paid either way.

The workers comp issue is resolved. What about the pension. Is the volunteer department going to contribute to the pension fund of the members career department? I doubt it.

[E229Lt]

Dal,
Let me assure you, no Volunteer compensation will equal the disability pension of a paid department. I will agree, there are presumptive bills for both, but the benefits are night and day.

[ChiefReason]

I agree.....to some extent.

I handle the worker's compensation program for our company.
The injury/illness must arise out of or be in the course of your employment in order for it to be a work related injury. Each state does it a little differently, but that is how it reads in Illinois.
We have pretty liberal comp laws.
There is no argument from me on the issue of legislating this action through contract. It was negotiated. It was approved by the membership. It is now the rule. Volunteer departments will have to find replacements.
But I can't help but wonder why they stopped at just prohibiting employees from volunteering where they live. I am sure that it is still OK to work the trades, as many do. They can still fall off of roofs, fall through roofs, breathe asbestos and lead, get backed over by a truck; the list is endless. What about dangerous hobbies such as motorcycle riding, hunting, fishing and such?
If the issue is keeping the employees in good shape for their primary employer-giving them their respite on their days off-then why not target other occupations that the firefighters work in their "off" time?
Where presumptive illness is an issue, the burden of proof will always be on the employee and their attorney.
I don't blame Hartford for attempting to limit their exposure to work comp claims. I am surprised that they would only limit it where their firefighters volunteer as firefighters.
Remember-this is America. Everything is negotiable!
CR

[SPFDRum]

Let me assure you, no Volunteer compensation will equal the disability pension of a paid department. I will agree, there are presumptive bills for both, but the benefits are night and day

In Minnesota, your POC/volunteer department must carry workers comp insurance equivalent to your full paid job. Whether it be a as a paid fire fighter or auto mechanic.

[Dalmatian90]

Let me assure you, no Volunteer compensation will equal the disability pension of a paid department

That is something each individual has to weigh. Is being disabled away from your career department, say in a motorcycle accident, substantially different from being disabled fighting fire?

[Duffman]

SPFDRUM said...

In Minnesota, your POC/volunteer department must carry workers comp insurance equivalent to your full paid job. Whether it be a as a paid fire fighter or auto mechanic.

This does not address the PENSION.



Dal said...

That is something each individual has to weigh. Is being disabled away from your career department, say in a motorcycle accident, substantially different from being disabled fighting fire?

Yes it is. The difference between a line of duty disability pension and a non duty pension because you are disabled off the job would be quite large. Especially if the person does not have the age or time on the job to qualify to collect the pension at the time of injury.

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

The workers comp issue is resolved. What about the pension. Is the volunteer department going to contribute to the pension fund of the members career department? I doubt it.

In NJ, if a paid FF is killed while acting as a volunteer, his family gets his full pension as if he was killed on the paid job. This is as a result of legislation which came out of a fire I investigated in which a paid So. Orange FD member was killed while acting as a volly in Chatham Boro.

[SPFDRum]

Like George stated: It does address pension. If you are injured and disabled until pensioned age, you are covered.