Just Plain Ruff Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 If there are EMT's and Medics choosing to work double time and make sacrifices to the amount of time they have off the job, they should be punished by having to work less desireable shifts because of their own initiative? It just doesn't sound like logical thinking. The management is out of line to ask you to make a hard decision that they are paid to make. To give up something you have worked hard and long for to benefit someone who has not, seems a little to socialist for my liking. Just my thoughts. Fireman1037 I agree Why should I have to sacrifice and go to a 12 hour shift when I'm working a 2nd job? Sounds like taking something I worked hard for (seniority - I did get hired prior to everyone below me and I've put my time in) and giving it to someone who has not paid their dues or did not work as hard. Maybe even though I have a 2nd job, this is my full time job that I get benefits from. I'm not giving up my 24 hour shifts. If the place is anything like one of the places I used to work, 24 hour shifts are golden and the most sought after shifts. Where else can you work 2 days a week and pull in 40+ hours? If your service doesn't run lots of calls then 24 hour shifts are great to have. If the service is going to make me run 20 calls + per 24 hour shift - then I'm not good at that process. I do need my beauty sleep. Many people I know will tell me I need as much as I can get.
DwayneEMTP Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 ... Many people I know will tell me I need as much as I can get. Uh, Yeah. In fact you should be sleeping now.... Just sayin'.. Dwayne
tcripp Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Now to a different subject I guess maybe someone can clarify for me. What the hell are you americans doing 24 hr shifts in the first place. Is that not bad for you, if your in a busy centre dont you get tired and burnt out. We have 12 hr shifts here and some stations have 16 hr with a 8 hr shift. Just asking You think a 24 hour shift is incredible? Some of us work 48 hour shifts. I work a 48 hour shift and I love it.
crotchitymedic1986 Posted April 13, 2011 Author Posted April 13, 2011 First of all this has nothing to do with race. Second the employees were not asked to give up their job, they were asked to take a 12 hour shift versus a 24, yes that means a pay cut. They were offered a rotating schedule where they work 4 12 hour shifts one week, 3 the next, so they would get 48 hours one week, 36 the next. Those on 24's do not work a true 24, they have a "kelly day" the week of they have 3 24 hour shifts, so they work 48 hours per week, every week. Those who have another full-time job were asked to leave the 24s for those who did not have another full-time job (the work 48 on 24 off). So, it appears very few here (like the employees there) would give up their shift. Would you think that an across the board paycut for everyone would be more fair ?
tcripp Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 I am not sure who said it, but the above quote is true, and it is why there are many 18 year old adults in the world, as well as many 50 year old children. Nothing defines you more "than what YOU DO". So are you doing the right thing when no one is looking ? A friend of mine just told me about the selfish children he works with. He works for a service who recently had to cut some 24 hour shifts due to budget concerns. The county has a "policy" that seniority rules in this scenario, so remaining 24s were awarded solely on date of hire. Management asked that employees who had a second full-time job, to opt for the 12 hour shifts and leave the 24s for those who this job was their sole employment. Not one of those people did so, so many employees whose sole EMS job was at that county just took a huge paycut, due to the selfishness of others. What would you do in the same situation ? So, it appears very few here (like the employees there) would give up their shift. Would you think that an across the board paycut for everyone would be more fair ? I didn't respond to your initial question because I'm in a decent position where working for me is an option. (Married, 2nd income in the family, living below my means type of deal.) So I don't think I would be a fair representation. However, would I give up my shift if it were my sole income? I'd like to think that I would, but I can't say for sure. But, I do not necessarily like "seniority rules" at all. Why is it that the guy who's been with the service for 15 years barely skating by (performance wise) should get preferential treatment over the newbie who is desperately trying to make ends meet? Ultimately, they are both trying to feed their family. Now what I know I would absolutely do is take a pay cut across the board. A simple straight percentage across the board would be the fairest way to approach the situation for all concerned...in my opinion.
BAYAMedic Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 I believe that the primary problem to address is the budgetary concerns themselves. Schedule changes and pay cuts across the board may just be a band-aid on a broken dam. You referred to this as a County problem, Is it a fully tax supported agency? If so did they just fail multiple Levys? Is this agency the only one with 911 response? Has this agency worked to secure IFTs? Does this agency have volunteers? Have they considered a structured schedule of volunteer rotation to fill in budgetary gaps? Has the agency failed to apply for grants that would benefit the agency long term? Has the administration failed to hire someone who knows the billing and coding that gets transports paid for, that may need to be sent to a refresher? Did management just make a lot of unnecessary expenses to upgrade perfectly adequate equipment? Did someone ignore the budget? Ultimately there is a issue or mistake made by someone higher than the providers, who are most effected in the scenario as written. Perhaps its time for management to accept their mistakes and tighten their own belt. Fireman1037 1
Just Plain Ruff Posted April 13, 2011 Posted April 13, 2011 Does the across the board pay cut involve management also? Or will management not take a hit. Don't ask me to sacrifice my livelihood if you are not going to sacrifice yours. That's what gets me about corporations today. The management rarely takes a cut, they expect the workers to do so but most CEO's will not make that cut. As long as management takes a pay cut then I'd be willing to take a pay cut but you can bet that I'm going to be looking for another job at the same pay rate unless the job I'm taking the cut for is the only game in town.
MetalMedic Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 (edited) First of all this has nothing to do with race. Second the employees were not asked to give up their job, they were asked to take a 12 hour shift versus a 24, yes that means a pay cut. They were offered a rotating schedule where they work 4 12 hour shifts one week, 3 the next, so they would get 48 hours one week, 36 the next. Those on 24's do not work a true 24, they have a "kelly day" the week of they have 3 24 hour shifts, so they work 48 hours per week, every week. Those who have another full-time job were asked to leave the 24s for those who did not have another full-time job (the work 48 on 24 off). So, it appears very few here (like the employees there) would give up their shift. Would you think that an across the board paycut for everyone would be more fair ? It seems logically that scheduling a full timer with another job to take the 24 hour shifts would work better as it would give them more time to schedule their other job around. I digress though. I did highlight the point you are missing in your statements by making it bold. Sometimes the only logical solution is to make the cut across the board. It's easy to ask someone to give up something big, while you don't suffer, but when you are asked to give up a little something, it's not fair. Why should your co-workers have to carry all of the budern for you? It's more logical and fair to have everyone give up a little, than to have a select few give up way more... except now it's a problem you were asked to give something up too. Cutting shift would make some people hostile towards others who were not asked to give up a damn thing. Taking a little something away from everyone wouldn't cause co-worker hositility. Which would be easier to deal with? I would hate to walk around with my nose in the air because I kept my hours and pay, while someone else was forced to sacrifice. I'd be pretty pissed. A pay cut across the board seems like the only equitable (sp?) solution. Why should someone else have to sacrifice for you? Would you do the same for them with out thinking of it? It's only unfair to you know because you are asked to sacrifice as well. It's easy to say you would do something until you are put in that postion. Although you keep saying you would give up your extra shift if you had a second job, you are showing you would do the exact opposite by complaining about possibly losing some of your paycheck. It's easy to take it away from "someone else". In one situation only a few (you not included) would lose money. In this situation, everyone loses money and you are dead set against it. It's OK for everyone else to lose, as long as it's not you? Did I get that right? -MetalMedic Edited April 20, 2011 by MetalMedic
Just Plain Ruff Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 It's a common theme in this society that it's ok for others to do without but when asked for you to do without then it's a problem. I use the word "you" to mean society as a generality. A big case in point is the Flight attendants union for American Airlines. According to thier website www.apfa.org they are claiming that they have given over 10 billion to date but the executive's have reaped bonuses. If it's across the board concessions then shouldn't it be everyone, from the lowest on the totem pole to the CEO? Plus the top 5 executives got 100 million in bonuses but the airline did not post a profit last year and will not this year. That's not equitable and we wonder why top executives of corporations like this have a bad image. But I digress, if the employee's are asked to take a pay cut then the executives should also. If one has to take a pay cut then all should. I've never been in that situation but I would think that as long as it's not a few who get cut but everyone then it should be a less bitter pill to swallow.
Recommended Posts