In need of some EMS family advice.

[Just Plain Ruff]

i worked for a non union shop that paid 39K and another non-union shop that paid 52K a year. that was a very livable wage.

it can be done.

The problem I see with the IAFF when they do the collective bargaining is that they bargain against the citizens of the city or county who have no say in what they pay you. you are effectively holding a city hostage when you threaten to walk out when your current contract ends. that puts the city in a terrible position to be in.

in my opinion, a union has NO business being in the public sector, especially in the public safety sector because you effectively hold many of the cards. You don't get what you want then you can say "we'll go on strike and you will have no EMS or fire coverage" and the citizens call their city councilmembers and say "pay them what they are asking because we cannot be without fire coverage or EMS coverage" thus you get what you want.

You effectively hold me hostage to your demands and I'm not able to do a damn thing about it because your union really does hold all the cards.

sure it's a great thing for you because you get great pay, great benefits and you can lord over the heads of those non-union saps who make piddly and say "lookie here what we get and what you don't" but I really do not get a say in the matter of how much you get paid because your union negotiates your pay with the city council and the perceived threats of strikes and slowdowns and decreases in services of such a vital service almost ALWAYS ends up with the union getting what it wants.

And to me that is what is WRONG with unions,.

[paramedicmike]

Can you give me real life experience that the IAFF has hurt EMS? Let me guess they are dumbing down the standards etc etc.....guess what, there will always be loads on this job, union or not. Hell they have 6 month fly by month medic schools. It's a joke...

Why do you think those six month medic courses still exist?

As for real life examples we can look at the Philadelphia Fire Department. Or the FDNY. Or the Washington, DC Fire Department. Or any fire based EMS system where the monies are diverted to suppression (despite decreasing suppression call volume) away from EMS (despite increasing EMS call volume).

I am represented by the IAFF as a single role medic and get paid an admirable wage with the benefits we all deserve.

In this area, non unionized EMS makes minimum wage. How's not organizing working out for all those guys? I guess the IAFF is evil for helping negotiate respectable wages.

In regards to the RN comments---My wife is an BSN in an ER at a very prestigious hospital and I make more then she does. If more people embraced the union/organization of EMS (whatever union IAFF or whatever) maybe people would have a fighting chance at earning a respectable wage...

10 bucks an hour to run 911? That's a joke.

Unions are a double edged sword. Sure, there can be some benefit to some unions. There can also be a lot of harm especially when the union in question doesn't treat many of their members as equals simply because they do a different job.

That's great you think it worked for you. However, a larger sample size covering a more broad consideration of factors may be needed before we should jump on the "Rah Rah IAFF" bandwagon.

[triemal04]

Having some issues replying so you'll have to forgive the broken up quotes.

Little misinformation being tossed around about unions in general and the IAFF in particular.

"The problem I see with the IAFF when they do the collective bargaining is that they bargain against the citizens of the city or county who have no say in what they pay you. you are effectively holding a city hostage when you threaten to walk out when your current contract ends. that puts the city in a terrible position to be in."

If that's how you view it then it really applies to all unions, not just the IAFF. Of course the opposite is also true; you could say that without the ability to bargain that the city/county/whatever is not giving the workers any say in what they pay, and they are having terms dicated to them by a potentially uninformed group with no recourse. And (I don't think this applies nationally unfortunately) I've yet to see a fire/police/EMS agency that was legally ALLOWED to go on strike and not work. This isn't to say that they don't have the ability to cause problems of course.

"In my opinion, a union has NO business being in the public sector, especially in the public safety sector because you effectively hold many of the cards. You don't get what you want then you can say "we'll go on strike and you will have no EMS or fire coverage" and the citizens call their city councilmembers and say "pay them what they are asking because we cannot be without fire coverage or EMS coverage" thus you get what you want"

Again, for some types of jobs that may not be legally permissable. And if you think that the public will blindly support all public service agencies no matter what then you need to get out more.

There are reasons to like unions, but before you start having an opinion on them you really need to know what it is you are talking about.

"Why do you think those six month medic courses still exist?

As for real life examples we can look at the Philadelphia Fire Department. Or the FDNY. Or the Washington, DC Fire Department. Or any fire based EMS system where the monies are diverted to suppression (despite decreasing suppression call volume) away from EMS (despite increasing EMS call volume)."

Can you (or anyone) actually prove that shake and bake course only exist for the fire departments? (I don't completely disagree, it's just that this is always tossed around without anyone actually giving out any credible reasons) There are lots of people who use schools like that who have no intentions of joining a fire department, and there are lots of agencies (non-fire) that will hire people who go there.

If you are talking about holding back increases in education, then that, while correct, is not being done just by the IAFF or IAFC.

Talking specifically about the IAFF, DC may not be the best example since they are currently trying to get MORE ambulances put on the road, something that I think most would agree is needed.

The IAFF get's brought up a lot, and more often than not it's just used as a catch-phrase for the fire service. I think that most people are forgetting, or never bothered to think about, the fact that, despite being an international union that does lobby at the national level, the vast majority of things being done are done at the local level; to simply say that "well the IAFF is doing this in XXX city" is most often incorrect. What people need to remember is that it's actually XXX city that is doing something wrong.

"Unions are a double edged sword. Sure, there can be some benefit to some unions. There can also be a lot of harm especially when the union in question doesn't treat many of their members as equals simply because they do a different job."

Bing! Absolutely correct. With any union people need to know what they are getting into, and need to know more than a bunch of hyperbole and rhetoric. Union affiliation (yes, even IAFF affiliation for non-fire EMS providers) can work out great and the members can reap great benefits. Or things may not work out. More often than not though, when things don't work (or do work) it's not the national body that is responsibile, but the people in that particular local.

I guess this goes back to being willing to put in extra effort for something that may not directly and immedietly benefit you...something that to many people in EMS refuse to do.

[paramedicmike]

triemal04, on 09 Jun 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

Can you (or anyone) actually prove that shake and bake course only exist for the fire departments?  (I don't completely disagree, it's just that this is always tossed around without anyone actually giving out any credible reasons)  There are lots of people who use schools like that who have no intentions of joining a fire department, and there are lots of agencies (non-fire) that will hire people who go there.

I have read articles previously that have outlined the oppositional stance taken by the IAFF (one organization among many) with regards to keeping six month medic mill programs available. Admittedly, a brief search was unable to turn up those articles. Honestly, I don't have the time to dig deeper for them.

 

Quote

If you are talking about holding back increases in education, then that, while correct, is not being done just by the IAFF or IAFC.

Agreed. The IAFF was specifically mentioned, however. So I ran with it.

 

Quote

Talking specifically about the IAFF, DC may not be the best example since they are currently trying to get MORE ambulances put on the road, something that I think most would agree is needed.

So is Philadelphia. Guess who sued the city to block cost saving measures (that would not have cost firefighters their jobs) that would have allowed the city to put more medic units on the streets? 

The IAFF.

 

Quote

The IAFF get's brought up a lot, and more often than not it's just used as a catch-phrase for the fire service.  I think that most people are forgetting, or never bothered to think about, the fact that, despite being an international union that does lobby at the national level, the vast majority of things being done are done at the local level; to simply say that "well the IAFF is doing this in XXX city" is most often incorrect.  What people need to remember is that it's actually XXX city that is doing something wrong.

It doesn't matter at what level the actions are taken. If the actions are taken in the name of the IAFF then it's an IAFF issue regardless if it's local, national or international.

As for your comment about it being the municipality doing something wrong I can't help but think that that's nothing more than a bait and switch argument.

 

[triemal04]

So is Philadelphia. Guess who sued the city to block cost saving measures (that would not have cost firefighters their jobs) that would have allowed the city to put more medic units on the streets? 

The IAFF.

 

It doesn't matter at what level the actions are taken. If the actions are taken in the name of the IAFF then it's an IAFF issue regardless if it's local, national or international.

As for your comment about it being the municipality doing something wrong I can't help but think that that's nothing more than a bait and switch argument.

 

Actually, what I meant by the DC comment was that the DC local is pushing for more more ambulances on the road, not the department.

That's a very simplistic way of looking at it, and not accurate. When a local does something, generally they are acting for themselves. It's that simple. There are things that all locals are expected to do and follow, but generally they act as they see fit. This isn't to say that support may not filter down from the the international, or that the international does not do it's share of stupid stuff. But just because one local does something/takes a stance on something/whatever does not mean that it is being done by the IAFF as a whole, or that the official policy on that issue (if one even exists) is being followed.

I didn't mean the municipality. What I mean was that when one local does something it shouldn't be said that the IAFF as a whole is doing it, but that the local chapter of XXX city is doing it. Clear?

[uglyEMT]

.

That's a very simplistic way of looking at it, and not accurate. When a local does something, generally they are acting for themselves. It's that simple. There are things that all locals are expected to do and follow, but generally they act as they see fit. This isn't to say that support may not filter down from the the international, or that the international does not do it's share of stupid stuff. But just because one local does something/takes a stance on something/whatever does not mean that it is being done by the IAFF as a whole, or that the official policy on that issue (if one even exists) is being followed.

I didn't mean the municipality. What I mean was that when one local does something it shouldn't be said that the IAFF as a whole is doing it, but that the local chapter of XXX city is doing it. Clear?

While I am not going to comment on the IAFF union thing. i do want to point out something about unions in general. Triemal is pretty much spot on with this comment. The union I am in just went through our big contract negotiation so this is all still fresh in my mind and the resources are close at hand. The Internaional had certain conditions during the negotiation that were for all the locals (pay, benifits, ect) then it came down to local negotiations that delt with "local" issues (by "local" I mean area specific) those were about company agrements and stuff affecting the local unions. It wasnt until all the issues both international and local were resolved was the master contract ratified.

So I can see where one local or city negotiated something that wasnt done somewhere else but it is still sanctioned by the international in general.

One comment I do want to make is about the shake and bake medic courses (my term for them). Most are specifically for the benifit of fire based ems systems. In areas where ems is not fire based you dont see them much. In my area all the medic services are through the hospital system and all medics are required to get sponsored by a hospital which then sends them through the actual college program with them then staying on for at least 2 years riding before finally being able to switch hospitals or go into the private sector. The area adjacent to me is fire based and most medic programs are course based and not through a college program and after the course is completed and certification issued they find employment where ever they can. Some depts in that are will "sponsor" a medic and have them stay at that specific fire house for a specified amount of time just to get a return on investment and not much more.

We sometimes get these medics due to call location or distances involved and can say that I would rather have my normal areas medics then the course medics. They (local area) just seem to be more knowlegable and comfortable doing their thing. The shake and bakes seem to know the procedures, follow an algorythem, spike a line, add diesel bolous, and get to the ED.

Just my two cents.

[Eydawn]

I think, in general, if you're the caliber of motivated personality that we see here on the City, your odds of doing well in a bridge program (either RN to Medic or Medic to RN) are much higher. Let's face it... the folks who hang out here seem to be by and large the exception, rather than the rule... I forget that sometimes, and run nose first into that wall out in the real world and wonder "how the hell?" until I take a few minutes to think about it... but I digress.

Is a bridge a good education for absolutely everyone? No... Should you really be required to take both programs from scratch (and play the politics and bullshit twice) if you have the foundational education behind you? I vote no... (I also vote no if you can prove competency by challenge exam, in case anyone's interested.) If you are very "stuck" on "this is how I learned it in ______ program when I got my _______ license" or "this is the only way to do _______ because my instructor said so" you're going to have a hell of a time figuring out how to wear both hats.

I have to pay for my BSN first (see: discussion RE no advancement without it) and then you can bet I'm finding the first medic bridge program that will have me. I think I am the right personality to succeed in that kind of program, and I think my experience as an EMT-B intertwined with my experiences as an RN will set me up to adapt to the protocol and critical thinking needs of the medic role. A paramedic I very much respect that's out here local to my area has said I'll do just fine, but he worries about his medic buddies trying to bridge to RN... they are very different (yet so similar!) and a lot of medics have trouble fitting into that integrated team/directly delegated MD approach to care. So sayeth my friend... and I happen to think he is a wise fellow!

Wendy

CO EMT-B

RN-ADN

[BushyFromOz]

i worked for a non union shop that paid 39K and another non-union shop that paid 52K a year. that was a very livable wage.

it can be done.

The problem I see with the IAFF when they do the collective bargaining is that they bargain against the citizens of the city or county who have no say in what they pay you. you are effectively holding a city hostage when you threaten to walk out when your current contract ends. that puts the city in a terrible position to be in.

in my opinion, a union has NO business being in the public sector, especially in the public safety sector because you effectively hold many of the cards. You don't get what you want then you can say "we'll go on strike and you will have no EMS or fire coverage" and the citizens call their city councilmembers and say "pay them what they are asking because we cannot be without fire coverage or EMS coverage" thus you get what you want.

You effectively hold me hostage to your demands and I'm not able to do a damn thing about it because your union really does hold all the cards.

sure it's a great thing for you because you get great pay, great benefits and you can lord over the heads of those non-union saps who make piddly and say "lookie here what we get and what you don't" but I really do not get a say in the matter of how much you get paid because your union negotiates your pay with the city council and the perceived threats of strikes and slowdowns and decreases in services of such a vital service almost ALWAYS ends up with the union getting what it wants.

And to me that is what is WRONG with unions,.

I have to take issue with this because by and large most Paramedics working in the public sector in australia are part of some form of union, and for this there are multiple reasons.

At the very basic level one requires a representative for colledtive bargaining, and it might as well be my union rather than forking money over to a third party negotiating body. A collective agreement is the only way as it is simply not feasible to negotiate individual contracts for 2500 paramedics + conditions for the thousand or so paid first responders on our books..

We dont negotiate against a city or a county. We negotaite against the state government who is quite happy to spend literally millions on legal council to hold your wages back, hence, a union is the only way to negotiate in a reasonably fair manner, but their pockets are much deeper than ours so they will throws bucketfulls of money at the issue when we throw dollar coins

Australian industrial law is complicated, we have what is termed legal or protected industrial action and then illegal or unprotected industrial action, Withdrawing some forms of labour may be protected, stiking is not. To strike is to take a significant risk in losing ones job, and in the case of failed collective bargaining, forcing the industrial court to write a collective agreement if we cannot agree on one with our employer.

My emplyer is large, it is a state wide statutory service. If i am unhappy with my conditions i cannot go to the next city and work for one of their companies, departments or whatever you call them, there is no other employer in the emergency sector unless i change states, which if you have seen a map of Australia is not as easy as ducking to the next county. And if i do move to another state they only have one statutory ambulance service to work for, so i still have litlle choice.

The state government and my employer occasionally like to make changes to rosters, services, operating procedure that are less than satisfactory to the publics interest. As i am a government employee i cannot speak publicly due to a code of conduct, but i can have the union do it for me. My union also provides representation for "disciplinary proceedings... some emplyers like writing procedures for grievances etc, but they dont like to follow them

Our industrial climate at the moment is toxic. the government has a public sector wages policy of 2.5% with any other rises due to productivity offsets "actual bankable cash savings" as a result of a negotiated outcome", which i am no position to provide because i do not control the purse strings, so the only thing is to give up conditions. 2.5% is not even in line with CPI so you give up your conditions to meet inflation, or, you wage a nasty industrial campaign and take illegal industrial aciton, because the reality is, illegal action is the only leverage you have here. Ironically illegal industrial action is probably what the state government wants because it will force the industrial courts to force an agreement on us, so the service and the state government certainly wont get what they want, but neither will Paramedics, so its a win for them either way. Paramedics in my state have not had payrises that have meant inflation rates for nearly a decade, so the thought of making that 14 years is pretty much unpalitable.

My union doesn't actually hold any cards, and is the only reason strike action is even mentioned.

[Just Plain Ruff]

Well you can take issue with me all you want but I watched it happen in the city of Belton Missouri just in the past 8 months. The city was trimming the budget. They had to cut across the board.

The city said it had to cut 6 fire positions. The fire department union came out swinging saying that there would be lives lost if those positions would be cut. They didn't tell the public that three of the positions were already open positions and that two others were slated for retirement. So 5 of those positions were actually not going to be filled anyway but the union didn't say that, but they let the public think that lives would be lost and the public made an outcry so the fire department did not lose positions, in fact their budget was increased due to outcry from the citizens thinking that lives would be lost and other city departments were cut further in order to SAVE the fire department, including the police department.

So yes, the union did indeed bargain against the citizenry in order to get more benefits paid to them. This is patently unfair in my opinion. The citizens to me were held hostage to the unions crying wolf. The citizens of Belton didn't have a clue because they were given misinformation by the IAFF union.

Does that sound fair?

But the union got what they wanted didn't they so it's all good in the end at least for the union members.

Listen, there is no way that any of us here who don't agree with what the unions stand for will change the minds of the union supporters and there is no way that the union supporters will change the minds of those who do not support the tactics of the unions. It's a no win situation.

I'm all for getting as much money as you can and if the city is willing to pay that much to you as a firefighter then so be it but don't get all pissy when someone calls the unions on the carpet for the tactics that they choose to use to get that money. If it's done honestly then by all means good on you but if it's done dishonestly, then it deserves to be called into the light.

and what the firefighters did in Belton Mo was dishonest.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Captain ToHellWithItAll

[BushyFromOz]

And what city councils and state government do is dishonest too.

No point bringing a cupcake to a gunfight.

Are you sure this about unions, or is this about firefighters?

Edited June 12, 2013 by BushyFromOz