Upping the ante

...I could tell you. :)

In his occasional op-ed column for the various Wicked Local papers, Mayor Thomas Menino writes about all the "misinformation" the BFD is spreading over the issue.

The column is usually a chance for him to say some nice pleasantries or describe his position on a not-very-confrontational policy issue.

Not so this time. His writing sounds massively mad about the jakes jabbing about shutting stations in response to over-the-top overtime.

One unsolicited robocall is harassment? I don't live in Boston, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but c'mon -- one robocall is annoyment at best, not harassment.

Shamrag: I would like to be put on the do not call list for dumbass Boston petty politic bullcrap - especially from the "dumbasses" now in charge of the firefighters' union.

I would like to know why the Boston Fire Department is the only public or private sector agency not allowed to call in sick, and why when a member does, it automatically amounts to "abuse?"

There are 3 sides to this story; the city's, the fire department's, and the truth. However, the city is doing a very good job of convincing the public, the media, AND itself that the entire fault lies within Local 718. Let's take a look at a few things the city might not want the Globe to print in one of it's one sided articles:

*The first day brown-outs began, the fire commissioner claimed that 33 firefighters had called in sick, and this was proof that abuse was rampant in the fire department. However, he later had to recant this on the radio and tell everyone that it was 13, NOT 33 firefighters, who had called in sick. The other 20 had already been off duty on injured leave. Is being injured in a fire also an abuse?

*The city had a fire recruit class lined up and ready to start training in December 2008. However, they cut the funding for it and never put it through. Everybody knows that paying anybody at a normal rate rather than an overtime rate saves money, however the city cut the class and paid out overtime to cover the missing slots (NOT just for sick time) at fire stations that do not already have enough members (yes, some fire stations are not fully staffed due to the lower number of personnel that the fire department now has). If the city had put through the recruit class when it did, it would not have had to pay as much overtime (to cover the missing slots, NOT just for sick leave "abuse") and would not have to close firehouses now.

*The commissioner mentions that firefighters calling in sick are "abusing" the system. He is failing to mention the amount of these sick calls that come with documentation. Some people calling in sick DO have a legitimate reason (sick themselves, sick child, or sick family member) and provide the fire department with documentation from a physician or other professional who can verify that they called in sick for a legitimate reason. However, every sick call is now being pooled into the "unexcused, abusive" category, regardless of the reason.

*The city is not closing firehouses where firefighters have called in sick. Instead, the city is taking turns closing fully staffed firehouses, and sending those firefighters to cover the vacancies at other firehouses where members are missing. For example, if 8 firehouses across the city are missing a member (from either a sick call, because a member might be out injured, OR due to the fact that a new firefighter hasn't been hired in over 6 months), the city can close up to 4 FULLY STAFFED firehouses and send those firefighters out to cover the slots. Basically, they are closing a different firehouse daily and hoping that the one they close isn't close by to a fire or cardiac arrest. As I said in my last post within this thread, and anybody should know anyways, SECONDS, not minutes, count when there is a fire, or a medical emergency. However, if one hasn't experienced one of those events, then they could care less how long it takes. As well, for all the negatives spouting that there aren't as many fires, and so why do we even need as many firehouses, try telling that to somebody whose house has burned down recently in the city. (So far this year, 25 multiple alarm fires have occurred in the city, and that does not count the ones that still burned a house down but did not require an additional alarm of response).

I know that for some of the people reading this, you will still feel negativity toward the fire department for "complaining" about not getting overtime when others are losing their jobs. However, it is that group of you who have been seriously misinformed by the mayor and as well the media. If the city had hired the firefighters necessary to staff the fire department when it had the chance, overtime would not have to be paid out and firehouses would not be closed now. Sick leave is used by every single department citywide, and by every private sector job, but it is only abuse now because the "taxpayers are paying for it" and the mayor and his two puppets, Rod and Dot, lead the public to believe that (I am a city firefighter and a taxpayer as well, and that is often failed to be metioned: we pay taxes too).

I would just like to know why we, at Boston Fire, are simply not allowed to have family emergencies, sick children, or be sick ourselves, and why now, everytime a firefighter calls in sick, he or she is "abusing" the system and not simply using a sick day that has been allotted to him or her.

If somebody on here can come up with an adequate reason why I or my family cannot be sick, ever, and prove that every recent sick call into the fire department has been an undocumented abuse of taxpayer's money, I invite you to come on here and demonstrate as such.

The firefighters' union now has guys in cars driving around the neighborhoods with recorded messages on their bullhorns. Ugh, please stop being annoying!

Maybe the public would (I know I would) take the firefighters more seriously if they and their union leadership didn't act like petulant 12-year-olds, always, every time, no matter the issue.