Hey, there! Log in / Register

Arbitrator orders Boston to give firefighters a 19% pay raise over four years

But firefighters will have to pee into cups at random intervals, the Globe reports, noting the amount is far higher than anything other city unions are getting.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

So when many residents are taking 10-20% pay cuts or facing layoffs and having their libraries shut down...........

up
Voting closed 0

... but since i work for the state, we *still* have to pee into a cup if asked.

up
Voting closed 0

Unions are out of touch with reality because government allows them to be and this is ample evidence.

up
Voting closed 0

I think the contract is retroactive for four years - which is how long the firefighters have been without a contract - and expires July 1. Over that period, other unions got 14%.

up
Voting closed 0

So as of July 1, they need a new contract?

up
Voting closed 0

A 19% pay raise over 4 years in this economy with near 10% unemployment?! Holy crap, I'm definitely in the wrong line of work. I used to be an FF/EMT-P, maybe I need to go back to that..

up
Voting closed 0

Then I think you are crazy not to be a firefighter. That's just me though.

up
Voting closed 0

Boston had starting firefighter salaries at 52K plus lots of holidays.

Pretty good for a high school degree.

I couldn't do it, though (besides being too old). I can't stand it when people are smoking in a bar. I can't imagine coming home with the lovely aroma of barbecued carpet in my hair.

up
Voting closed 0

Going almost any other way would be preferable. But that's just me. ;)

up
Voting closed 0

Id say 99% of people that die in fires, (including firefighters) die from smoke inhalation. (Which isn't that fun either but is better than burning I would say.)

And if I had to put a number on the amount of days that a Boston firefigher would go home smelling like smoke, it would probably be around 2-5 days a year.

up
Voting closed 0

You are absolutely correct about people dying of smoke inhalation instead of "burning to death." On the other hand you go on to say that boston firefighters go home 2-5 times a year smelling of smoke, which is a fact based on what? There is probably 2-5 fires a week in Boston. Just because the media doesn't report it, doesn't mean they don't happen.

up
Voting closed 0

Is it ironic that you claim he doesn't provide any facts for his "2-5 times a year"...then you refute it by claiming "2-5 fires a week in Boston" WITHOUT ANY FACTS!?

I don't think you thought this cunning plan through.

In fact, based on the figure in this article, Boston had 51 multiple-alarm fires in 2009 and that's only about 1 a week. From previous years, it seems that there are another 50% of that number on top of it in "working fires" which totals to about 75-100 total fires. That would make about 2 a week at MOST and that makes about 2-3 fires per station in the city.

That's pretty much what Pete says...2-5 times a year smelling like smoke (and that's if you're lucky(?) enough to be on duty for every single fire call your house gets).

up
Voting closed 0

What cunning plan? I've been a firefighter for 20 years, and I know I go to a fire more than 2-5 times a year. So recite all the facts you want, you're wrong.

up
Voting closed 0

How many did you go to last year? How many of those did you have to get anywhere close to an open flame?

Again, you come without anything but an anecdote...and not even a fully formed one that might inform the discussion.

How do you rectify the fact that there were only 51 multiple alarm fires last year (about 1 every week) and about 30 firehouses? Do you think you work at the busiest firehouse? My biggest assumption was that fires happen fairly equally across the entire city. How many shifts are there per day? Two? Three? How many total fires were there in the city last year? 100? 150?

up
Voting closed 0

Add to those 50 or so multiple-alarm fires all the car fires and small fires that don't make it to multiple alarms - and all the "fires" that turn out to be just some burning food (but you don't know that until you get there - and sometimes, stove fires get out of hand). Just another anecdote, but it's rare I *don't* hear at least one "report of smoke" call every day I have the scanner on; usually more like two or three.

Now add to those chemical spills, transformer explosions, car and MBTA accidents, rescue and recovery operations (somebody had to pull that guy's body out from under the Orange Line train the other night, that woman's body out of the harbor the other day), and stuff I'm sure I'm missing, and the need for a decent number of fire stations across the city becomes more apparent.

up
Voting closed 0

Sorry after 20 years I no longer keep a diary. No, I don't work at the busiest fire house anymore. You are wrong to think that fires happen equally across the city, no one can predict when and where a fire is going to happen. Why are you asking me questions, you are already a professional firefighter by my account. You can recite things you've read and put good reasoning behind it. The worst kind of critic, is the one who has never done what they are so adamant about. Things in the fire service has changed significantly over my 20 years, and I'll tell you if anything, the job is probably more dangerous now than it was then. Here is a few of the reasons I say that: the materials we use in our homes burn faster than they did years ago, they give off extremely poisonous gases, the materials we use to build our homes are lightweight and fail under fire conditions, yes fires are down, so it's harder to gain experience, medicals - my opinion, we are here, why not, we are trained to help, maybe not to the paramedic level, but most of us are EMT's. I don't have to justify my job to you or anyone else, because despite the hatred that you people have for us, we still do our jobs day in and day out, rain, sleet, snow - emergencies don't wait for anything, and I really hope you never need us, but for the 70000 times that bell goes off this year, I hope you earn a respect for what I chose to do.

up
Voting closed 0

It was posited by someone whose opinion on emergency services I tend to trust generally that your numbers are off. I found the Globe article from last year (?) that showed a significant decrease in fires over the past decade and backed up his estimation on the number of fires a generic firefighter is going to have to deal with in a given year (thus "coming home smelling of smoke"). That's not going to be a rice-on-the-stove fire, Adam. (It's also not going to be medical calls, which is honorable that the BFD does it...but isn't pertinent to the discussion at hand). Instead, we're talking about what I believe the term "working fire" was designating in the Globe article: single or multiple company fires (not necessarily structural fires) that would send a firefighter home "smelling of smoke" (a number that wasn't yet calculated for anything more recent than 2006 in the article).

I believe you when you say that 20 years of service (thanks go to you and your fellow firefighters) blurs the lines...you don't keep a diary any more, you note that fire count is down however, you don't work the most active house...and what may seem like you've been doing a steady 2-3 "working fires" a week is less than that now. From the graph in the article it could have easily been 2-3 a week two decades ago but for the past few years we're down to almost a tenth of what it was in the 80s and 90s. Although the number of fires in the city are down, I make no suggestion that the danger or toxicity is down as well. The whole preposition of this particular part of the discussion was just how often does a firefighter go home "smelling of smoke". I didn't ask you to justify the job you've done or even the pay increase (I'm sure firefighters were owed some of what the arbitrator decided in the same way that Army personnel have been given greater than normal pay increases to keep up with equivalent private sector pay levels until most recently when Army/private rates became comparable).

So, don't assume any hostility from me, but I only ask we discuss from facts applicable to the entire situation. Your "2-3 fires a week" claim (equivalent to 100-150 fires per year...for just your shifts of just your firehouse) just doesn't match the facts listed in that article. My questions go to finding out why you claim something that doesn't match what the system as a whole is reporting, not to questioning your integrity as a firefighter or your job performance. I have a lot of respect for emergency responders (well, those that aren't corrupt/high on the job/assholes/etc). Kudos for doing a tough job and ultimately also dealing with the politics involved that end up being thrust on top due to public budgets and union money-grabs and electioneering. Hell, the entire original thrust of the article I linked to was how we had no fire-related deaths last year for the first time in forever. Bravo, keep up the great work.

up
Voting closed 0

I apologize for my hostility then. Lord knows we don't need anymore enemies. For the record, I've never been to a working fire with less than 3 engines two ladder trucks, which is generally the initial response for the report of a fire or smoke in a building. That said, I don't know where the globe got their information about what a working fire is. A working fire, is just that, a fire, where it's likely to be contained before it gets out of control, and at the moment more companies aren't necessary. The worst fire I've ever been in was a working fire, not a huge amount of fire, but very thick black smoke that filled the entire apartment from the ceiling to floor. So just because it doesn't go to a 2nd alarm or further doesn't mean it's not a big deal. The incident commander will usually report back to fire alarm that they have a working fire with a description of the structure, I believe it serves as a warning to let fire alarm operators prepare, or potential second alarm companies to be aware of what might be coming.
I have been to 8 structure fires in the last year, hooray for me I know, but maybe I'm just a black cloud or an old salt, who knows. When that bell goes off, I don't know where I'm going or what I'm walking into, I just go, it's my job, I chose to do it, I do it SOBER, and I don't complain. The pay raise is nice, however I do realize there are people out there who lost their jobs, savings, pensions, IRAs, retirement, etc. etc., that's not my fault, nor is it anyone's fault.

up
Voting closed 0

I keep my making-less-than-a-firefighter job because the job needs to be done.

up
Voting closed 0

One 24 hour shift and then 3 days off? Unless you don't have a real flexible schedule. But imagine if you took half the pay for each job?

up
Voting closed 0

It's a 4% yearly raise. For people that save you from dying. It's more or less cost-of-living.

up
Voting closed 0

I don't know anyone who's getting cost of living increases (or who has, in the last two years) except for unions.

up
Voting closed 0

Perhaps you should unionize, and fight for the most you can get.

up
Voting closed 0

Fire calls have dropped nationally to ONE QUARTER of what they were 30 years ago. Yet we have more fire fighters every day, with better and better union contract terms, and they piss money away to look busy by sending 2 trucks to any scene where someone gets a boo boo, just to look busy. And get coked up and go on calls. And staff maintenance departments with union lackeys who have no training or certification. And put unqualified drivers in massive, heavy trucks that fly down our streets.

If they're in it to do public good, then they can do it for public good at their old wage. Nobody else these days are getting raises except the bank CEOs. If it's not enough money, guess what- it's a free, capitalist country and they can find somewhere else to work or work a different job.

up
Voting closed 0

Inflation from 2005 to 2009 was 10% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is almost double that - don't forget the city has to absorb enormous increases on health care costs as well. The private sector has basically frozen salaries to maintain benefits but the public keeps getting raises and maintains benefits. Year to year it's a tiny amount - over ten or more years the extra 1-2% plus healthcare plus pensions becomes very large money. Per my post below - no knock on the firefighters but over the long term unsustainable. People start voting with their feet - I know a few that already have and A LOT that are about to when they stop working because it has become almost impossible to retire in many parts of downtown Boston. Ultimately self-correcting - probably - but not what you want for a stable community.

If Boston had kept its budget increasing at the rate of inflation rather than its actual rate business and residential taxes would be 25% less and we would have the same level of services as we did 10 years ago - even AFTER the state cutting $100 million in aid. Instead we are broke, laying off people despite already cutting 1000 heads, raising taxes and privatizing our parks.

up
Voting closed 0

Firefighters already get yearly step increases in their pay. Not to mention the fact that COLA has averaged around 2.8% between 2006 and 2009 years (and last year it was 0%). This good raise for the firefighters.

Unfortunately, taxpayers are the big loosers here.

up
Voting closed 0

Not without a fight - and not under this administration - but this is unsustainable.

In my home town and most towns in Westchester County we have volunteer departments(30 minutes north of Manhattan and if you woke up there and didn't know the difference you'd think it was West Rox, HP or JP). I've never understood why every community around here needs their own professional fire department. Could probably go all or part volunteer in many areas. It has worked very well basically forever. The other option is to go with merging departments regionally or an outside contractor which is increasingly popular out west. God bless them - they do a great job and obviously not a job most posters on this site would do (I wouldn't hesitate to fill a volunteer slot a couple of days/nights a week, time permitting), but if they are not careful they will price themselves right out of that job.

up
Voting closed 0

My uncle is a volunteer FF in Putnam County. He actually gets paid a little and the town gives him a take home truck/car as well, but it always made me wonder about why his tax rate is basically 3X as much as ours in Boston. They even have to pay a school tax for each kid that goes to school there.

up
Voting closed 0

My mom/dad's rate is about 3x what you pay here too - they have their own issues - high paid administrators, lots of police per capita/crime rate etc. even though they save a lot on the fire dept. Big one though is that those towns have virtually no commercial base - maybe 5-10% of the taxes. In Boston businesses pay 60% plus of the taxes - for now anyway. No per kid tax in my hometown of Croton, but I think parents have to absorb some busing costs and program costs for sports etc. The school tax is completely separate from the municipal tax. I think the town gives the firefighters a few perks like contributes to their retirement medical if they put in so many years and a few other things. They do keep the equipment well maintained and replace it frequently with top of the line stuff. They don't skimp on the FD because they know they are getting a bargain.

up
Voting closed 0

Another friend of mine was making 80K teaching in West Chester Co. after only 2 years teaching. But it was always wierd to me. I mean, a lot of Westchester Co. (and especially Orange and Putnam Cos.) are like Central MA here in terms of distance from Boston. You can find a lot better deals on real estate in the "metro" Boston area it seems for taxes, housing prices etc.

up
Voting closed 0

($74 million) would pay for a lot of libraries to stay open and allow the BPL to increase staff and services. I appreciate the work our firefighters do, but this is out of line.

up
Voting closed 0