Hey, there! Log in / Register

Possible breakthrough in firefighter contract talks: Union proposes one-year freeze on drug-testing pay increase

UPDATE: Administration to City Council: Just say no to firefighters; that would create a tidal wave of other unions demanding similar drug-testing deals. City council to administration: With all due respect, you suck. Councilor Ayanna Pressley: "There's some sort of conflicting shell game going on here."

Local firefighters union President Ed Kelly this morning offered to freeze for one year a 2.5% raise awarded by an arbitration panel in exchange for drug testing.

City councilors Mike Ross and Steve Murphy immediately congratulated Kelly for making the "significant concession."

"I think, frankly, it's extraordinary," Murphy said.

Kelly said this would save the city more than $4 million - on top of another $8 million the city won in health insurance and sick-leave changes an arbitration panel granted the city.

Because the council does not get involved in collective bargaining, the ball now goes into Mayor Tom Menino's court; councilors said they want administration officials back before them today to discuss the issue.

Councilor John Connolly blamed the whole arbitration mess on Dean Mazzarella, mayor of Leominster and management member of the arbitration panel. "I think you guys have been held out unfairly on this issue," because other city unions have gotten increased pay in exchange for drug testing, he said, adding he no longer believes a word Mazzarella said.

Arbitration decision.

Neighborhoods: 
Topics: 


Ad:


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

Comments

This isn't extraordinary. This is more of the same.

No public safety official should be paid for insuring that they come to work sober. This proposal just delays that pay to play favor for one year.

up
Voting closed 0

As Connolly noted (may have added his quote after you posted), other unions have indeed gotten paid extra for agreeing to drug testing.

up
Voting closed 0

Well, let's find out what those unions are and take it back.

I have nothing against unions - I've been boycotting Shaw's for months - but nobody should be paid extra for drug testing. Random drug testing doesn't belong in the workplace anyway.

up
Voting closed 0

Random drug testing seems like a pretty good idea for guys who are getting paid to run into burning buildings.

up
Voting closed 0

It's not commonplace in health care and social services settings, and we're responsible for safety and well-being and exercising good judgment and all that.

If I come to work impaired by substances or for any other reason, my fellow astutely-observant-of-human-behavior colleagues are going to notice that I'm not tuned in when counseling parents or not on my toes with keeping kids safe, and a supervisor will pull me out and see if something's up that takes away from my ability to fully do my job. But if I come to work with a little bit of something in my system that I had fun with on the weekend, and I do my job appropriately, then that's no one's business but my own.

I'm personally not really a fan of substances other than alcohol, but I don't think that using recreational amounts of drugs outside of work time should be an employer's business. We all exercise plenty of bad judgment and make unhealthy choices on our own time, but peeing in a cup can't tell an employer that someone spent the weekend drag racing down Lamartine or beating their spouse or exercising for ten hours without having eaten. All of these drug and non-drug vices have the potential to spill over and affect one's job performance, at which point, yes, the employer should notice and should act accordingly. But the employer doesn't need to be preemptively digging into people's personal business, and if they're going to, they need to at least be fair and install chips into all the employees so they can screen for ALL types of potential instability. It isn't right to fire someone who deals with stress by snorting a few lines on the weekend, but not the people who deal by getting shitfaced on alcohol or cutting themselves or yelling at their kids.

up
Voting closed 0

But that assumes a hierarchy thats both responsible and adamant about making sure such abuses don't occur. Those in the medical profession, in law, and in other social service's have some strict ethical guidelines they need to adhere to already.

Not so sure we can trust the fire department and other public services on this one. Especially since the work involves a very close nit community thats more of a brotherhood, then a workplace. The pressures to defer and forget are too great.

I mean the whole thing was kicked off when two fire fighters died while intoxicated. You can't say the firehouse didn't know, they just refused to deal with it.

So, rightfully, the public/city is taking this into their own hands.

up
Voting closed 0

up
Voting closed 0

IMAGE(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1351/1448386637_a6564482e6.jpg)

up
Voting closed 0

Looks like you lost some weight. Keep up the good work.

up
Voting closed 0

n/t

up
Voting closed 0

You were standing behind this guy and still got that picture? Do you weigh as much as a duck?

up
Voting closed 0

I'm watching the hearings live on Comcast Channel 51. And that's what he said.

up
Voting closed 0

Because the Globe disagrees. Surely it shouldn't be hard to verify whether the other city unions which conceded to drug testing, got anything in return.

up
Voting closed 0

Because you don't really officially concede anything. All you see is the old contract and the new contract. The people that agreed on the contract can talk about how they gave up this or got that, but in general all you have written down is the actual contract. (I believe the meetings are private)

up
Voting closed 0

...they seem to like figuring these things out.

In fact, they already did (the Globe article), so the question is, who is right? If a city councilor is wrong on this, that's newsworthy itself.

up
Voting closed 0

David Wagner: He said EMTs got an increase in hazard pay in exchange for drug testing. I'm fuzzier on the police side (was concentrating on something else when it came up), so somebody please correct me, but I believe it had something to do with Quinn Bill payments. Connolly then cited him.

up
Voting closed 0

And you believe the fighterfigher's lawyer?

up
Voting closed 0

I wanted to anonymously respond to Adam's tweet: "Firefighter union: Some firefighters on verge of poverty, have had to take their kids out of private school and send them to public schools".

I know this is naive, but shouldn't the firefighters, as public employees, support our public schools instead of insisting that being reasonably compensated means being able to afford to pull their kids out of the system?

I thought that part of being a firefighter was taking pride in serving one's community. How are you serving your community when you insist on getting paid to take a drug test, or knock the public schools? Let's not even talk about the dozens of firefighters who committed outright disability fraud or took advantage of a loophole to retire with higher disability payments than they were entitled to.

up
Voting closed 0

Yep, I tweeted that. The firefighter (Richard Paris, vice president of Local 718) added that not only were they being forced to put their kids in public schools, but public schools on the other side of town.

In fairness to Paris, this was just one point he made in a long, long talk about the contract issue. But as a Boston public-school parent, yes, it struck me as a stupid thing to say.

up
Voting closed 0

not only were they being forced to put their kids in public schools, but public schools on the other side of town.

So...just like everyone else? I don't see how Boston's school bussing policies are relevant to firefighter pay.

up
Voting closed 0

maybe not

up
Voting closed 0

Coming after several years of working without a pay raise.

up
Voting closed 0

Sure, they are required to live in Boston. However, I find it spurious that they can't afford a private school on their salaries ... especially when you consider how much more it might cost to live in the leafy family suburb of their choice (cost of housing, cost of taxes, cost of services, cost of commuting).

If they can't afford to live in Boston and put their kids in private schools that suit them, I have to wonder if they could afford to live anywhere else anyway?

up
Voting closed 0

The can live in places much cheaper than Boston with better school systems (There could be a milage limit though too).

80K isn't enough for a family to send kids to private schools. Of course most probably have second jobs and spouses that work.

up
Voting closed 0

Actually the average Boston firefighter's salary was $91,815 in 2008 (http://www1.whdh.com/features/articles/specialrepo...).

If the firefighters can't get by on $91,815 while only working 7.5 days a month (most of which they may be sleeping) then too bad.

BTW, a 19% raise on top of that would equate to almost $110,000 a year. That's more than the CFO at my company makes.

up
Voting closed 0

dont work 7.5 days a month

up
Voting closed 0

Do you have data that shows the average number of hours worked in a month?

I haven't seen that data before and you said yourself that they only work every 4th day.

up
Voting closed 0

If you only worked your regular shifts you make around 60K I believe depending on your experience.

up
Voting closed 0

I know they do a dangerous job. But so do soldiers and lumberjacks and fishermen and cabbies and lots of others who make a fraction of that money-bottom line - there is little value put on the danger of a job in the free market - if you don't want a dangerous job, don't become a cop, fireman, soldier, lumberjack, fisherman or cabbie . However, the job requires a high school education. Meanwhile we make a lot of bluster about teachers being the most important people in society etc. and they make less than the typical cop or fireman and they need a MASTERS degree! So much for the importance of education. With the caveat that we need longer school days and longer school years especially in the inner city - I think there's a strong argument to be made that we should pay teachers more (again - requiring a fuller working year) and in the spirit of educational equity relative to wages, the cops and fireman should make less (the money has to come from somewhere).

Go ahead folks - fire away!

up
Voting closed 0

A cop without a masters degree is going to make less than what a teacher makes (per hour).

up
Voting closed 0

That's not my experience when the families I work with in Dorchester fill out their income forms when they're referred to our program. Teacher mom/cop dad and nurse mom/cop dad are very common Dorchester family constellations. We also have them put down their education, and I've yet to run into an officer with more than a high school diploma (not saying they don't exist -- just haven't had any). Police officers make considerably more than teachers working for BPS in my sample of families (usually people about 5-15 years into a career, since we work with families with infants and toddlers).

up
Voting closed 0

when they talk about police salaries. And I'm talking about the base salary here (40 hours a week).

The base salary for a police officer in Boston without a bachelors or masters degree in criminal justice without any overtime or details is about 55K. Your first step for a Boston Public School teacher is around 45K. If you are a cop for 30 years and don't have a degree you get a longevity bonus about 5K and make 60K. The step 15/20 teacher (with Masters) in Boston is making 90K. Before the State cut half the quinn bill last year, any cop that had a associates/bachelors or masters degree in criminal justice got a 10/15/25% bonus. (now about 5/7/13%)

BPS has a step system and they are always one of the top 5 highest paid school systems in the state.

(The original discussion here was about travel time and how firefighters that only work the minimum hours will not make 91K)

up
Voting closed 0

For a correct comparison, don't forget to normalize a teachers pay because they work 185 days compared to ~230 for anybody else.

Ex: A teacher making $50K for 185 days normalizes to ~$63K for someone working 230 days.
A teacher making $90K for 185 days normalizes to ~$113K for someone working 230 days.

up
Voting closed 0

$80K is plenty enough - I send my kids to public schools, but where I live is more expensive than Boston (I know because homes in Boston were cheaper than where I live when ever I have looked) and we figured that we could swing tuition for two kids out of that kind of salary.

Keep in mind that suburbs often have much higher real estate prices, higher taxes, and many are charging separately for services that are included in those taxes in Boston. Add in the extra car or cars, mileage, etc. and it isn't any bargain.

up
Voting closed 0

Huh, that's funny, because I thought the argument to relax residency requirements was that Boston is too expensive -- particularly housing costs. What am I missing here?

up
Voting closed 0

The fact is, the schools in many "inexpensive" suburbs and exurbs really aren't any better than Boston's, and are, in many ways, more limited in resources.

I think this is part of Adam's objections - it isn't 1980 or even 1990 anymore.

Those suburbs with the "great schools"? All very expensive to buy in and live in.

I don't think the true cost is being figured into this either, and I sincerely doubt those comments were based on anything resembling actual data on real estate prices, taxes, and transportation costs - my MIL was pitching fits that we wanted to live so close in and didn't just buy further out and drive a lot ... but we showed her how much that would cost in "consumables" like cars and gas and time.

up
Voting closed 0

If I recall you live in the Medford area. Besides Winchester and Lexington, every town in that area has a housing market comparable to Boston. I mean, the difference between a nice and not so nice neighborhood in Medford or Somerville is the same as a Boston house in Moss Hill, West Roxbury or Hyde Park. Each of those neighborhoods have million dollar homes and modest homes.

I'm not so sure what your average private school tuition is these days, but I don't think it is that cheap. I am going to guess that Xaverian and Catholic Memorial are about 10K a year while your BB&N/Roxbury Latin types are 25K a year.

up
Voting closed 0

Our family income is about $50K. Our home cost $279K in 2005, and it's good-sized and 0.2 miles from a major T stop. We put about $1500 into savings every month (um, or into frivolous things many months instead, but that's not the point!). That would be enough for full tuition at many private schools, plus our family income would likely qualify us for financial aid. So yeah, putting aside the assholishness of being above putting your kids in public schools like everyfreakinone else does, so yeah, a single-income firefighter living in Boston could sure as hell afford private school if it were a priority, unless they also insist on a huge lavish house, frequent exotic vacations, an exquisite wardrobe, in which case, um, it isn't my tax dollars' problem that you're more special than the rest of us.

Oh, and I work at a state-funded program and make nowhere near what a firefighter does. Also an essential public service. I have a second job and do some odd work here and there. Also I'm required to have a master's degree. Nearly all of my coworkers have second jobs in addition to the long hours we put in at work. Why are firefighters so much more special than we are?

up
Voting closed 0

I'm not so sure a family of 4 on a 70K salary with a modest mortgage can afford 10-25K (20-50K for two kids) a year on private school education. Maybe you could afford one kid to a Catholic school (which do give you breaks for multiple kids I forgot too) but I just think it would be tough to do on a 70K a year salary.

up
Voting closed 0

are forced to live in Boston. Many of these firefighters are black and are forced to live in Boston and do not have the choice to move to a better school system. I know that has been a sore spot with many black (and white) firefighers and police officers.

I only mentioned race because it has been a racial issue to many City workers.

up
Voting closed 0

Whaaaa.... I'm a Boston firefighter and I make $80k a year and I can't afford private schools for my kids and my second home in Florida. I might just have to get a third job to pay for all of this. It's a good thing I only work two days a week as a firefighter.

up
Voting closed 0

Not messing with you, just curious. Do you mean that some city workers don't want to put their kids in a public school with kids of other races, for one reason or another?

up
Voting closed 0

It had more to do with having the right to live where you want to. Some black city workers feel they should have the right to live outside of the place where they grew up.

up
Voting closed 0

Are you saying there's a racial split in terms of city workers who want to move outside the city and keep their jobs? It doesn't seem like there would be that big of a difference, but then again I don't know a whole lot of city workers.

up
Voting closed 0

I think all city workers want to relax the ban on this. But there are some black workers who feel like they have earned the right to live where they want to. They shouldn't be forced to live in the city where they grew up.

up
Voting closed 0

The last time I checked -- several years ago, now -- city workers (I recall hearing this mostly in the context of police and firefighter contracts) argued that residency rules should be relaxed because the cost of housing, and the general cost of living was so high in Boston. The argument was: pay us more, or let us move to the suburbs, because we're being squeezed here. If SwirlyGrrl is right about the cost of living outside of Boston being higher, and not lower, then what's the argument in favor of relaxing the residency requirements? Sure, you have a right to live wherever you want to, but you have no "right" to be a Boston city employee, so what's wrong with the city obligating you to live in the city that gives you a paycheck? (I'm not necessarily saying you, personally, Pete -- I realize you're the messenger.)

up
Voting closed 0

The only communities to the north that are cheaper than West Roxbury are Everett, Malden, Lynn and Chelsea. Stoneham has a similar median price, as does Dedham to the south(which one would expect). Rockland is a bit cheaper (but not much for single family units), and Weymouth single family housing prices are around the same.

up
Voting closed 0

Look what you can get for 300K or 400K in West Roxbury compared to those other towns. (I'm kind of curious myself)

EDIT: Kind of wierd. Looking at Somerville there doesn't seem to be one regular looking colonial house in the entire city for sale. I don't go up there too often but are there any neighborhoods in Somerville with standard Colonials or even some Contemporary housing?

up
Voting closed 0

People in the city live in rowhouses or threedeckas, and Somerville is basically city, sooo...

up
Voting closed 0

all have colonials. I used to go up to Somerville every once in a while (to bars mind you) and loved it. Just suprised not to see any of those types of houses for sale.

up
Voting closed 0

Well,there are a few antiques, and a few infill houses here and there ... but the real reason is that the city was completely built out by about 1920, and along streetcar lines. One of the most densely populated municipalities in the US, actually.

up
Voting closed 0

From like 1980 to the 1990s every single city employee had to live in the city. After that more and more groups started to get grandfathered in.

And I kind of disagree with Swirrly's take on the housing market in the suburbs versus Boston. The taxes and commuting issues are more expensive in most surburbs, but you get what you pay for in both places. I think you get more for your buck in the suburbs, and there some good deals out there all around.

I guess the city has that right, but they might get a better employee if the relax the residency requirment. And civil service is whole other issue in terms of residency.

up
Voting closed 0

Then again, Cambridge doesn't have much that is affordable unless you bought in 15 years ago. Perhaps that's why some of their firefighting squad lives in West Medford?

I used West Roxbury for comparison since it is more "suburban" in character and a popular place for city workers to settle.

up
Voting closed 0

There's a huge benefit to being served by people who live in the area and understand what life is like here. I work indirectly for the government (most all social services and health care are contracted out) so we don't have any residency requirement. I used to work for a program similar to my current one, and most of my coworkers were whiter-than-white people from the suburbs who'd make offensive comments about how they managed to not get shot today, they never did any errands locally during lunch or anything and made horrified comments at suggestions that one use the local post office or bank or store, made frequent comments about locking car doors while driving and carrying mace and whatnot. Most of them were pretty ineffective clinicians, because they viewed our clientele as poor poor pitiful people who risk getting killed by a gang when they go to the post office, rather than as people just like themselves. I think this cultural difference maybe gets in the way more with things like education and social services, but I still want firefighters who live in the city and have spent plenty of time hanging out in the types of housing we have, and who when they respond to medical calls and whatnot are familiar with different living situations and cultural groups and types of families because they see them and interact with them every day outside of a crisis situation.

(This is not to say of course the people from the suburbs can't make great city employees, but that they do at least need to view the community in which they work as "their" community as well. A teacher or firefighter who flees for the suburbs the second s/he is off the clock is going to be out of touch and ineffective. However, there are certainly suburban city employees who grab a snack at the corner store after work and attend the happenings in their work community with their families, and it makes a big difference.)

up
Voting closed 0

I wouldn't send my kids to one of Menino's public schools. I would roam the streets on garbage night to collect cans if thats what it took to keep my kids out of Menino's schools. Its funny that you say the firefighters should be sending their kids to the public schools but Menino's grandkids dont go to them.

up
Voting closed 0

My kid does go to a Boston public school and she's getting a good education. It's not 1980 anymore. Yes, BPS is far from perfect, but it's also a lot better than it used to be.

up
Voting closed 0

They can send their kids to whatever school they want, but when they speak as firefighters they should keep in mind that they are employees of the city and working on the same team as public school teachers and staff and they shouldn't disparage the efforts of their team.

up
Voting closed 0

  1. The public deserves to be protected from substance abuse related impairment on the job by firemen
  2. Firemen deserve some compensation for the risk associated with a high stress job.

Reserve funds in escrow on a 'per-firemen on the payroll' basis to pay for

  • substance abuse treatment,
  • medical insurance increases for firemen and
  • liability cuased by substance using firemen
  • wellness and fitness programs
up
Voting closed 0

Firefighters already get "some compensation" - it's called pay, and they are very well compensated. If the job is too stressful, quit. Fires are down dramatically in the last generation, and so is the stress.

up
Voting closed 0

my idea doesn't put compensation in their pockets (for being tested to prove compliance with job rules) my idea funds the workers who need rehab and wellness services to manage the stress.

up
Voting closed 0

Calls have dropped nation-wide to 1/4 of the level of the 80's.

Why? Sprinklers, better building/electrical codes, consumer product safety, better public knowledge.

That's why you see BFD ladder trucks responding to all sorts of non-fire calls. If they didn't fill that missing 3/4, they'd have a lot of people standing around, and that would mean layoffs.

up
Voting closed 0

putting up with situations like some suburbs experience - 10+ minute response times if there isn't a heart attack tying up the available staff on duty already, minor fires building into huge fires, and people dying who might have been rescued had a ladder truck arrived within three minutes of the call.

List of articles

Is this what you want? Ipswich had nice, low staffing - as you requested. They also didn't send fire apparatus to EMT calls, like you seem to think is excessive. Here's where that goes:

IPSWICH - Lisa Collum was breast-feeding her baby, and her 3-year-old was getting ready for a playdate, when the fire started in the apartment downstairs. The firehouse a few blocks away was empty. Only three firefighters were on duty to cover all 33 square miles of this seaside town, and they were busy with two ambulance calls on this January evening in 2001. One firefighter drove back for the fire engine, then hurried into the chaos at the Collums' home.

They all died. This family was a bit more fortunate, being burned out of their home but not killed.

SCITUATE: Response rate: 89.1%
When Colleen Fyffe's home on the west side of town caught fire in January 2003, it took 20 minutes and three 911 calls for the fire department to arrive.

You can't use average statistics to determine staffing. Moreover, you can't use national average statistics for Boston, which has very aged housing stock (more to go wrong, easier to burn) and high density neighborhoods. If you don't get to a fire quickly in many places, you lose a house, possibly lives ... in Southie, East Boston, Dorchester, etc., you can lose a whole city block.

up
Voting closed 0

Do you remember what happened last year when they closed a few fire stations to save on overtime (because firefighters have a tendency to get really "sick" in the midde of the summer)?

Other than the union crying about how the city was going to burn to a crisp without those stations being open, nothing happened. The world went on... and there were few less firefighters working. Why not try it again, permanently? I'd rather pay to keep some teachers around rather than a few over-paid firefighters anyday.

up
Voting closed 0

You'll be the first to complain.

Brett was claming that 3/4 of the fire department wasn't necessary.

up
Voting closed 0

As I said before, there were several firehouses closed last summer and nothing tragic happened. Response times weren't 20 minutes and the world turned as it had the previous day.

I don't think 3/4 of the fire department could be fired. I do think there's a cost/benefit analysis to be done and as evidenced by last summer and other city's staffing levels show, Boston wouldn't be significantly harmed if there were fewer $110,000 a year firefighters were on the payroll.

up
Voting closed 0

Those people are worth less than the ones in my neighborhood. Since we pay more taxes than them, the cost/benefit analysis should benefit my neighborhood first.

up
Voting closed 0

Gee, I put forth an entire section of articles from a Boston Globe special report. Statistics, investigative reporting, the whole shebang ... not exactly "baseless" in any sense of presentation of evidence.

All we have heard from you is uncited information. That's baseless assertion.

up
Voting closed 0

...and also, completely baseless, because you compared a sparsely populated area half the size of Boston to one of the denser cities in the country. The disparity between the two is hilarious.

Note that I said we had too many firefighters, and objected to sending giant trucks out for every call. How many serious calls take longer to respond to here because the crew is out tending someone's boo boo?

The solution is not to simply fire a whole bunch of BFD staff or "cut the staff by 3/4" (I love that straw-man that another poster constructed- something I never said.)

Rather, the solution is what they've been doing in Europe: forming small teams that respond in a fast, mid-sized SUV. The idea being that SUVs are faster and easier to navigate than a giant ladder truck, and will go places the big trucks can't- and you can have several small SUVs for the same cost as one big truck.

The SUVs contain only basic triage and rescue gear. The idea is to get there fast before a fire really catches, rescue the people...and then you've only got property damage, which isn't a life or death matter.

European fire departments also don't go running around buying Small Penis firetrucks- they buy what actually fits down the streets. I remember watching the local crew try to make the turn onto my street when they were responding to a false alarm- the driver had to do a 3-point turn because the truck was too big.

up
Voting closed 0

The Mayor's people came back from hearing about Kelly's concession to push the 2% "reward" for drug testing back a year...and asked for MORE from the union.

Nice going, Menino...ANY councilors who hadn't bought into the lovefest resulting from Kelly's announcement just jumped off of the Mayor's boat on this one. There are probably sound fiscal reasons as well as principles for not wanting to put extra % in the deal just because of the drug testing...but they're basically toast to the "disgusted" feelings the councilors now have over Menino wanting more after the firefighters conceded part of the already-settled arbitration.

Yeesh. Last one out turn out the lights.

up
Voting closed 0