Hey, there! Log in / Register

Alleged pot-smoking firefighter also alleged girlfriend-beating firefighter


Ad:


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

Comments

affirmative over reaction?

up
Voting closed 0

It just keeps getting better. Like George Costanza once
said: "It's like an onion, the more layers you peel away,
the more it STINKS".

The BFD needs a serious PR makeover quick style.
A good start would be removing that knuckle dragger Eddie
Kelly from post at as union leader.

up
Voting closed 0

How is attacking Ed Kelly going to add anything positive? Or, perhaps your too simple to see the big picture. If the union voted him out, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. His position is the important aspect of the issue. If he goes the position still remains the same. Other bargaining units got something in return for adding the word "random" to the drug policy. The media is wrong when they say the firefighters want more pay. The firefighters want a more comprehensive health and wellness program and better hazardous materials training. It's not about lining their pockets. It's about being able to respond better and safer. People always say firefighters are locked in tradition. Well here's a case where they want to provide a better service and the city is locked in the tradition of re-acting instead of pro-acting. I don't want anyone drunk or stoned working with me. The union tried to negotiate "random" drug testing two contracts ago. The city balked at the firefighters, then NEGOTIATED with the police and EMS. The city did not want to negotiate it this time around. Not until they had egg on their face last fall. Then they decided to blame the union. The city did not put it into their request for arbitration because it was never on the table to begin with. The media is somehow slanted towards Menino. Maybe because his personnel illegally leaked information to the media. If the city negotiated with the union on "random" drug testing then the alleged last three firefighters would not have been working had the been caught under the new policy.

up
Voting closed 0

Listen, Frank.

If the city negotiated with the union on "random" drug testing then the alleged last three firefighters would not have been working had the been caught under the new policy.

What is there to negotiate? Why doesn't the union just stop their members from getting high on the job? Instead, it seems like drug use on the job is being used as a bargaining chip in salary negotiations. Pathetic.

Just say no!

up
Voting closed 0

Listen Nancy,

Believe it or not, the whole contract must be negotiated. Come out of the dark ages. I can't stop anyone from getting high. But if he does when he's working with me I'll declare him unfit for duty and file charges. The responsiblity for one's choices should remain with that individual, not a group he belongs to. Should we take a different look and say "He's black. All the black people in the city are smoking pot." Of course not. And you are correct when you say it's a bargaining chip. Fortunately everything is up to negotiation. Unions brought about great changes in this country. Ending sweat shops, child-labor laws, providing a 40 hour work week with overtime over that, worker safety....... Without unions negotiating for its members all of us would be worse off.

up
Voting closed 0

Come on Frank.

If the union wants some random testing, just have your buddy Ed tell the city so. If not, just keep trying to get more benefits out of your bargaining chip.

Without unions negotiating for its members all of us would be worse off.

Without drug testing for a department that seems to have drug problems of all sorts, all of us in Boston would be worse off. That should NOT be up for negotiation.

up
Voting closed 0

The responsiblity for one's choices should remain with that individual, not a group he belongs to.

Similarly, how can a group - the firefighters' union - expect to bargain for a reasonable group gain - $7 million wellness, and hazordous material training - using an issue like testing for individual drug abuse, when everyone agrees on the job drug abuse is a fireable offense?

Firefighters shouldn't bargain with a public safety issue that goes to the heart of whether the individaual is capable of doing his job under the influence. Firefighters risk the safety of their brothers and the safety of the public when they abuse drugs on the job. Bargaining for something, however reasonble the something is, with concent for drug testing, is unethical and politically unjustafiable.

You may feel it's just but the public sees it differently.

up
Voting closed 0

On the job drug use is not a good idea. The best way to prevent that is to prevent off the job drug use (legal and otherwise) from fulminating into an addiction which demands attention during working hours.

Unfortunately, there is no valid scientific test for drugs used off the job (when they may be intoxicating) or on the job. It is also difficult to differentiate between legal pain killers taken for dental procedures or more regularly for injuries and illegal opioid use.

Thus a jake could be hooked on legally prescribed painkillers and given a pass even though they are impaired, but another who loads up on off days but stays straight for the rest of the time - very common with relatively harmless drugs like weed - might test positive long after any effects of the drug have passed. This is particularly true with non-polar agents like THC.

I don't see how firing a bunch of highly trained people for off-hours partying with relatively benign substances that do not intoxicate them during working hours serves the interest of public safety. I don't get the point of punitive testing when testing alone cannot differentiate between legal and legitimate use, legal but addictive use, and use of low-risk substances during off hours or on-duty time.

Consider reading up on both drug risk assessment and the scientific limitations of drug testing before deigning to speak for the public.

up
Voting closed 0

Since for the time being weed is still illegal, I don't think we need to debate which illegal drug is the most harmful.

Plus there are plenty of occupations where you can get stoned on your day off and sail through the next day without the worry or need for a drug test. I'd suggest any firefighter that just can't help themselves look into one of those occupations.

up
Voting closed 0

Risk level is important. You sound like you want to punish, not solve a problem.

Gee, you may not realize it but ... FIREFIGHTING IS STRESSFUL AND PHYSICALLY DEMANDING/DAMAGING.

This means people will resort to drugs - legal or illegal, prescribed or street or packy - to deal with both the physical wear and tear and the psychological demands. They can be redirected if there is a sensible program of treatment and support.

If you want to take a "must be drug free all the time" approach, you are more than scientifically pathetic. You obviously don't really care about public safety because you would learn the basic facts about drug testing, drug effects, and occupational hazards if you did. You are clearly much more interested in a purity test purge because you are a fuzzy-headed crusader. Dreamer. Romantic. Puritan. Your extreme ignorance coupled with your punitive zeal will make us all less safe, not more. I'm sure that is fine with you because you either want to be right or are sore that you didn't make the cut.

Maybe when you need a firefighter/EMT and there ain't enough to go around because your purity purge has exceeded the limits of sense and reason amok science, you will wonder if it really mattered if someone partook of low-risk herbs on his or her off hours as you lay dying or trapped in an inferno.

up
Voting closed 0

This means people will resort to drugs - legal or illegal, prescribed or street or packy - to deal with both the physical wear and tear and the psychological demands.

I hope doctors and nurses don't subscribe to this unique form of stress relief.

up
Voting closed 0

You are dumber than I thought - or more obstinately ignorant. Either way, you are wrong.

There are decades of public health information and substance abuse literature in the medical realm that illustrate that this is all too common. That is why, if you were sufficiently literate and willing to learn about REALITY, you would know that a surveillance and treatment system would catch and redirect possible problem behaviors before they began affecting workplace performance.

But you are clearly uninterested in factual information. Can't have a moralistic crusade if we let the facts intrude, now can we?

up
Voting closed 0

Swirly girl, you are such a fool. You cite science, data and statistics, while calling marijuana harmless. This is not about a moralistic crusade. This is about safety. If people responsible for public safety want to partake in illegal drugs, then they can find an alternative occupation. Smoking a little weed here and there, just like having a glass of wine, is not harmful. Repeated, long term abuse will affect their ability to make split second decisions. You are the only person I have heard advocating drug use for public safety workers. I assume you thinks it is ok for pilots, crane operators, heavy equipment operators to also use illegal drugs.

up
Voting closed 0

I didn't say weed was harmless, I said that recreational use was not important here or even dangerous. Pot is a much lower risk drug than alcohol and even tobacco, based on risk assessments by health professionals AND law enforcement authorities.

As for "advocating drug use for public safety personnel", bullshit. I don't say that they SHOULD use these drugs, I saying that they WILL use these drugs and that will be a problem IF there is no support system in place to prevent further problems.

I also point out that it is scientifically impossible to discern when somebody used certain drugs and (in some cases) what the source was. If they are not using drugs on duty, if they are not impaired on duty, the city has no interest. Period. You can't go around firing people for inconsequential recreational use of a very low risk drug - you can, however, institute policies whereby they receive the support they need to avoid the situation you describe.

You learn these things if you read medical journals. Britain is in the process of overhauling their drug policy as a result of the comprehensive assessment published in The Lancet last year. Ignorance and moralizing do not an effective workplace drug policy make.

up
Voting closed 0

So, once again, do you think it is Ok for firefighters, police, heavy equipment operators, pilots etc. to use cocaine, LSD, marijuanna, heroin and/or other illegal drugs?

up
Voting closed 0

Marajuana shouldn't even be on that list. It isn't nearly as risky as even using alcohol. LSD is only an issue if used during working hours (and then it is a huge issue). The rest were confirmed as dangerous by risk assessment.

Do you think these employees should be allowed to use alcohol or tobacco on their own time? Do you think employers should nanny employee behavior on their off hours for drinking and smoking? These are much more dangerous drugs than weed or E.

Moreover, do you think employers should respond to an extremely well documented job stress and work environment issue with punitive tests of personal life behavior that does not impact the workplace? Or should they offer programs which address many of the reasons why drug use becomes a problem in this profession?

One is effective, one is not.

For more information read it yourself!

up
Voting closed 0

Is it just that the police bargained for random drug testing? Is it just that EMS bargained for random drug testing? Is it just that city WON'T bargain with the firefighters the same as they bargained with the police and EMS for random drug testing?

up
Voting closed 0

"Perhaps your too simple to see the big picture"

Come on Frank, it's "you're" and not "your". You're a journalist, please try and act like one.

Also, don't you think as a BFD employee you're way too close
to the situation to be unbiased?

We all know one of the firefighters who died at Tai Ho was at a cookout drinking when he was supposed to be working 'til about an hour prior to the fire.

We all know the West Roxbury Station house as a rep as a "party house".

Changes need to be made and it is my opinion that Ed Kelly and his abrasive, confrontational personality is NOT a plus for the BFD Union he is supposed to represent.

I cannot tell you how many solid jakes I have spoken to
and heard the same sentiment. Kelly is a detriment.

All that said, I think you are an excellent writer and a really good guy. God Bless Frank.

Best, Ned

up
Voting closed 0

I apologize for my grammar. I didn't know it was included in my score. Am I a journalist or a firefighter? Anyway, I fully admit that if someone is impaired they should not be working. I would have no problem helping a guy get into a drug or alcohol program. I still have not seen any toxicology report. I have seen the autopsy report. Death by burns and smoke inhalation. I am close to it and it gives me a different perspective. Why do the police and EMS get to bargain over random drug testing and the fire don't? The city didn't even bring it up until they got leaked information. It was attempted to be bargained in the last contract but the city refused and then bargained it with the police and EMS. The city did not want to bargain it in 06. It was not on the table. In 07 the city did not put it in their request for arbitration. We want it but the rules say you have to bargain it. At least talk about. I am biased by my position and you are biased by yours. Naturally no one thinks the same. I am just stating the truth. Everyone is enjoying jumping to conclusions about the BFD's drug and alcohol use. Whether Payne and Cahill had drugs and alcohol in their system or not, it is still a matter of fairness in bargaining. Every time, and I mean every time the parties go to the table, there is a comparison with what the other unions got. It is not my fault that, if true, Payne and Cahill were drunk or high. It was not me sitting in the car getting high. Go after the transgressors, not the other 99%

up
Voting closed 0

Well put Frank.

Ned

up
Voting closed 0