Hey, there! Log in / Register
Firefighters march to defend reputations a couple days after firefighter arrested for allleged drug buy
By adamg on Tue, 04/29/2008 - 1:38pm
Firefighters demand respect from media following months of stories involving alleged drug use, federal probes, etc., etc.
What's interesting in comparing the stories by the Globe (above) and Herald is how the Globe explains that when firefighters started yelling how they are tired of being treated like "dogs" by the media, they were referring to a Herald editorial calling on the city to pull back on their "long leash," a fact the Herald omitted.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
You don't demand respect
You earn it. I respect your job and the risks firemen take every day. However, I have no tolerance for all the alleged fraud, costing taxpayers tons of money.
Have any of the media reports contained lies? Please let us know if anything that has been reported is simply untrue.
I think the demonstration today was actually counter-productive and the union really has to get its act together.
Who's responsible for the bad press?
Firefighters do a heroes job but could they, or more importantly, their union, make themselves look any worse? If this quote from the Globe article has ANY truth to it, someone from the union needs a reality check:
"Union officials said today that they deserve an increase in pay or benefits in exchange for drug testing, a quid pro quo that they said was given to other city departments."
They want bribes?
If the firefighters really want to be treated better, paid more, given better quipment, etc. the union should start taking some common sense positions, like accepting the drug testing. Although it may be too late, had the union come out up front on this issue and demanded drug testing - to ensure the safety of its own members mind you! - they would have looked like the good guys. Now - and maybe this is news to the union reps - they look like old-school cronies bent on milking a patronage system that NO ONE likes anymore except, apparently, the union's negotiators. This stuff never ceases to shock me.
The Herald maybe explains that a bit better
Yeah, sounds bad that firefighters want extra pay for mandatory drug testing, but the city's already given that to the police, so why should they be treated differently? For whatever reasons, the firefighters haven't done a good job explaining to an increasingly non-union electorate what "collective bargaining" means. Maybe some of that's the fault of the media, and maybe, just maybe, the firefighters share part of the blame for attempting to simply scare people instead of calmly discussing the issue.
Two wrongs don't make a right
I don't think the quid pro quo that they are apparently demanding is justified simply because the police allegedly received it too. Two wrongs don't make a right. I think that most people in the City hold firefighters in very high regard for doing what they do. Although I certainly hope all of the recent news about drug and alchahol abuse and the pension fraud is just a case of a few bad apples, the union has certainly done nothing to convince me of it and, instead, has seemingly taken the position that such bad apples should be protected from the intruding public eye of the taxpayer instead of being prosecuted for harming (a) the public and (b) the good reputation of the fire department. It just baffles me that an organization with so much inherent public good will has squandered it so thoroughly. Time to fire the union reps.
extra pay for drug testing is a non-starter in my book
show up sober or don't show up at all but don't show up sober and demand extra pay because you're sober.
Willing buyer, willing seller, no harm done?
It would bother me if the accused firefighter was on duty -- but he's not, he's disabled and buying a painkiller. Somehow I fail to see a real problem here.
Kidding?
**It would bother me if the accused firefighter was on duty -- but he's not, he's disabled and buying a painkiller. Somehow I fail to see a real problem here.**
You ARE kidding, right?
Not really, no
An on-duty firefighter impaired by a drug? That's a problem. A disabled, off-duty one seeking a painkiller? Not so much.