A priceless passage from the now-famous arbitration decision (PDF) to award Boston firefighters a 19% pay raise in exchange for agreeing to random drug and alcohol testing.
I conclude that the City’s proposal to skim the frosting, pocket the cake and avoid paying the fair, reasonable and affordable value of the meal is a hound that will not hunt.
Astonishing.
To be fair, the author (arbitrator Dana Edward Eischen) prefaces the foregoing by stating that he is “[f]ully aware that my metaphors are shamelessly mixed.” But that does not explain “pocketing the cake”!
By the way, you can read the strongly-worded opinion of the dissenting arbitrator, who describes the award as a “slap in the face of the citizens of Boston” and the proceedings themselves as “a disgrace to the agency,” at this link (PDF). He concludes his dissent with these remarkable paragraphs:
Ordinarily, I would not discuss the deliberations of a [Joint Labor-Management Committee] panel. I have thought long and hard about this case, however, and the facts need to be disclosed. I have written about our deliberations because I want the public and the Boston City Council in particular to understand that the award in this case was not a carefully thought-out decision. It was a last minute decision reached without any understanding of the enormous cost impact it would have. I do not believe JLMC deliberations should be conducted in such an unprofessional way.
I urge the Boston City Council to do what I suggested to Mr. Eischen: obtain an independent review of the actual cost of this proposal, and ask if it is proper to give the firefighters extra money for drug and alcohol testing when Mr. Eischen himself presented a draft award that gave them no extra money.
One does hope that the Boston City Council will do some serious investigation into the terms of this award rather than rubber-stamping it.
stomv says
but I’m not really sure where I stand on drug testing. On the one hand, I hate the idea in the sense that it seems like an invasion of privacy. On the other hand, we’re talking about emergency services here, not desk jockeys. You’re operating a million dollar piece of equipment at high speeds while disregarding traffic signals? We’re relying on you to make dangerous, difficult decisions under duress? Hell, we let you carry a loaded weapon? It doesn’t strike me as particularly unreasonable to demand that you’re sober. One single transgression could be extremely costly, and this is quite different from the civil servant processing parking tickets or marriage licenses or even teaching fifth graders.
<
p>On the other hand, how reliable is it? I’m not just considering about the chemistry, I’m considering the entire chain of evidence. I’m wondering: if upper management wants to sandbag a rank and file member, how easy would it be to do it through drug test monkey business?
david says
Indeed it could.
stomv says
after all, they’re obviously not too concerned either.
<
p>I’m far more concerned about those who rely on emergency personnel — the citizenry, and the other emergency personnel.
striker57 says
Imagine the Super Bowl between the Pats and the Giants has ended. The NFL then says wait, yes you all played the game under the rules but we really wanted the Patriots to win. So the game is canceled and you have to play again.
<
p>That is what those telling the Boston City Council to refuse to fund the $39 milion Fire Fighters contract are essentially say.
<
p>If you actually read the 23 page document instead of colunmists and listening to talk shows, the decision is clear and direct.
<
p>The Arbitrator was selected and approved by both Management and Labor. Management had 12 representatives involved in the process, Labor had 7. 21 days of presentations and testimony and thousands of pages of documents. Hardly a process stacked against Management.
<
p>On page 14 of the decision, the Arbitrator makes a very clear point as to the danger of the work men and women in the Boston Fire Department do:
<
p>
<
p>The actual cost of the award, as detremined by a third party selected by Management and Labor is $39 million – not the $74 million claimed by the city Page 16).
<
p>
<
p>And even stronger language on the REAL cost of the Award (page 19)
<
p>
<
p>On the City’s ability to pay for the Award (Page 21)
<
p>
<
p>The final damning statement on Management’s presentation (page 21 and 22):
<
p>
<
p>Management played a high stakes poker game with the Fire Fighters and lost. The cost of the Award is $39.4 million not $74 million. The Union played by the rules and achived an Award that is balanced and fair.
<
p>The Boston City Council must approve the independent, third party Arbitrator’s Award. .Or if you are going to change the rules after the game is over then give the Fire Fighters the right to strike for their next contract.
<
p>Approval isn’t a rubber stamp. It is a basic concept of respecting collective bargaining and the resolution process.
stomv says
If my understanding is correct, the BCC doesn’t have to approve anything. Part of their rules is that they can throw it back and say “try again.” Your suggestion is that the BCC should ignore their own rules and simply agree to the contract because labor and management went to arbitration and the arbitrator made a decision.
striker57 says
They don’t have to approve it and I never said they “have” to. I said they must to ensure that the process and the rules of arbitration actually mean something.
<
p>Please point out where I said the BCC “should ignore their own rules”.
<
p>The point is, Management and Labor agreed to the process and the rules. The decison is really a mixed bag but Management has announced they lost. So they want to change the game and say start over.
<
p>
stomv says
Other than approve the contract, what else might be on the menu of things that the BCC could do, whilst “ensur[ing] that the process and the rules of arbitration actually mean something” ?
<
p>
<
p>Indeed, and they should be ignored. The ball now seems to be in the BCC’s court. Did the BCC “agree” to arbitration? If not, then what labor and management did to get to the current proposed contract seems largely irrelevant from the perspective of the BCC approving or not approving a proposed contract, isn’t it?
tedf says
Maybe you meant “really, really ought to” instead of “is required to.” I, like Stomv, took you to mean the latter.
<
p>TedF
somervilletom says
You wrote (emphasis mine):
<
p>I am under the strong impression that Massachusetts law covering binding arbitration explicitly spells out the choices available to the Boston City Council — perhaps one of our attorneys can cite the chapter and verse. I see things like the following (emphasis mine):
<
p>
<
p>In other words, the Boston City Council may at its discretion vote to reject the award and direct the parties to start over — as stomv phrased it above: “they can throw it back and say ‘try again.'”. I am under the impression that this is specified in the Massachusetts law that establishes binding arbitration (any city or town can do the same).
<
p>The fundamental premise of the award — that taxpayers have to pay extra to ensure that firefighters are sober while on the job — is preposterous.
<
p>This not an athletic contest. The very lives of innocent people are at stake. The award should be rejected.
tedf says
Striker57, I get your point about the process, though I don’t necessarily agree. Leaving process aside, do you think the arbitrator’s decision was substantively a good one? Is your only point that the process is what it is and both sides must respect the outcome? Or are you also saying that the arbitrator reached a just and fair result?
<
p>TedF
judy-meredith says
<
p>I thinks so.
<
p>As a long resident of a dense, diverse, so called “high crime” neighborhood blessed by extra attention from the police dept in the form of swarms of skinny young men in shorts on bikes (you can imagine what our younger men in low pants and hooded sweatshirts think,)we are also blessed with regular visits from howling trucks filled with middle aged firefighters who strap on 100 pds of equipment before they climb into the burning smoking buildings and appear on the roof. Always helpful in a real crisis and forgiving with a smoking oven.
<
p>Much of this settlement is retroactive I understand, and they still fall short of the police.
<
p>As to the drug testing, I hope it saves some firefighters from being careless in dangerous situations. I prob wound’t pass, because I’m not sure I would have the courage or confidence to go into a burning buiulding cold stone sober.
tedf says
Judy, I am a little surprised to read this from you! Doesn’t your view here undercut the message about revenues from One Massachusetts? I want taxes to go up and to become more progressive for a variety of reasons. A raise for the BFD for the “concession” of agreeing to mandatory random drug testing is not one of them.
<
p>TedF
judy-meredith says
Asks members have agreed to this collective value proposition
<
p>
<
p>A safe vibrant community,in my humble opinion,depends very much on an effective fully funded fire department— along with the water department, one of the least appreciated public safty programs until something goes wrong.
<
p>
tedf says
Cost of living, as measured by CPI, has been pretty flat for a good while. So I don’t buy that this raise is about full funding in the sense that you mean. And the city was offering a fairly significant raise–the issue was really whether the department should have an additional raise to compensate firefighters for the drug testing. I think you weaken the “revenue message” when you make the claim that spending increases that are not actually tied to the “public structures” (I wish One Mass. had a better term than this!) that the public needs are necessary.
<
p>TedF
hrs-kevin says
Yes, throwing out the arbitration results will make unions less likely to want to go into arbitration in the future. On other hand, accepting this result will make the City much less likely to want to go into arbitration.
<
p>Personally, I don’t really care whether the Firefighters get random drug tests. Yes, impaired firefighters may hurt civilians, but mostly they are just going to get themselves and their coworkers injured or worse. So I say we just drop the drug testing and the corresponding raise.
somervilletom says
You say that impaired firefighters “mostly” are just going to hurt themselves and their coworkers. Even one civilian badly hurt, maimed, or killed by an impaired firefighter is an unacceptable loss. The Boston police have already killed two too many civilians — drug and alcohol testing should be required of EVERY individual who carries a weapon.
<
p>Firefighters and police need to be sober. Period. Men and women who maneuver massive trucks at high speeds through densely-populated neighborhoods need to be sober. It’s bad enough that children are put at risk when those same trucks are “maintained” by untrained firefighters who make dangerous brake system faults worse. The idea that anybody resists tests to insure that those drivers are sober is preposterous. The premise that firefighters should be paid more for agreeing to the tests is even more insulting.
<
p>If the firefighters don’t want the tests, let them step aside for men and women who don’t mind. If they demand exorbitant increases as “compensation” for agreeing to take those tests, let them step aside for men and women who aren’t so greedy.
<
p>The greed of Boston firefighters is absolutely out of control. It is long past time for the city council to say “Nope, too expensive” and send both sides back to the bargaining table.
<
p>I say the Boston City Council should reject the raise and demand to keep the drug testing.
justice4all says
Greed? Please. We get that you actively dislike the fire department. But laying one’s life on the line everytime the wheel turns deserves just compensation. I wouldn’t call it greed. Both side went to the table and it was arbitrated. And what if that award went the other way? Is the mayor then greedy? Knock it off, BT…your bias is showing.
somervilletom says
I actively dislike emergency workers who demand a 20% raise, retroactive to whenever it was, while enormous numbers of far less connected fellow citizens are suffering. Especially when the justification for the raise is so flagrantly preposterous.
<
p>I’m weary of the tired old “laying one’s life on the line” bit. The Commonwealth is populated by a large number of equally heroic men and women who are eager to join the firefighter’s ranks — and who don’t mind proving they’re sober and who are happy to accept today’s wages, before this exorbitant increase. Heroic men and women who won’t manufacture “accidents” while “filling in” for supervisors and then claim inflated lifetime disability payments.
<
p>The firefighters in Boston have long ago demonstrated themselves to be unworthy of the automatic honor you apparently insist they be given. Of course you “wouldn’t call it greed.”
<
p>I do.
stomv says
<
p>Greed is good, baby!
justice4all says
BT, it’s a sad day in this Commonwealth when a so-called Democrat can’t be bothered to recognize the talent, experience and heroics of the fire department. You may be “tired” of hearing about them laying their lives on the line…because it doesn’t fit in with your narrative….and you’ve written enough to create a very negative, and very unfair narrative. You point to a few bad apples and then proclaim the entire orchard bad. Broadbrushing doesn’t make you any more credible.
<
p>These brave men and women are busy running into burning houses when everyone else is running out, day and day out, rain, snow, hot, cold, weekday, weekend, holidays – it doesn’t matter, because they are always there. They are often the first responders to medical emergencies and haz-mat responses. They deliver babies and calm small children during distasters and emergencies. All too often, they are on the front lines of medical/essential daily living service delivery. Yes – when community services dry up, it’s the fire department that responds to help get disabled and elderly people back into bed, to the bathroom, to their kitchens…
<
p>You may not like the raise, but the fact is it was ARBITRATED. Stop pretending that the administration didn’t choose this. They chose arbitration instead of negotiating. And the fire department has gone years without a contract. It’s not greed to accept what is arbitrated.
stomv says
Look, firefighters are brave, including my father-in-law (Westarea Volunteer FD, Linden NC). Nobody doubts that. Their bravery is irrelevant to the discussion.
<
p>The question is: how much ought they be paid?
The add-on: what expectations for firefighters are appropriate, on duty and off?
<
p>
<
p>P.S. Greed is orthogonal to arbitration.
somervilletom says
You wrote:
<
p>It’s a sad day in this Commonwealth when anybody — regardless of claimed party affiliation — argues that men and women who are eager to work as firefighters at a reasonable wage are less “heroic” than firefighters who demand an exorbitant increase for doing the same work.
<
p>It takes a thimble of vinegar to spoil a barrel of wine.
<
p>Haven’t the “so-called Democrats” who demand that union members accept the same standards of personal integrity that rest of us demand of ourselves (never mind public servants) done enough damage to Massachusetts and our government?
<
p>The raise is outrageous and preposterous. Arbitrators make mistakes, the law governing arbitration clearly defines what legislatures (like the Boston City Council) can do when unelected third parties make mistakes, and everybody knew what the law was going into the arbitration.
<
p>We seem to disagree, strongly, about what does and does not constitute “greed”.
somervilletom says
“who reject demands that …”
justice4all says
Always over the top, aren’t you. Who argued this point:
<
p>
<
p>That’s funny…I reread my post and can’t seem to point to one word, much less a whole arguement, where I made a connection between wages and heroism. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. And the histronics…really. It doesn’t help.
<
p>So is your definition of an arbitrated award “greed?” Does that apply to all unions or just the fire department? How about large court-mandated awards? If those awards are higher than you think they should be, are the recipients “greedy” and should they return some of it?
somervilletom says
You write:
<
p>Let me help you find where you made the connections between wages and heroism.
<
p>Here’s your lead:
<
p>You call me a “so-called Democrat”, and accuse me of not recognizing the “talent”, “experience” and “heroics” of the fire department. You write this because I object to a 20% increase in firefighter wages.
<
p>I think that’s the connection between “wages” and “heroism” (not to mention “talent” and “experience”) that you were looking for. It’s in the lead of your own paragraph.
<
p>Oh, and speaking of “histrionics”, where does the phrase “so-called Democrat” fall on your histrionic scale?
<
p>As stomv observes, “greed” is orthogonal to “arbitration.” A greedy request is greedy whether or not it is arbitrated. Some arbitrated awards are greedy and some are not.
<
p>The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has seen fit (correctly, in my opinion) to make the local legislature the final judge of the question. Both sides knew that going into arbitration. I think the BCC should reject the award. You disagree. The BCC will vote, and the voters will then have their say about how the council members voted.
<
p>I’m fine with that process. Are you?
roarkarchitect says
What will happen next, the Boston fire department got a 19% raise – so now the Cambridge fire department will use this before another arbitrator. The CEO of CBS got 10M so now the CEO of NBC asks for 12M.
david-whelan says
<
p>That makes no sense to me. Drug testing for a firefighter seems to me to be a public safety issue, nevermind a matter of protecting fellow firefighters. Then there is the historical fact that the Boston FD has had some problems in the past with drug issues.
dhammer says
It’s only a public safety issue if the drug testing is looking at current impairment, not past use.
<
p>A firefighter who smokes pot, drinks or even snorts coke off duty can be just as safe as one who never does. So if the city is pushing for breathalyzer or blood tests of firefighters who are showing active signs of impairment, then it’s a logical policy. Piss tests that can test whether you were stoned or drunk last night have no bearing on public safety. I’m not sure what type the city wants.
somervilletom says
Are you familiar with the regulations airline pilots have complied with forever?
<
p>Being stoned or drunk “last night” has a HUGE bearing on public safety. Measurable impairments from drug and alcohol use last for days, not hours. Pot affects the metabolism for many days after the initial buzz fades. Same with alcohol, same with cocaine, same with the others.
<
p>If there is a pool of potential firefighters who, like airline crews, are enthusiastically willing to work for the city, why on earth should a safety-minded Boston City Council consider hiring applicants who are not?
<
p>Public safety considerations demand that we hire the best firefighters we can find.
dhammer says
Here’s a site that shows 4 drinks are completely metabolized in less than 8 hours.
<
p>As for pot,
<
p>You’re right that it can take days to metabolize THC, but to pretend that it measurably impacts performance is wrongheaded. I’m willing to listen to credible studies that back up your position, but I’m pretty sure you’re puritanical position is wrong.
stomv says
except that
<
p>(i) those non-booze items, when consumed on one’s own time, still demonstrate a clear lack of respect for the law and, therefore, a lack of good judgment
<
p>(ii) emergency personnel aren’t “on call” like a doctor with a pager, but at the same time may be useful as civilians when emergency presents itself. I admit that this is less of a persuasive argument than (i) since no firefighter (or cop, ems, etc) signs on to be on call 24/7/365.
redy500 says
I was going to comment on what many of the misinformed here have been saying. And then I came across this article. For those of you who haven’t seen it yet give it a read. As a city employee, I can tell you that this is a drop in the bucket of what is not said or talked about at city hall. Secrets (and a still vibrant form of family/friend nepatism) are the name of the game. If you do not fall in line you fall under it!
<
p>So many of you are trying to blame the ff’s for “enventually” making almost $60 an hour, but have said nothing about the fact that the police have been making more than this for years.
<
p>Also, before you read the article also keep in mind that even though the city is off the hook for funding the Quinn bill, because the state has backed out! The reason you have not heard from BPPA as to their thoughts on the decision is becuase they have their backroom deal that the city will continue to pay it’s part of the bill if they keep their mouths shut!
<
p>Anyway read on, also check out the article “There are no rules” here you go.
<
p>http://thephoenix.com/Boston/n…
<
p>P.S.
Don’t forget to read the decision!!