Letter from Harold A. Schaitberger to IAFF Locals and you....

[Schaitberger]

Dear IAFF Affiliate Presidents:

I am writing to you in order to clarify and correct a letter I authorized to be written and sent over my signature to Congressman Felix Grucci on July 25, 2002, relating to IAFF members serving as volunteers. This letter has unfortunately been used and misused by those who wish to create difficulties for IAFF locals exercising their rights under our Constitution and By-Laws in dealing with IAFF members who choose to volunteer. I regret that, as prepared and sent, the Grucci letter has caused serious concerns for some of our affiliates. I want to set the record straight.

Earlier this year our friends in Congress had been strongly warning us that a campaign of confusion and misinformation regarding the IAFF's position on volunteers was underway. This campaign, in their judgment, would jeopardize our standing on Capitol Hill, and thereby seriously threaten our entire legislative agenda, including national collective bargaining and our staffing initiative. With increasing impatience, they encouraged us to respond to these issues, both to protect our legislative interests and to alleviate the extreme pressure that our Congressional allies were confronting for supporting the IAFF's position. The letter was generated in response to those concerns.

I can recall few issues during my thirty-two year union career that have caused as much scrutiny and searing public criticism as this issue has created in the last year. This attention was the product of an outside smear campaign focused on several factors. Among these were the IAFF Executive Board's rightful decision to declare a number of volunteer fire departments as rival organizations in December of 2000, as well as the decision by several locals in the United States and Canada to appropriately exercise their rights under our Constitution to file charges against IAFF members who were serving as volunteer, part-time or paid on-call fire fighters.

Both of these situations resulted in intense media coverage. Much of the media attention had been generated and aggravated by a few national volunteer fire organizations in an effort to undermine the IAFF's historical stance on this issue. Newspaper editorials condemned the IAFF, and the volunteer organizations orchestrated a letter-writing campaign of misinformation to Congress, and to state and provincial legislatures, demanding a political response. In the wake of September 11, some politicians even had the gall to suggest that IAFF members who sought to enforce our Constitution lacked community spirit. Some Congressional opponents also attempted to paint our position as a deliberate affront to President Bush's call to the nation for every American to volunteer their time to some public service.

Consequently, our opponents in the United States Congress were poised in early July to introduce an unprecedented Congressional resolution that would have censured and condemned the IAFF. Recognizing the Congressional action on the resolution was imminent, I authorized senior staff to draft and send a letter over my signature which was intended to deal only with the employment rights of career fire fighters under U.S. law if they were expelled from the IAFF for serving as volunteers.

Although the letter was intended to clarify the confusion and misinformation that had been generated on Capitol Hill, unfortunately it did not accurately reflect the union's or my position regarding this matter and created more problems for some of our affiliates, than resolve the narrow issues it was intended to address. Due in part to the extraordinary time constraints involved, the letter was poorly written and hastily sent. In retrospect, it was an ill-advised effort to mollify our opponents, and the letter should never have been sent.

As straightforward as I can be with you, I should have been more diligent to ensure that the process of drafting and sending a letter of such importance, over my signature, reflected the union's as well as my personally held views.

I can think of no other issue that has aroused as much passion, or has been the subject of such strongly held beliefs, as the issue of IAFF members who volunteer as fire fighters and paramedics. Perhaps because of my own early struggle to create an IAFF local in a combination fire department that was forced to compete with volunteer fire fighters for equipment and resources, I am particularly sensitive to the internal strife that can arise when our members serve as volunteers.

The IAFF Constitution makes it clear that IAFF members can be subject to charges and internal discipline if they serve as volunteers. The Convention delegates who added this provision to our Constitution clearly recognized that, all too often, jurisdictions rely upon the services of volunteers to undermine the efforts of our own members to obtain the resources necessary to support a properly staffed and adequately equipped full time career fire department. As a union representing the interests of paid professional fire fighters, we can and must promote the interests of our members by strongly advocating career fire departments across North America.

Let me be as clear as possible. We as a union, by Convention actions, do not represent or condone volunteer, part-time or paid on-call fire fighters. This is also my personal position, as it has been from the time that I first joined the IAFF. It remains my position today as your General President, and I have reiterated this position to affiliate leaders on a number of occasions.

As General President, I have the responsibility to interpret the IAFF Constitution and Bylaws, and to decide any appeals brought before my office from a trial board's decision regarding a misconduct charge. Though I have not yet been required to decide an appeal from a trial board decision pertaining to this issue, you should harbor no doubt that I shall apply the foregoing principles to any dispute that is brought before my office involving an IAFF member's support or participation in a volunteer fire department or association.

It is time to reaffirm the provisions of our Constitution on this critical issue to those both inside and outside of our organization. Although an IAFF member may make a personal choice to join a volunteer fire department, that personal choice is one that can have serious consequences under our Constitution, including the loss of IAFF membership.

In closing, as the General President of a union charged with promoting the interests of paid, full-time professional fire fighters and paramedics, I will continue to work vigorously to make certain that all IAFF members enjoy a safe working environment, just compensation, and are afforded the rights they deserve.

Fraternally,

Harold A. Schaitberger
General President

Cc: Vincent J. Bollon, General Secretary-Treasurer
IAFF Executive Board

[lbltjag']

When did this become the "Two Hatters" forum? Isn't this thread supposed to be about the feasibility of a paid or part-paid fire service here in NC? Maybe I can put all of this two hatter nonsense to bed and we can get back on topic.

For those of you following this thread that are not from LB, there was a recent incident that involved a couple of our two hatters. What happened was three of our volunteer members were hired to the FDNY in the current probie class. One was dropped for reasons not entirely clear to me.

Despite being informed of the fact that they may not engage in secondary employment while in probationary status, these two remaining members remained active in their volly department. The FDNY considers volunteering to be secondary employment. These two were told in no uncertain terms to choose between their volly outfit or the FDNY. To their credit, they chose the FDNY.

It seems that many of the posters here attribute this situation to me or my Union. I guess that's a fair assumption given my history. Without confirming or denying those suspicions, let me lay out an alternative scenario for you guys to consider before you vilify me or anyone else.

These guys were spoken to by their delegate. Their delegate pointed out that they were, in the first instance, jeopardizing their jobs by engaging in secondary employment despite being told that it was forbidden. Additionally, they were advised that they were in violation of their Locals by-laws forbidding membership in a department that is served by a brother local. They were further apprised of their violation of the IAFF's prohibition against volunteering. At no time were their jobs threatened. I'll state that again: At no time were their jobs threatened.

Now, this all could have been handled very differently. Someone, anyone, could have placed a call to Metrotech and let the FDNY know that two members of their current probie class were engaging in secondary employment by volunteering in the LBFD. Had such a phone call been placed, these members would not have had to choose between their volly outfit and the FDNY. The FDNY would have made that decision for them by booting them both from their ranks. What then? Would their Union have gone to bat for them? Absolutely not. They would be crazy to. The actions of these two members is indefensible.

I think that of the two different ways that this situation could have been handled, the prior was the "kinder, gentler" way of dealing with it. I'd like to think that if you asked the members involved they'd agree. I think those that are so irate over these members being forced to resign their volunteer membership need to look at this situation from that perspective. These guys still have their jobs. In the end I'd rather be an employed ex-volunteer than the other way around.

All the rest of the posts heralding the demise of two hatters that a County wide paid force would bring is just a scare tactic. There will always be those out there that don't look at the big picture. The benefits that they personally receive out of volunteering will always outweigh the publics interests. They will always choose to belly up to the trough and lap up all the perks of volunteering even while they enjoy, without appreciating, the higher standard of living that their Union has fought hard to obtain for them. I've described two hatters as unprincipled whores. Perhaps I'm too harsh. Maybe they're just plain stupid. How else to explain a species that bites the hand that feeds them.

Now, can we swing this discussion back to the topic at hand?

[BIG JOHN]

You Need To Get A Life.. And Also Get A Real Job..

[lbltjag']

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (H.R. 980), passed by the House in July and now before the Senate, threatens to put millions of Americans at greater risk of fire-related loss, injury, or death. By requiring every local government to collectively bargain with its public safety employees, H.R. 980 would force many firefighters into the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), a union that prohibits its members from belonging to volunteer fire departments, even as volunteers in their off-time. Off-duty professional firefighters form the core of America's nearly 26,000 volunteer fire departments, and forcing them into the IAFF would cause volunteer fire departments across America to shut down, threatening public safety and straining local budgets. Congress should not force every local fire department in America to collectively bargain.

Forced Collective Bargaining

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act requires every state and local government to collectively bargain with their public safety employees: policemen, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel. Most states already do this, but a minority does not. The bill also requires states that already have collective bargaining to bargain over nearly every term and condition of employment. Currently, many states exempt topics, such as using merit pay instead of seniority-based pay, from collective bargaining.

This bill has attracted little public attention, but if enacted it would dramatically affect how local governments serve their citizens. Few communities are aware of the fact that the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act may imperil their volunteer fire departments.

Volunteer Fire Departments Provide Essential Protection

Volunteer fire departments provide essential protection for tens of millions of Americans. Fully 72 percent of firefighters in the United States are volunteers.[1] Most communities with fewer than 25,000 residents are protected by volunteer fire departments.[2] Most of these volunteer fire departments are anchored by a core of professional career firefighters.

To earn a living, these career firefighters work for another department and volunteer in their spare time, or they are employed directly by a mostly volunteer department. Volunteer fire departments allow many small communities to protect themselves from fires without the expense of employing full-time career firefighters.



Unions Oppose Volunteer Firefighting

This is why the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), which represents career firefighters, bitterly opposes volunteer firefighting. Fewer career fire departments results in fewer jobs for career firefighters and fewer unionized career firefighters paying union dues. The IAFF has done everything in its power to shut down volunteer fire departments.

The IAFF constitution prevents its members from serving in volunteer fire departments on their own time.[3] "Two-hatters" who ignore the union constitution face steep fines. The IAFF also negotiates collective bargaining agreements that require cities to fire any career firefighters who volunteer with other fire departments in their free time. Firefighters in Fort Wayne, Indiana, sued after their union negotiated such a provision, but the courts ruled that the union may negotiate a contract that would prevent them from volunteering on their own time.[4]

If Congress requires every local government to collectively bargain with its firefighters, many local firefighters will be pushed into IAFF membership. Union fines and restrictive collective bargaining agreements mean that many career firefighters will be prevented from volunteering in their communities. Without a professional core, many volunteer fire departments would have to close.

Harms Local Communities

This is precisely what the IAFF wants to happen. As IAFF President Harold Schaitberger explained:

All too often, jurisdictions rely upon the services of volunteers to undermine the efforts of our own members to obtain the resources necessary to support a properly staffed and adequately equipped full time career fire department. As a union representing the interests of paid professional fire fighters, we can and must promote the interests of our members by strongly advocating career fire departments across North America.[5]

The IAFF wants local governments to replace volunteer fire departments with career fire departments. But in most small communities, paying for a professional department is not realistic or feasible. The expense of a full-time, career-firefighter-staffed fire department would severely strain the budgets of towns with only a few thousand residents. Each volunteer firefighter saves his or her community an average of $45,500 a year. Nationwide, volunteer firefighters save their communities $37.2 billion a year.[6]

If the IAFF's campaign against volunteer fire departments forces every community to replace its volunteer fire department with a professional department, local tax bills will have to rise or other services will have to be cut to cover the expense. Financial realities would force many communities to cut back on fire protection, leaving their residents at greater risk. Congress should not put cities and towns across America in this position.

No Protection for Volunteers

This very concern derailed previous versions of this legislation, and so its supporters added a provision that appears to protect volunteer firefighters. Section 8(a)(4) of H.R. 980 specifies that the legislation does not "permit parties subject to the National Labor Relations Act…to negotiate provisions that would prohibit an employee from engaging in part-time employment or volunteer activities during off-duty hours."

But this provision will not protect volunteer firefighters, because the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not cover public sector labor relations. Local governments are not subject to the NLRA. The legislation would subject them to the Federal Labor Authority, but not the NLRA. This provision would do absolutely nothing to prevent the IAFF from fining its members for volunteering or from negotiating contracts that prevent its members from volunteering.

Conclusion

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act would threaten the existence of many volunteer fire departments, putting millions of Americans at greater risk of fire-related injury or death. Rather than force local governments to collectively bargain with the IAFF, Congress should let them choose the policies that best serve their citizens.

----

[lbltjag']

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act (H.R. 980), passed by the House in July and now before the Senate, threatens to put millions of Americans at greater risk of fire-related loss, injury, or death. By requiring every local government to collectively bargain with its public safety employees, H.R. 980 would force many firefighters into the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), a union that prohibits its members from belonging to volunteer fire departments, even as volunteers in their off-time. Off-duty professional firefighters form the core of America's nearly 26,000 volunteer fire departments, and forcing them into the IAFF would cause volunteer fire departments across America to shut down, threatening public safety and straining local budgets. Congress should not force every local fire department in America to collectively bargain.

Forced Collective Bargaining

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act requires every state and local government to collectively bargain with their public safety employees: policemen, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel. Most states already do this, but a minority does not. The bill also requires states that already have collective bargaining to bargain over nearly every term and condition of employment. Currently, many states exempt topics, such as using merit pay instead of seniority-based pay, from collective bargaining.

This bill has attracted little public attention, but if enacted it would dramatically affect how local governments serve their citizens. Few communities are aware of the fact that the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act may imperil their volunteer fire departments.

Volunteer Fire Departments Provide Essential Protection

Volunteer fire departments provide essential protection for tens of millions of Americans. Fully 72 percent of firefighters in the United States are volunteers.[1] Most communities with fewer than 25,000 residents are protected by volunteer fire departments.[2] Most of these volunteer fire departments are anchored by a core of professional career firefighters.

To earn a living, these career firefighters work for another department and volunteer in their spare time, or they are employed directly by a mostly volunteer department. Volunteer fire departments allow many small communities to protect themselves from fires without the expense of employing full-time career firefighters.



Unions Oppose Volunteer Firefighting

This is why the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), which represents career firefighters, bitterly opposes volunteer firefighting. Fewer career fire departments results in fewer jobs for career firefighters and fewer unionized career firefighters paying union dues. The IAFF has done everything in its power to shut down volunteer fire departments.

The IAFF constitution prevents its members from serving in volunteer fire departments on their own time.[3] "Two-hatters" who ignore the union constitution face steep fines. The IAFF also negotiates collective bargaining agreements that require cities to fire any career firefighters who volunteer with other fire departments in their free time. Firefighters in Fort Wayne, Indiana, sued after their union negotiated such a provision, but the courts ruled that the union may negotiate a contract that would prevent them from volunteering on their own time.[4]

If Congress requires every local government to collectively bargain with its firefighters, many local firefighters will be pushed into IAFF membership. Union fines and restrictive collective bargaining agreements mean that many career firefighters will be prevented from volunteering in their communities. Without a professional core, many volunteer fire departments would have to close.

Harms Local Communities

This is precisely what the IAFF wants to happen. As IAFF President Harold Schaitberger explained:

All too often, jurisdictions rely upon the services of volunteers to undermine the efforts of our own members to obtain the resources necessary to support a properly staffed and adequately equipped full time career fire department. As a union representing the interests of paid professional fire fighters, we can and must promote the interests of our members by strongly advocating career fire departments across North America.[5]

The IAFF wants local governments to replace volunteer fire departments with career fire departments. But in most small communities, paying for a professional department is not realistic or feasible. The expense of a full-time, career-firefighter-staffed fire department would severely strain the budgets of towns with only a few thousand residents. Each volunteer firefighter saves his or her community an average of $45,500 a year. Nationwide, volunteer firefighters save their communities $37.2 billion a year.[6]

If the IAFF's campaign against volunteer fire departments forces every community to replace its volunteer fire department with a professional department, local tax bills will have to rise or other services will have to be cut to cover the expense. Financial realities would force many communities to cut back on fire protection, leaving their residents at greater risk. Congress should not put cities and towns across America in this position.

No Protection for Volunteers

This very concern derailed previous versions of this legislation, and so its supporters added a provision that appears to protect volunteer firefighters. Section 8(a)(4) of H.R. 980 specifies that the legislation does not "permit parties subject to the National Labor Relations Act…to negotiate provisions that would prohibit an employee from engaging in part-time employment or volunteer activities during off-duty hours."

But this provision will not protect volunteer firefighters, because the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not cover public sector labor relations. Local governments are not subject to the NLRA. The legislation would subject them to the Federal Labor Authority, but not the NLRA. This provision would do absolutely nothing to prevent the IAFF from fining its members for volunteering or from negotiating contracts that prevent its members from volunteering.

Conclusion

The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act would threaten the existence of many volunteer fire departments, putting millions of Americans at greater risk of fire-related injury or death. Rather than force local governments to collectively bargain with the IAFF, Congress should let them choose the policies that best serve their citizens.[/

[lbltjag]

Somebody is obviously quite proud of them self.

BTW, that's a very original tag. I like it.

['gajtlbl]

Somebody is obviously quite proud of them self.

BTW, that's a very original tag. I like it.

Proud? No! Both sides of this equation is a waste of energy, talent, time, money, and resources which could be better directed to public safety! Just felt it was important for both sides of the debate to be viewed intelligently, and to make the injustice of anti two hatter policies visable.

Like the tag? Yes! The role of Career FD LT is one of the most interesting and fulfilling especially with dual FD / EMS role. Just added a little punctuation to the tag and posts.

Isn't their a better use of all of our time than debating this at noisiam?

You may disagree, but I believe a lot more could be accomplished with professionals working on a vocation and ad vocation level in a common direction with the goal of public safety first putting aside union and volunteer rhetoric?

Just a thought? Feel free to fire away!

[goldmember88]

WOW... writing to yourself ?

[sey_and_no]

WOW... writing to yourself ?

sey and on!

[realreason]

----


The real motivation of the iaff and jay.

[worthrepeating]

The more appropriate question is do you read what I write? Or, better yet, can you comprehend it.

Listen, I think Two-Hatting is wrong. That's no secret. But, now pay close attention here: What I say in my post is that Two-Hatting in an organization that is served by a brother Local is morally reprehensible. I'm sure this distinction does nothing to change your mind about me or my opinions, but perhaps I can drive the point home for you in a way you'll understand.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I'm pretty sure it's not firefighting. Whatever it is, garbageman, lawyer, stockbroker, whatever. There is no one volunteering to do the work that you do, is there? Career FF's are in the unique position of having people that actually compete for the work that you do. Further complicating matters is the fact that they are willing to do it for nothing.

So, whatever it is that you do, suppose tomorrow morning a group of people showed up at your workplace and offered to do what you ordinarily do - and - they're willing to do it for nothing. Can you imagine this? I really don't think you can.

Now, as difficult as this is for you to imagine, take it one step further and say that the bunch of guys that are willing to do your work for free are members of a neighboring Local to you? Even if they're not Unionized workers, how do you think you'd feel about some other tradesman from your profession just showing up at your workplace and saying "you can send these guys home, we've got this"? I think you'd be pretty steamed.

I know you will come back at me with the old and worn-out "but all you paid FF's do other trades work on the side" BS. It's just not the same thing. Not even close. If you go back a few posts you'll see where I went into detail about how the two practices are different. I'm too lazy to paste it here. Instead, I'll throw one more example at you that may illuminate your understanding of this situation.

I do carpentry on the side. I don't do it for free. That fact notwithstanding, what do you think would happen if I showed up tomorrow at a Union jobsite with my tool belt in hand and told the project manager to send one of your overpriced Union guys home because I'll do it cheaper. You know what would happen, they'd chop me up into small pieces, that's what.

This is true, and we all know it. If you were one of the guys on that site, you'd probably be leading the attack. Despite this, you want to defend the right of other Unionized FF's to come onto my "jobsite" and do just that? You're wrong here on this one. You can disagree with my stance on Two-Hatters in general, but I don't see how anyone can defend doing so in a department that is served by a brother local and where you are directly threatening the job security of those employed there.

Morally reprehensible? You bet it is.

[outsourcing]

The more appropriate question is do you read what I write? Or, better yet, can you comprehend it.

Listen, I think Two-Hatting is wrong. That's no secret. But, now pay close attention here: What I say in my post is that Two-Hatting in an organization that is served by a brother Local is morally reprehensible. I'm sure this distinction does nothing to change your mind about me or my opinions, but perhaps I can drive the point home for you in a way you'll understand.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I'm pretty sure it's not firefighting. Whatever it is, garbageman, lawyer, stockbroker, whatever. There is no one volunteering to do the work that you do, is there? Career FF's are in the unique position of having people that actually compete for the work that you do. Further complicating matters is the fact that they are willing to do it for nothing.

So, whatever it is that you do, suppose tomorrow morning a group of people showed up at your workplace and offered to do what you ordinarily do - and - they're willing to do it for nothing. Can you imagine this? I really don't think you can.

Now, as difficult as this is for you to imagine, take it one step further and say that the bunch of guys that are willing to do your work for free are members of a neighboring Local to you? Even if they're not Unionized workers, how do you think you'd feel about some other tradesman from your profession just showing up at your workplace and saying "you can send these guys home, we've got this"? I think you'd be pretty steamed.

I know you will come back at me with the old and worn-out "but all you paid FF's do other trades work on the side" BS. It's just not the same thing. Not even close. If you go back a few posts you'll see where I went into detail about how the two practices are different. I'm too lazy to paste it here. Instead, I'll throw one more example at you that may illuminate your understanding of this situation.

I do carpentry on the side. I don't do it for free. That fact notwithstanding, what do you think would happen if I showed up tomorrow at a Union jobsite with my tool belt in hand and told the project manager to send one of your overpriced Union guys home because I'll do it cheaper. You know what would happen, they'd chop me up into small pieces, that's what.

This is true, and we all know it. If you were one of the guys on that site, you'd probably be leading the attack. Despite this, you want to defend the right of other Unionized FF's to come onto my "jobsite" and do just that? You're wrong here on this one. You can disagree with my stance on Two-Hatters in general, but I don't see how anyone can defend doing so in a department that is served by a brother local and where you are directly threatening the job security of those employed there.

Morally reprehensible? You bet it is.

Other professions including unions are experiencing outsourcing and other forms of job elimination in the free market?

What makes your situation special?