Rover, I think you are inserting the tone of your choice into our wording. I don't see victim in my words. The points I am trying to get across is the city acts as though they are above review. The fact of the matter is there is an agenda being pushed. By whoever I can't say. Maps3 and core to shore are examples of said agenda. The fire dept situation boils down to one thing, money! If the city can cut our costs then all the better for them. The take no prisoner attitude is going to wear thin at some point. Today it's us, tomorrow those idiots that think they own their own property in the core to shore area. When does it stop? If allowed I will publish the arbitraitors ruling on here. That will speak for it's self.

I am getting most of my information from this site, and it seems to me that the tone here is one of angry victim from the ff side. I still contend that it may not be the content of the message I am hearing as much as the tone that pervades. I negotiate contracts for my company regularly and get involved in many contentious debates during the course. However, as soon as someone starts calling the other dishonest or negotiates from anger then the give and take ceases. I still contend that the ffs seem to be losing the PR battle. You can argue about whether that should be material or not, but trust me, it is. If the city believes it too and the public is more inclined to support their position then they will negotiate even harder. That's just the way it works.

Rover,

If you are referring to my most recent post as being one who portrays the ff as being an angry victim, I would encourage you to reread my post.
My post merely contains factual information. Nothing more, nothing less.

I am attempting to educate some of you on this site about what is going on in regards to our contract negotiations. Things that you may or may not be aware of that are going on.

I am beginning to think that there are some of you who could care less about those contract negotiations. That is fine, just move on to the next thread then.

If you want to know the truth, then I will enlighten you as to what is really going on. So stay tuned.

We are still actively negotiating with the city. They on the other hand have been stonewalling and bargaining in bad faith, since this years negotiations started, which for this fiscal years contract July 1, 2009-June 30, 2010, the negotiations started back in March 1, 2009, well before we suffering from downed tax revenue in the city. It is now March 4, 2010 and we still dont have a contract. In recent years, it has not been uncommon for the fire dept to not have a contract until we are 5-6 months into the next fiscal year.

As far as the PR thing goes, I dont discount what you are saying.
I do think that we as a fire dept need to educate the citizens to what is actually going on, because the only thing most citizens know is what they see on the news or read in the newspaper. Both of these media have been less than accurate in getting our message out without some sort of spin that totally distorts what is really going on.

OKCsmoke, how do you convince residents that what the city council and city staff is doing is different from what has been happening in the private sector - cutting back on staffing, freezing wages, increasing work loads. Or would you consider what's going on the private sector to be "unfair labor practices" as well? Or does what's going on with the contract situation different? After all, I know plenty of people who were promised raises, benefits during good times that haven't been given since the crash. And if they want to walk off the job, yeah, they can do that - and get fired. Not taking sides - just trying to understand how the union folks see things in terms more familiar to the average person.

OKCsmoke, how do you convince residents that what the city council and city staff is doing is different from what has been happening in the private sector - cutting back on staffing, freezing wages, increasing work loads. Or would you consider what's going on the private sector to be "unfair labor practices" as well? Or does what's going on with the contract situation different? After all, I know plenty of people who were promised raises, benefits during good times that haven't been given since the crash. And if they want to walk off the job, yeah, they can do that - and get fired. Not taking sides - just trying to understand how the union folks see things in terms more familiar to the average person.

Steve,
First of all, let me start by saying thanks for the response.

Next, I say you let the citizens make up their own mind by letting them know what is going on with factual information. We is going on in the public sector is not any different that what is going on in the private sector, with the cut backs on staffing, the freezing of wages and increased work loads. We are dealing with the exact same circumstances.

In our circumstance, we the fire dept. and other city depts have had a hiring freeze for quite sometime now, we have had our wages frozen, as well as the increased work loads. We get all of the that and comprehend it, we understand what the times are right now.

Our last 2 offers to the city have been shot down by them. The first one, we did forego a raise that was awarded to us by an arbitrator, because it was the right thing to do. The second one, was to just simply roll over our existing contract. That is exactly what the police dept did last Tuesday at the city council meeting. Why is that not good enough for us as well? By the way, both of these offers were exactly what the city wanted and we gave in to them, because it was the right thing to do. Sounds like the fire dept is still negotiating.

A contract situation is a much different situation than that in the private sector. By that, I mean that there are certain rules that you have to follow in order to get things accomplished, and those rules have been in place for a number of years. They didnt just all of the sudden happen. Both sides of this coin know what those rules are and need to abide by them no matter what the state of the economy is. The state of the economy does not give either side of this coin a free pass to do what they wish or whenever they wish.

It becomes an unfair labor practice when the rules have been broken, not because the economy is in poor shape.

About the good times, we have had to fight tooth and nail, to get a contract in the good times. Is not uncommon for us, to go 5-6 months into the next fiscal year to get a contract. We know that we are not going to get anything in the current economic time, that is a given.

As far as walking off of the job, we are prohibited by law from doing that, and we would not do that anyway. That is address in the Police and Fire Abitration Act. We would be fired as well, no different than if we were in the private sector.

So we are not any different than the average citizen in the private sector in that respect. We are just trying to maintain what we have, members and coverage. Our fire dept staff is dwindling as we speak through retirement and the city has had a hiring freeze for sometime now.

I am hopeful that most of the citizens could identify with that and know that we are trying to do our part to help out during these tough economic times. Things are tough all over, we still have a job to do and city to protect 24/7/365. Help us to help you.

One difference I think I see in the stalemate on city/FD that wasn't there for city/PD, assuming reports here are accurate.

for city/FD, there seems to be a requirement by FD that any agreement will need to include language re city got slapped in arbitration. the reports appear to be FD offered to forego the raise, even roll over an existing contract, but that language remained in some fashion as part of the offer.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. If not, maybe the better option is to drop the language and go forward, both sides starting fresh. Maybe that is simply not possible, but it seems like it ought to be.

One difference I think I see in the stalemate on city/FD that wasn't there for city/PD, assuming reports here are accurate.

for city/FD, there seems to be a requirement by FD that any agreement will need to include language re city got slapped in arbitration. the reports appear to be FD offered to forego the raise, even roll over an existing contract, but that language remained in some fashion as part of the offer.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong. If not, maybe the better option is to drop the language and go forward, both sides starting fresh. Maybe that is simply not possible, but it seems like it ought to be.Your right about the difference between the FD and the PD which is causing the stalemate. You are also correct in regards to the language in the arbitrators ruling, so no, your not reading it wrong. As far as it being a better option to drop the language you have to ask yourself a couple of questions. Better for who? Better why? Who stands to gain by dropping the language? What do they stand to gain? Let me here your thoughts and I'll come back with the answers.

OKCsmoke, would you say firefighters' pay and benefits grew at a slower rate than the private sector this past decade?

OKCsmoke, would you say firefighters' pay and benefits grew at a slower rate than the private sector this past decade?

Steve,

I dont know whether or not our wages and benefits have grown at a slower rate than those in the private sector.

What I do know is our wages and benefits are supposed to be based on a 10 city average, which is how the city wanted to base our wages on in the 1st place. We have been lucky to keep pace with the 10 city average, even in the good times.

Like I said in earlier post, it is not uncommon for us to go 5-6 months into the next fiscal year before we get our contract settled.

My guess is that the city must draw a great deal of interest off of that money for those 5-6 months, so in essence they are getting something for nothing or they wouldnt be doing this.

Back to the private sector, that is a broad topic. I think that there are some industries in the private sector whose wages and benefits have grown exponentially in the last decade, and the inverse is true as well, there are different industries whose wages and benefits have barely kept pace with the cost of living or worse. I can assure you that our wages and benefits have been at best keeping up with the cost of living, but again our wages are determined by the 10 city avg. which we are 5th or 6th, if I am not mistaken. Help me out Andy.

Back to our contract, we understand that there is a hiring freeze and we have offered to give back the raise and rollover our last years contract.

Anything else that the city would want has absolutely nothing to do with wages and benefits.

Update as of 3/9/10. The city negotiation teams has offered to roll over our contract 09/10 with all of the language restored. The caveat is the city wants all language removed that finds them guilty of unfair labor practices.

andy, and others close to the actual language -

Not knowing the specific language, I'm not sure why it is considered important.
If the language being used by the FD is not necessary to securing a rollover contract, which the FD apparently supports, then it is seemingly just an obstacle.

Would not including the language change the past?
If it is not included in these negotiations, does the slap to the city from arbitration simply vaporize, or otherwise get vacated, or is that finding from arbitration still in fact of record somewhere?

I've not suggested it should be treated as though it never happened, but perhaps there is a way to acknowledge it separate from starting fresh with an otherwise acceptable rollover of the existing contract terms.

Again, perhaps not, but stalemates rarely benefit anyone long term, so perhaps its existence on the mantle across the room is enough.

Just trying to understand better.

andy, and others close to the actual language -

Not knowing the specific language, I'm not sure why it is considered important.
If the language being used by the FD is not necessary to securing a rollover contract, which the FD apparently supports, then it is seemingly just an obstacle.

Would not including the language change the past?
If it is not included in these negotiations, does the slap to the city from arbitration simply vaporize, or otherwise get vacated, or is that finding from arbitration still in fact of record somewhere?

I've not suggested it should be treated as though it never happened, but perhaps there is a way to acknowledge it separate from starting fresh with an otherwise acceptable rollover of the existing contract terms.

Again, perhaps not, but stalemates rarely benefit anyone long term, so perhaps its existence on the mantle across the room is enough.

Just trying to understand better.Kevinpate, this issue has less to do about specific language, and more to do about specific decisions and rulings that occurred after the Union and the City exchanged their Last and Best Offers. These rulings against the City for their act of bad faith, though just and fair, not to mention long overdue, were groundbreaking to say the least.

Remember, this is not the first time the City has been slapped down, or ruled against for acting in bad faith. For example, see the Supreme Courts ruling in Stone-Taylor v. Johnson / and the City of OKC, and the subsequent arbitration cases in which the Union has prevailed. However, it may be by far the most significant.

What makes it so significant, and why the City is so concerned that it be vacated and abolished as though it never happen is because, as I said, they have lost before yet declined going to a vote. Why, the odds of winning were not in their favor. Because of the economy, this was the year they were willing to roll the dice. However, their plan backfired when justice prevailed.

This precedent setting, if not landmark establishing decision and ruling should finally take away their ability, or at least their willingness, to act in bad faith, I doubt it, but it should. That is why the City wants this ruling treated as though it never happen.