Outside counsel hired for Fire Dept negotiations

[Wambo36]

You said that elections are often more about peoples perceptions than the issues at hand. I asked you where do you think the majority of OKC residents get their perception of the FFs. Do you honestly think this forum reaches anywhere near the number of people that the DOK and televised media do?

As far as whether it's been used to our advantage or not, if presenting the facts, that they won't hear anywhere in the mainstream media, so angers some of these people then so be it. At least they can't say "we had no idea".

Some of us still think that as long as you tell the truth, that should be good enough. PR firms are, for the most part, needed when trying to convince the populace of something they wouldn't normally buy. Maybe we're wrong. I hope not.

One thing's for sure, when the media only chooses to cover one side of the story it doesn't matter what the truth is.

[Steve]

Wambo, truth be told, I'm just another news consumer on this one. I'm not covering this story, just following it like everyone else (I do, however, have some friends in the police and fire departments who have shared their views with me).
I'm not convinced the coverage I've read is all that bad or slanted - but clearly they're telling the story as you would like to see it told.
That happens.
But you are dead wrong about the role public relations firms play in communicating messages. Communication is an art, and quite frankly, if what you're saying is all true, the blame rests on the unions for not effectively communicating. You're basically making the case for why a public relations firm might be needed. I say this with the caveat that there are some folks in PR I can't stand, and yet I respect their profession and why they're needed.
I'm not a "yes" guy. I try to report what I see and hear, and I'm not really concerned with whether people are going to love me afterwards. So here it is Wambo, whether you like it or not. Regardless of who is right or wrong in this labor/management battle, my only observation is that the unions haven't been too sharp in communicating with the public and they are losing the perception game.
Before you wish to dismiss the power of new media, try getting a seat at Big Truck Tacos tomorrow at lunch time. Or at the Iguana Mexican Grill on Tuesday nights. Or look at how many business owners have joined OKC Talk AFTER they saw the impact of negative online reviews. Have no doubt, there is power in new media. I don't always agree with the how's and why's of it all, but I respect it. And anyone dealing with a political debate who ignores the power of new media does so at their own peril.

[Wambo36]

Steve, I'm not talking about you personally. As you said before, you're happiest when you've got both sides a little peeved. That is how it should be.

If, as you say, the blame lies with the unions for poor message delivery, does no blame lie with those who edit and present the message after the interviews? I'll give you that we aren't all that PR savvy. We shouldn't have to be when dealing with an unbiased media. The facts should speak for themselves and peoples perceptions should be formed by the facts, not some PR firms spin of the facts or some editors spin of the facts. This maybe a little simplistic view the way things should be, but like I said, some of us think being truthful should be enough.

[Steve]

Ah but here's the rub: you think you've got the facts. And then management will insist they have the facts. One important moment in my education in college was an assignment to watch the 1950 Japanese film "Roshomon." Seriously. Yes, it was subtitled. But it taught me and fellow students that there can be several accounts of a story by people who all think they are presenting the true account of an incident. As journalists we're trained to try to navigate through that, tell both sides, and try to present the most balanced account possible. Do we always succeed? Of course not. But we should, and I think most do, try.
The problem here is you're not realizing that nuance. And that's ok - but it shows that if the folks in charge at the unions have the same perception as you, yeah, they need a pr expert. This does not reflect badly on you or anybody else. I'm in the communications business. I don't have a clue as to how I might put out a fire or save a life.
Best regards.
- Steve

[Eep]

One important moment in my education in college was an assignment to watch the 1950 Japanese film "Roshomon." Seriously. Yes, it was subtitled. But it taught me and fellow students that there can be several accounts of a story by people who all think they are presenting the true account of an incident. As journalists we're trained to try to navigate through that, tell both sides, and try to present the most balanced account possible.

In case others are interested in catching this, the OKCMoA will be showing "Rashomon" on Thursday, April 1 at 7:30pm as part of their "Kurosawa Centennial Celebration".

[Wambo36]

Steve, I wanted to wait until after yesterdays council meeting to respond due to the fact that they were voting on the FFs second offer to settle last years negotiations without the raise. As you may or may not know they turned down the first one because it had language in it about the MAPS3 use tax. You know, contract language, that nasty binding stuff that makes them keep their promises. So after being told that the use tax language was the reason they turned it down, the FFs submitted a new offer, that eliminated that language, to be considered at yesterdays meeting. The council turned that down also.

Now we've been hearing forever that the raise was the problem. The raise was removed, problem solved. Then it was the use tax language that was the problem. That language was removed and still they chose to turn it down. Instead they want to continue with a long drawn out court battle that is costing the city money.

The reason? We have no idea, and as long as the reporters covering city hall settle for "it's complicated" as a complete answer, neither will the general public.

Ah but here's the rub: you think you've got the facts. And then management will insist they have the facts.

I would agree with this if the facts were in question. In this case they aren't. The city isn't trying to say that they didn't break the rules of collective bargaining. They are asking for it to be overlooked so they can change contract language without negotiations. The city knows this. The FFs know this. Probably the only people who don't know this are the general public, but then again they are dependant upon the news media to cover it and ask the questions. They certainly were made aware that the FFs were awarded a raise in arbitration. There was no problem getting that covered, nor should there have been. It was news.

As journalists we're trained to try to navigate through that, tell both sides, and try to present the most balanced account possible. Do we always succeed? Of course not. But we should, and I think most do, try.

I have to say, as someone who knows the FFs side of these issues and sees them consistently left out of the story, someone is missing the mark.

The problem here is you're not realizing that nuance. And that's ok - but it shows that if the folks in charge at the unions have the same perception as you, yeah, they need a pr expert. This does not reflect badly on you or anybody else. I'm in the communications business.

On this we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think it should be necessary to hire a PR expert to get a fair shake in the news media. If in fact that is the case, it's kind of sad IMO.

Thanks for the back and forth, and for doing it in a respectful way.

[Steve]

No problem Wambo. For what it's worth, Bryan Dean is tasked with covering this issue and you can contact him with questions/concerns at 475-3206.

[fire121]

The ironic thing about this whole ordeal is our union leadership and many of the guys involved in the day to day operations down there now, are probably the most rational, level headed, intelligent group working down there since I became a firefighter twenty years ago.
To have these guys painted as lying, blind, union goons is really laughable.

[fire121]

The ironic thing about this whole ordeal is our union leadership and many of the guys involved in the day to day operations down there now, are probably the most rational, level headed, intelligent group working down there since I became a firefighter twenty years ago.
To have these guys painted as lying, blind, union goons is really laughable.

[betts]

The problem is, like the same discussion in an NBA thread, a question of money. I'd like to say that if money were limitless, we could make everyone happy, but then we'd simply have runaway inflation, no doubt. It's not that anyone begrudges policemen and firemen anything.

But, if there's a finite amount of money, then you have two choices: you can either hire more people for less or less people for more. The problem with the intelligent, rational union leaders is that their goal is to get the city to hire more people for more money. I don't blame them, but that's what everyone wants, and we've discovered it doesn't work in this economy.

Tell your story to the doctors, who are being threatened with a 21% cut in Medicare, when the government requires you to accept whatever Medicare pays you if you want to be quaranteed you'll get paid. They've been getting 1 to 2% increases in a good year, and have watched their real income fall dramatically over the last 20 years.

[Wambo36]

Betts, please go up and read the first 3 paragraphs of my last post. This isn't about money. It hasn't been for awhile now. We knew when the arbitrator ruled in our favor that the city, more likely than not, could make the argument they couldn't afford to pay it. They were the ones claiming we were a "recession proof" city. We knew better.

This is about their willful and deliberate act to backdoor the negotiations process that we both are bound to. Now we're in court because they want a judge to overlook the fact that they broke the rules and allow them to proceed with changing our contract without negotiating. Like I said, we keep giving in to their demands, and they keep moving the target. They've chosen a prolonged court battle, which is costing them money, instead of settling on a contract which won't.

fire121 is right about our leadership, although I would add that, for the most part, we've had pretty good leaders. But you will never know that if all you get is what the local news tells you.

[Mikemarsh51]

Betts, the title of this thread is related to the Fire dept. situation. Feel free to start one about government reimbursement cuts. What we are talking about is no one complaining that the city is spending an additional $90,000.00 when the fire union is doing what has been asked and more. Sundays article in the DOK stated that the city has a problem with some of the language in the arbitraitors ruling. It was stated that the city could not abide some of the language. We were told it was the part that found them guilty of "unfair labor practices". They want any reference to their wrongdoing removed or they will not agree to a deal. Now Betts, let me ask you, how is that ethical, let alone honest?

[PennyQuilts]

I hope this thread isn't aiding and abeting the negotiators on the respective sides...

[Midtowner]

I hope this thread isn't aiding and abeting the negotiators on the respective sides...

Bah.

If they take a little semi-informed banter on a message board seriously, they have much bigger problems.

[PennyQuilts]

Bah.

If they take a little semi-informed banter on a message board seriously, they have much bigger problems.

It's a question of having a finger on the pulse. It won't make the difference, generally, but laying all the infighting out for all to see is just a little bit more information they have when they decide to make or reject an offer. I sure wouldn't want my client to be putting all this out there if we were in the middle of negotiations. Might not make a difference, probably wouldn't but... I'm just saying.

[Wambo36]

PQ, I have to agree with Mid, anything you read here has already been seen and rejected, not just by the negotiators but by the council themselves. It's been discussed in televised council meetings and should have been reported in the news. Actually they rejected the last offer without public discussion due to their desire to fly under the radar about the court case. If they can continue on this path without having to answer any questions, so much the better for them. As to what is being negotiated at this moment, no one posting on this board is in a position to know. We don't hear it until it's already been rejected or accepted by the city. What your reading is old news to both parties involved.

[hoya]

See, I may not know much about fighting fires, but I do know about court cases. Rarely do you get the whole story when you only speak to one party involved. I don't get the whole story from most of my clients, anyway. We have the fire department here giving one side, but nobody from the city is here giving the other. I think all rational people here are taking this into account. It's not that we don't believe you, but we're getting information third hand from a source involved in the dispute. That's not exactly unbiased.

As far as I know, none of the firefighters here were personally involved in the negotiations. So you're getting your information from union leaders, and they're relaying their position. So when a union leader says "the city is doing something illegal", that's obviously what they believe, but that doesn't mean a judge is going to agree. I tell my clients all the time that one thing or another is legal or illegal, that doesn't mean we're going to win on that issue. So that's why there's such pervasive skepticism here.

[okcsmokeandfire]

See, I may not know much about fighting fires, but I do know about court cases. Rarely do you get the whole story when you only speak to one party involved. I don't get the whole story from most of my clients, anyway. We have the fire department here giving one side, but nobody from the city is here giving the other. I think all rational people here are taking this into account. It's not that we don't believe you, but we're getting information third hand from a source involved in the dispute. That's not exactly unbiased.

As far as I know, none of the firefighters here were personally involved in the negotiations. So you're getting your information from union leaders, and they're relaying their position. So when a union leader says "the city is doing something illegal", that's obviously what they believe, but that doesn't mean a judge is going to agree. I tell my clients all the time that one thing or another is legal or illegal, that doesn't mean we're going to win on that issue. So that's why there's such pervasive skepticism here.

I would say that almost all of the time that your information stated in the above post would be correct.

We are attempting to get the other side of the story out to the public.
All that you have to do is read the DOK, they have the city skewed side in there. In their words, its very complicated. lol

Its very simple, we agreed to not take the raise that was awarded to us by an arbitrator, that was turned down by the city. Then, we agreed to rollover last years contract, that was turned down by the city council last Tuesday.

What else do they want?
I will tell you what they want.

The city wants us to agree to throw out the arbitrators ruling that they were acting in bad faith during negotiations. Therefore, negating the Police and Fire Arbitration Act. That is not going to happen.

There are some of the FF on this thread that are not far removed from the negotiations. Their information is very accurate.

Its not only the fire dept union leaders that say the city has "bargained in bad faith" and attempted to change the language of their Last Best Offer after the time has passed to do so, it was also found to be the case by a neutral arbitrator during the arbitration process.

So when you go to arbitration there are certain rules that you have to follow in that process. The city presents its last best offer and tries to substantiate it. The fire dept does the same thing. The arbitrator can only pick one of the last best offers. He/she cannot pick bits and pieces from each LBO and formulate his/her own. Its either the city or the fire dept LBO. No shades of grey in between. The city had submitted their LBO and then attempted to change it after the fact. They were caught on that and their LBO was ruled to be illegal by a neutral arbitrator. Not my words or the unions words, but the arbitrators wording. This is a violation of the Police and Fire Arbitration Act.

This is the same Act that prohibits the Police and Fire from ever instituting a walkout or a work strike. So, you can see that this Act is very important for the citizens as well all parties involved.

We (the fire dept) are bound by the arbitrators ruling. The city is not.
The city is taking the fire dept to district court to try to get that arbitrators ruling overturned. So, in essence the city is trying to get a district court judge to say its ok to bargain in bad faith as well as change your LBO after the allotted time frame.

When the city gets beat in district court, they are going to keep appealing this ruling all the way to the SC.

The rules are really simple to follow, so I suspect the city is going to continue to fight a losing battle all the way up to the SC, wasting lots and lots of taxpayer dollars in the process. Great Job.

[PennyQuilts]

PQ, I have to agree with Mid, anything you read here has already been seen and rejected, not just by the negotiators but by the council themselves. It's been discussed in televised council meetings and should have been reported in the news. Actually they rejected the last offer without public discussion due to their desire to fly under the radar about the court case. If they can continue on this path without having to answer any questions, so much the better for them. As to what is being negotiated at this moment, no one posting on this board is in a position to know. We don't hear it until it's already been rejected or accepted by the city. What your reading is old news to both parties involved.

Well, it is a judgement call. I tend to like to control the message a little better. But that is just me. Mind you, I am not saying anyone should be restricted from speaking - but it would make me nervous to find myself in the situation of not knowing what in blue blazes is going to come out of a member's mouth. But, again, that is just me.

[Rover]

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.

[Mikemarsh51]

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.

[okcsmokeandfire]

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.

[Steve]

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.

[okcsmokeandfire]

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.

[kevinpate]

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.