Firefighters Union and MAPS 3 - the next chapter?

[Steve]

Interesting story in today's Journal Record:
Disappointed at the responsiveness of the union as portrayed here:
"A spokeswoman for the union who identified herself only as Dana said, “Everything you need to know is on the postcard.” Multiple attempts to reach International Association of Firefighters Local 157 President Phil Sipe and other officials for elaboration were unsuccessful."

[LordGerald]

Interesting story in today's Journal Record:
Disappointed at the responsiveness of the union as portrayed here:
"A spokeswoman for the union who identified herself only as Dana said, “Everything you need to know is on the postcard.” Multiple attempts to reach International Association of Firefighters Local 157 President Phil Sipe and other officials for elaboration were unsuccessful."

Phil Sipe probably didn't know about it since he doesn't live in Oklahoma City.

[okcpulse]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it a bit EARLY in the game to start accusing the city of breaking promises? Were these guys expecting a check in their hands within 90 days of the beginning of MAPS 3's tax collection? Seriously, if they were smart they would have waited at least a couple of years before accusing the city of breaking promises. It's like me accusing my wife of breaking her promise to get the errands run before she even walks out the door.

Sheesh.

[theparkman81]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it a bit EARLY in the game to start accusing the city of breaking promises? Were these guys expecting a check in their hands within 90 days of the beginning of MAPS 3's tax collection? Seriously, if they were smart they would have waited at least a couple of years before accusing the city of breaking promises. It's like me accusing my wife of breaking her promise to get the errands run before she even walks out the door.

Sheesh.

I agree with u okcpulse.

[Midtowner]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it a bit EARLY in the game to start accusing the city of breaking promises? Were these guys expecting a check in their hands within 90 days of the beginning of MAPS 3's tax collection? Seriously, if they were smart they would have waited at least a couple of years before accusing the city of breaking promises. It's like me accusing my wife of breaking her promise to get the errands run before she even walks out the door.

Sheesh.

The unions seriously squandered their credibility by putting it all on the line and showing they were completely anemic when it came to influencing public opinion. The MAPS 3 numbers were better than the MAPS 1 numbers for the yes side. So I guess the strategy now is to go double or nothing? Or something like that? Why not just be team players and work for the betterment of the whole city than their own respective fiefdoms?

[MGE1977]

Every year at negotiation time our contract begins with a signed committment from both interested parties that they will do their best to come to speedy, fair and amicable agreement to issues and will each do their part to insure that tax dollars meant to provide for the public safety are effectively and rightly used.

In my opinion, this is in keeping with that committment.

I know that the argument is that MIII collections haven't even really begun and already we are crying foul.

During the upswing of the MIII campaign, the Mayor declared that a vote for MAPS would assure more public safety personnel. As politics goes he kept his option open so that at any point in the future in which the city hired a fireman/policeman, he would be upholding his committment. What he was counting on was that the public would not hold his feet to the fire, so to speak, and as such his campaign rhetoric would accomplish the getting of votes, which it did. What I believe is that a good majority of the voting public assumed that what he meant was no loss of protection, and in fact, by what was said, an immediat net gain of public safety personnel. This hasn't happened, staff has in fact been reduced.

I think that it is entirely acceptable to ask our elected officials to talk a straight line. I'm not insinuating that the Mayor lied, but it is relatively obvious that what he said was meant to garner votes - evident in the almost immediate reversal from some city council members upon passage. It is relatively obvious that he wasn't entirely truthful, though he never lied.

Why shouldn't we ask the public to examine both what he said, and what has been done?

A few months back a lot on this site would never have known the struggle that all interested parties undertake almost yearly to assure that the shared committment mentioned above is fulfilled.

Maybe just hear this one out before signing off on it.

[flintysooner]

Every year at negotiation time our contract begins with a signed committment from both interested parties that they will do their best to come to speedy, fair and amicable agreement to issues and will each do their part to insure that tax dollars meant to provide for the public safety are effectively and rightly used.

I bet they all laugh and giggle a lot when they sign it then because it is pretty obvious that neither side gives a flip about anything other than winning.

[MGE1977]

You are entitled to your opinion Flinty.

I do not agree with you.

[LordGerald]

Where's Mick Marshall, Andy, Barnold and Wambo? Surely, they can espouse their union hero wisdom? Or, are they too busy installing a smoke alarm for an olde lady?

[Wambo36]

Interesting story in today's Journal Record:
Disappointed at the responsiveness of the union as portrayed here:
"A spokeswoman for the union who identified herself only as Dana said, “Everything you need to know is on the postcard.” Multiple attempts to reach International Association of Firefighters Local 157 President Phil Sipe and other officials for elaboration were unsuccessful."

Just an FYI Steve, the "spokeswoman for the union" refered to in the story, is a very competent and helpful secretary/receptionist who works at the office there. Hardly a union spokesperson, but I'm sure that's the only falsehood in Mr. Brus's story. LOL. I hope you do a better job of digging up facts for your stories than he did. Hopefully that takes care of some of your disappointment.

[Steve]

During the upswing of the MIII campaign, the Mayor declared that a vote for MAPS would assure more public safety personnel. As politics goes he kept his option open so that at any point in the future in which the city hired a fireman/policeman, he would be upholding his committment. What he was counting on was that the public would not hold his feet to the fire, so to speak, and as such his campaign rhetoric would accomplish the getting of votes, which it did. ...

I think that it is entirely acceptable to ask our elected officials to talk a straight line. I'm not insinuating that the Mayor lied, but it is relatively obvious that what he said was meant to garner votes - evident in the almost immediate reversal from some city council members upon passage. It is relatively obvious that he wasn't entirely truthful, though he never lied.

Why shouldn't we ask the public to examine both what he said, and what has been done?

I hear what you're saying MGE1977. What the mayor did was he went to voters making a pledge on use of the money even though he did not have a council vote or a public discussion with the council on such an action. He did this again when it comes to paying $30 million to OG&E for land on a site he prefers for a new convention center. The folks with OKC Grand Prix LLC have said privately they also were told their deal would go through - even though there had been no council debate or public discussion about the $6.9 million needed up front for the course infrastructure.
Now, that having been said ... with a mailer like this, how does the fire union expect anyone to listen to their message or enter into a dialogue if they're refusing to elaborate on their claims? When I covered City Hall, the union leadership was always responsive to even the harshest questioning - something that was appreciated by reporters.

[Steve]

Well Wambo, it sounds like Mr. Sipe needs to speak to that secretary and set her straight in handling calls from the media. To be fair to Brian, it sounds like she represented herself as the spokesperson by giving that comment. Personally I would have shown up at the union hall in person if I needed to get to a comment from Sipe (and veteran public safety union officials might recall the days when I did just that - even going so far as to crash an FOP meeting during the food basket controversy in the early 90s). So will there be a follow-up on this story?

Once again ... the impact of the loss of Mark Schwartz looms large in how the fire union is fairing in this whole discussion. RIP.

[Wambo36]

So What your saying is, that someone answers a phone and tells a reporter that the only information that she can give him is what is on the mailer, is representing themeselves as a spokesperson? Sounds like quite a leap to me. But then again I'm not a journalist.

[Steve]

Wambo, what I'm GUESSING is that Brian called up, saying he needed to talk to Sipe. He says he made "multiple" attempts to reach Sipe. I'm assuming the union membership elected someone who knows they need to respond to reporters' calls. Sipe chose not to respond, and for whatever reason, the person you're identifying as a receptionist decided the best way to get Brian to quit calling was to tell him the card speaks for itself - she talked to a reporter on the record. She gave a quote. Now, you tell me - did Sipe handle this appropriately? Is this the right way to deal with a media inquiry?

[Platemaker]

Äctually, I would especially expect a UNION secretary of all things say, "Just a moment I'll let you speak to _________," the second someone on the phone said 'reporter.'

[bluedogok]

Wambo, what I'm GUESSING is that Brian called up, saying he needed to talk to Sipe. He says he made "multiple" attempts to reach Sipe. I'm assuming the union membership elected someone who knows they need to respond to reporters' calls. Sipe chose not to respond, and for whatever reason, the person you're identifying as a receptionist decided the best way to get Brian to quit calling was to tell him the card speaks for itself - she talked to a reporter on the record. She gave a quote. Now, you tell me - did Sipe handle this appropriately? Is this the right way to deal with a media inquiry?

Just from what I have read from the outside, the PR aspect of the local fire union seems to be lacking. It seems like someone needs to get their point of view across in a better manner. Sometimes an effective leader of a union may not be the best PR/spokesperson.

[flintysooner]

Just from what I have read from the outside, the PR aspect of the local fire union seems to be lacking. It seems like someone needs to get their point of view across in a better manner. Sometimes an effective leader of a union may not be the best PR/spokesperson.

The alternative is that the viewpoint they project is exactly the one they have: arrogance, intemperance, narcissism, and vengeance.

[Steve]

Um, yeah... again, the loss of Mark Schwartz is felt. He wasn't a pr person - but he was definitely a political sage to union.

[Rover]

The outsider's view of the firefighters and union is that they are indeed nacissistic and obstructionists to OKC development with little regard for public opinion, OR they are very, very, very bad at any kind of PR. They do nothing to gain any sympathy from the public.

[Larry OKC]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it a bit EARLY in the game to start accusing the city of breaking promises? Were these guys expecting a check in their hands within 90 days of the beginning of MAPS 3's tax collection? Seriously, if they were smart they would have waited at least a couple of years before accusing the city of breaking promises. It's like me accusing my wife of breaking her promise to get the errands run before she even walks out the door.

Sheesh.

Not to early at all, as soon as they passed the budget that CUT positions when they had promised that more positions would be ADDED and the MAPS 3 Use Tax would guarantee that NO positions would be cut for at least 2 years....

[Larry OKC]

The unions seriously squandered their credibility by putting it all on the line and showing they were completely anemic when it came to influencing public opinion. The MAPS 3 numbers were better than the MAPS 1 numbers for the yes side. So I guess the strategy now is to go double or nothing? Or something like that? Why not just be team players and work for the betterment of the whole city than their own respective fiefdoms?

I haven't compared actual votes cast so they may have been higher but the percentage was nearly identical (described by reports at the time as "barely" passing).

[andy157]

Where's Mick Marshall, Andy, Barnold and Wambo? Surely, they can espouse their union hero wisdom? Or, are they too busy installing a smoke alarm for an olde lady?

And thats a bad thing?

[andy157]

Not to early at all, as soon as they passed the budget that CUT positions when they had promised that more positions would be ADDED and the MAPS 3 Use Tax would guarantee that NO positions would be cut for at least 2 years....

How soon they forget

[andy157]

Phil Sipe probably didn't know about it since he doesn't live in Oklahoma City.

Sayeth the Lord

[Kerry]

Not to early at all, as soon as they passed the budget that CUT positions when they had promised that more positions would be ADDED and the MAPS 3 Use Tax would guarantee that NO positions would be cut for at least 2 years....

Guarantee?

(Ted) I like your line.
And i like your prices.

But there's a problem.
There's no guarantee on the box.

(Tommy) If they break down, you can call
me at home, even if i'm watching TV.

Callahan has guaranteed
every part sold since .

(Ted) Maybe so, but it's not on the box.
It should always be on the box.

Comforting you, calling out
"I'm good. I'll never let you down."

"But if i do, i'm gonna
make all things better."

(Tommy) Our brake pads are made of
a non-corrosive poly-plated...

(Ted) Son, if you're not talking
about a guarantee, skip it.

My customers need to see that little
label, lookin' at 'em right in the eye.

(Tommy) - Hey, you can get a good look at your butcher...
- No.

(Ted) What?

(Tommy) - Remember, chicken wings.
- Chicken wings?

Alright, uh, you wanna talk
about guarantees, then...

(Ted) Fellas, you just ran out of time.

(Tommy) Chicken wings.

Let's think about
this for a sec, Ted.

Why would someone put a guarantee
on a box? Hmm, very interesting.

(Ted) Go on! I'm listening.

(Tommy) Here's the way i see it, Ted.

A guy puts a fancy guarantee on the box 'cause
he wants you to feel all warm and toasty inside.

(Ted) - Yeah, makes a man feel good.

(Tommy) - Of course it does. Why shouldn't it?

You figure you put that little box
under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy
might come down and leave
a quarter, am i right, Ted?

(Ted) What's your point?

(Tommy) The point is, how do you know
the fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer?
"Building model airplanes" says the
little fairy. Well, we're not buying it.

He sneaks into your house once,
that's all it takes.

Next thing you know there's money missing
off the dresser and your daughter
is knocked up.
I've seen it a hundred times.

(Ted) But why do they put a
guarantee on the box then?

(Tommy) 'Cause they know all they sold
you was a guaranteed piece of ****.

That's all it is, isn't it? Hey, if
you want me to take a dump in a box
and mark it "guaranteed", i will.
I got spare time.