participate like civil humans or perish, lets move on:
1. People have brought up the idea of voting to increase dues slightly to buils up a treasury within the local, what do people think about that?
2. In the future have we thought about things like synchronising, the times at which contracts come up across counties? taking a page out of UNITE/HERE's playbook.
3. what are some new things people would like to see the union offer? I know I've spoken with some people about things like re-imbursements for school textbooks.
4. What would we like to see bargained for in the future? I've heard domestic partnership and a difference between PTO/Vacation.
__________________
"Do they owe us a living? Of course the fu**ing do!" -Crass
1. I don't think we need to consider raising dues at this time. Let's see if members can come together and build a structure, cooperate, and have elections after the by-laws are done. After there's an e-board and democratic mechanisms in place, this can be revisited if members want to.
2. SEIU 250 has "synchronized" hospital contracts. If I recall correctly, most expire when our CBA does. Our counties are "synchronized" by the achievment of the CBA. Some county representatives are stateing they would prefer to split off than be IAEP. As far as a national "synchronization" of contracts with AMR, them's are fightin' words.
3. It's way to soon to consider dabbling with monies from dues for education. IAEP does have a scholarship program, so does SEIU. We should always have proposals for AMR to assist their employees careers. In Monterey we have a "school schedule" that helps employees navigate EMS working hours and school. AMR also has a scholarship program. Proposing no interest loans is something to explore.
4. There should be separate earnings for PTO and Sick time. This was shot down at last negotiations because AMR thought we already had entirely too much time off. Hence, the compromises they had to make in PTO usage to accomodate people being sick. Now they are trying to be more strict with PTO, and track people's sick calls. I think that now that they have dealt with this mess, they might consider separating the two. That way vacations are more likely to be planned for, and if someone has used up all their sick days they might have to use a vacation day, or not be compensated. Much easier for them to track "patterns". I'm sure there are downsides I haven't considered.
Now the question of insurance for domestic partnerships is "fun and games" with AMR. Our insurance plan covers this. AMR says they won't offer it unless a county requires it in their RFP. Monterey provides this for their county employees. The director of the Department of Health did not want to put it in the RFP. It's not over yet, timing is everything. However, I think there should be room for movement on this issue with AMR.
-- Edited by Play with My Money at 20:38, 2004-10-06
I think that it should be mandatory to raise chickens before you can become a union member.
I think that we should definately get six sick days added to our current PTO.
I think sychronized contracts are a good idea.
The only new thing that I want my union to offer is consistency with meetings and representation. Oh and don't forget the severe punishment for traitors.
Here's another ponderable. Should Supervisors be allowed in the union? I see plusses and minuses. I remember early nemsa thought it a good idea.
The reclassification of exempt and non-exempt employees went into effect August 15th via the Labor Commission secondary to Bush's attempt to play with FLSA. Essentially, for our point, supervisors are not considered management. They are classified as non-exempt employees able to earn overtime.
Now the hitch with supervisors, right off the top, is that in our previous union by-laws a member can not initiate discipline on another member. All of the other qualities of "management" outlined by AMR are not in the supervisor realm.
Now, becoming a supervisor is a type of promotion. It is a place for tired old horses to go who have a lot of knowledge but can't push a guerney around at 0300hrs anymore. Are there stipulations that would make this work?
I know AMR is dead set against it for, of course, financial reasons. One being they want to keep putting more and more "management" responsibilities on Sups because they don't want to hire enough people to run the operation effectively.
Supervisors should be field advocates and tend to the smooth operation of the day, in my opinion.
If this were the case, the workforce would have to have a say in whom would supervise. If you want a supervisor to be an advocate for the field, the field should help select the advocate. I support this idea and believe the supervisor would be much more effective if they were in part selected by the field. Most supervisors are alienated because the field does not participate in placing them into that role. Supervisors come and go and when they go, they usually keep on going. It is a wasteful cycle. I like this idea quite a bit.
There could be an interview panel, much like how the fire service does oral boards when chiefs are selected, and has the labor president participate. Captains are part of the union. It would be wise to look at the strengths and weaknesses of that. But, how I understand it, a captain essentially writes an IR when an incident occurs, then it goes up the chain to Battalion Chief. Then, the firefighter has union representation. There's always the downfalls of power-trippers and abusers, certainly in management positions too. The best safeguards we can come up with, that AMR could agree to, would have to be considered.
When we get to talking about the contract, I would like to see comp time worked in there as well as separate sick/PTO days.
But, going back to the by-laws, I'm not real big on the idea of supervisors in the mix. We already allow room for alternate supervisors within the rank and file.
Again, as far as finances go, I don't think we should push for a raise in dues, even if it is below what we were paying for before. I am concerned about our start-up costs, as I am sure you folks are as well.
I have mixed feelings on the supervisor issue. On one hand it would keep AMR from doing what they did in oregon and moving in Supe's from all over to fill spots vaccated in a strike and then backfilling all the local sports with alt supes until the threat of strike is over. However I think that supervisors need the ability to use progressive discipline in order to be effective. Our supes are not really like FD captains who are a part of the FF union. Our supes operate more like battalion chiefs and battalion chiefs have thier own union to keep the disciplinarians seperate from the disciplined. One option would be to allow the supervisors to establish their own local made up of only supes. I dont know how that could be accomplished or if it is even possible but it is one idea. I do think that taking away a supes ability to hand out discipline as neccesary does away with their authority. There is already very little respect for supes in general and I have seen many employees violate policy over and over again because they feel nothing will come of it. Why take away the supes ability to discipline people for repeated problems and virtually guarantee that people wont comply with policies they dont agree with.
I would support the supes forming their own local and once we have our bylaws in place and we are up and running I would be happy to look into how we could get them some union protection. They do deserve more than the abilty for AMR to dispose of them for any reason they choose.
__________________
"It's time to awake, get up and fight, fight for mankind, live for a cause" The Pilfers
Supervisors don't reign discipline. They have limited ability to discipline. Surrender that menial power and bring them into the union to be advocates for the field and for management. It is a go between job of communication. That is it. Communicate. Not terminate. Jesus Harold Christ you guys, discipline?
1.Raising Dues....Absolutely Yes.... Raise the dues now to more than the proposed $32.80 a month to the level they are now. It is more like repealing a tax cut than a dues increase. Opponents may cry "it's a broken campaign promise" and yes it could be a credibility issue..... but we need to start out this union as strong as possible. Money is power. Lowering dues now only to raise them next year or later will also be difficult to sell and puts us that much further behind. Why wait and risk getting financially behind? Let's get ahead now. And we don't have to spend it all now. There are banks. This all is up to the members anyhow when they vote to ratify the bylaws as I assume our dues structure will be included in the bylaws. (I hate to assume anything......)
2.PTO/vacation separation...don't know....
3.Syncronized contracts...sounds good
4.Domestic Partners Benefits...YES! This is simply a civil rights issue. Domestic partners are entitled to equal rights and should not be discriminated against because of sexual orientation. (No, I'm not gay ...."not that there's anything wrong with that....")
Just blogging along after getting off duty 4 hours late....gotta love it......
Agreed Re: discipline vs. communication. this is why them having their own local seems odd. sets up and artificial boundary. means they are less responsive to us, more apt ro favor discipline over communication. re-inforces hierarchy.
__________________
"Do they owe us a living? Of course the fu**ing do!" -Crass
What I have observed with fire departments are Battalion Chiefs either operate as a field supervisor (large departments) or they are middle management (small departments). AMR has been attempting to go with the small department model.
The field supervisors for AMR should not be forced to be quasi-managers. They should not have to do all the dirty work. They have enough on their plate just dealing with day to day operations and field concerns.
A supervisor needs to be able to have crews work in the system efficiently, getting to work on time, out in the system quickly, insuring units are ready for service. Progressive discipline is not their concern. If an employee fails to change their detrimental working habits after being counseled about it, the supervisor can IR it and send it up the chain.
There are fire unions that include Battalion Chiefs in their associations. Some are limited to Chiefs that oversee programs and do not work with individuals. Other organizations have included the Battalion Chiefs in the union, rewritten the job description of the BC to insure that the discipline is awarded by the management level chiefs. They base the discipline on IR being passed up the chain. The Captain and BC are there to keep employees on task and out of trouble.
I do think supervisors should be under the watchful eye of the union. I believe it would be helpful to pass up information to management that truly benefits our conditions in the field.
