Dara Wandel from
Parkway Central · 20h ago
Mr. Sanderson, I'm not going to argue with your math. It's too early in the morning and a cursory glance indicates it is generally accurate. As far as it goes. And I won't argue that IF the City's … View more only focus were the dollars, paying for overtime does cost less, in the short run, than hiring. However, I believe you have missed the point.
Mr. Sanderson, I'm not going to argue with your math. It's too early in the morning and a cursory glance indicates it is generally accurate. As far as it goes. And I won't argue that IF the City's … View more only focus were the dollars, paying for overtime does cost less, in the short run, than hiring. However, I believe you have missed the point.
I said it was
about the money for the FIREFIGHTERS and the
UNION...not for the City. While it is financially costly to budget and sustain a high level of overtime
per year, and taxpayers have the right
to be concerned, the overtime number is
an indicator of many more problems than just a
strain on a segment of the budget. Not the least being evidence of inadequate staffing, combined
with inefficient scheduling, a potential
negative impact on safety, and a failure
to maximize overall effectiveness within a shift. As a taxpayer, 35,000 hours of overtime
sustained over multiple (past) years, was
alarming for reasons beyond the dollars
involved. Especially since those dollars only "buy" you the status quo. And, at a
time when Arlington is at the threshold
of even greater growth, requiring a
greater need for superior Fire and Police
services, the status quo is NOT acceptable.
Further, it is the
Mayor and Council that bear a fiduciary
responsibility to voters, as well as an administrative obligation to put tax dollars to best use.
Civil Service would never share that
burden. And a Civil Service Commission
would never look at the larger administrative
picture. It is designed NOT to. Those who manage a
business know what I mean. Within a
department of approx. 318 employees, 35,000 hours is unsustainable for reasons far more critical
than the budget.
Productivity
falls, performance suffers in subtle ways,
safety suffers, burnout increases, and good employees are lost as morale goes into the dumper. And you
risk being a handful of employees away
from not being able to staff or function
appropriately at all. You can only shuffle things and people so much, shifts and programming,
and the special demands of events or
drills or training, before you encounter
a wall called the "law of diminished
returns." This is not the sort of thing you want to watch play out. Especially not in a crisis or
emergency.
If the
firefighters, or their Union were asking for needed equipment, more trained firefighters, special
training opportunities and the like, I
would Vote Yes. Even if it did mean a
small tax increase. But, they are not asking for any of these things. They are asking for Civil
Service. Which is what told me, almost
immediately, this was politics and that
something was rotten regarding the Union. Or call it an association if you sleep better.
From an employee's
standpoint, it's great to have a
generous amount of overtime available and the extra money routinely in your paycheck. But, that extra
income comes at a price. To
firefighters, to their families, and to the
Department. A price far higher than the dollars themselves. Especially if this
practice is sustained over a long period
of years. As it previously was within AFD.
Again, remember I
am not speaking about simply saving
dollars. And when I wrote "it's all about the money," I was speaking to the perception
of firefighters in non-management
positions. And the direct and constant,
and false, Union message to their firefighter
members and now to voters that firefighters had received a "pay cut." Union officers seized on
the overtime issue to sow discontent
within the ranks, convincing members
that they were being slighted, mistreated, and not listened to. When in fact, they have received several
raises within the time frame that
overtime was being systematically reduced.
I'm not going to waste time, again, on the
provably false Union claims against the City regarding spousal benefits or failing to support
reservists or scheduling creating safety
concerns.
Raises were
provided because firefighters had earned them
and certainly deserved them. During the same period, empty slots were filled with newly hired
firefighters and scheduling was adjusted
to get closer to ideal numbers. To
anticipate the next objection, yes, new hires were/are frequently “green" and need to be
assigned and trained appropriately
through their probationary employment
periods. But, the majority of this hiring was done approx. two years ago and
most of those hired are now off, or soon
will come off of probation. Where would we be, today, had these hiring steps NOT been taken two years
ago? The hiring would still have been
necessary but the Department would be
two years further behind the power curve. As for changing
the employment status of "Chiefs" or any other
senior Department member to effect needed
budget savings, I have to ask why you would be so quick to go there? At minimum, I'm sure they would
object, rightly, to being referred to as
little more than a cost center. And your
argument regarding moving an employee from
"exempt" to "non exempt", or vice versa, to save money is specious. Pending and
existing changes in federal employment
law may necessite certain changes.
Regardless, exempt
employees may not be worked beyond
mandated levels without fair compensation, including overtime, just because they are salaried
rather than hourly. And, just like all
firefighters, Chiefs have received well
deserved raises.
So, yes, as you
have so eloquently proven, this vote boils
down to money. But only according to the Union and their members. You have spent a great deal of time
on the math. But your failure
to acknowledge real issues undermine your
argument. Especially since the Union is claiming, simultaneously, that firefighters received a
pay cut AND that staffing and scheduling
issues are compromising safety of
firefighters and citizens. It can't be both. Although I do know the complaints about working with
multiple green new hires, and
instituting quick response vehicles, etc.,
that the Union points to as deficiencies or “dangerous.” Which I find to be
politically fabricated claims. So, I
have to wonder WHICH of the two opposing
claims apply? Where is the concern for staffing
minimums per shift and the compromise of safety when talking about overtime losses and the assumption of
entitlement to those extra dollars?
Where does the concern about lost
overtime dollars fit when complaining about manpower availability, bodies on fire trucks, shift
minimums, and safety issues?
In addition to it
boiling down to money in the minds of
firefighters, I have also said, repeatedly, it is ultimately about risking an increase in Union clout.
Civil Service addresses only issues
related to hiring, promoting,
disciplining, and/or suspending employees. Nothing else. It certainly does not address Unions or directly
empower them. But, it does,
indirectly. Part 143 uses
basic criteria and provides a limited, archaic
selection model. It relies primarily on a test score with additional points given for years of
seniority. A health exam and age
requirements are thrown in for obvious reasons.
Part 143 requires
little else for hiring. And not much more
for promoting. Those minimums can be upgraded, but only at the discretion of a majority opinion of a
three member Commission. At the same
time, it strictly restricts conditions
for discipline or suspension and makes outright
firing in worst case scenarios virtually impossible. It provides only for permanent suspension in the
most grievous situations which, as we
have seen demonstrated in Fort Worth,
can be reversed years later by a single mediator, and to devastating, punitive effect to the
employer City. Even when the wrong doing
is admitted and criminal. In this
context, arguing over the meaning of the word "permanent" as used in Part
143's "permanent employment"
statement, or when interpreting
"permanent suspension" becomes
demonstrably open to dangerous interpretation. Keep in mind that, in today's world, there is a great deal
of other law, not in existence when the
Civil Service model was conceived in the
late 1930s, that aggressively protects
employees from mistreatment or discrimination or harassment or abuse unfair hiring practices and many
other workplace evils. Civil Service is
the lesser of the choices available for
such protections. Worse, it is immune to many, more current, State and Federal laws governing
independent workplace administrations
and currently protecting non Civil
Service employees. This immunity is one key reason Unions love Civil Service.
Regarding relying on the judgement of a three member appointed Commission which, time has shown, in City after City, and situation after situation, to be fallible and unreliable, this is an area where Unions can and do exert influence. This is not to say Commissions don't try to do their best. But three appointees are no good substitute for the combined expertise of Fire Chiefs, a City Manager, a Mayor, and a full City Council, and existing law, when it comes to administering a municipal department. However, reducing hiring, promoting, discipline, and suspension policy to their lowest common denominator, as represented by Civil Service, and mandating the finality of judgement of only two out of three people, becomes soil that fosters the growth of Unions. Civil Service has long remained a Union preference for obvious reasons. The standards are minimal and simple but, ironically, can be open to interpretation in application. Especially if you only have two out of three people to convince or confuse...or influence. Or, as in some instances, a single mediator. Confusion, prevarication, misdirection, and sowing discontent are the cudgels that Unions use to great effect. Both inside and outside of their meeting hall. Keeping in mind also that today's Union does not exist to solve problems. They exist to acquire money and power.
Regarding relying on the judgement of a three member appointed Commission which, time has shown, in City after City, and situation after situation, to be fallible and unreliable, this is an area where Unions can and do exert influence. This is not to say Commissions don't try to do their best. But three appointees are no good substitute for the combined expertise of Fire Chiefs, a City Manager, a Mayor, and a full City Council, and existing law, when it comes to administering a municipal department. However, reducing hiring, promoting, discipline, and suspension policy to their lowest common denominator, as represented by Civil Service, and mandating the finality of judgement of only two out of three people, becomes soil that fosters the growth of Unions. Civil Service has long remained a Union preference for obvious reasons. The standards are minimal and simple but, ironically, can be open to interpretation in application. Especially if you only have two out of three people to convince or confuse...or influence. Or, as in some instances, a single mediator. Confusion, prevarication, misdirection, and sowing discontent are the cudgels that Unions use to great effect. Both inside and outside of their meeting hall. Keeping in mind also that today's Union does not exist to solve problems. They exist to acquire money and power.
Then consider that
Civil Service, in general, has been
around since the late 1930s, becoming a common employment model in the early 1940s when few acceptable
models even existed. Part 143 became a
Texas supplement adopted and adapted in
Texas sometime in the 1970s, specifically to
address Fire and Police Department employees. When you look at those early years, those times, and the
sizes and needs and lack of modern
sophistication of Texas cities and their
Fire or Police departments, it is not surprising that Civil Service, and the later Part 143, were looked
on favorably.
Let's face it,
there was little other employment
"law" at the time and all manner of "bad" practice existed. Civil
Service provided a basic and legal
structure where no other existed. Few cities
saw the need to develop their own structure for hiring and promoting and disciplining if Civil Service
could do the work for them and, at the
same time, provide the legitimacy of
Law. Today, however,
the only remaining champions of Part 143
Civil Service for municipal police and fire departments are the police and fire associations/unions. Why?
Because other State and Federal law has
long since surpassed Civil Service in
protecting employees and applicants, as well as
instructing employers in practical and legal requirements.
Arlington does not
manage its own administration simply
because it is more reliable and definitive, or more inclusive. Or because it gives them
administrative control. All are true. But,
we must recall that until fairly recently
(relatively speaking) Arlington was a small, uncomplicated town with only a volunteer fire department.
Arlington's swift growth, and its need
for sophisticated and agile police and
fire services is far more recent than those of
historically larger cities such as Fort Worth. So, Arlington leaders back in "the day," rejected
the easy choice of going Civil Service
because of a desire to build something
far better, more demanding, and more
conducive to the challenges presented by the City’s predicted rapid growth.
True, other even
"younger" cities have adopted
Civil Service. Like Plano, for example. Their choice. But, Plano remains a much smaller city with fewer
demands on City Services than Arlington.
And Arlington voters have wisely
rejected going Civil Service on two previous occasions. Plano may one day
regret their choice. It has been
published, independently by a regional news source, that many Texas city governments now look
enviously at Arlington and Arlington’s
success in building a strong Fire
Department while avoiding the yoke of Civil Service. They wonder, out loud, how Arlington voters could
even consider taking such a backward
step.
So, I stand by my
original statements and recommendations. This is all about
the money. For the Union and for
firefighters. Not the City. And, it's all about clout and prestige and increased control. For the
Union. Not the City. Civil Service
really offers nothing of value for the
individual firefighter. For the City, this is about continuing to set high standards and provide
excellent services for citizens, to select
and promote employees based on multiple
criteria, rather than a minimal few or as
approved by only two of three members of a Commission. For the City it's about maximizing the
effectiveness and impact of every tax
dollar committed to City services. For
No Voters, this is about properly supporting our firefighters in ways that actually DO support
them. Not in ways that only support the
political agenda and ambitions of a
Union. Edited 18h agoThank Roel thanked Dara
