Was It Something We Said, BFD?
We’ve got to give it up to the Boston Fire Department. It’s been raining so hard that we almost decided to eat a lunch comprised of whatever is available in the vending machine at Boston Daily HQ, rather than braving the elements. But the firefighters didn’t let the drizzle stop them from turning out in force to protest the media at the State House.
We certainly respect them for that. Although the firefighters aren’t feeling the love.
Firefighters’ Union president Ed Kelly called out the Globe, Herald, CommonWealth magazine, and even Boston Daily for our stories about “unprofessional” firefighters.
“We do what needs to be done,” Kelly said into a microphone. “We ask one thing in return: respect.”
The crowd of firefighters chanted: “What do we want? Respect! When do we want it? Now!”
Let’s be clear about one thing—we respect the work firefighters do. It’s dangerous stuff, and the men and women who do it deserve to be well-paid and appreciated.
But shouldn’t it bother the firefighters who play by the rules to hear endless stories about their colleagues giving them a bad name? On Boston Daily, Michele McPhee wrote about Tony “Machine Gun” Gaston, who was allegedly fishbowling in a BFD vehicle.
The Globe has reported on firefighters abusing the city’s generous disability package and just this weekend both daily papers had the story about a firefighter who allegedly bought OxyContin from a known drug dealer.
The negative media coverage is not a vast conspiracy. As McPhee said here, the Local 718 brought this on itself.
Now, it’s officially open season. . . . And it’s hard to say this is a bad thing. The bottom line is, rooting out corruption and dirty dealings is the ultimate way to honor the dedicated, hardworking firefighters who are getting frustrated at the bad rap Local 718 is getting on the front pages—a rap it brought on itself.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Just some information, The BFD is comprised of over 1500 active and retired members (I include the retired members numbers because if a retired member is arrested it will be published that he WAS A BOSTON FIREFIGHTER). With that in mind, do the math. Any business with 1500 employees is bound to have their few bad apples, but they should not be the poster children for the organization. As far as the Union “protecting” the bad apples, The Union is bound by LAW, and can be financially liable, as in HUGE FAILURE TO REPRESENT LAWSUIT! (becaused they take union dues similar to a retainer for an attorney). This does not mean that they will try to get the guy out of jail, or have the charges dropped, but ensure that due process is exercised, and that his contractual rights are not violated (adminisntrative leave etc). If he is found guilty in court he will most likely be fired, the Union has no control of influence here, and if he is aquitted he could receive his job back at the disgression of the Management. As far as drug testing, YES WE WILL ACCEPT IT! But drugs are not killing our members at alarming rates, drugs are bad, but more of our gues suffer cardiac and cancer related deaths, several never even reach retirement..These are the real issues here. If the city will commit to spending money on safety equipment and training, better and early cancer screenings and yearly physical exams, mabe we cound come to an agreement on drug testing. The city just wants the drug testing, and does not care about ANY OTHER ISSUES OF FIREFIGHTER SAFETY! Especially if it requires a financial commitment. They do not want to bargain. This is nothing new. What most people who have never been involved with Unions don’t understand is that under collective bargaining every part of our contract is always up for negotiating- this includes hours worked, shifts, schedules,days off, vacation days,sick days, basiclly everything that most non-union employees get when they join a job. If we let the city start drug testing without negoitating a COMPLETE contract with us, we have violated our own contract, and could establish a past practice, so when the city decides they want to take away ALL our vacation time, they can do it without negotiating.(hypathetical example but I hope it makes sense).. I hope this clears some of the air, thanks for reading.