Recently, the Watertown Town Council voted against a third party arbitrator’s award. This award would have settled a contract with our firefighters, who have been working without a contract for over five years. Prior to the vote, a majority of the councilors stated, “…that it would not be fair to other unions in Watertown…” as a reason not to settle the contract.
We are writing to set the record straight and state that a false assumption has been made in the logic that (all) the other unions in Town would be offended if the Town settled with the firefighters. To be clear, the Watertown Educators Association, the Police Association, the Police Supervisors, the Town Hall Associates, the Custodians and Food Service Workers support the Town of Watertown accepting the arbitrator’s decision and thereby settling the firefighters’ contract. No one should have to work without a contract, or a pay raise, for more than five years.
The Firefighters sat at the negotiating table in good faith. The process continued to mediation, which ended in impasse when both parties could not agree. The Firefighters continued to follow statute and bargained in good faith. When an agreement could not be reached, the negotiations were sent to a mediator, which also failed to settle the dispute. Both parties then agreed to give up their bargaining rights to a third party arbitration panel.
The result of the arbitration panel was a decision rendered in November 2014, which laid out terms the third party arbitrator felt was fair to both parties. The decision was binding on both parties, with the one exception that a governing body can vote down the arbitrators award only based on a municipality’s ability to fund the decision. This right was given to cities and towns following Proposition 2 1⁄2.
The exception should not have been invoked to reject the arbitrators decision due to the fact that our Town Manager, Michael Driscoll, publicly stated that the Town has the money to fund the agreement. Furthermore, if any member of the Town Council had approached us before the vote, they would have learned that we stand in support of the Fire Department Contract and the process that was followed. We believe a neutral three-person arbitration panel determined “Fairness.”
The term “award” may sound like the Fire Union is being awarded something and/or that the arbitrator’s decision was one-sided. Let us put that theory to rest too. Any negotiation, by definition, involves compromise by both parties, yet there has been no discussion regarding what the Town received in the proposed settlement. Rest assured, the Town has been awarded a number of items, which most notably include a cap of the firefighters’ sick leave buy-back. This change in contract alone saves the Town over 2 million dollars. This “award” would also more than offset the increase in EMT stipend the Fire Union was awarded, allegedly the Town’s biggest point of contention with the proposed contract settlement.
Please be advised, the Town Unions stand united with our brothers and sisters in the Fire Department. We also stand with the process, which was followed by the Firefighters’ Union: a process that was fair to both parties. Since the Town is on record as having the funds to settle this agreement, the only unfair aspect of the Town Council’s lack of approval is that they agreed to give up their bargaining rights by going to a third party arbitrator and then refused to abide by the decision. Failing to approve the arbitrator’s decision based on false statements that other unions would be offended is insulting to all Town employees as well as the taxpayers who are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for an alleged good faith bargaining process.
It is time to settle this dispute. We respectfully request that the Town Council reconsider its vote and approve the Firefighters Contract.
Debra King, President Watertown Educators Association
Mike Martin, President Watertown Police Association
Justin Hanrahan, President Watertown Police Supervisors
Lori Moran, SEIU Local 888 Town Hall Associates
Steve Casella, President Custodians and Food Service Workers
With all due respect, as a taxpayer, it would be very helpful to have further explanation regarding the details of the issues. For example: (1) the cap on sick leave buy back. For many folks in the private sector you either use or lose sick days and vacation days annually. There is no buy back. Many companies/organizations are moving to a lump sum of days to be used for sick/vacation time i.e., you have X number of days per year to use any way you want. The idea of accruing weeks or months of sick or vacation time and then cashing out (example: a recent Boston Globe article regarding retiring judges) seems fiscally irresponsible and untenable for any logical budget planning. Does this policy carry across all Union contracts? (2). If EMT training is a requirement for the job (I understand it is for new hires) and the Town paid for EMT training for all current firefighters to bring their training up to the standards of compliance, why do the firefighters now expect an EMT stipend? Job knowledge requirements evolve over time. Many professions require continuing education to stay current. In some cases a company/organization may pay for some or all of the cost. In other cases, an individual pays the cost him/herself.
I understand the anger over the break in a good faith effort regarding the arbitration process, but the whole process now seems to be carried out in the media – FB sites, media sites, and newspaper – with very little point-by-point detail to help us all clearly understand the Fire Department issues and the implications for the future. Is anyone (or group) willing to outline the issues pro and con, point by point to educate the community at large? Clear and accurate information, respect, fairness, civility, and accountability set the foundation for a strong and healthy community. Thank you.
First, it makes no sense to keep trying to compare public sector jobs to private sector jobs. Public sector jobs, such as the fire service, are not eligible for any bonuses or even cost of living adjustments (COLA). In a public sector job the union negotiates with the municipality and signs a contract. The contract cannot be adjusted until it expires. When the contract expires, a new negotiation takes place and a new contract is reached.
If there is a change in working conditions, such as when firefighters entered into the Emergency Medical Service (EMS) realm as they did years ago, a stipend is often agreed upon. The Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) stipend for the fire department was agreed upon because, at that time, not all firefighters were EMT’s. Those who were already employed by the department were not contractually obligated to become EMT’s. If they chose not to, they did not receive the stipend. Entering the EMS field required far more training, responsibility, liability, and risk. It also added to the workload and emergency responses immensely. When something of such magnitude was added to the job, the union and municipality negotiated a stipend for that rather than just raise the salary. This is the standard, not the exception. Since the last time the contract was current, the scope of practice for firefighter/EMT’s has increased significantly. With that, as does the training, responsibility, liability, risk, and workload. If you disagree that raising those limits should be compensated then I’m not sure what I could say to you.
As far as the sick leave buyback, that was something that was the norm for public sector workers for decades as it discouraged overuse of sick time and that helped with the towns’ budget (less overtime dollars spent). The Globe loves a good smear story but often neglects to remind readers that these were contracts that were negotiated by both unions and elected officials. When an individual takes a job they look at all aspects and then decide whether or not to take it. If firefighters have a contract that grants them certain things and then the municipality wants to remove them, the union and the town negotiate what they deem is fair to both parties. If they cannot come to an agreement, they go to mediation, which they did. If mediation proves to bear no fruit, which it did not, they go to arbitration, which they did. As the fire department is not allowed to strike if an agreement cannot be reached, state arbitration is the only solution. Per proposition 2 ½ a municipality can refuse the arbitration ruling if the town is not in a financial position to fund it. Per the town manager himself this is not the case.
Part of the arbitrator’s decision is that the sick leave buyback has been slashed dramatically. The arbitrator also deemed it fair that the EMT stipend was raised in lieu of a salary raise.
I’m sorry that you feel this has had to play out via social media, but that has become the norm in todays society. It does not help that much of the town council’s discussion takes place at closed door “Executive Sessions” where they meet privately with the town manager and the public is never able to find out what was said. I myself have reached out to my councilor’s and have yet to have one respond back.
Councilor Dushku is the only one who I have seen go to social media to give his perspective, and based on the response by the fire chief, it is quite misinformed.
At the end of the day, the state put a process in place to resolve disputes exactly like this one. All parties involved followed this process. Both sides gave up their negotiating rights when they agreed to arbitration. Unfortunately, the town council did not like the decision and is now being dishonorable.
As most are just hearing about this situation now, it is because the fire department made a conscious decision to remain silent and trust the process designed to handle this situation. Once the town council struck it down and did not hold up their end of the deal, they felt the citizens should know.
The answer is simple, be honorable, do the right thing, and move on.
It appears as though the Town no longer has a leg to stand on. It’s time for the councillors to come to their senses and give the firefighters their well deserved contract.
First, it makes no sense to keep trying to compare public sector jobs to private sector jobs. Public sector jobs, such as the fire service, are not eligible for any bonuses or even cost of living adjustments (COLA). In a public sector job the union negotiates with the municipality and signs a contract. The contract cannot be adjusted until it expires. When the contract expires, a new negotiation takes place and a new contract is reached.
If there is a change in working conditions, such as when firefighters entered into the Emergency Medical Service (EMS) realm as they did years ago, a stipend is often agreed upon. The Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) stipend for the fire department was agreed upon because, at that time, not all firefighters were EMT’s. Those who were already employed by the department were not contractually obligated to become EMT’s. If they chose not to, they did not receive the stipend. Entering the EMS field required far more training, responsibility, liability, and risk. It also added to the workload and emergency responses immensely. When something of such magnitude was added to the job, the union and municipality negotiated a stipend for that rather than just raise the salary. This is the standard, not the exception. Since the last time the contract was current, the scope of practice for firefighter/EMT’s has increased significantly. With that, as does the training, responsibility, liability, risk, and workload. If you disagree that raising those limits should be compensated then I’m not sure what I could say to you.
As far as the sick leave buyback, that was something that was the norm for public sector workers for decades as it discouraged overuse of sick time and that helped with the towns’ budget (less overtime dollars spent). The Globe loves a good smear story but often neglects to remind readers that these were contracts that were negotiated by both unions and elected officials. When an individual takes a job they look at all aspects and then decide whether or not to take it. If firefighters have a contract that grants them certain things and then the municipality wants to remove them, the union and the town negotiate what they deem is fair to both parties. If they cannot come to an agreement, they go to mediation, which they did. If mediation proves to bear no fruit, which it did not, they go to arbitration, which they did. As the fire department is not allowed to strike if an agreement cannot be reached, state arbitration is the only solution. Per proposition 2 ½ a municipality can refuse the arbitration ruling if the town is not in a financial position to fund it. Per the town manager himself this is not the case.
Part of the arbitrator’s decision is that the sick leave buyback has been slashed dramatically. The arbitrator also deemed it fair that the EMT stipend was raised in lieu of a salary raise.
I’m sorry that you feel this has had to play out via social media, but that has become the norm in todays society. It does not help that much of the town council’s discussion takes place at closed door “Executive Sessions” where they meet privately with the town manager and the public is never able to find out what was said. I myself have reached out to my councilor’s and have yet to have one respond back.
Councilor Dushku is the only one who I have seen go to social media to give his perspective, and based on the response by the fire chief, it is quite misinformed.
At the end of the day, the state put a process in place to resolve disputes exactly like this one. All parties involved followed this process. Both sides gave up their negotiating rights when they agreed to arbitration. Unfortunately, the town council did not like the decision and is now being dishonorable.
As most are just hearing about this situation now, it is because the fire department made a conscious decision to remain silent and trust the process designed to handle this situation. Once the town council struck it down and did not hold up their end of the deal, they felt the citizens should know.
The answer is simple, be honorable, do the right thing, and move on.
I am not sure who I am addressing with my reply, Nick or Paul, as your responses are exactly the same. Thank you very much for your detailed, even-handed response. My concern about the issue playing out in social media is getting the full picture regarding the issues at hand. Our “newspaper” leaves a lot to be desired and some of the FB rants don’t add anything to most people’s understanding of what’s really going on.
I absolutely agree that contracts must be honored, but also recognize that as the times change contracts change. I also agree that people should be fairly compensated for their work and the skills they bring to the job. The question is how to do so effectively and fairly. I would guess that the number of fires have gone down given stricter building codes and safety advances and that the number of EMS service calls have gone up given traffic/bicycle accidents, an aging population, opiate issues in the community, and the increasing number of 911 calls. In my own neighborhood, when the engines roar up the street, it has been for EMS calls. Please correct me if I am wrong. Therefore the evolution in job responsibilities. And yes, silly as it may sound, from the time we are little kids, it’s in our collective conscious to view firefighters as heroes.
As to comparing public and private sector jobs, pick up any newspaper and read how wages are flat, pensions (what’s that people ask) have been wiped out by 401k’s that companies may or may not contribute to, employee medical insurance contributions have greatly increased, and the constant pressure on employees to do more with less, etc. People of all ages have been down-sized, wiped out, or frozen out of jobs for a myriad of reasons. This last recession hurt a lot of people/families who may never recover given the ever-changing employment scene. The private sector jobs are not necessarily filled with bonuses, COLA’s , overtime, and job security. You can be here today and gone tomorrow through no fault of your own.
My questions were not posited to have an us vs. them, public vs. private sector debate but to gain some understanding of: the contract issues at hand, the implications for sustainable budget planning, the roadblocks to resolving the issues, and how to move on in a fair, proactive manner for both the firefighters and the community-at-large.
Again, I truly appreciate your response. We need to create to more opportunities for Q & A and dialogue in Watertown before things flare up. And as messy as the process can get, I believe that most people do want to do the right thing. Best, Elodia
Ha! Sorry for the confusion. I had tried to post the message the other night and hours later it still had not shown up so then I had a friend try posting it (I thought time was of the essence) to no avail, then the following morning YIKES! the dreaded double post!
I agree with you, the “newspaper” in town is pretty embarrassing. To me it is nothing more that a tool to find out what lunches being served at the senior center and which old high school friends passed or got arrested that week.
You are spot on about time and contracts changing. Had the town manager settled the contracts back in 2009 you and I wouldn’t ever be having this conversation. Even though it takes two to tangle, anyone close to this situation is well aware that the town manager takes this personally and will do anything he can to make this difficult for the fire department. Just talk to some of the firefighters who have been involved in this process. They will tell you how the manager never attended even ONE of the bargaining/mediation meetings. His method is to send his designee. This way nothing can ever be agreed upon in a timely manner. To me that does not seem like ‘good faith’ bargaining. Rather, a way to drag the process out.
Part of the bargaining process is to recognize that the job and work environments change. And when that happens, a new deal is reached. When something has been a part of the job for decades, such as sick leave buy back, and the time comes for it to go, both parties negotiate a way to make it palatable for the town, and the department.
As far as the private sector stuff such as flat wages, 401K’s, medical insurance, etc. it really is apples to oranges. Our ‘if it bleeds it leads’ media’s goal is to cause controversy and get people riled up. That is what keeps people tuning in. What they often fail to report about jobs like the fire service is that what is agreed is what you get. There is no opportunity, at all, for a firefighter to increase his salary over what the contract says. They cannot change their situation, no matter what’s going on, until a new contract is negotiated. When times are prosperous it is not uncommon to hear citizens telling firefighters they are “crazy” for taking a job with such a low salary for the risk involved. Then, once the economy takes a bad turn, it’s “those guys have it made” and terms like “Cadillac benefits” start getting thrown around.
As far as the private sector “here today, gone tomorrow” that is true. When someone takes a public sector union job, they are trading the potential to earn a high salary for the security of working for a fair wage. As far as the 401K’s, people thought they had found better ways to fund retirement and they stopped staying at their jobs. Back in the 90’s I knew many professionals who just kept jumping from company to company, always looking to ‘climb that ladder’. A firefighter takes a job and an oath and plans on retiring from that job. They fund their own pensions because they know that the firefighters on their department are not leaving for better positions and the young guys will fund the old. I know that this is rare today, but it works and needs to be respected.
The real issue, in my opinion, is what is going on in these “Executive Sessions”. How have taxes gone up multiple times well over 2.5 percent with out a vote? To claim that the town has seen “tremendous growth” is a farce. Are we developing new land?, building new roads and bridges?, hiring more workers?? No, we are letting developers buy lots where 5-6 houses used to stand and put up 100+ condo units. Nothing better for a towns budget than condos, but our taxes still go up well over the legal limit?? We have hotels coming in, new liquor licenses for new restaurants, malls being redeveloped, but our taxes go up? Just what is it that the manager says to these councilors behind closed doors that frightens them to the point where they will never so much as question one of his decisions?
The one benefit to this situation with the fire department is that Watertown finally seems to be waking up. Old Watertown has not shown up to vote in town elections for years. I think and hope that they will next fall. Hopefully, some candidates with integrity and courage will step up to challenge the embarrassing lot we have now.