Recruitment

REM1: Task 2

REM1: Task 2 Memo on Firefighters’ Reaction to Planned Cuts in Overtime Pay

PAGE 1

PAGE 2

Memo on Firefighters’ Reaction to Planned Cuts in Overtime Pay

To: Maria Valdez, City Fire Commissioner 

From: Lieutenant Isaac Haines, Steward, Local 102 of the United Federation of Firefighters (firefighters’ union) 

Date: July 1, 2020 

Re: Planned Cuts in Firefighters’ Overtime  

Status: Under Consideration 

 

I am writing on behalf of the members of Local 102 of the United Federation of Firefighters to report our deep disapproval of and concern with the mayor’s planned cut in overtime for our members. For several years, the city’s firefighters have been called upon to work long shifts and put in extra hours due to increasing wildfire risk and the mayor’s newly-imposed efforts to step up patrols in the most high-risk areas. Loyal staff have sacrificed personal time with their families to ensure the public’s safety and comply with the mayor’s directives. According to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the city’s contract with the United Association of Firefighters, all non-exempt firefighters working over 40 hours per week must be paid at a rate of 1.5 times their current hourly wage. The overtime pay earned by these firefighters was legal and necessary given the city’s needs and the mayor’s directives. 

 

We have now learned that, due to public disclosure of the salaries earned by a few firefighters, the mayor has ordered that 25 new firefighters be hired and overtime hours be drastically reduced. This decision was made arbitrarily without consulting the staff or their union representatives. We believe that this move will place the public at risk by placing rookie firefighters in place of experienced firefighters, lower the morale of experienced firefighters, and cause financial hardship for experienced firefighters and their families. Due to the lack of new firefighters, as well as ongoing retirements and transfers from the force, some firefighters work double shifts on a regular basis with no end in sight. If some firefighters have chosen to use the extra pay earned to improve living conditions for themselves or their families, it seems a reasonable exchange for the risk and the extra hours spent on duty. At a recent press conference, the mayor was overheard to comment, “If the city firefighters can’t balance their household budgets once they’re off the gravy train, that’s their problem.” This position reflects a lack of understanding and appreciation for the firefighters’ loyalty and hard work. 

 

If city management refuses to work with our union to develop a plan that will gradually reduce workload and overtime, unfortunate consequences could occur. While official strikes require court permission, unofficial actions such as work slowdowns, “sick outs” (firefighters call in sick en masse on specified days), high absenteeism, and refusal to accept any overtime work are at the firefighters’ discretion. Experienced firefighters must also train rookie firefighters for one year without additional pay after the latter’s graduation from the academy—I cannot guarantee the current firefighter’s willingness to accomplish this unpaid task or the quality of said training under the present circumstances. Finally, I cannot rule out unauthorized, illegal actions such as wildcat strikes or sit-down strikes, although these are unlikely. These problems can be avoided completely if city management is willing to rethink its position on impending cuts in overtime and meets with union representatives to arrive at a mutually agreeable compromise.