Firefighters Vote to Defer Raises, DPW Union Votes Against Deferred Raises, 3 CSOs Lose Jobs

Written By: Robert Cox

Local 273 voted Thursday to defer contractual raises.

The Journal News is reporting the story which is nice to see; maybe there New Year’s Resolution is to start reporting more actively on these sorts of things.

The city’s fire union has voted to push back raises for a year to spare the jobs of six colleagues, while the public works union voted to keep raises and will lose three people.

What they do not mention is that the deferral money will be paid upon retirement with the caveat that if a firefighter is laid off anytime in 2010 the deal is off and the contractual pay rise would be retroactive. The official vote was 102 – 30.

5 thoughts on “Firefighters Vote to Defer Raises, DPW Union Votes Against Deferred Raises, 3 CSOs Lose Jobs”

  1. Unions
    “A word to the wise is sufficient, but a word to a fool is wasted”

    As a former union member, local 608, the Unions in this city is the problem. They are never fairly compensated! Even when they’re running up overtime so the can retire on the future taxpayers backs. The unions will run this city dry. Their members, family and friends will always feed at the tax payers expense. It will be so one sided that in the next twenty years unions, all of them, with require 75%-90% of the City’s Budget.

    Now, before you blind supporters and member jump on my statement, remember your union job is not a right, as some of you think. If the job you are doing is so hard and pays so little, quit and get another one. The fact of the matter is you’re in the job because of the generous benefits and perks that taxpayers will forever be burden with. FYI majority of this country’s employees are non-union workers, and the public seams to make it. Unions are just another form of a Gang, a Gang that goes after our tax dollars with a single minded mission. The economic climate is never a factor in their calculations, it just more money at any cost. If the Gang don’t get what it want, the public is scared into taking sides as a consequence. Logic is always replaced with choices that favor the Unions position are good or safe for the public and any other alternative is bad and will adversely affect our lives. Until the Taxpayers (The Sheep) get rid of these crooked Politicians and all the Unions this City will never be a Queen City.

  2. members vote as a whole
    members vote as a whole the e board cant vote for entire membership lets get that right.

      1. I think he meant the whole
        I think he meant the whole membership needed to approve any deal not just the Exec Board of the union.
        Anyone know if the Fire Commissioner got a raise for 2010?

      2. I know what he meant…
        …I just do not know why he is saying that. Of course a deal has to be ratified by the entire membership. That is obvious and common sense. My question is why did this person write a comment AS IF the article said that the executive board of the union could ratify a deal on its own without a vote of the whole membership. The article does not say this — the executive board is not even referenced — and so there is no need to “clarify” or “correct” the article.

        This strikes me as an example of someone commenting on an a story without actually reading it — and doing so in a way that suggests something in the article was incorrect. The story IS correct. The commenter is not just wrong but the entire predicate of their comment (that the article say the executive board could make such a decision with a rank and file vote) does not exist.

        Let’s just move the discussion back to what the article actually says and not get bogged down in a sidebar discussion about a comment predicated on something that did not happen.

Comments are closed.