register |  login
Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Tower

Fire & Police Ballot Issue 2-A
Contributed by: Michael Violette on 10/11/2008

Obtaining a system of collective bargaining has been the foremost goal of both firefighters and police officers in Longmont for over 5 years. As firefighters and police officers we constantly fight for better working conditions in our professions. Not just better, but safer working conditions as well as providing a high level of service to the community. We provide essential services needed by the community. As such we feel it is essential that we have a voice, and the right to weigh in on decisions concerning our safety as well as the safety of the citizens we serve. That is why this amendment is needed. It is why the large majority of your police and fire employees support this, and why we believe the citizens of Longmont will support it.

Police and fire collective bargaining is not unique. Negotiated contracts are the normal way of doing business in the police and fire professions in many cities. There are literally thousands of police and fire labor contracts in place across this country. This amendment is about communication, participation, and mutual respect. It is about giving your firefighters and police officers a voice in matters that affect their welfare and safety; the same way in which thousands of cities across our nation and many in Colorado have seen fit to do. Most cities rely on these contracts to plan with certainty their annual budgets. Employees' wages and benefits are secured and management rights are defined.

Firefighters & Police officers as a whole tend to be very conservative and do not follow the traditional composition of labor organizations. Firefighter & Police labor organizations and their members tend to be more understanding of management's needs to direct its workforce in order to effectively carry out their daily mission to serve their citizens. On the other hand, when it comes to equipment, benefits and compensation firefighters & police officers are solidly and justifiably convinced they are different than any other class of public employee and should be recognized and treated by their cities as such.

Firefighter & Police labor organizations are not the traditional unions which you would find in the private or public sector. Strikes and job actions are strictly prohibited, illegal, and would never be employed to settle a dispute. Instead each side is protected by 3rd party impasse resolution to fairly settle the occasional issue which cannot be agreed to. That process actually fosters reasonable and responsible negotiations. Studies have shown that collective bargaining does not create an adversarial environment. In fact history shows it normally results in a more stable employee-management relationship. Where adversarial relationships do exist they would also exist without a collective bargaining agreement. Adversarial relationships are normally the result of poor leadership, immaturity and a lack of respect for each other's position within both management and employee ranks, and are not the end result of having the right to collectively bargain. In departments where there existed a good relationship with management before collective bargaining; that relationship prevailed after collective bargaining. The foundation for mutual respect was in place and provided a positive platform to work from.

This amendment if passed only gives the fire or police employees the right to organize and negotiate cooperative agreements. It is not automatic. Before they can actually use this amendment at least 50% of the effected employees must sign a petition saying that they want to organize. The petition must then be validated and counted. If the petition contains a sufficient number of signatures an election by secret ballot will be held of all effected employees. The election will be conducted and monitored by the American Arbitration Association. If the vote of those employees is 50% plus one in favor then they will have the right to representation and enter into negotiations with the city to produce a cooperative agreement. If 50% plus one vote not to organize then they cannot participate in the right given by this amendment.

This amendment to the City Charter promotes enhanced morale and basic levels of self-determination. It allows police and fire employees to participate in employment related discussions and offer insightful feedback on issues that affect and protect both their future and their working conditions. National studies have shown with a collective bargaining agreement in place retention of experienced officers improves, and so does the ability to attract experienced officers from other agencies. Staffing will stabilize and the citizens will benefit. Having gone through the bargaining process, one must immediately come to the conclusion that there are no winners or losers. The resulting collective bargaining agreement is a settlement and not a victory for either side. Through the process, both management and labor are given the opportunity to express their concerns and craft a harmonious resolution.

The true beneficiaries of the process are the citizens to be served. In the final analysis, the bargaining process does nothing more than open and insures the free flow of communication between labor and management, and allows each side equal participation in achieving an acceptable solution. City management can rest knowing what its commitments are and what the budgetary impact will be for the term of a contract. The City benefits because long-term contracts provide orderly control of wages and benefits so that management can determine its labor costs accurately. As long as the contract is honored, they won't have to deal with the possibility of lawsuits and constant issues of disagreement. They can realize the benefit of having an open and honest two-way flow of communication with their fire & police employees. Collective bargaining agreements ensure more fiscal responsibility by managers, which ultimately benefits the taxpayer. Both management and employee rights are clearly defined and protected.

The most significant benefit derived from collective bargaining is the opportunity for labor and management to meet on equal ground for purposes of contract negotiations. This level of equality is derived from the bargaining process, and the requirement that both sides meet and confer in good faith. During the course of negotiations, each party has the opportunity to speak openly and to express both its satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the practices of its counterpart. Negotiations are not intended or designed to be one-sided. Each party is given an equal opportunity to express concerns and explore, if possible, a mutually acceptable middle ground. Bargaining appropriately conducted yields no winners or losers. Rather each side participates jointly in the identification of problems and the crafting of a solution. The simple opportunity to express concerns and to evaluate the response of a counterpart does nothing more than enhance the relationship between the parties. The preamble to the proposed amendment enabling this process most clearly speaks to this elementary benefit of bargaining. In all instances the process is designed to establish a "productive relationship" between the City and its employees.

As a secondary benefit to the bargaining process, there is of course the exchange of information and data as to both economic' and non-economic subjects. In the economic arena, the employee group generally receives a candid and well-calculated picture of the City's financial health. In so doing, the employees begin to understand that demands are made on the City's resources from all fronts. This educational process results in a general understanding of that portion of the pie which is available to a particular employee group. Having been so educated, the employees are now given an opportunity to work hand-in-hand with the employer in the manner by virtue of which its share of the resources is divided. This participation has the obvious result of a blending of benefits so as to satisfy both the economic needs of the City and all members of the bargaining unit. Having participated in the process and arrived at a negotiated resolution, the employees and their representatives can not complain that the will of the City was forced upon them.

Most cities rely on these binding contracts to plan with certainty their budgets annually. Contrary to frequently heard arguments by cities fighting collective bargaining, taxes DO NOT go up. City Managers are forced to be fiscally responsible. Employees' wages and benefits are secured and management rights are clearly defined. This Amendment allows police officers and firefighters to collectively secure terms and conditions of employment through the good faith negotiation of a legal contract. Negotiated agreements ensure more fiscal responsibility by managers, which ultimately benefits the taxpayer. This is necessary for the type of monetary accountability and responsibility the taxpayers feel they deserve. This Amendment will not increase the expenditures or the cost of doing business for the City. The City cannot commit money that is not there. This amendment is necessary for the type of monetary accountability and responsibility the taxpayers deserve. A negotiated agreement will allow the City to plan ahead. For the duration of the contract all costs are fixed. This allows the City to properly balance its budgets.

This is not about our wages or benefits. We are adequately compensated when compared to other area departments. We don't see that changing, and although included in the process, it is not a priority in our need for passage of this amendment. In any event collective bargaining will allow us to negotiate wages and benefits. But it is not a panacea for a compensation package. It does not magically make more money appear into the City's' Budget, General Fund, Coffers, etc. No one should assume that wages and benefits would automatically go up with collective bargaining. Collective bargaining will not automatically increase the expenditures or the cost of doing business for the City. Under this amendment those are negotiated within the City's budget allocation for wages & benefits for any given year of an agreement. It only allows bargaining within the framework of that budget. The City cannot commit money that is not there.

In closing we want you to know that it is our honor to serve Longmont. We take great pride in the city we protect, and the privilege we have been given to do so. We ask you for your support with a yes vote on 2-A in this election.

For more information go to: Http://WWW.Longmontpolice.com




SUBMIT COMMENT

Rate the above story



Current Rating

Based on 39 user ratings.

Talk Back : submit comments to the story

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.

< BACK | NEXT >
Showing 1-10 of 65 comments
Submitted By: Richard Yale
posted on 10/17/2008 @ 6:49:29 AM
Rated Story
Mr. Young, a sincere apology from a person who respects justice would include the person who was slandered by the utterance and the false publication against the person removed from YourHub.
Submitted By: James Young
posted on 10/15/2008 @ 8:21:17 AM
Rated Story
CR you are right. I apologize.
Submitted By: Chris Rodriguez
posted on 10/15/2008 @ 12:32:46 AM
(Not Rated)
Mr. Young, talk about your own "foolish statements destroying credibility" with your "flat earth", "witches" "nut cases and "sobriety" comments about those that differ in opinion. Thanks for the ludicrous, juvenile, and overall just a$$inine observation that adds absolutely nothing to this discussion. Before you pigeonhole me with the nutcases of the opposition, why don't you take a peek at the website above. Please, don't think for a second that you, and some of the hateful people who have commented here, (are they all real people?) help 2A. Each side should be able to make their case (like Mike did here) and the people decide - not some of the hogwash that's gone on here and on the TC's site. Nice job monitoring, YourHub.
Submitted By: Richard Yale
posted on 10/14/2008 @ 9:07:00 PM
Rated Story
Mr. Young, does no one have the right to independent thought in this election other than liberals? Doesn’t the Participatory Democracy the new council promised, if elected Nov 2007 guarantee each citizen a right to their opinions whether others agree or not; and, the freedom of speech to express them; just as you did in your ad hominem? Instead of answering with the facts explaining where you think Melinda may be misinformed you digress into an utterly false and malicious personal attack against her credibility and in denial of her 1st Amendment right to exercise freedom of speech. In the heat of a financial meltdown that is the government’s fault as much as the actors who won’t be concerned about questioning the stripping away of financial controls and taxation without representation 2A would do to the City’s financial soundness? The more I hear from the defenders of 2A the more I question its authenticity on good government practice.
Submitted By: Richard Yale
posted on 10/14/2008 @ 9:06:33 PM
Rated Story
Part 2 – Why would anyone outside the governance decision loop have a modicum of confidence in either Union Agents or Council members who assert there is no danger from a process that contains no Charter safeguards and balances of power to protect taxpayers from greedy collective bargaining that places its private clients interests above the municipal interest? Isn’t “not to worry” the same answerer Congress gave over Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae unchecked powers? Karen Benker grandstanded with the claim she did not believe in "representative" democracy, because she only believes in "participatory" democracy. Supposedly she only believed in the "people" then and not in those elected by them to make decisions. But in practice, instead of accepting the decisions of the "participatory" democracy she & the new members only practice the form of participatory democracy they like. They like taxation without their representation for taxpayers which is what the Charter change is about.
Submitted By: James Young
posted on 10/14/2008 @ 12:28:28 PM
Rated Story
By the way people of your thinking one time thought the world was flat and people they disagreed with were witches.
Submitted By: James Young
posted on 10/14/2008 @ 12:26:33 PM
Rated Story
Its foolish and outlandish statements like yours Melinda that destroys the credibility of those arguing against this with posts such as this fantasy. People in the real world just roll their eyes over this stuff and are convinced the opposition is a bunch of nut cases. How many millionaire cops or firemen have you or for that matter anyone ever met. The applications would be rolling in by the thousands for these jobs. Get real and get sober.
Submitted By: Melinda Yale
posted on 10/14/2008 @ 11:12:03 AM
Rated Story
You can say it's not about money, however my nephew is a firefighter in another state and told his Dad when his department became unionized that now he would be a millionaire. Sounds like that town may be another Villejo, California in the not too distant future. What's in Longmont's future? I'm voting no on 2A and yes on 47.
Submitted By: Richard Yale
posted on 10/12/2008 @ 7:29:44 PM
Rated Story
After Messrs Steve Schultz and Mike Violette got into Mrs. Baum’s face for daring to utter thoughts both they & their supporters don’t like they still haven’t had the courtesy to answer Mrs. Baum’s question. They and their supporters are doing a lot more than getting into people's faces for questioning their actions. They seem determined to shut people up from asking and getting truthful answers to election questions about public policy by their chilling and intimidating postings against people exercising their own First Amendment right to petition and ask questions of government policy. The motive is plain: to shut down conservative-leaning citizens and the community newspaper because many liberals can't abide having citizens & voters hear contrary points of view. I had been under the impression that the Alien and Sedition Acts had gone out of existence in 1801-02. But, that is apparently not so in the Shultz/Violette version and vision of Longmont.
Submitted By: David Brown
posted on 10/12/2008 @ 5:40:02 PM
Rated Story
Oops! Yes - that's what I meant!! (I would have voted correctly even if I can't say it correctly) :-(
Showing 1-10 of 65 comments
< BACK | NEXT >
CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION

Michael Violette

Longmont , CO

Michael Violette has posted 2 stories and 8 comments since joining on 7/1/2007. Michael Violette 's average story rating is 3.78.
SAVE AND SHARE THIS STORY

STORY RSS FEEDS
WANT TO WRITE FOR YOURHUB.COM?
Want to see the stories you write and the photos you shoot featured in the YourHub.com Thursday print section available all over the Front Range and with home subscriptions of the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post? All you have to do is register, then post a story or column, start a blog or tell everyone what events are happening in town. We will print the best stories, columns, event listings, photos and blog entries in our print sections.

ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad