First-responders criticize votes by Burr and Hagan : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis

Both Sens. Richard Burr and Kay Hagan let firefighters and other first-responders down in early December with two separate but equally shameful votes.

First, Hagan reneged on her campaign promise to firefighters, voting to invoke cloture on the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act. This bill would have given firefighters, police and emergency medical technicians the same rights that private-sector employes have had since the 1930s to bargain collectively, as equals, with employers.

Second, Burr demonstrated, along with every other Republican senator, that stopping a 3 percent tax increase on the top 2 percent of wealthiest Americans is more important than providing 9/11 responders with a health care bill. The James Zadroga Act, named for an NYPD officer who died of respiratory disease contracted from working at Ground Zero, would have allowed for medical monitoring and treatment for people at the World Trade Center on 9/11 or involved with Ground Zero cleanup.

Shame on Hagan for refusing to stand up for workers’ rights and on Burr for not supporting 9/11 heroes. Don’t expect firefighters and other first-responders to support you at election time.

Dave Coker
Greensboro

The writer is vice president, Professional Fire Fighters of Greensboro Local 947, International Association of Fire Fighters.

jackhartjj

December 17, 2010 - 7:52 am EST

Good deal on the union vote...I have seen NOTHING good come out of unions!
In fact I was a UAW member years ago...other than sucking money out of my paycheck...they did NOTHING for me.
I found I had many more rights under state law!

December 17, 2010 - 8:58 am EST

While we are at it...how bout' that little union nelson johnson and his ilk were organizing back in the 70's and 80's...the one that unionized Gerber Babywear, (Formerly Bates Nightwear)...put it right out of business!
In fact ladies there that made really, really, really good money prior to the union wound up making much less...because you know, "We can't have some folks making a lot more than 'others' just because the 'others' are slower workers!

Sawdust

December 17, 2010 - 8:03 am EST

Sorry, Dave, but I have to go with Kay on the collective bargaining. Just look at California, on the verge of bankruptcy because of public employees' unions. We'll be bailing them out before long, with money we don't have.

As for the tax rates, I think they should have been voted on without any add-ons. The Dems don't want an up-or-down vote on taxes, so they throw in all sorts of feel-good items. The Republicans weren't voting against first responders, they were voting not to increase anyone's taxes. I just wish they'd make all the tax rates permanent, so businesses could make plans and maybe start hiring again. Businesses look more than two years ahead.

Panacea

December 17, 2010 - 9:00 am EST

California is in trouble for reasons other than the employee unions. They do not deserve to take all the blame for that state's problems.

Republicans voted against first responders in the name of not increasing taxes. This "toe the line at all costs" is not responsible leadership. There are some things we SHOULD spend money on. First responders at Ground Zero is one of them.

terrier2003

December 17, 2010 - 10:59 am EST

What were the specifics of the bill with regard to the first responders? because it seems that we all biol things down to " they voted against it therefore they don't like or care about 9/11 hero's". but we all know that there is always more to these bills. Take the recent tax bill... Is it good to extend unemployment? is it good to give tax breaks to people? I'd say yes, but there are a lof of specifics in there that we all don't like. For instance, who were getting the tax breaks. We could easily say: "democrats don't care about the citizens because they want to raise the taxes and take more money from us." however this isn't entirely true. When we get on here we argue half truths. So what were the specifics with regard to the first responders and what were the extras that came with the passing of that legislation?

I know some people love unions and some people hate them. Currently I don't see the point of unions. They are a portion of the reason companies manufacture overseas and why our products cost more when imported. Have you ever seen the efficiency of the dock workers unions? They make our DMV look efficient.

December 17, 2010 - 11:15 am EST

I won't say all unions work efficiently. But manufacturers could have moved overseas decades before they did if unions were really the problem.

They moved overseas because of NAFTA and other free trade agreements that gave generous tax benefits for moving abroad.

December 17, 2010 - 11:40 am EST

No doubt that NAFTA and others opened the doors and gave the most incentive. But I also said "a portion of the reason" companies manufacture overseas. By no means did I imply that it was the sole or even majority reason.

Now that manufacturers realize they can operate efficiently without unions, then why go back? before NAFTA they had suspicions maybe, but now they have evidence.

December 17, 2010 - 11:51 am EST

I agree that labor unions did not bring CA to it's knees.

Poor leadership and fiscal responsibility did. their social programs are like non-other...but you would think that with as much tourist revenue they have, and income taxes on salaries that are inflated just to sustain to Cost of Living, that they should be the wealthiest state.

wctbl?

December 17, 2010 - 9:06 am EST

"they throw in all sorts of feel-good items." All politicians in Washington do this. It is a bi-partisan activity.
If businesses had been looking more than two years in advance they would have realized the temporary Bush tax cut would be ending this month and acted accordingly. Responsibility. Accountability. It needs to be bipartisan too.

dubya

December 17, 2010 - 8:41 am EST

Hey Dave, if you want a job with the same perks as the private sector, (and this includes the chance of being laid off, fired, taking a pay cut, very few holidays off, and wondering if your employer will go bankrupt tomorrow) go get a job in the private sector.

If these things do not appeal to you, stay where you are and continue to whine about how terrible it is have to depend on a vote by a politician for your well being.

December 17, 2010 - 9:01 am EST

You would not say that as your house burns down. You'd beg these brave men to save your home, family, pets, and property.

How disrespectful.

December 17, 2010 - 9:43 am EST

I HAVE had a house burn down.

They were able to save the chimney and a water well out back. They stood around with their fire hoses wetting the ground around the burning building to keep it from spreading to the gravel parking lot next door.

Abruti

December 17, 2010 - 4:14 pm EST

The thing I'd worry about is if my house caught fire and all the firefighters were on strike.

December 17, 2010 - 11:09 am EST

Because I worked in EMS for boston while in school, I can tell you this... we got paid VERY well and had a WONDERFUL benefits program. This isn't the case for the entire country, but for boston it is. Also, there are a lot of people trying to get on the police, fire and ems because the retirement is second to none in that city. Greensboro has the same issues with 1000 applicants for 20 positions. People are going to do the job regardless. If they want a safer occupation, they probably shouldn't be running into a burning house. I have nothing but respect for these guys, but it's like the military. You have to look at the worst case scenario and then decide if you are willing to do it and deal with the consequences of how it may turn out. If you are not, then you shouldn't choose that line of work.

I'm not sympathetic at all to unions and I don't like the fact that they try to push their agenda's. They collect fees/dues from the group, pay their leaders well and then spend the rest in hopes of lobbying congress. when they fail, they tell us all how terrible of people we are for not seeing things their way. meanwhile, those people who paid the dues are out the money and no better benefits. It's gambling. But they prey on the young members of the departments. They were all over me in Boston to join, but the reality was that I didn't need anything union. and if you weren't union you didn't get the overtime or preference on shifts etc...

December 17, 2010 - 11:18 am EST

I resisted the union when I worked as a correctional nurse for similar reasons. I thought the way you did.

The management started really getting nasty with the nursing staff (there was a political power struggle going on). After seeing several co-workers abused and written up for things that were NOT their fault, I decided it was time to join the union. And I joined at just the right time, because when I reported a nurse for having a sexual relationship with an inmate, all h3ll broke loose. The union saved my job, my reputation, and my license.

December 17, 2010 - 11:43 am EST

I fear your experience is in the minority. I think that if you line up the costs of uions vs. the benefits one will outweigh the other multiple times over.

I think it is interesting that Unions tend to hate republicans. Because they say that republicans only want to help the wealthy...however the union bosses tend to be the wealthy and they are more than willing to take your dues. They will even help you out and form a dependancy on them. I guess this is a case of agree to disagree.

FFDave947

December 17, 2010 - 4:09 pm EST

Terrier2003, there are two things I'd like to respectfully point out.

1) "We got paid VERY well and had a WONDERFUL benefits program."
2) "They were all over me in Boston to join, but the reality was that I didn't need anything union."

You were paid well and had good benefits because of your union negotiated contract. You can say you didn't need anything union but I would wager that there were other things that the union negotiated on your behalf whether it be something as simple as ensuring the City provided you with the vaccinations that an EMT needs to do the job or as complex as lobbying for the Ryan White Care Act to protect you in the event of an exposure.

Additionally, there is nothing in my letter that would indicate that I'm complaining or crying about the inherent dangers of the job. As a citizen, tax payer, and elected representative of my co-workers I am admonishing my elected officials for not supporting pro-firefighter/police/ems legislation.

For the record, I am a rank and file firefighter and I receive NO extra compensation for my work as Vice-President of our Local union. My union dues are an investment in my future and provide a measure of legal protection for me on the job and benefits for my family in the event of my death.

cartom

December 17, 2010 - 9:19 am EST

The real issue is not being discussed and it is that our politicians continue to tag things to bills that are not related. Both points should be introduced as independent legislation and have to stand on their own merit, not be linked to much bills that contain a myriad of issues.

kurt lauenstein

December 17, 2010 - 9:32 am EST

This begs the question, if there are no unions, who will stand up for the laborer? The unions did not arise from some Marxist philosophical treatise. They arose because workers were dying in mines and factories all over the US. At this point, laborers have no advocates in Washington other than unions. (Kind of reminds one that children don't have advocates other than individual parents, many of whom are preoccupied with putting food on the table).
Many Americans don't have the luxury of thinking more than a few days ahead, never mind looking two years down the road. (Our leaders set the example for this with their 15 second sound bites and oversimplification of every bill that comes down the road). So, who will stand up for the disadvantaged?
Of course, some will argue that these poor laborers need to stand up for themselves, work harder, etc. And some will do just that and succeed, ala Horatio Alger. But making a case for the majority of Americans "making it" out of poverty, one needs to invoke the story of "A Christmas Carol." It certainly hard to find those ghosts of Christmas past, present and future to give the Tiny Tim's a chance. Hell, they want to kill any health care bill that smacks of common interest in helping the sick. Our Congress is more concerned with giving millions more to the rich (and throwing a few crumbs in tax breaks to the poor as payment) than doing anything to make sure laborers have safe or satisfying job conditions. Hence, the unions.

Slaan

December 17, 2010 - 10:03 am EST

And I thought this forum was fond of the free market! Goes to see what I know. For a Union is just like every other corporation that sells a product. But instead of laptops or haircuts or food, they sell labor. It isn't the fault of those poor, poor corporations that they can't hire good negotiators! Any business that can't deserves to fail.

December 17, 2010 - 11:11 am EST

nice analogy. Buying from a labor union is like buying a fisher-price laptop for the price of a MAC.

December 17, 2010 - 11:20 am EST

That's an over generalization, and it is not true. Most union workers are hard workers.

December 17, 2010 - 11:48 am EST

haha sure. I used to live in Union Central. Hard workers...for 15 minutes out of every hour maybe and even then no more a hard worker than your average street dog vendor. (which are unionized as well.)

I guess another thing I don't get is this: in Boston, the local electrical workers union recieved all the contracts. it was political. If you didn't like the union leadership or didn't want to be involved with the union, then that was your own decision. Your shop would mysteriously have problems regularly and you would not win any major contracts. but you are right, they are out to help people. I think those who don't have the union as a safety net tend to work harder because they have more on the line. This is evident in the work ethic in Boston.

bubba

December 17, 2010 - 4:49 pm EST

"But instead of laptops or haircuts or food, they sell labor."

No, they do not. The employee sells his or her labor.

In the modern era, the only thing most unions sell is the sell out inflicted on their members to benefit the organization's political/economic power and influence.

We have only to look at the last few years in the Age of Obama to see how this insidious abuse of trust works.

pragmatist

December 17, 2010 - 11:50 am EST

The collective bargaining bill would have forced the states- all the states- to follow Federal guidelines in contract negotiations with unionized public service employees. It would have negated North Carolina's current law and impeded its autonomy. Even though the citizens of North Carolina and taxpayers of our state, cities and counties would continue to pay for these workers, the Fed would decide how to negotiate wages and benefits for them. In this case, I think Hagan was smart not to allow the Federal government to prevent North Carolinians from making our own decisions.

December 17, 2010 - 1:42 pm EST

Wow, an educated response. Awesome.

news-record.com

OPINION