U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-12-2017, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,621 posts, read 13,018,903 times
Reputation: 10710

Advertisements

And nobody either cares or wants to talks about it. But the city has sued the Firefighters Union for the Evergreen clause in the contract the city and firefighters signed in good faith. Now the city wants to have the clause thrown out because it MIGHT cost too much. Well, they've already spent close to a million on attorneys fees. Seems like that would buy a lot of insurance for the firefighters. Or is this just another way of funneling money to the "friends" of those in power? Kindly note, the lawsuit has been thrown out of several courts already but the city is now appealing to the State court. It's already been declared a frivolous lawsuit.
Here's the lawsuit as seen by SA Current:
https://www.sacurrent.com/the-daily/...nst-fire-union

Here's ActionSprouts views:
https://actionsprout.io/44AE9C

KENS 5
Firefighter negotiations with city stalled despite lawsuit win | kens5.com

If you ask me, this is a horrible way to treat the folks that are protecting us. The city endorsed the Evergreen clause years ago. The firefighters have agreed to reduce the time limit to 7 years instead of 10. There's absolutely nothing to gain with the city backing out now. They're throwing huge amounts of money at it. That same money could have been earmarked for the firefighters and probably had a lot of money left over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-12-2017, 01:39 PM
 
5,631 posts, read 6,439,908 times
Reputation: 3603
We are not just talking about insurance but also wages.

Allowing the firefighters to keep wages and benefits for up to 10 years during a collective bargaining standoff pretty much makes the city weak in any attempt to bargain. Even 7 years is too long in my opinion.

I am all for making sure the firefighters are compensated for their work but these gravy train pension plans are a bit too much these days for the taxpayer so I understand the city's fight in this.

I agree with TrapperL though that this is costing a lot of money for both sides.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2017, 01:57 PM
 
Location: New Braunfels, TX
6,274 posts, read 9,030,495 times
Reputation: 6375
Thing is, the city agreed to the provision in part to gain other contract concessions. Now that it's not to their advantage, they want it thrown out.

I say, "Tough".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2017, 08:08 PM
Status: "I am Blessed." (set 3 days ago)
 
Location: Spurs country. "Go, Spurs, Go!"
3,399 posts, read 3,962,033 times
Reputation: 8771
Two words: new mayor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2017, 08:15 PM
 
2,721 posts, read 3,426,902 times
Reputation: 1536
There is not a gravy train for firefighters. Every cent is earned. Pension and all. It is difficult to
imagine burning to death, but someone has to do it. It ain't easy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2017, 08:25 PM
Bo Bo won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Tenth Edition (Apr-May 2014). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Ohio
16,822 posts, read 33,203,260 times
Reputation: 13610
I care and I want the city manager to keep trying to win this one. Benefits are a large portion of the city budget. How many millions will be saved annually if the city wins this lawsuit?

OP is trying to shock us with that million-dollar figure, but remember that most of us have to pay an increasing amount for our families' benefits. So I don't think there will be much public support for keeping a benefits deal from the 90s, a whole decade before the national health insurance landscape was upended, in place. The rest of us don't have a deal like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-12-2017, 09:15 PM
 
Location: New Braunfels, TX
6,274 posts, read 9,030,495 times
Reputation: 6375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo View Post
I care and I want the city manager to keep trying to win this one. Benefits are a large portion of the city budget. How many millions will be saved annually if the city wins this lawsuit.
Funny thing is, I can remember when the city crowed about this contract, and about "all the money saved" by avoiding a bigger raise while giving them the health care. I said then that it'd come back to bite 'em in the backside, and that it was a lousy deal for the city. Now that they're realizing just how bad a deal it really is, they want to renege on it.

With all due respect, Bo, I think the city deserves to lose this. They knew what they were getting in to, and weren't far-sighted enough to understand what it would mean down the road. Every business owner I spoke with was flabbergasted that they went along with it - but as usual, the city wasn't playing with their dollars - and if they DO win, they'll find something else to blow the bucks on, rather than keeping it in reserve (just look at Houston right now). At SOME point, folks have to stop wanting to spend on every bond package that comes down the road - or else they're going to end up like Detroit and Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2017, 05:51 AM
Bo Bo won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Tenth Edition (Apr-May 2014). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Ohio
16,822 posts, read 33,203,260 times
Reputation: 13610
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasRedneck View Post
Funny thing is, I can remember when the city crowed about this contract, and about "all the money saved" by avoiding a bigger raise while giving them the health care. I said then that it'd come back to bite 'em in the backside, and that it was a lousy deal for the city. Now that they're realizing just how bad a deal it really is, they want to renege on it.

With all due respect, Bo, I think the city deserves to lose this. They knew what they were getting in to, and weren't far-sighted enough to understand what it would mean down the road. Every business owner I spoke with was flabbergasted that they went along with it - but as usual, the city wasn't playing with their dollars - and if they DO win, they'll find something else to blow the bucks on, rather than keeping it in reserve (just look at Houston right now). At SOME point, folks have to stop wanting to spend on every bond package that comes down the road - or else they're going to end up like Detroit and Chicago.
AFAIK, none of the people in leadership positions at the city were in those positions when the deal was agreed to. We've got a new mayor, council, city manager and fire chief since then. If Sheryl Sculley was trying to unwind a deal she made, then I'd be more inclined to agree with you, TR. SA has a much better city manager now, one that's more focused on the big picture than on the politics of the choices she makes. My instinct is to stay out of the way and let her do her job. If she thinks the lawyers can slug it out in court and win this case, that's good enough for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2017, 07:02 AM
 
5,631 posts, read 6,439,908 times
Reputation: 3603
Quote:
Originally Posted by huckster View Post
There is not a gravy train for firefighters. Every cent is earned. Pension and all. It is difficult to
imagine burning to death, but someone has to do it. It ain't easy.
Union folks always think every cent is earned, even if it breaks the bank for their employers so I am not surprised you would think that way.

As I said earlier, I do feel firefighters should be paid accordingly for their work and risks involved but it has to be reasonable to the employer (and taxpayer in this case).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-13-2017, 08:00 AM
 
Location: New Braunfels, TX
6,274 posts, read 9,030,495 times
Reputation: 6375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bo View Post
AFAIK, none of the people in leadership positions at the city were in those positions when the deal was agreed to. We've got a new mayor, council, city manager and fire chief since then.
Hmmm....my foggy memory w/regards to Contract Law didn't allow an "out" because those currently bound weren't part of the original contract signing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top