Fire Chief

Furlough This

Mary Rose Roberts November 4th, 2009

I take the bus to work. And yesterday, my fellow riders and I were startled by a middle-age man who was screaming angrily about the current government, taxation, health care, 401K fraud and cutbacks in public services. Nutcases on public transportation add to the joy of living in Chicago. It’s a daily event to hear someone off his rocker preaching about one issue or another. But when he started to yelp about the city’s plan to force police and fire personnel to take furlough days, he caught my attention.

Last week, the city rolled out its 2010 budget. Mayor Richard Daley included 24 unpaid days (12 holidays, 12 furlough days) for all non-union and many union city employees — including the city’s firefighters and police officers. Of course, the mayor can’t force the departments to take furlough days based on union contracts. But he seems determined to strong arm the city’s first responders into being team players and making sacrifices like the rest of the city’s workers. In fact, he said publicly that, “Everyone has to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. And that’s why I’m taking 24 days without pay, and I got other people to take that, because you have to show that government understands the suffering that is going on throughout your communities.”

If police and fire unions agreed to furloughs, the city would save $120 million, city Budget Director Eugene Munin said publicly at a city council budget hearing. That is a huge cost savings. It’s great the city can save money by forcing folks to take a month off. But to save money at the expense of public safety is ridiculous. Many will argue that there are not enough first responders on the street already, especially after nationally publicized events like the beating death of a Fenger High School student. And a time when the nation is at war against domestic and international terrorists, as well as facing threats from biological, chemical and radiological attacks and then the potential swine flu pandemic, don’t we need our first responders at work more than ever?

In fact, cutting the amount of first responders on the street may actually cost the city money. Imagine the lawsuits and liability coming from this. If it takes an ambulance or fire department 10 minutes longer to reach a victim who then dies, will a lawsuit ensue? And how much money would it cost the city’s lawyers to fight the suit, and then ultimately settle it to keep the victims’ families quiet? My guess is somewhere in the millions of dollars.

I give Daley credit because he also plans on taking furlough days. I understand the city’s broke. But the firefighter union shouldn’t have to take these days. I have another idea. Maybe the city should look at the layers of leadership and cut from there. Instead of 50 aldermen, maybe we should combine districts and cut that number by half. Or maybe they only need to meet once a week, and get paid for 52 days. Or maybe, just maybe, being an alderman shouldn’t be a full-time job. Maybe instead it should be a calling to public service. Yes. Maybe they should work for free. Cost-savings should come off the backs of politicians and their cronies, not first responders. Because in the end, an alderman rarely saves a life — while for police and firefighters serving and protecting the community is part of their moral code. We need them on the streets, 24/7. If not, the consequences may be great.

 Email This Post

Related Topics: Mary Rose Roberts, Management & Administration, Leadership

5 Comments to “Furlough This”

1. Mark Chubb Says:
   

   November 4th, 2009 at 6:30 pm

   I applaud Mayor Daley’s courageous and principled stand on furloughs. Firefighters, police, and EMTs are no different from other municipal employees, or for that matter the millions of other Americans who have lost their jobs or suffered cuts in hours or benefits as a result of the financial crisis.

   Your thesis assumes that the community depends on firefighters, police, and EMTs in a way that if true suggests the community has lost more than just its economic footing. In a functioning community, police, EMTs, and firefighters serve as an extension of the community’s capacity to organize itself to provide for mutual security. When Chicago firefighters went on strike many years ago, the number of fires actually went down. Something very similar happened in the United Kingdom during their recent industrial dispute with firefighters.

   Individuals and communities as a whole might actually benefit from learning that government is willing to toe a hard budget line even when it comes to public safety services. Taking more responsibility for ourselves and our own safety is not an invitation to anarchy much less terrorists. It is an incentive to rediscover what really makes Chicago or anyplace else a community: sharing responsibility for our security and our welfare.

2. David Brown Says:
   

   November 5th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

   I see both views on this issue and each have some validity. However the nations first responsders are whether anyone wants to pay them or not our nations first and last line of defense against any catastrophy, man made, intentional or accidental.
   We need those men and women to show up be compensated for placing thier lives on the line daily and not have to worry about anything but being the best they can at what they do, PROTECT YOU!!!!

3. Walter Howard Says:
   

   November 5th, 2009 at 1:18 pm

   PLEASE cite your sources for the comments about fire activity going down during labor disputes.
   Were fewer fires actually occurring?
   Or was it just that fewer calls were being received because people knew nobody would come?

4. Concerned Paramedic Says:
   

   November 5th, 2009 at 11:56 pm

   I have lived in numerous parts of the country but consider Chicago my hometown. Many of my friends and family are firefighters and paramedics on the city. My only concern is this; most cities have a very lagre fire department with millions upon millions of budget for equipment and salaries. Most buildings have fire sprkinlers. Would it not be better to have a fire department that does 80% EMS response have more ambulance personnel with 2 per ambulance and less fire apparatus with 4-6 people per vehicle to save lifes and decrease the budget by decreasing salaries and equipment expendentures? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

5. Mark Chubb Says:
   

   November 11th, 2009 at 8:31 pm

   Whether we like to admit it or not, the public, not our emergency responders, are the first on the scene of most emergencies. And we have good evidence, especially with respect to first aid, CPR and use of AEDs, that bystanders who get involved often make as big or bigger difference in the outcomes of emergencies than trained emergency responders.

   Likewise, the health and vitality of a community after disaster strikes depends upon community institutions. This has only become more true as we have moved from volunteer to paid fire departments. These days a significant number of paid firefighters don’t even live in the communities they protect when at work. Years ago, this was because they often could not afford to. These days, the opposite is more likely to be true.

   Citizens respond to information and incentives. When firefighters and cops assume the public they serve is apathetic, ignorant, or both, they often fuel a self-fulfilling prophecy. Management can exacerbate this effect when withdrawing public services, as evidenced by the work of Wallace and Wallace (A Plague on Your Houses: How New York Was Burned Down and National Public Health Crumbled, 2001).

   Dennett (Fire Attack: An Integrated Strategy, 2004:39) cites government statistics compiled during the 1977/78 firefighters’ strike in the UK that indicate the number of fires dropped during industrial action there compared with the same period the previous year. He noted that losses from the smaller number of fires was about double the figure experienced during the reference period. Government estimates of fire activity, casualties, and losses for the period that includes the 10-day strike in the UK during November 2002, indicate that the decline in all three was greater than that exhibited in previous years. Media reports from the period also indicate that the number of fires dropped as people curtailed risky activities while defense forces and fire service managers performed firefighting duties in place of the striking union members.

   Annual fire data reports from both the USA and the UK (as well as other industrialized countries) show a consistent decline in fire incidents, losses, and casualties. Few experts attribute what has been a truly staggering decline in these statistics since the 1980s to firefighters alone and some wonder whether their influence has been a significant factor at all.

   I do not dispute that firefighters make a difference. But I have and will continue to insist that the public does too. Firefighters, for their parts, do not make as big a difference when they decide not to work with the communities they serve or, worse yet, work against their interests or express wishes.

Leave a Comment