BFD Discussion

Let’s Start The Discussion

From: Dennis Anthony
Date: 10 Jun 2004
Time: 10:21:36 -0400

Well I guess I will start this discussion. As most everybody knows i am one of the advocates of this shift schedule. This schedule has been around for quite some time. Back in about 1990 Bud Hamil and myself tried to get this started and with all the old guys still around it was shot down and sent to the bottom of the sea. Since there are only a few left there is a lot more interest in it. Not only here, but nation wide. Before anybody immediately demonizes this they really do need to read the facts on it so they can understand the whole picture. A lot of research has gone into this and it seems to be the new wave across country. I do not know a one single department that has had a trial period of this and did not except it. If somebody else knows of one please let me know so we can talk to them and find out more info. Thanks, DA


Webmaster note: Through shift trading, several stations tried the 48-96 work schedule fueling the push for a change. That is where Bill Stone is speaking from.

From: BILL STONE
Date: 11 Jun 2004
Time: 11:43:38 -0400

IT'S GREAT TO SEE THE LIST OF THOSE WILLING TO TRY THE SCHEDULE GROW, I TRIED IT AND REALLY LIKED IT. THE FOUR DAYS OFF OVERSHADOW ANY ISSUE WITH THE TWO DAYS ON. IF I CAN DO IT HERE AT ARFF, ANY OUTSIDE STATION WOULD BE CAKE! BILL STONE.  Great Site.  TWO THUMBS UP!


From: BILL STONE
Date: 11 Jun 2004

A GREAT WEB SITE THAT OFFERS THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE LOOK ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT ONE COULD ASK FOR IN REGARD TO THIS SCHEDULE.


From: Aaron Leuck
Date: 06 Jun 2004

Well since I am injured still!!! DA forwarded this on to me. What a great Job on the web site Kudos to whoever put it together. Oh ya I think this would be great to try especially with fuel prices going the way they are. Lets here some more comment for or against. Aaron


From: Dennis Anthony
Date: 05 Jun 2004

I had no idea this site was coming. I am very impressed with the professional job done. Congrats. DA


From: Aaron Leuck
Date: 10 Jun 2004
Well since I am injured still!!! DA forwarded this on to me. What a great Job on the web site Kudos to whoever put it together. Oh ya I think this would be great to try especially with fuel prices going the way they are. Lets here some more comment for or against. Aaron


Personal Experiences with 48-96

Webmaster note - again, Terry is speaking about a trial we had through shift trading.

From: Terry Cole
Date: 11 Jun 2004

My family and I were very unsure how working a 49/96 schedule would affect us. My wife does not like to be home alone and two in a row seemed rough. I have a daughter who really misses me when I am gone. In the past when I am working for someone to pay back a trade, I usually get a teary phone call. We decided we wouldn't know for sure unless we tried it for ourselves and made our own decision. After three weeks of a 48/96 trial, the verdict was in with a BIG YES!!!!!! My family loved it. My 10 year old daughter said that 24/48 was terrible. I was always going to work and seemed to be gone. 48/96 was the only way to go. My wife said 48 hours is a long time, but the 96 off was way worth it. For me, I found myself loving work again. I was excited to go. Work became fun. I became better at work and way better as a husband and father too. After my trial period was finished, my family really hated 24/48. I feel confident that if you try it for yourself you will have similar experiences. Let's give it a try. If you have questions, you can call me. If your wife wants to talk, have her call my wife. You can even talk to my kids and they will tell it like it is.


Reason not to change

From: Mark Klinger
Date: 17 Jun 2004

I am with holding my support until the vote comes. Then I will cast a vote for what I think will be best for me and my family. (How is that for dodging the question D.A.? ) Besides, it looks like you have about 90 guys in favor of it. Just 21 more and you will have a majority and be able to implement it. Simple majority wins right?


Re: Reason not to change?

From: Dennis Anthony
Date: 12 Jun 2004

Having said that would you consider trying it?


From: Mark Klinger
Date: 12 Jun 2004

I have been trying to come up with something that would be a good reason NOT to change to a 48-96 schedule. So far every question I have had has been answered. Looking at the calendar and seeing all those 4 day blocks in June,July,and August sure opens the eye. A very effective web site. Good work and good luck.


Change Bad

From: Marker
Date: 17 Jun 2004

Change Bad, rut good. Been in rut long time, have pictures on wall and comfortable! I have had four days off, thats good. I have worked alot of doubles, thats bad! I don't want the last year of my career to be ....goood, baaaad, gooood, baaaaad..... Good luck to ya'll when the contract opens up in 2006, what ever the outcome, I'll leave a forwarding address for ya to tell me how the schedule works for ya. HBM


Old goat in happy pasture

From: Bill Tinsley
Date: 17 Jun 2004

It seems like just last month (I know it has been longer) that there was a push to change shifts. It was about the 100th one since I got on the department. I enjoy weekends with my wife and family. They all work Mon-Fri. I don't have any trouble finding people to trade with to get 5 days off including the week end. I usually pay back on week days because there are a lot of people who hate to "waste" time off on weekends when everybody else is fishing or whatever. I trade approx. 20 times a year and truly am happy working this shift. Now, apart from myself, what about those of you who take a month off for archery season or rifle season or to go to Mexico or what ever. The four days in a row will not help you. In fact, it is my belief that it will be hard to find people to trade with because they will either have to work a 72 or "ruin" there 4 days off. It seems only fair to give the shift a chance, BUT, life isn't always fair. I will NOT vote for a trial period and will do my best to sway others. With that said, Cuddos on the web site. Very nicely done.


From: Perry Oldenburg
Date: 18 Jun 2004

Bill, Thanks for your comments. All discussion is good. My wife works week-days as well and enjoyed the increase in the number of weekends off (sat./sun) with the 48-96. Increase from 30% off to 50% off. Thanks


Trades

From: GARY ROE
Date: 18 Jun 2004

LOOK REAL CLOSE AT THE TRADE ISSUE. I HAVE WORKED 96 .... DON'T LIKE IT!! I THINK IT SAFE TO SAY THAT THERE WON'T BE TOO MANY TRADES, SO WHAT EVER YOU WANT TO DO WITH THE FAMILY DO IT IN FOUR DAYS. DON'T ANY OF YOU THAT USALLY CALL ME FOR A TRADE ON CHRISTMAS, THANKSGIVING, LABOR DAY, 4TH OF JULY. BOTHER, I WON'T DO IT. ALSO, HOW DO YOU FIGURE VACATIONS? I REALLY DON'T SEE ANY ADVANTAGES ONLY DIS-ADVANTAGE. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION ... I COULD BE WRONG.


From: Perry
Date: 19 Jun 2004

Gary, Please remember that the 48 hour shift is two independent duty days. They can be worked by different people. As for paying back time, that is up to you. If you schedule your RDT paybacks appropriately you will never work more than your 48 hour shift consecutively. That is up to you.


Addressing Concerns

From: Perry Oldenburg
Date: 18 Jun 2004

I will try to address specific concerns as they arise and ensure that accurate information is put out. The changing of an FLSA period is only done to ensure that all shifts work the same number of hours within a given period of time. The FLSA period would most likely be changed to correspond with a "6-day" period instead of our current "3-day" period. Please remember that the "hours worked" within a year are exactly the same on both shift schedules. No changes to leave accruals or utilization. As for FLSA periods, there would be a different number of periods but the amount of FLSA overtime you receive is identical, it would just be divided into a different number of pay periods.


From: Terry Cole
Date: 21 Jun 2004

Perry is right. All it would mean is fewer days in each pay period. That means more chances to receive FLSA pay. FLSA pay may be less money per period, but now we might not miss out on them when we are sick. In the long run, we will probably see more FLSA pay in a year than we currently do.


A Great Feature

From: Greg Briggs
Date: 18 Jun 2004

I believe that the greatest feature of the entire proposal is that it would be a trial period. Just the idea of being able to spend some time trying it out is quite compelling to me. Using an analogy: if you saw a car you might like, what would be wrong with a test drive? In the trip around the block one might not like the position of the steering wheel or the seat might have a bad spring. In that case, walk away. There is also the possibility that it might turn out to be one heck of a good vehicle. I believe a trial period of 48-96 is an extremely low risk way of figuring out if this schedule is good or bad for us. Am I in favor of a 48-96 work schedule? Well, I don't know. Am I in favor of a trial period? Absolutely. I want to get in that car and feel the ride. A trial period is a great feature!


From: Anthony Andrisek
Date: 18 Jun 2004

I have read all the information available and think that a trial period is in order. I admit, at first I didn't like the idea of working 48's. But, after really reading into it and looking at the calendar, it IS appealing. I urge other members to do the same. Please add my name to the list in favor of a trial period. Remember, it is only a trial period. What do we have to lose? Great site...Andrisek


This is a bias web site!!

From: Captain Skinner 6/18/04
Date: 18 Jun 2004

The committee that went to visit other departments with this schedule...where are the negative comments on this schedule from the brothers that are working it? Was there none or did you just talk to the guys who were in favor of it? You have the advantages listed where are the disadvantages? Here are some for you.. 1. The union is short changing the city for time-If a crew fights fire all night on the first 24 then the capt. says take the second 24 off (TV, personal projects, sleep) the public does not see the firefighters 8-5 out doing things (adopt buildings, hydrants, schools, district familiarization...). The public is the ones who pay our salary, in an anti-union/labor state it is not wise to stir up those who dislike the union. 2. Expanding on above, the crew that fought fire or calls at night and is tired. That crew eats breakfast and then goes back to bed because they are TIRED, understandably. My house or Joe Public's catches on fire at 0900, kids are trapped, the crews that are responding are TIRED from the night before, I don't want tired firefighters responding to my house when my kids are trapped so they can have FOUR DAYS OFF! This will be the publics attitude toward our change of shifts or should we just sneak it under their noses and plead dumb when they find out that their firefighters are not as rested as before because they wanted FOUR DAYS OFF! 3. Three weekends in a row you are working a Saturday, Sunday or both. 4. In the advantages listed it says the city would not be affected ($), but in another section the FLSA would change from 27 days to 24 days increasing the chance for personnel to obtain FLSA$. 5. When you trade shifts now it is only for a 24 hour block at a time, on the new schedule it would be a 48 hour block. It is easier to find one person to work a block (4 than divide it into two, then you just pay that person back in a block (4. You have now guaranteed yourself to working a 96 at some time in the future. This is not good for your health (stress), your family, or the public sho pays your salary. 6. There is a lot more disadvantages that can be listed, I would like to here them from the firefighters in Albuquerque and California who are working 48/96. The committee that went abroad seems to be pro-48/96 schedule so how can they set up a web site to give out information to the body to make a informed decision when they only put out pro-48/96 information. Let's not hurt the others in our F.D. family or our families at home just so others can get their FOUR DAYS OFF, FOUR DAYS OFF, FOUR DAYS OFF!!! NO ON 48/96 SKINNER


From: Mark Klinger
Date: 18 Jun 2004

Well, of course it is. They want to change and will give you all the info that you need to make up your mind. Have a good day.


From: Dennis Anthony
Date: 20 Jun 2004

Well CAPTAIN Skinner, I guess if what you say here is true, we should never allow anyone to work more than 24 hours do the chance they might have to be up the night before. You should try a little more thought before you jump in with statements like this.


From: Greg Briggs
Date: 18 Jun 2004

As far as I know Brian, there was no committee formed to go visit other cities in regard to the 48-96 work schedule. If anyone has that info, please let me know so it can be posted, I would love to share it.


From: R Barnack
Date: 18 Jun 2004

If the site was truly biased there would be no opportunity to present a negative opinion of the proposal. That said, I don't see the bias- I see a discussion of perceived pros and cons. I personally know two Palo Alto firefighters who work this schedule, and they both love it. I don't see the difference between working a scheduled 48 hr shift and 48 hrs due to trade or CM. Are we to outlaw all work beyond 24 hours? I find that I am tired just as often from work I do off duty as I am from work I do on duty. Also, I've never had a problem responding to or during a call because I was tired. The "tired fire fighter" argument seems to me to only be applicable a small percentage of the total time worked. In regard to the number of weekends off- this is why we discuss things. For some of us the current schedule creates hardships we would have less of on the 48/96. As noted there are some who would face more hardship if we change. In either case there are going to be some who are happier one than the other. Just because a change may be less desirable for some people than the current schedule is no reason in and of itself for me to reject the change. I don't see the public having an opinion on this unless we as fire fighters discuss this in the public forum and try to make it a public issue. That would be a very bad action. We should discuss our internal affairs internally. As far as trades go, I don't see how a trade would create an automatic 96 for someone. It would make sense to me to schedule two single day trades if I wanted to be off for a scheduled 48 hr block. The payback dates could be split so you would be working a 72 on two different occasions. That's all for now. Barnack


From: John Peugh
Date: 20 Jun 2004

In reference to Brian's concern of the second half of the 48 being a rest day. As a Captain in the Operations Division, I have the upmost confidence that myself along with the rest of the Captains, SFF's and FF's would maintain a professionalism that the City and public expects, and would have no problem directing my crew to accomplish the things that needed to get done, AND keeping the TV off during the weekday hours, whether it be the first half of the 48 or the second half. We still have the General Orders, Policy & Procedures and SOP's to follow. As far as being TIRED due to being awake the night before. I, along with a few other firefighters I'm sure, have little kids at home, which at times, keeps me from getting a full nights slumber. This being said. I've been tired coming to work before, and I can say that I have never fell asleep responding to a fire, NOR will I EVER fall asleep responding to a fire, medical, MVA or public service. As far as the weekends off. Refer to Perry's reply to Old goat in happy pasture. Good job with the website!


Questions
From: Gifford
Date: 20 Jun 2004

What length of trial period has been discussed? A year? If less than a year how are we going to manage the vacation selection? What kind of vote is it going to take for a trial period to be initiated? What percentage of majority for it to become permanent? For example; a simple majority for a trail period, but 2/3rds majority for a permanent change? Regardless of your position on this issue, I believe it is important to respect others feelings. Remember, there are others just as passionate about the issues on both sides. Let's avoid making this a personal issue, us against them. Just as a 48-96 may positively affect many, it may equally have a negative impact on others. Remember that we were all hired by Boise Fire to work a 24-48. While trying to sell this change, it must be approached with respect for others, you are asking people to totally rearrange their lives. We all have to work together after the vote has been made.


From: Perry
Date: 20 Jun 2004

Don, Thanks for your questions. If you have them, I'm sure other people have them as well. As for the length of the trial period, that will be up to those in support of the proposal (simple majority). A length of time has not been identified yet but here are some things to consider. A trial period that starts in Jan 2005 would require vacation selections this fall. A short trial period (3 months) would not allow families to vacation through the summer. An intermediate time period (6 months) would require a vote to extend the trial period or a new vacation selection. A year trial period would alleviate many of these problems and would end just as negotiations begin. That is when a permanent change would be entered into the CLA if needed. I hope that this format can help to identify some of these answers. How long would you consider a trial period for ? 3,6,12 months ? let me know. Again, thanks for all of your input, that is why this site is here. Later


From: Gifford
Date: 21 Jun 2004

I understand that the simplest way would be to do a full year. In fact it is the only way I could see it working within the contract in terms of vacation selection. However if it were possible, I would rather see 6 months but I understand the argument for a full year.


From: BILL STONE
Date: 20 Jun 2004

"...WE WERE ALL HIRED BY THE BFD TO WORK 24-48". YOU'RE RIGHT, MANY OF US WERE HIRED AND ACCEPTED TO 24-48 SCHEDULE AS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT. WE ALSO HAD 3-MAN TRUCK CO'S., WE NAMED OUR ENGINES 801, 802, ECT., WE WORE STREET CLOTHES TO OUR TEN WEEK "TRAINING" ACADEMY, WE HAD NO CONCEPTION OF A HAZ. MAT. OR TECH. TEAM AND OUR DIVE TEAM WAS A VOLUNTEER CLUB. GOOD THING WE DON'T ALWAYS ADHERE TO THE CONDITIONS PRESENT UPON HIRING, SOMETIMES CHANGE IS GOOD.


Re: Questions
From: Gifford
Date: 20 Jun 2004

My last posting was one with a few questions and a friendly reminder for everyone to see BOTH sides of the issue. I took a very neutral stance. Unfortunately the only response back was a negative one. I am trying to keep an open mind by asking questions that would affect my decision. Isn't this sight an avenue to share information so people can make an intelligent decision? Perhaps someone would be willing to respond with answers to my questions.


From: Bill Stone
Date: 20 Jun 2004

Don, It was not my intention nor do I feel that my reply to your question was negative. In fact, I saw it as positive, in that, we have progressed from one point to another in relation to the examples described through a process of change. Change is not always good (loss of Saturday's) but sometimes it is good (the examples used). Unfortunately though, in your opinion I was not being positive. I don't know if I could answer your questions with anything but an opinion, so I guess we'll have to see what WE want to do if we decide to vote on this. Thanks for your input.


From: Gifford
Date: 21 Jun 2004

Bill, If your response was not negative in intent, then I apologize. Unfortunately I have had a bad experience with someone pushing this schedule, which may have affected how I received your response. I am altering my position to one of neutrality until I educate myself further. Thanks


From: Bill Stone
Date: 24 Jun 2004

Don, An apology is not needed as communication via the computer is often distorted and the intent is not always realized or communicated well enough for the intended party to understand. With that said, all is well here and I wish all of us the best of luck with our vote on this soon-to-be proposal. Sincerely, Bill


From: Gifford
Date: 21 Jun 2004

Maybe my intent of my first posting wasn't clear. I am just trying to find out more about this proposal so I can make an informed vote. When would we be voting? Will there be a plan in place that is written out so everyone can review it before we place it to a vote? This would assist me in making an informed vote. For example... a 3 month trial vs a 1 year trial may affect how a person would vote etc. I would be interested in any info that is out there. I think there needs to be a clear plan before we vote. I am more likely to back a sound plan than an good idea without an established direction.


Re: More questions

From: Perry
Date: 21 Jun 2004

Don, Thanks again for your concern. This website will contain our "sample agreement" (when I get it done) for everyone's review and input. The length of time concerns those of us in support. We are trying to get a "feel" for a length that will be acceptable to a majority. I would not like to see a proposal defeated because of length. A short trial is better than none at all. A year is by far the simplest and should be considered heavily for it's overall benefits. A vote to put a proposal before the membership will come at a Union meeting (majority). A proposal will be posted for a minimum of thirty days, followed by a membership vote (majority). The membership will need a finished MOU/MOA to review prior to their vote. That is my understanding. This will need to be completed prior to vacation selections in the fall.


From: Dennis Anthony
Date: 21 Jun 2004

I agree Don. I don't see any other way than a 1 year trial. I don't think it would be fair to the office to mess with vacation picks more than once. I would also say that I think it would take a simple majority vote to try it and weather to accept it or not. I don't know the full legalities so this is just what I think.


Always working a 48

From: Don Fry
Date: 21 Jun 2004

I must admit that the one thing that concerns me about this schedule is "always" working a 48, since here at 8's we seem to be up a lot. However I just came off a 48 last shift and we were up till somewhere around 0300 during my first 24. And you know I had no problems during the second 24. I had tech. training 0900-1830, so no chance for a nap. And at the end of 48 I sure was thinking how nice 96 off would be. For the things that I do with my kids and friends 4 days off would be perfect: rafting, climbing, hunting etc. A person could drive 1 full day, 2 days of fun and drive back 1 full day or any variation. Of course you won't be GOING somewhere during each rotation. The one draw back that I see is the APPEARANCE of more time off (always having 4 days in a row)... I'll have to force myself to not be out playing all the time ( I couldn't afford it). Anyway, I say let's try it, 2 things could happen. 1. We could all hate it and then just go back to our current schedule. 2. We could all ( or the majority ) love it and decide to keep it. I know that not everyone will be happy. I know that I'll miss some of my kids events... but I miss some of them now. The schools and sports teams have never taken my schedule into account, but I've been lucky to be able to take a few hours VL or trade a few hours here and there. Years ago I voted against the switch in schedule's. I did not realize how much fun it would be to go and do things with my kids when they got older. Hey I was "happy" with the way things were... now I see the benefits of a diff. schedule. It seems that I could go on and on, so if you have any more questions about why I've change my mind call me at 8's B shift. I'm still not "sold", but a trial period will probably "hook" me on the 48-96. Respectfully , Don Fry P.S. Whoever did this web site did a fantastic job!!


From: Perry
Date: 21 Jun 2004

Don, your concern for the continuous 48 is probably shared by many firefighters. After working this schedule, I found being busy was an advantage. I think you will be pleasantly surprised on your 48 hour work days and really happy with your 96 hour family time. Also, many of the Engine Companies contained within our website study run an average between 400-500 runs a MONTH. That is busy. Thanks for your input, I hope you get to give it a try for yourself. Later


48/96 BAD, BAD, BAD

From: SKINNER
Date: 21 Jun 2004

Someone needs to find out comments from people who have worked the 48/96 who do not like it. They could bring up ideas/situations we have not thought of, so we all can make informed decisions. Whoever investigated this schedule or set up this web site, why did you not post comments from these people? I still don't understand why the body would hurt others in the union by forcing this schedule on them. If this schedule would hurt one of our members or their family we should vote it down. If it was you or your family wouldn't you want your union (family) to support you? Think of others before you think of yourself. Four days off is not enough justification for working 48 hours straight every time you work and possibility hurting even ONE of our members or their families. SKINNER


From: Dennis Anthony
Date: 22 Jun 2004

Brian, I have searched and have yet to contact a member that has worked this shift schedule that will say anything other than what is in the report already on this website. If you would like you are welcome to contact these departments for yourself and try to come up with some other negatives.


From: Perry
Date: 21 Jun 2004

Brian, it has been difficult to find Departments that have tried the 48-96 and then reverted back to an old schedule. In fact, I haven't been able to find a single one. I am sure their are individuals that work for Departments that do not like everything about the 48-96. Many of the negatives they feel are contained within this website an are being voiced here on these pages by our members. As for hurting other Union members, as a past Union President I wished many times that I had the ability to make decisions without harming a single Union member. But the true fact is that all Union decisions affect everyone differently and sometimes negatively. Nobody wants to hurt someone else. Even our Union, as great as it is, would not be able to function if it required 100 percent approval for any type of change. I truly understand your concern, and respect your commitment for the comfort of others. I would like to think you and I share those qualities.


From: Terry Cole
Date: 21 Jun 2004

Brian, if what you say is true, that if one person is affected negatively we shouldn't do it, than what about me as the one. I tried it in December. My family went through depression and sadness when I had to go back to the 24/48. When I was working the new schedule, I had a lot more time with my wife and kids. My wife paints windows for Christmas. The schedule allowed her to work more consistently because I was home four days in a row and could be there for the kids when she couldn't instead of asking our parents to help. So if you think we shouldn't do it for the needs of one, try it for the needs of many.


From: SKINNER
Date: 21 Jun 2004

So, "the many" should just walk over "the one" to get what "the many" want. We should think of others first, again, if it hurts one of the members or their family we should vote it down. SKINNER


From: Barnack
Date: 21 Jun 2004

Brian, Please define what you mean by hurting someone's family. I have a hard time seeing a schedule as anything more than a job requirement that I and my family have to work around. Most assuredly there are times when the schedule we work now creates difficulty for myself and my family, and I am sure that this will still be the case if we switch to a different schedule. My hunch is that regardless of the shift schedule we work, there will be times when every family is caused distress by our shifts. Randy


From: Skinner
Date: 22 Jun 2004

There are numerous members on the department in which this schedule would hurt their family, some of them have posted messages on this web site. Here are some other questions that need to be addressed--1. The departments that are running 48/96, how many of them were working 24/48? If you look into it most or all were working the modified detroit schedule (0X0X0XXXX) before changing to the 48/96. They did not change from the 24/48 schedule. 2. Has anyone approached Chief Ross about changing schedules in which his firefighters will work a minimum of 48 hours straight and only go up from there? You members who want this new schedule have blinders on. With the carrot of 4 days off you don't see the disadvantages or the harm it can do to the union and the publics attitude toward us. Skinner


From: Dennis Anthony
Date: 22 Jun 2004

Brian, It seems as though you are against any reason for this change. There are many members of you union family that has given you reasons for wanting to try a different schedule. Yet you shoot them down every time saying they are only thinking of themselves. We each have to make this decision based on how it will affect us personally. I am not going to make my decision on how I think this my effect you, nor should you make it on how it effects me. Understand that this is not an across the board pay issue that is the same for everybody, this is an issue that effects each individual separately. So I would say think about you this time and let others make their own decision.


48-96 and family
From: Charlie Ruffing
Date: 21 Jun 2004

I can't help feel that the driving force in the 48/96 schedule is only the time off. What about the time you spend on? What kind of performance can we expect from each other after a day of rit training or a house burn? After a shift of being up all night? How many times will we not check out the rig because we checked it out the day before? I realize these are all personal issues that a good, well trained firefighter would never do, right? And for the family man or woman with small, accident prone kids at home, 24 hours away from home can be difficult. Are we asking these brothers and sisters to choose between leaving family or quitting a job that they need and love? Will the rest of us have to start using sick-time for the time off we need for the every day stuff that comes along? My next question and thought may seem to put me on the other side of the fence but I ask, what about overtime? I can handle the once-in-awhile 48, especially when 24 of that is overtime pay, but how hard will it be to work 72 hours for that same 24 hours of O.T.? I personally think I, Charlie Ruffing and the department as a whole, will be hurt by this change. Please prove me wrong and I will change my vote.


From: Ron Galindo
Date: 21 Jun 2004

I have a problem with being away from my children for 48 hour straight. A 24 hr period is long enough. What games besides football for kids in high school are played on a Friday night ? Not all of us play hockey, or go out to the bars on Friday, therefore we don't worry about coming to work on Saturday morning. If the run reports pile up, won't you still have runs the next day? I have bit the bullet and began ARFF training. This means I will probably be at the ARFF station for 48 hrs straight. No way I will stay on the team. I fear we will lose this service as our turnover rate is already high . Daycare is a nightmare now, it will be worse. It only take 2 shifts to change, please leave the rest of us on the 24/48 hr shift.


Other Advantages
From: Cody
Date: 23 Jun 2004

Under this website section ADVANTAGES it is stated that swingers will stay at the same station for a full 48hr shift. NOT TRUE!! The swingers don't always have the same house now in a 24 hr shift. This statement leads me to believe that other ADVANTAGES may not be necessarily the full truth. That said, I am not necessarily opposed to a set trial period, but don't try to feed me bull!!! Cody


From: Skinner
Date: 23 Jun 2004

Also, on the advantages it says that you could do two days worth of weekly chores (floors, chassis, inventory, refer's) in the first 24 hours and have the second 24 hours for special projects. When I was on the line (12's) we would regularly be doing one of these weekly chores at 4,5,6 PM because of training, adopt-a-building, hydrants..... We did not have time to even consider doing two days worth of weekly chores. Skinner


From: Greg Briggs
Date: 23 Jun 2004

I can see your point Cody. I think what that advantage was referring to would be the likelihood of a person taking both shifts off at a time and not just 24 hours. Currently if someone takes the full 24 off, then the swinger would most likely would stay for a full shift. Under the 48-96, if someone took both shifts off, I would not see a reason to move the swinger. Understandably a 3-hour block of vacation would be no different under either schedule, the swinger would swing. As far as the rest of the benefits being wrong due to this one being wrong, I would say that to be a poor assumption. Take each point on its own merits. If one is outrageously wrong, I am sure we can have it removed.


48/96 Schedule

From: Lilly E3/B
Date: 23 Jun 2004

We tried it at 3's for only one month. It is really hard to make a definite decision. I am on the fence, neither for nor against. The only problem I personally have is paying back trades. I won't work past 48 hours which means I will have to pay back my trades during my 96 off. So, where is the benefit? Thank you


From: Skinner
Date: 23 Jun 2004

If the body votes for a trial period, I suggest that we go back to the 24/48 schedule for the same amount of time we tested the 48/96 for. Then take a vote on both schedules. Also, a trial period of a year would be the only way to test a new schedule to include all holidays, summer vacations.....so we are looking at 2 years away. Hey, why don't we use our energy to better the department and the union instead of this BAD 48/96 schedule, like 4-man engines/5-man trucks or a fourth platoon. Skinner


From: JIM STAPPLER
Date: 23 Jun 2004

Those of you who support this schedule change need to ask yourself if its worth imposing hardships on your Brothers and their families that are happy with the current schedule. I have worked under the current schedule for 16 years and have zero complaints. 24/48 worked great when we had kids at home and it works even better now. I have discussed this at great length with my wife and she is opposed to 48/96. I would hope that the Union would require at least a two-thirds majority vote to pass a change in our working conditions as important as a schedule change. We all signed on with this schedule, and I don't see a line at the door to leave. For those of you who will accuse me of not having an open mind.........Give it a rest and come up with a new argument.


From: dennis cleary
Date: 24 Jun 2004

Jim, while I would never accuse you of not having an open mind as I respect your input and realize this schedule does not meet your family needs. I for one, have had to deal with shuffling a daughter between two homes the last 6 years, and the thought of her being at my house for more than one night at a time is most appealing to me. This schedule, 48/96 I'll admit is for the only purpose of spending more time with her, and making life in her young age less hectic bouncing between parents. Dennis Cleary


From: Dennis Anthony
Date: 23 Jun 2004

I have asked myself if it’s worth imposing hardships on my Brothers and their families that are happy with the current schedule. I have worked under the current schedule for 16 years also and have zero complaints. 24/48 works great now but 48/96 might be even better. I have discussed this at great length with my wife and she is excited to try 48/96. As far as the union requiring any more than a majority vote would not be fair to what would be the majority. Why in this society do we feel that the minority amount of votes should have preference?


From:
Date: 23 Jun 2004

Hmmm. you may be right a 4th platoon. Can you say 48/144! Just kidding. Lets all lighten up we have the best jobs in the world.


Another thought

From: Bill Tinsley
Date: 23 Jun 2004

Mental alertness, working 48s every shift, being away from loved ones, having a hard time getting trades.....I know these have already been mentioned many times. What about the fact that everything that goes wrong at home seems to happen when we are at work. Can you imagine telling your wife it will be 2 days before you can come fix the water heater? How about car trouble? The schedule we work has kept me happy for 15 yrs and I am the envy of all my friends. I golf and fish on weekdays. I take a month off to travel and still have vacation when I get back (thanks to trades). The job is great. It ain't broke so lets not try and fix it!


A couple of questions




From: Doug Gates


Date: 23 Jun 2004


Time: 20:12:46 -0400


What is the experience of departments adopting the 48/96 schedule relative to worker comp claims. Have the claims increased, decreased or stayed the same? Have the nature of injuries increased in severity, decreased or stayed the same?




From: Dennis Anthony


Date: 01 Jul 2004


Time: 23:46:11 -0400


Well I have been in contact with 27 depts. and this never came up. I never directly asked about on the job injuries and none of the depts. offered that info as a problem. I hope that helps. DA




From: A. Hummel


Date: 01 Jul 2004


Time: 00:26:52 -0400


Hello all 48-96 supporters... Why hasn't anyone responded to Doug's question? I think this is a very valid concern that deserves consideration. Does anyone have any stats?




From: Greg Briggs


Date: 01 Jul 2004


Time: 10:24:39 -0400


If you have time, could you look into it Aaron? Sorry, I have not had the extra time recently to do it. Keeping the website running is about all I can do. I mostly put the site together to have one place for the information we have. I wish I had the time to investigate every detail. So basically, it is what it is. If you gather info on the 50+ departments, I would completely appreciate it. My gut thought is that it probably was not an issue. No department has ever left the 48-96 to go to any other work schedule. If they were getting injured on the line, I would think that would not be the case. I guess another awesome place to look for more data would be to get our data on injuries when someone is working a 48 on this department vs. their normal shift. Look into 72s and 96s just to give a good perspective. Thanks Aaron, I look forward to the answer. It is a very good question.


No Broke - No Fix




From: Noel Rios


Date: 23 Jun 2004


Time: 20:18:43 -0400


It is my humble opinion that if it's not broke, don't fix it. Now I may be an old crusty Army guy who thinks he has the best new job in the world and gets an awful lot of time off and gets paid pretty well, but that's just me. I do have two young boys and I know I do not like being away for 48 hour periods. It will be and is a hardship for my wife when I'm gone for 48 hours, logistically it is, period. The web site is wonderfully done and there has been a lot of effort put into, good job. HOWEVER, "the Air quality standards" will be greatly improved. You have got to be kidding. Won't we supposedly have MORE time off in a row. So we'll be out boating, 4 wheelin', skiing and adding to the pollution anyway. Come on people, let's not pump sunshine on an already sunshiny day. RDT's seem that they should be paid back ASAP, not when it's convenient for me, that's not always the case now, I don't see it getting any better. As far as the ice cream consumption goes, if you're leaving some for the next shift now, you're not trying hard enough. The comparisons are great info. However, we do not work a KELLY shift do we! Apples vs. Oranges. I would rather work a 48/96 vs a KELLY shift too, but I DON'T! I need one day off and then I have five days off, not too bad eh. Simple for me, me likely current schedule. Respectfully, Noel.




From: Tom Gainor


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 18:50:26 -0400


I have to agree with Noel on the rather lame "Advantages" section of the web site. Besides the air quality thing, the 'reduced laundry expenses' argument is pretty weak. If the city told us that they wanted to change our schedule to save laundry costs, you'd be able to hear the screaming for miles.




And another question




From: Doug Gates


Date: 23 Jun 2004


Time: 20:19:53 -0400


What impact will the proposed schedule have on customer service? In theory a happy employee provides better service but, can we really provide the same quality of service in the second half of a 48 hour shift as compared to the first 24 hour period? A. Hummel's comments regarding ACEMS seem to indicate that their organization doesn't believe this is possible hence the 36 hour shift maximum. I'm not for or against trying this schedule yet but would appreciate a few more facts prior to making a decision.




From: Dennis Anthony


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 09:23:38 -0400


Again, if working a second 24 hour shift is so bad for the community or EMS or all these other reasons. Then why are you okay with us allowing it now? It must be affecting our service now. I don't see it but maybe in some other stations it is.




From: Tom Gainor


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 18:42:55 -0400


I'm not a big 'rah rah' supporter of 48-96, but if ACEMS is against it, I'm for it.




Some Very Good Questions




From: Greg Briggs


Date: 23 Jun 2004


Time: 21:10:49 -0400


Wow! There are a lot of great questions coming out of this discussion group. Questions like: How will this schedule affect family life? Trades? Holidays? My wife? Like many others, I read the concerns that each person posts and spend many hours pondering them in my mind. After reading all the documents and postings, I believe more and more that the only way to truly understand the schedule would be to undertake a trial period. The whole intention of this period is to answer the very questions that are being asked in this forum. If at the end of the period I don't like it, you can bet I will be posting here telling people to get rid of it. Very few big things in life offer testing periods first. Fortunately, this schedule is one of them and presents the opportunity to have all your questions answered. I encourage everyone to put uncertainty aside and support a trial period; it is the only way to fully know.




From: Terry Cole


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 00:44:51 -0400


Gregg has a very good point. I have to admit that I was not for changing schedules permanently, and my family really didn't want to. The first time I brought it up with my wife I almost had to sleep on the couch. We both agreed we wouldn't know how it would affect us unless we tried it. It took only a few weeks and what we found was that 48 was nothing. I was excited at work again. It was fun. Even the second day was great. My wife and kids loved having me home the 96. I got tons of stuff done around the house. I would do my normal chores plus some new projects and still have one or two more days left for fun and family. By the end of three weeks, my wife and I were getting along like we did when we were dating 17 years ago because we were spending time together again instead of alway going work to home. In my 14 year career, I've worked 24/48, 8:00 - 5:00 and I have tried 48/96. There is no question in my mind, nor my wife or kids minds which is the all around better schedule. All we are trying to do is as a department give it a TRY, not a permanent switch. That will come only if it is found to be better by the majority. I'll bet it is found better by 85-95%.




From: Noel Rios


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 11:27:30 -0400


Golly gee. What a great forum. I really have a great schedule now. How about enhancing our personnel form 8 off per shift to 10. That seems like a reasonable request. In response to the "how do you know if you don't try it" mentality . . . I know I like women, however, I not going to try _________ to be sure!!!!! Some of us would rather not work 48's, but when it's necessary, RDT's, or CM, then we can. I agree, the 48 hour shift isn't going to 'degrade' our performance. However, let's be realistic about all the AWESOME benefits the 48/96 has to offer. We currently have a good system in place, let's keep it. Next on the Agenda; 10 personnel off per shift/ 11 personnel summer & Holidays; please respond to this if interested. Do we need a majority or 2/3's?




From: JIM STAPPLER


Date: 25 Jun 2004


Time: 13:15:33 -0400


GREAT IDEA NOEL! 10 OR 11 OFF SHOULD SOLVE MOST OFF THE TIME OFF NEEDS AND IT DOESN'T DISRUPT ANYONE'S LIFE!!!!!!!!


48s are taking a beating




From: Scott Hall


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 01:41:18 -0400


I think the 48-hour shift is becoming quite exaggerated in the amount of misery it produces. The hardships, the tribulations, and being so exhausted we can’t perform our very jobs are gross exaggerations. If working a 48-hour shift really “short-changed” the citizens, then we wouldn’t be allowing it now. The truth is, a 48-hour shift is very much a part of our current schedule of 24/48. Constant manning may not always cause a 48-hour shift but RDTs generally do. Many of us voluntarily work extra hours to earn more money and a lot of people have commented that they get as many trades as they desire. Are we endangering our very lives, or short changing the city, or causing extreme hardships at home then? A 48-hour shift under the current schedule is only preceded by or followed by one day of rest. In the 48/96 schedule it would generally be preceded AND followed by 4 days rest (overtime and RDTs not withstanding). One could argue that it would actually be a safer system. I would like to re-iterate the Roseville study that showed comments from firefighters that actually worked the 48/96. They stated that both hardships at home and being tired were not the problems that they were perceived to be once the schedule was actually implemented. I believe most of our firefighters who have been able to experiment with the 48/96 agree with those remarks The truth is, we won’t know until we try it. I think it is very compelling to think that fire departments that have tried it overwhelmingly approve it and none has ever returned to their previous schedule. I’ll say this, the box fan sitting on the floor in my house ain’t broken but the air conditioner works a whole lot better.




From: Skinner


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 14:04:27 -0400


I would like to hear someone argue in front of the mayor, council, public, or the medical director that this schedule is safer for the public (who pay our salary). There is no was you can argue this shift is better, safer for the public. A comment was made that we work 48's now with no problems. Well, we also do not transport patients which increases the amount of time on a call and decreases rest and sleep time. Also, a comment was made about Roseville, what did they work before the 48/96, a modified detroit OXOXOXXXX, how many F.D. working the 48/96 came from a 24/48? None or one! Those of you who are pro-48/96 get off the 4-DAY CARROT, it doesn't justify the 48 hours straight. Get a shift trade or VL in you want 5 days off. Better yet, STOP SELLING VL so our union can effectively negotiate for more VL accrual or more kelly days. Then you can take more 5 day vacations without trading shifts. What are the priorities for the union? ALS and BLS transport, 4-man engines/5-man trucks, paramedics, to enter the political arena to help our union and other labor in this anti-union state. This shift schedule should take a back seat to all, more important priorities for the union. 48/96 is BAD, BAD, BAD. Skinner




From: Bill Tinsley


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 07:52:32 -0400


The box fan vs air conditioner is a great analogy. However, I am still happy with the present shift and don't even want to do the 48/96 for a year to "test" it.




From: Terry Cole


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 08:44:30 -0400


Bill, would you consider 3 - 6 months?




From: Wally


Date: 28 Jun 2004


Time: 15:02:06 -0400


1 year or 6 months is a lot closer to a "schedule change" than a "trial period". If the trial period is actually going to be a short trial period, I would be for it... By short I mean 6 weeks. i.e. the first six weeks of '05. There would be very little impact on VL because not much is used at that time. To those of you who say that we need to do it during the summer to appreciate the benefits to VL, etc... I say that it will be a more complicated to work around the vacation bids that way... Plus, the "daily grind" in the winter will be an interesting test... (commuting on icy roads, etc...) Also, if we can't tell whether we like 48/96's in 6 weeks, we never will....




From: Skinner


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 13:47:40 -0400


The trial period needs to be a year to incorporate all vacations, holidays, busy summer time, slower winter time. Also, if a trial period is implemented to try then the 24/48 schedule needs to be re-tried for the same amount of time, then an informed vote can be made to shoot down the 48/96 schedule, again, hopefully once and for all. Skinner




From: Terry Cole


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 14:01:35 -0400


Brian, why would we have to give 24/48 another trial? Haven't we all seen what it is like? Don't you think you will be able to tell the difference?




From: Skinner


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 14:13:56 -0400


I think it is kind of obvious. Firefighters do not like change, so some might just vote for the 48/96 after the trial period just so they don't have to change, again. Not because they like it , but they have already changed their lives around (daycare, 2nd jobs, vacation...) and would have to change them again. Instead of all this unnecessary changing going around, JUST KEEP THE SCHEDULE AS IS! 24/48 GOOD---48/96 BAD, BAD, BAD Skinner (early lunch is over, back to work, right Perry-ha, ha)




From: Perry


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 13:56:14 -0400


Brian, I agree with your trial period analogy but I have worked the 24-48 for 13 years and got a pretty good idea what it is like. Lets just pretend that the 24-48 trial period is this year, right now, and we are doing it first. P.S. I hope you are on your lunch break. HAHAHA


Advanced Life Support and the 48-96




From: A. Hummel


Date: 23 Jun 2004


Time: 16:43:17 -0400


How does the 48-96 schedule affect our assertion that we are committed to enhancing our EMS skills to the ALS level? Right/Wrong or indifferent, ACEMS has a policy, supported by their Medical Director, that says that their Paramedics should not work longer than a 36 hour shift to ensure mental acuity in providing ALS.




From: Jim Walker


Date: 23 Jun 2004


Time: 21:53:32 -0400


Aaron, Ada cty is not a stickler about this policy. Whenever an OT shift is offered up, Ada cty goes by "1st come-first served" without regard to whether or not the medic has just come off a 24...and should we really follow ada cty guidelines? Is our mental acuity affected when we work 48s? Is the performance of a say a driver any less taxing mentally than performing ALS skills? My point is that we already work 48s through trades etc. and seem to handle mental challenges that are on par with the challenges of medics...and peoples' lives are at stake - our members are up to the task...just check out some of the mental giants who are posting responses here...heck, include yourself in that fore-mentioned group...maybe even my brother...that may be too much of a stretch.




From: Rosen


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 00:56:25 -0400


So Jim, I think that it is perfectly obvious that none of us think that we're not capable of working for 48 hours straight as medics. However, what will our Medical Direction have to say about it. I don't think anyone has even addressed the issue with that Doc. As for ACEMS, I believe they are pretty strict on the max of 36 hours straight. Yes, they work 24's and then are allowed to work 12 more, but that's it. At least that's how it works for someone that I know at Ada County Paramedics. Also, That is not the policy that ACEMS came up with, rather it was the Medical Director who suggested the limit "I think". All Aaron is doing is bringing up the fact that no one has bothered to find out whether this schedule is OK with OUR Medical Director. Is this important? I don't know, but there sure has been a lot of work toward getting ALS engines and it would be smart to prevent any possible hang ups by covering every angle. All this being said, I'm slowly, but surely being talked into the idea that this new schedule will allow me to go camping for the better part of my entire life. I can't wait to have my 60 something 4 day vacations with that, "oh yeah" CAREER coming around only once a week. Fine by me. p.s. I hope my sarcasm hasn't made anyone mad with me being a new guy and all. Thank you for your time.




From: Jim Walker


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 01:56:48 -0400


Hey new guy - Zip IT!. Just kidding. I agree that it is important to check with OUR medical direction. However, let's not immediately limit ourselves to the ada county approach of doing business. We are very capable people and can handle most any challenge which is presented to us. That being said, I would like to have a couple of questions answered: 1st) Where does this "magical" 36 hour number come from? Do medics perform at an awesome level up to hour 36, but Lord help...Oh, let's say a fictional battery victim...let's call him Mr. Rosen... if they are trying calculate how much morphine to give him during hour 38? Does it come from the Hospital ER setting where there is constant demand on the personnel? 2nd) Do any of the departments which are currently on the 48/96 run ALS? PS-Tim, you know I'm joking-right? Mr. Sensitive?




From: Don Fry


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 13:41:33 -0400


Should we think that the only people who are reading this web site are BFD firefighters? Maybe we should limit the scope of the web site discussion area, to discussion on the 48-96. What ever we think of anyone else working for our dept. or not should definitely not be mentioned here. People are entitled to their own opinion for their own reasons. And it may just be that a calm, cool and rational discussion is what may persuade someone into trying something new. And for the record I am not 100% sold on this schedule, however I am willing to give it an open minded try for a year.




From: Scott Hall


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 11:58:47 -0400


I know that El Segundo is ALS for certain, and probably a lot more since many are from California where fire and ALS are usually mixed.




From: Rosen


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 09:18:56 -0400


Jim, Apparently you don't like when ACEMS and BFD are in the same sentence. However, we work with them every day. The Magic number 36 is just a number, but one that is supported by their Medical Director. Again, I ask you what Magic number will our Medical Director support??? 48.....72.....God Forbid 36..... p.s. Nice web site and great discussion. And I'm not sensitive!




From: A. Hummel


Date: 01 Jul 2004


Time: 00:12:23 -0400


Okay, I couldn't take it any longer. I must respond to Jack N the Box (AKA Big Head Jim Walker). Okay, lets say Big Head ran his yapper one too many times (hard to imagine) downtown one night and finds himself 5's next GAK victim. While I agree that ALS is algorithm based and a Paramedic is far from being an M.D., there is still a little more to it than just knowing what med to push. Eg. quick mg per kg body weight calculations, etc. I am not saying that it can't be done, I am simply making the point that we shouldn't minimize the demand ALS can have on us.




From: Dennis Anthony


Date: 01 Jul 2004


Time: 23:48:33 -0400


Aaron, I do know that many of the depts. surveyed are ALS. I know that most of them run many times the number of runs that we do and this also has not been brought up by them as a problem.




From: Perry


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 13:41:31 -0400


Doug, Aaron, To help answer some of your concerns, please refer to the San Jose Report contained within the "other resources" link. You will find some info regarding sick leave utilization, injury rates and fatigue. Aaron please remember that their are hundreds of Departments that are currently working the "kelly" schedule or that have worked it prior to the "48-96" and conducted 48 and 72 hour shifts regularly. That is occurring right now. Many of the Cities on this website have engines that provide ALS and run between 350-500 runs a month. When considering fatigue, I think that recovery-time is the key ingredient. Thus the advantage of the 48-96. Please feel free to have our Medical Directors contact any of the hundreds of fire/ems services to get the "straight-scoop". Once given all the info. they may not be so hesitant to try it.


Just in case




From: Rios


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 14:29:02 -0400


Just in case my response is overlooked. here it is, again with a new question. Golly gee. What a great forum. I really have a great schedule now. How about enhancing our personnel form 8 off per shift to 10. That seems like a reasonable request. In response to the "how do you know if you don't try it" mentality . . . I know I like women, however, I not going to try _________ to be sure!!!!! Some of us would rather not work 48's, but when it's necessary, RDT's, or CM, then we can. I agree, the 48 hour shift isn't going to 'degrade' our performance. However, let's be realistic about all the AWESOME benefits the 48/96 has to offer. We currently have a good system in place, let's keep it. Next on the Agenda; 10 personnel off per shift/ 11 personnel summer & Holidays; please respond to this if interested. Do we need a majority or 2/3's? This is a question for the One-year TRIAL period also.




From: Rios


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 14:48:13 -0400


My question had previously been addressed on the web page. The newest to oldest thing threw me off, because it's not really newest to oldest date-wise. It's newest to oldest subject/reply/date-wise. Holy cow. I digress though. Simple majority. Sounds like we may using a loop-hole from the 2/3 majority with the guise of a "ONE YEAR TRIAL PERIOD". I agree with a one year time frame so Vacations, etc, however, we're messing with peoples routines and families here. If a vote come to pass, then let's try it. However, Bum-rushing around the the 2/3 majority seems a little sneaky, nes pa?!? Sincerely, not riding on the fence, Noel.


E-Board remaining neutral?




From: Greg Womack


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 15:03:08 -0400


I have had complaints from a few members that the Union Leadership should not be "for or against" this proposed schedule change. Every single member has a vote in this Union and an opinion. We will never 100% agree on any topic or issue. That being said I am for a trial period. The E-Boards job is to let you know how this issue will affect the local and to let the membership decide the fate. I think it should be a 2/3 majority vote which means we need approx. 143 to affirm this schedule change.


Candid Interviews of 48/96 Dept Members...




From: Hank Homburg Santa Barbara City FD


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 15:49:58 -0400


Hello Boise! First off, great job on who ever participated in developing this website! Our Dept is looking into this schedule change as well. Most of the coastal communities (South Bay of LA and Bay Area of Northern Ca) where median housing costs range from $650k to 1 million plus have been going to this schedule due to most employees living 60 miles or more from their assignments. I have a video tape that was made to remove any "bias" ideas from firefighters. I interviewed members and Chief Officers who were pro/con (although, every previous "con" firefighter admitted to being pro once on the schedule). The video tape is amature-ish, but the content is informative none the less. If you are interested, I can send you guys a copy. Good luck with this issue... It will definitely stir things up around the stations! The important thing is to respect everyone's opinion and not to let it get personal; as Rodney King said, "Why can't we all get along..." Fraternally, Hank Homburg email; hhomburg@ci.santa-barbara.ca.us or hanknsb@aol.com


Brothers & Sisters




From: Tom Lovell


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 16:08:08 -0400


Hello to all! It is great to see so much discussion and debate between our members on a very important & emotional issue. I'm guessing we will have a quorum at July's Union Meeting. (Haven't had one for over seven months). I will not be taking an official position on the Shift Schedule. I will remain neutral until it is time for the vote and all members have had the chance to voice their concerns. There are 216 dues paying members that have the right to fair representation from this local. I have received a dozen or so calls from members opposed to this change, with explanations ranging from "I hate to work 48's & I don't work them now" to "I hope the Union is going to pay for my divorce, alimony & child support if this passes" to "This is going to fracture the Union and split it right down the middle". I take each & every phone call very seriously, even though I don't have a solution for each individual. I have also received more than a dozen calls from people that support the issue, ranging from, "You better give this proposal a fair shake and not try to steer it to defeat", to "It's a democracy and the majority will push it through to the end." So believe me when I tell you, "I have heard it all." I would like to just tell everyone to be respectful of one another. Everyone has an opinion on this issue and they have that right. I will continue to listen to the membership and the E-Board will also be looking into all of the possible ramifications to the contract (ie. Vacation, trades, sick leave, call back, FLSA, Training, etc....) to make sure that we answer all questions that need answered. Thank You for your time, Be Safe and I'll see you all at the Next Union Meeting! Tom.




Have worked the 48 / 96 for 10 years




From: Bobby Halton Albuquerque


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 17:40:52 -0400


We have had great success with this schedule and it works for us because we like it. It has advantages and disadvantages, but compared to all the others I have worked, I prefer it as a line member and and as an administrator. The best bet is to just give it shot and check it out, it is only an idea no one said it is a good one, yet. Best of luck, let us know how it turns out. Bobby Halton




From: Bill Stone


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 21:17:12 -0400


Chief Halton, Thank you for your input, tell Franklin Brown and the rest of the 49th cadet class "Hello" from me. I also wanted to thank you for getting me started in this awesome career. Sincerely, Bill Stone


Completely off the Subject




From: Tom Gainor


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 20:39:10 -0400


This has nothing to do with the 48-96 discussion, but I'm curious: What does it cost to run a web site like this? If the expense is reasonable, maybe we could switch the Local 672 web site to a format like this one. I think it would be pretty cool to have discussion threads on various topics running all the time. What do you think?




From: Tom Lovell


Date: 24 Jun 2004


Time: 23:47:45 -0400


Tom, On the Union Website there is a message board very similar to this one. Once you sign in to the website, click on Message Board in the Member area and your in business. There are postings there starting sometime in January. Hope it helps. Tom




From: Tom Gainor


Date: 27 Jun 2004


Time: 14:54:05 -0400


Thanks, Tom. I had never noticed the "Message Boards" section of L-672's web site before. Apparently, neither has anyone else.




Putting my Two Cents in (for what it's worth)




From: Jake Zebell


Date: 25 Jun 2004


Time: 11:55:19 -0400


First and foremost, my name is on the list of those who wish to support a trial period. My feeling is that the issue has been brought up, and will continue to be brought up to the table, unless we try it and get some things resolved. The thought of being away from family for 2 days is not appealing. (I'm sure the pool boy will be thrilled). But being selfish, the thought of 4 days with her is. For those of you who will look at me as trying to "hurt my brothers and sister" because I'm in support of a trial period, come on. These comments frankly piss me off a bit (excuse the french). A trial period is the only way we can get a read on this issue. If our Medical Direction allows the idea, if the folks downtown in the "big office" see no problem with it, and first and foremost, the MAJORITY of the BFD wants the trial period, then we should give it a try. Guess what all, at the end of the trial period, we all get the chance to vote. I'll be the first to say, that if I don't like it, I can still check mark the "no" box. p.s. Jim Walker, you wuss.




From: Jim Walker


Date: 29 Jun 2004


Time: 08:31:06 -0400


I'm coming after you Jake...right after I finish off Rosen which should take about 10 seconds.


What if you don’t like who you are working with?




From: Terry Theriot


Date: 25 Jun 2004


Time: 15:50:31 -0400


48hrs of working with someone you really don’t like is a long time. Just something to think about




From: Bill Stone


Date: 29 Jun 2004


Time: 10:19:51 -0400


48 hours of working with someone you do like is a short time. Just something to think about. It seems that whether you like or dislike the person you work and whether it's for 24 or 48 hours, the coping strategies are the same or very similar.




From: McGrew & Nebeker


Date: 26 Jun 2004


Time: 20:43:20 -0400


Your preaching to the choir!




From: Luther Bass


Date: 25 Jun 2004


Time: 22:02:20 -0400


Terry, if you think working with some one you don't like is bad think about living 96 with some one bad. Just a thoughts from my own experience.




From: Tom Gainor


Date: 26 Jun 2004


Time: 20:01:32 -0400


Brad, that's hilarious! I think I just spit iced tea out of my nose!




From: Luther


Date: 27 Jun 2004


Time: 09:21:55 -0400


What do you mean, Brad? Wait a minute my man is calling me, I'll be back.....(in 25 years or so).


over 1/2 way


From: Wee Man


Date: 27 Jun 2004


Time: 15:09:23 -0400


What if you don't even like looking at the guy you're working with?


10%




From: Zolin


Date: 25 Jun 2004


Time: 22:58:56 -0400


I was talking with Broden today. He said he wanted to hear from the "10 %"* currently working it, that voted against passing the 48-96. I made some calls. I called 2 departments. I found 1 guy that didn't like it. He said it was because of fatigue, they force people to work overtime for 1 even 2 days. This makes for a long 72 or 96. He was from San Mateo. He also let me know that he was against it from the start. All the other stations that I was able to chat with in Albuquerque and San Mateo love it. Some did say that it is a long time away from the family, but it is worth it. Another said the second day is hard when you get hammered the first day. He said "you know 55 calls in a 48 hour period." I can’t even imagine that many calls in two days. If we were running call volume like that I could see more discussion on the fatigue issue. As far as not wanting to work a 48. I feel people don't like them because the way we do them now. We work with a different crew. We have only one (not 4) days off before or after the 48. We could have to travel to a different station (even if not a swinger). It is not the norm for families. Most if not all of these would be resolved on the 48-96. I feel making the "48" not nearly as "bad, bad,bad" as it seems now. Almost everyone works a 48 right now either for time or money. I feel it would be a lot easier on the 48-96. As for the "10%"* who voted not to pass the 48-96. Today I could not find them. I think, they are 1% people who will never like it and 9% people who voted against it(really love it) because they were anti 48-96 from the start. * ( 10% not an actual number, used for conversation and this discussion only) Feel free to try and find one of the "10%" San Mateo 652-522-7921 24 25 Albuquerque 505-842-5245 291-6240 821-0725 265-2025 265-2030 I would try another department. The guys that I talked with here couldn't think of one person in the department that didn't like it. Last thing- One guy said he was kind of on the fence. He asked what we worked. I said, 24-48. He laughed and said "it's a lot better than that"


What is change?




From: Brent Ho


Date: 26 Jun 2004


Time: 00:12:28 -0400


For many who have been apart of Leadership classes, the route for progress is through change. Change is the key. However, to convince people to change is to persuade those of what they will lose and gain. The true test is to influence one who believes he/she will lose something is less important than what they may gain. And, the only true measure of what might be lost or what eventually could be gain is to try, experiment and research. I pose a question to the members who feel they would be forced into this schedule because of a majority vote. Were you one of the majority that voted for this contract and forced me into it? I did not approve of it. I did not vote for it, but the majority ruled and I AM IN IT. Just like the rest of the body, simple majority rules. That’s how this vote should be conducted. There are always going to be “What if’s….?” and “What about’s ….?” Or “I don’t like this because….” And “This doesn’t work for me because…..?” For the “nay-sayer’s”, if you don’t like the proposed change, you research and find more evidence to support your view. I think that those who want the change have done their footwork.




From: Aaron Leuck


Date: 12 Jul 2004


Time: 07:55:33 -0400


A-HEM AMEN BROTHER HO!




From: Rios


Date: 29 Jun 2004


Time: 20:08:55 -0400


Being a "nay-sayer". I would agree there has been some ground-work, as limited as it may be, and as all good ground-work goes, it 'supports' the change the so-called majority wants. Leadership is about influencing others, through actions, training and discipline. It's also about being cognizant of the effect 'change' will have on the people you lead. The 'Trial' period may seem harmless and we could go back after 'one year', however, I would wager that the majority of the leadership feels that won't happen. Change is necessary, if it's needed. Is it needed? The ground-work strongly indicates those who switched to the 48/96 would never go back to their old shift. That shift was NOT 24/48. This needs to be STRONGLY emphasized by our leadership when we have these discussions. There is already an acceptance of "it's going to happen no matter what anyway". If we are going to TRY something for one year, it should be based on the assumption of FACTS relevant to us, the BFD and our 24/48 schedule. The web-site does NOT address this, but does address the fact we can save money on laundering by using sheets for two shifts. How many people change their sheets every shift? I would challenge the leadership to seek CHANGE in the current number of personnel permitted to take Vacation/Kelly to increase from 7/8 to 9/10. Hasn't our personnel strength increased by more than 30%? How many years has it been since our current allocation was instituted? Does the leadership feel the current insufficient off for Vacation/Kelly days affects the moral more or less than the current 24/48 schedule? Would this change shift opinion on going to a 48/96? Just some questions for the leadership. Respectfully. Noel.




From: Tom Lovell


Date: 30 Jun 2004


Time: 13:41:49 -0400


Noel, I am guessing that by "leadership" you are referring to the Union Leadership, and not the "leadership" of the 48-96 movement. With that in mind, I will answer from the Union Leadership perspective. Your negotiators have brought the issue of more people off per shift since contract negotiations in 1992 when past president Charlie Parks was the lead negotiator. The City's position has always been "you don't use up all of the days in the calendar, so you don't need more days off". A pretty bad argument in our opinion, but healthcare and wages have always taken top priority. It has been discussed recently by many members to attempt to add more Kelly Days, but I understand it does not help with how many can be off per shift. I have done some research. If we hire 22 people this fall, approx. 7 would go to each shift. at the current seniority levels for vacation picks, I predict that we will overrun the entire vacation calendar for vacation selection in 2008. (That is if everyone would pick all of the shifts that they are able to schedule). If we were to add say 4 more Kelly days, That process would be shortened significantly, hence, forcing the City's hand to add more slots because they would be in violation of General Order #120.00 and the CLA not allowing everyone their entitled picks. As always, we will be conducting a membership survey prior to our next Contract negotiations and they will be prioritized based on the numbers returned to the committee. Hope this helps. Fraternally, Tom




From: N Rios


Date: 02 Jul 2004


Time: 14:22:40 -0400


Tom, I was referring to the Leadership in the BFD as a whole. All of whom influence us by their actions; positively or negatively. I do appreciate the information though. One quick question for you, to make changes in our Collective Bargaining Agreement; Simple or 2/3 majority? And does the "City" have to agree? Thanks. Noel.




From: Tom Lovell


Date: 12 Jul 2004


Time: 12:28:51 -0400


Noel, To make changes in the CLA, I believe that it only has to be a simple majority as it is to ratify a contract. We are currently checking to see if there is any history of actually changing the contract language in the middle of the contract, ie. Switching from 1700 shift change to 0800, Giving up a 3% raise to keep from laying off Wienhoff, Pangborn & Sowinski, and what the voting numbers were for those particular items. And yes the city must agree to make changes, just as if the City wanted to change our Health Care, we would have to agree for that to happen. Tom


Rule by 2/3 majority




From: Jeremy Johnson


Date: 25 Jun 2004


Time: 21:37:23 -0400


Being a new guy on the department, I realize that I don't have as much invested as several other members who have been posting messages, but here goes: First and foremost, I am for a TRYING the 48-96 schedule. Don't get me wrong, I love our 24-48, but for me and my family the 48-96 might be a better option. I am certainly willing to try it. With that said, I am empathetic to other members on the department who would be greatly inconvenienced by such change. Some members have probably worked this schedule for over 20 years and have become very comfortable with it. It would impact my life to a much lesser degree, since comparatively I have worked this schedule for a much shorter time. That brings up the question in my mind that even if this measure is passed by a 2/3 vote, that leaves 1/3 of the department suddenly forced to rearrange their lives, schedules, etc. and, while I think that a 2/3 majority is necessary, I'm still not sure that it is completely fair... Under this scenario - 2/3 happy workers, 1/3 disgruntled workers. It is my thought that maybe it would be better to just change 2 of the shifts schedules to 48-96 and leave 1 shift as is for the trial period. This schedule would look something like this AACBBCAACBBCAACBBC. This way at least one shift would still remain the same and be available to those whose lives the 48-96 schedule would completely screw up... Just a thought.




From: Perry


Date: 26 Jun 2004


Time: 13:04:46 -0400


Please remember that a 2/3 vote is ONLY for a Union By-Law change. If a simple majority vote is good enough to ratify a Collective Labor Agreement and everything contained within it, then it will certainly be enough to allow a "trial" shift schedule.


Let's hear from support




From: Travis Woolford


Date: 26 Jun 2004


Time: 22:12:20 -0400


What do the folks from our Admin. office, Training, & Supply think of this?




Re: Let's hear from support


From: Perry


Date: 27 Jun 2004


Time: 13:50:12 -0400


Travis, The Divisions that you mentioned have not been polled for input. When I spoke with Chief Ross, I was given permission to approach any of the Fire Department Divisions to trouble-shoot possible problem areas. I imagine that we may be able to come up with some new and innovative ways to deliver training and of course there will be a few payroll issues to iron out. Rest assured that all Divisions will be included.


24-48,vs.48-96, A comparative analysis ??????




From: JIM GROSS


Date: 27 Jun 2004


Time: 14:27:02 -0400


This site has a lot of info on the advantages of the 49-96. The disadvantages are talked about briefly and then spun to the positive side. I read the "Comparative Analysis" by DR. Koen and found it lacking some important facts such as what, where and how many firefighters did she interview? What are that long term problems associated with a spouse who is dependent upon the worker for family care and the 48 hr. shift. I went to her Web site seeking more info on the negative effects on family life, she seems to know a lot about shift work in the 8 to 12 hr. blocks used by companies like H.P. and Micron. but I couldn't find any case studies on firefighters and shift work. I did see a cool picture of Greg Briggs standing in front of Truck 1 on her Web page. Greg, what is your relationship with Dr. Koen? Did she interview you? If you guys want my vote on this new schedule please come up with more info on: * Departments that have changed from 24-48 to 48-96, seems the info you have is from Departments that have switched from the kelly schedule. * What are the long term affects on a firefighters family when he as a care giver is consistently gone for 48 hr shifts? Thanks, Jim




From: Dennis Anthony


Date: 28 Jun 2004


Time: 10:33:05 -0400


Jim, I have done quite a bit of research on these questions you have. First I have found that the terminology that is used for shift schedule names such as Detroit, Modified Detroit, Kelly, Berkley and so forth are not used for the right schedules. The 24/48 schedule is the Detroit Schedule. I found this out by calling Detroit Fire and asking. This is the schedule they work. This is predominately an Eastern schedule. The Modified Detroit is the Kelly schedule. This was predominately Western. Researching back the Modified schedule was adopted by Early California depts. because it was felt this was a better schedule than the Detroit. As near as I can tell and I do not have an exact number. There are only a small number of depts. nation wide still on the Detroit schedule. We are one of a few depts. in this valley that are on the Detroit schedule. Second, a lot of Depts. nation wide on the Modified Detroit (Kelly) schedule are changing to the 48/96 because they feel it is a better schedule. Since this is the case there are not many (with out calling each dept.) that have made it known that they have gone from the Detroit Schedule to the 48/96. It seems they take the long way through the Modified Detroit (Kelly), then to the 48/96. If this is confusing, give me a call and I will try to explain it better. Thanks, DA




From: JIM GROSS


Date: 27 Jun 2004


Time: 14:26:46 -0400


This site has alot of info on the advantages of the 49-96. The disadvantages are talked about briefly and then spun to the positive side. I read the "Comparative Analysis" by DR. Koen and found it lacking some important facts such as what, where and how many firefighters did she interview? What are that long term problems associated with a spouse who is defendant upon the worker for family care and the 48hr. shift. I went to her Web site seeking more info on the negative effects on family life, she seems to know a lot about shift work in the 8 to 12 hr. blocks used by companies like H.P. and Micron. but I couldn't find any case studies on firefighters and shift work. I did see a cool picture of Greg Briggs standing in front of Truck 1 on her Web page. Greg, what is your relationship with Dr. Koen? Did she interview you? If you guys want my vote on this new schedule please come up with more info on: * Departments that have changed from 24-48 to 48-96, seems the info you have is from Departments that have switched from the kelly schedule. * What are the long term affects on a firefighters family when he as a care giver is consistently gone for 48hr shifts? Thanks, Jim




From: Greg Briggs


Date: 27 Jun 2004


Time: 17:05:25 -0400


Jim, the relationship between me and Dr. Koen is that she is my 2nd aunt in law. That means she is my wife's, dad's, mom's, sister's, daughter. She is the president of one of 2 or 3 companies in the US that offer advice to organizations changing schedules. I would like to state however that any link between 48-96, the Saudi Royal Family and big oil is a lie!




From: JIM GROSS


Date: 27 Jun 2004


Time: 19:59:43 -0400


Greg, I had a couple questions on my first post. Do you know where Dr. Koen did her study on our work schedule vs. 48-96. And did she interview you? Also what other 24-48 Departments have converted to the 48-96 schedule?




From: Tom Gainor


Date: 27 Jun 2004


Time: 15:04:50 -0400


"a cool picture of Greg Briggs standing in front of Truck 1"? What's up with that? By the way, it's www.roundtheclocksystems.com


The Good, the Bad, and the Status Quo




From: Jim Pendleton


Date: 28 Jun 2004


Time: 11:25:43 -0400


While I do have my reservations about the new 48-96 proposal, I am quite willing to give it a try. That is the only fair means of knowing firsthand. Like all of the pro 96er's out there, I am all in favor of four days off. I've always wondered what could be more convenient than our existing schedule: like Don Boyer used to say..."every day we work is a Friday." Well, four days off is unquestionably a vast improvement over two days off. That should be the end of that argument. This is the upside, the 'good.' Now for the downside, or the 'bad': 48 hours on. Every time you leave for work, you won't be home for two days. Personal crisis, whether at home or away, will be harder to address. A stopped toilet that won't flush or a family emergency may just have to wait. What if your daughter has an earache during the night? Or what if the flu or a cold is going through your family and your wife is unable to cope? I predict more use of personal sick leave, possibly at the cities expense(?). Hopefully you will be able to leave for home when the time comes and not anguish over the fact that you are at work and can't leave right now when your family needs you (after all, you will be home/off for the next four days.) I personally have a hard time with the two days on. This is the half of the equation that I focus on right now. Not very deep inside of me I am a free spirit, and some days, when the weather is pleading for me to take advantage of it, just doing our regular 24 hours (the majority of it indoors), is tough. I can say with certainty that doing 48, the majority of it indoors, is going to be pure hell some days. If there ever was a just cause for drug usage, there it is. Two days on, every time I go to work. No offense, but there are other people in my life that I like seeing and interacting with on a regular basis, more than I like being at work. The rank-and-file of the BFD are a great "Band of Brothers" and a second family for most of us. Most times are good times. I don't lament my times spent on duty, but the BFD is not my life. Give and take is fair. But giving two days each and every shift may be asking for a bit much. Our schedule, as it is now, is so radically different and better than a normal 8-5 schedule, especially when you throw in our rank-and-file RDT's. It will be difficult to improve on: the 'status quo'. To all you young guys out there who are in favor of this proposed schedule: not that you won't ever be able to change in the future, but take the time now to consider that as you get older and possibly not so active; maybe your wife comes down ailing or you have a child or grandchild who is challenged in some way; or you're on the sauce and two days is too long to go dry; for whatever reason, you have to live with the 'two day on' tomorrow and the next day and the next...sort of like random testing. This change is in your control at the moment. Once implemented, it will be harder to have any control over it without another round of dialogue. We'll see. I say give it a try. Who knows, the 48 may pale in the shadow of the 96.




From: Dennis Anthony


Date: 28 Jun 2004


Time: 14:19:50 -0400


Wow Jim, That was a roller coaster of emotions. You do make some good points. The only way we are going to know, as you said, is to try it.




From: Noel Rios


Date: 29 Jun 2004


Time: 15:54:54 -0400


I disagree with 'the only way we are going to know, is if we try it' , DA. I know I do not like to be away from my wife and kids for 48 hrs. I know it. Do I like to have lots of time off in succession? Who doesn't. Would I work if I didn't have too? Bottom line is for me, I agree with Jim’s analogy of working 48 hrs. But do not see the validity of the 'let's try it' to be sure. Having to work 5-6 48's hour shifts every month IS NOT APPEALING. And yes, I am a "nay-sayer", but that is what makes our country great, isn't it. After all, we could be pulling 24 hrs ON, 24 hrs ON, 24 hrs ON if we were in Iraq. Noel.




B shift is best !




From: Same old goat, still in happy pasture


Date: 29 Jun 2004


Time: 13:16:55 -0400


Right now B shift gets 2 Christmas Eve/Christmas' off every four years and works 1 Christmas Eve and 1 Christmas. If we try the 48/96 and vote it down will we go back to the 24/48 on EXACTLY the same rotation as we have now? Bill Tinsley




From: Skinner


Date: 29 Jun 2004


Time: 17:18:17 -0400


Bill, if we do a trial period do you think it will get voted down when the trial period ends? I don't. I think that whatever schedule we would try we would adopt. Firefighters tend not to like change much. After rearranging their schedule for a year (2nd job, wife working, sitter, daycare, vacations...) and establishing a new rut, I really don't think very many will vote a new schedule down. This is the problem with the trial period. I suggested before that we go back to the 24/48 after the trial of the 48/96, at least for a while, if you want a fair vote on the schedules. Skinner




From: Terry Cole


Date: 29 Jun 2004


Time: 18:08:22 -0400


Speaking as one who has tried the 48/96 schedule, I have to disagree that going back for a trial 24/48 will make people want to stay 24/48 because of the resistance to change. When I tried 48/96 last December and went back to 24/48 in January, my wife and kids hated it. Now, six months later, my family still asks me all the time when I get to go back to the good, good, good 48/96 schedule because they still hate 24/48. It's that good! I think all a revisit to the 24/48 would only lower moral and make people irritable. Only speaking from experience.




From: Rios


Date: 29 Jun 2004


Time: 18:31:00 -0400


One month of experience. In December, the Holiday season, just got a $$$$$ from vacation sell down maybe? How many Vacation/Kelly days off did you have that month? Just curious. As "one-sided" as Brian's opinion may seem to you, they are his valid thoughts on the 48/96. The 'yea-sayers' have used the 'firefighters are resistant to change argument' themselves . . .there is some merit to, why change again, also, there is also merit to why change at all. Noel.


Greg, Seeking info! Distress and the 48




From: J. Gross


Date: 29 Jun 2004


Time: 15:03:19 -0400


Greg, I asked you a few questions on my first post and have not received a reply on what Fire Dept. did your Aunt do her study? How many Firefighters did she interview ? And were you interviewed ? I'm just looking for accurate unbiased info. Also I can't find any info on what kind of short and long term affects the 48 hr shift will cause families where the Firefighter is highly dependent for security and care.




From: Greg Briggs


Date: 29 Jun 2004


Time: 20:35:08 -0400


Jim, The study was written by Round The Clock Systems in response to me asking for an opinion on the 48-96 schedule. Dr. Koen and Round The Clock Systems took the sample schedules (24-48 and 48-96) and did an analysis on them. I do not know what number of firefighters, or which departments were used. I was not interviewed. From the company website, I can confirm that they have been around since 1983 and have helped over 3000 companies achieve effective operations in the workplace. Visit their site and I am sure you will agree that it is a professional company, which I would have to think, can generate a better opinion than most of the "speculation" that we are doing. Treat it as an extra resource. Sorry, but I don't have an answer for your last question where you describe effects on "families where the firefighter is highly dependent for security and care".




From: N Rios


Date: 29 Jun 2004


Time: 21:53:16 -0400


I checked out the web-site. Could not find any information on an analysis between 24/48 vs 48/96. Please help.


Alot of Talk




From: Marker


Date: 29 Jun 2004


Time: 18:41:14 -0400


Seems to be a lot of talk....Thats good, it may be the best thing for all of you and your families in the future. But, without an MOU or opening the contract I can't be forced to work a 48/96. I'll leave a forwarding address for ya'll to let me know how it shakes out in 2006.....HBM


Questions?




From: A. Hummel


Date: 01 Jul 2004


Time: 00:58:12 -0400


I would like to simply ask a few questions for those of you in the know. I think that Skinner's point about people not wanting to change back after a year is a significant concern. Let be realistic, some members may have to legally adjust child custody/support arrangements, childcare etc. Not to mention the effects from changing from 24-48 to 48-96 to possibly back to 24-48 again. For some of us, there is quite a ripple effect of who is affected by this type of change. Does anyone remember the phrase "Status Quo Ante"? Yes, that was what the Court ordered the City to do on the ARFF case. The City had to put BFD back into ARFF at the BAT before any further negotiations could take place. Why? Because you are not in a very good bargaining position when what you are bargaining for is already gone, in this case the 48-96. At the end of the 1 year trial I would suspect that some people will not be excited about having to change their arrangements again. Lastly, when someone calls in sick is there going to be the same number of people willing to constant man, breaking up their 4-day? If not, does the city force people back because of minimum staffing. How does that effect the membership? How does that effect the City? Did it increase overtime costs in the other cities? Thanks fellas.


Random thoughts




From: M. Klinger


Date: 08 Jul 2004


Time: 09:31:40 -0400


Ok, here are some things I have been thinking about. Since I came on the dept. in 1990, people have been working very hard to get Paramedic engines for the BFD. Now, we are on the threshold of achieving that. That is a very good thing. The ability to start ALS sooner will save lives. Now what does that have to do with the 48-96? Once the medic program is underway the number of Paramedics on the dept. will be low. Will they have a minimum manning head count like other specialty teams? What will happen when you go under the required number? Holdover? Could somebody be forced to do a 72 or even 96 shift? I think the 48-96 would be fun to work. However, thinking long term for the benefit of the union and dept. maybe it would be better to first get the paramedic program in place, get all the kinks worked out, train all those that want to upgrade to medics. Then after that, make the switch to 48-96 when we have the numbers to support a 48-96 type shift. After all, most everyone here will be here for 10-30+ more years. What’s the hurry? The paramedic program is a huge step for us. Lets not jeopardize it in its infancy. Just some thoughts running through an old mans head. Comments are appreciated. Have a nice day.


"trial period"?




From: Wally


Date: 04 Jul 2004


Time: 21:44:58 -0400


Up 'til now, I have been against the 48-96, and I'm still not saying that I'm for it... I think it is important that all of us take into consideration what hardships this may cause to some of our brothers before we say "I don't care, it's better for me." That said, I would be for a "short" trial period... I do not consider 6 months or a year a "trial period" at all... Schedule changes of that length would require all of us to completely change our off the clock routines. (child care, spouse work schedules, etc...) I propose that we try a short trial period of 6 to 8 weeks starting Jan 1, 2005. 6 weeks would allow us to go through a complete rotation of working all the days on/days off combinations.... Doing it in January would have little effect on VL since very little is used during that time... If we could convince Admin to let us bid for the remainder of 2005 on both schedules, there would be no problems no matter which schedule we voted in after the trial.... My theory is that most of the anti group are concerned about the 48 on every time and 6 weeks is long enough to figure out for ourselves if it really is "bad, bad, bad" or "good, good, good." If we can't figure it out in 6 weeks, 6 months isn't going to help much.... I really believe that a trial period any longer than that is a waste.... If the 48-96 is really as great as we have been lead to believe, it will be obvious to all even in "only" 6 weeks.....




From: Zolin


Date: 07 Jul 2004


Time: 14:24:30 -0400


It is nice to see you might be willing to give it a try. I feel it needs to go through the summer. This is when the vacation schedule is full and it is harder to get trades. I feel a trial during this time would let people see how good, good, good it could be.




From: Skinner


Date: 07 Jul 2004


Time: 16:37:06 -0400


48/96 is BAD, BAD, BAD now or after a trial period. Skinner


must change




From: Marker


Date: 10 Jul 2004


Time: 15:52:31 -0400


We have to go ahead and change the schedule to the proposed 48/96! As I set and review the input and discussion of the troops I started looking at the times that the comments were submitted and realize that our Dept. productivity is at an all time low! I roughly calculated the time spent reading and producing replies on the topic and realized that if that time had been spent preparing bake sales at the stations the proceeds would have not only purchased the new truck, but also the cost of staffing it for the foreseeable future. I guess that the up side of the 48/96 is we could schedule the symposium for the same two duty days so some of ya could make the training.... HBM....




From: Bill Stone


Date: 14 Jul 2004


Time: 10:43:04 -0400


"Doubles" anyone?




From: Marker


Date: 17 Jul 2004


Time: 20:40:25 -0400


Just following the union contract and maintaining my fitness levels as I know you are! That way I can live long enough to be a burden to PERSI




From: Bill Stone


Date: 19 Jul 2004


Time: 11:40:06 -0400


Touche, Just some kind ribbing...brotha!




From: Marker


Date: 23 Jul 2004


Time: 15:43:16 -0400


Remote Name: 66-193-42-2.gen.twtelecom.net


don't hurt my feelings, hell have no furry like that of a scorned lover! Still my favorite, Brotha




From: N Rios


Date: 26 Jul 2004


Time: 15:42:07 -0400


Who's your furry lover?




2/3 majority and Negotiations




From: Dennis Doan


Date: 14 Jul 2004


Time: 16:49:08 -0400


I am still trying to decide on the 48/96. I do have two questions/concerns. 1. It has been suggested we have a 2/3 majority. I strongly oppose this. What do we do on the next vote and who decides if it is 2/3 or a simple majority? The E-board? The Local President? We should only vote on By-laws changes as 2/3.....unless we change the by-laws. 2. I struggle with future negotiations. We currently have 4 kelly days. We get Kelly days to lower the total hours worked in a week/month. I did not negotiate our current Kelly days but I am sure the discussion centered around call volume, fatigue and the need to lower our hours worked. With that said, how do we go to a 48 hour shift and then ask for more Kelly days in the future? Again, I am neither pro or con on this issue, I am still thinking. Dennis Doan




From: Dennis Anthony


Date: 14 Jul 2004


Time: 23:12:51 -0400


Dennis, I agree with you about the vote. The only vote that is stated as a 2/3 majority is a By-Laws change. Therefore I believe this is a majority vote. On your second question about Kelly Days. I don't see where this is an issue. If we work 48 hour shifts we still work the exact same amount of hours in a given week, month or year. Maybe I don't understand your view but I don't see the problem.




From: Dennis Doan


Date: 15 Jul 2004


Time: 03:55:10 -0400


I am talking about the future. Do we ever want any more Kelly Days? You are correct, we will still work the same hours as the current schedule but I feel it will give our negotiators a difficult argument. How can we ask for a reduction in hours worked (that is what a Kelly day does) when we are also asking to work 48 straight hours. If that doesn't make sense, I will give it another try. Dennis Doan




From: Barnack


Date: 18 Jul 2004


Time: 15:08:42 -0400


Re: Kelly Days I think we view Kelly Days as a benefit when we should see them as a cost. Kelly Days reduce our total hours worked thus allowing the city to pay us less. Kelly Days are not paid days off; they are not vacation. Our total compensation is reduced because we work less by taking the 4 days off. I would not support any increase in the number of Kelly Days./// I think Dennis is smart to be thinking about future negotiations. All of us should keep that in mind as we discuss any change to our work schedule. For my part, if the data from other departments holds true, then I think there are some significant cost savings to the city by switching to the 48/96. \ Other people have mentioned adding a 4th platoon. My concern about that is a reduction in our actual work hours, which I think would weaken us at the bargaining table. RB




From: Skinner


Date: 19 Jul 2004


Time: 11:39:32 -0400


Are you serious? Your thinking about K-Days is ...wow... Kelly days reduce the average number of hours we work during a week. The less hours you work during a week the more your hourly pay goes up, when you are on salary. The more kelly days we have the more our hourly pay/OT pay goes up. How is our compensation reduced with kelly days? More time off, less work load, less time to get injured, more time with family, and also FOR THE SAME PAY. So how are kelly days not a benefit to our union? How do kelly days hurt our bargaining? Should we move towards 60-70+ hours/week (same pay) to make our position at the bargaining table stronger? What do we neg./want the most, usually? Medical benefits, pay increases, more time off (increasing the # of people off per shift, increasing the vl/sl we accumulate). Wow, you see kelly days as not a benefit, so when the union went from 2 shifts to 3 was that not a benefit either? There hours were reduced with same pay. Same thing with us now and kelly days; more time off, increase in hourly/OT pay, and for the same salary. Kelly days are a HUGE benefit for the union and we should negotiate for more. Skinner




From: Dennis Anthony


Date: 15 Jul 2004


Time: 19:24:58 -0400


Dennis, Under the current schedule we choose to work extra hours for overtime. With your argument, how can we ask for a reduction of hours worked now? Why does it weaken our argument if we work a regularly scheduled 48 without increasing the hours worked per week? This is like saying that we can't ask for more people off on vacation per shift because we choose at other times to work extra hours or because we use trades. Reducing the hours worked from 56.14 to 54.29 each week was the argument we used for Kelly days, not the schedule we were working at the time. When we chose to negotiate our reduction in hours from 56.14, I don’t think that working 24 hour shifts rather 12 hour shifts made a difference. Does that make sense?




From: Greg Briggs


Date: 15 Jul 2004


Time: 19:11:56 -0400


Dennis, When we ask the city for more Kelly days, we are not asking for a reduction in the number of 48s that we work. Asking for more Kelly days is simply asking to reduce the number of hours spent at the fire station. If we as a union want more Kelly days (i.e. less time at work) we should be reducing the amount of vacation we sell as well as telling the city we want less overtime. I don't agree with less overtime/sell down, but if your goal is to increase our number of Kelly days, trying to rid ourselves of 48s is not the answer.




From: Skinner


Date: 16 Jul 2004


Time: 11:37:22 -0400


Why doesn't the union body spend this energy on reducing the number of hours we work? The pro-48/96 people could have their longer times off, there would be more overtime for those looking for more money, and the people that want to spend more time with family can do so. This can happen if we would change our attitudes about how the union body thinks in reference to vacation time, kelly days, and sell down. Why not put our efforts into something that will benefit the union 10, 20, 30 years from now instead of the instant gratification of changing a schedule, in which no benefits change (OT, acquiring more VL/Kelly Days, pay). No on 48/96 Skinner


Video taped interviews




From: Hank Homburg Santa Barbara City Fire


Date: 14 Jul 2004


Time: 23:32:11 -0400


FYI...I sent Greg Briggs a video tape that may help answer some questions for your members... I interviewed FD members who are currently on the 48-96. Hope it will be of help. Fraternally, Hank Homburg




From: Skinner


Date: 23 Jul 2004


Time: 11:45:21 -0400


Posting new was not coming up, so I had to tag onto this message. To those guys who are pro-48/96, how many of you sell vacation time? You could have your 5-DAY breaks if you would not sell your VL. The body that sells VL is hurting the union now and 20-30 years in the future. Are we going to be stuck on 4 Kelly Days and the same VL accrual 20 years from now. Some in the body complain that there is not enough people off per shift, why would we get more off per shift when most of the union sell their VL instead of using it. If the union would change its views on VL sell down it would benefit everyone (pro-48/96 and anti-48/96). The body looking for more $ would have more OT opportunities, the body looking for more family time would have more time with their family, the body looking for more time off for outdoor activities would have it. Instead of changing schedules, which doesn't change any benefits (Pay, VL/SL/Kelly day accrual, medical....), it only gives you the instant gratification of a changed schedule. Put your energy towards something that will benefit the union now and 20, 30 years from now. A shift change with the same # of hours worked, just changed around, does not benefit the union 20, 30 years from now. OPEN YOUR EYES AND STOP SELLING VL, USE IT! Skinner




From: Noel Rios


Date: 26 Jul 2004


Time: 15:39:38 -0400


Brian, I appreciate your passion on this issue, wait, no I don't. My EYES are open, but the only time I CAN use my VL is in the Winter and other PRIME times such as when my kids are in school like Mid APR or NOV, great times and availability. Once I've been on for 5-10 more years and can get the VL dates which are the more desired, well, maybe I'll CLOSE my eyes then! That said, I'm still not in favor of working 48's, HA-HA! Some of you probably thought I had SEEN THE LIGHT!!!!




From: Skinner


Date: 27 Jul 2004


Time: 12:57:22 -0400


Well, if you sell your VL until you get enough whiskers to get the good VL slots, it still hurts the union in trying to negotiate for more VL accural or more guys off per shift. Why would the city give us more accrual or more guys off per shift when most of the body sells their VL and doesn't


Vacation sell-down




From: Terry Cole


Date: 21 Jun 2004


Time: 10:30:17 -0400


When I started looking at this schedule last year, it was just after we picked vacation. I had all the days selected I needed. When I compared the new work schedule, I found I would have saved 9 days of vacation. I have only sold my vacation one time since I started working here in 1990. I use up what little vacation time I get. With 48-96 I could easily sell 180 hours at the end of every year with no problem. That would mean I could have almost $4,000 in a nice bonus just before Christmas. Another way to look at it is a $300/month raise.




From: SKINNER


Date: 21 Jun 2004


Time: 11:00:26 -0400


Vacation selldown is bad for our union. If we ever want to bargain for more vacation time accrual or more kelly days it will never fly. The city will say you don't use what you get now. If you just want the $$$$$$$$, everybody should use the vacation time and there would be twice as much overtime for everybody. For some of us where time off is more important than $$$$$$$$$$$ the members who sell vacation time stop any chance of being able to effectively bargain for more accrual of VL or Kelly Days. Think of the greater body now and 20 years from now in your decisions. You (all members) will be retired someday, but the union will be here long after you go. So, what is best for the union, not what is best for me right here and now. Skinner




From: T Cole


Date: 23 Jul 2004


Time: 13:46:39 -0400


Brian, I have only sold vacation once in my career. It was at the end of my first year on. I have never had any to spare since. I plan on using my vacation as much as possible when we are on the 48/96. The way it is now, if I use one shift, I get 5 days. If I burn two shifts, I get 8 days. I am really looking forward to having 4 days all the time and 10 days if I take two shifts. That is a two day benefit every time. If I only need 5 days, that still happens with one shift. If I have any vl left at the end of the year, that will be a benefit too. It would be nice to have a little Christmas money to help out the family. All I can say is I would never turn down more time off. With my 14 1/2 year history, I use all the vl I can get. I'm sure I could find a way to use more if we had it.


48/96 is bad for us




If we want to implement the new schedule now "FOR A TEST" then the contract opens up and we loose some benefits, oh yea, the total # of hours we work stay the same. Increase in medical premiums, reduction in pay, or Sunday training.... are you willing to give these benefits up now or in 2006 for the same total # of hours worked? Did you really think that the city would not want to open the contract? If we negotiate this schedule change in 2006, do you believe the city will not want anything in return for a schedule change? Yea, but, the hours are the same we will say to them. And you really think they will let us change without giving up something in return? This is what I've been talking about in my previous postings. THE NEW SCHEDULE DOES NOT INCREASE ANY BENEFITS, NONE!!!!! So we are going to negotiate away benefits for a schedule change that DOES NOT increase any of our benefits. Why don't we negotiate for increased hours we work for the same pay or a reduction in manpower for the same pay. USE YOUR HEAD, why are we going to negotiate away benefits for a schedule change that has the same # of total hours? THAT IS INSANE!!! Here is another point if this does go threw in 2006. After a trial period ends and the body decides they want the 24/48 back, is the city going to give back the benefits that WE NEGOTIATED AWAY? If you said yes, did you also believe the city would not want to open the contract either, well, because it is the same # of hours right? Reduced benefits for the same number of total hours worked. Does that sound good for our union? For your family? For you? This schedule change is a bad idea and we need to put our efforts into something that will increase benefits. Skinner






Guest


Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 9:20 am    Post subject: Is it so bad?


Many of our body believe that giving something up for the 48/96 would be worth it...the obvious benefit is to one's family. There are more mornings home and more full weekends home, so if you have kids in school, you can have a full weekend with them off for a change (We work the detroit here). Is there any better benefit? I can't put a price on at-home wake ups.


Jim




Curious from Oregon


Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 12:50 pm    Post subject: Loss of benefit


I'm curious how the Department can consider a change in schedule, that has the same work hours, any reason to try bargaining away other benefits of its workers. What reduction in service have you caused? what increase in hiring is expected? Answer...None. This simply makes no sense and would be deplorable. I'd conduct a little research on what things have been given up elsewhere to change their schedule. We did not give up a thing here to change ours. Its still a 56 hr schedule and service remains unchanged. I agree with the 48/96 committee member and as someone who works 48/96 now, the schedule is worth fighting over. Just fight to not give anything up to get it : )


Update (nov 7th actual posting)




Well here it is. The long awaited update. It is a slow process arranging meetings with everyone involved. Following my last meeting with Chief Ross, I began contacting the Deputy Chiefs again as well as e-mailing our Medical Director. Tad Cowley (one of Boise Fire Docs) contacted the Albuquerque Medical Director and responded to me that at first glance it looks O.K. and followed up later with a neutral position (could not find any data regarding 24/48 vs. 48/96). There is very little definitive data available to base decisions on.




I had a meeting with the Mayor and Jade (executive assistant) Thurs. afternoon. The conversation went well and the Mayor will have City legal, safety and finance review the MOU/schedule. The Mayor will talk with Renn as well. If everything passes this stage then the Mayor/staff will prepare an informational packet for the City Council and schedule time on the pre-council agenda.




SSSSSOOOOO, this means that everything is still moving forward. Many concerns have been addressed and many others will probably just need to be experienced to resolve. EMS has been a big concern, our docs are on board and we still have over 8 months before our projected implementation date. Plenty of time to fine tune issues. The number of Departments changing schedules continues to grow. INEEL firefighters and the Salem FD are going to the 48/96. Thanks for your patience, I will keep you updated on the slow but steady movement. Perry




From: SKINNER


Date: 21 Jun 2004


Time: 11:00:26 -0400


Out of all these departments that have switched to 48/96, how many switched from the 24/48? One? None? I worked the XOXOXOOOO, and if I had a choice to switch to 48/96 I would have also. In my eyes the four days off did not make up for the marathon (XOXOX). The departments have gotten used to the 4 days off, but are tired of the marathon. Hence new schedule with four days off. What are we going to negotiate away for you to have your FOUR DAYS OFF? This schedule and the way we are going about it is a bad idea. Skinner




From: Bill Stone


One reason there are so few, if any, departments that have gone from a 24-48 to the 48-96 is that most all have evolved from the 24-48 to the 0x0x0xxxx (Detroit), then moved again to the 48-96. We are a little behind when it comes to evolution, hence, nobody to compare ourselves to in regard to how a change from the 24-48 to the 48-96 would effect us.


By the way, have you ever tried the 48-96? If you answered no, your arguments and assumptions carry little weight.


Sincerely,


Bill Stone




From: Kris Boyer


Date: 21 Jun 2004


Time: 11:00:26 -0400


After spending years trying to find an alternative to our current 24/48 I have found few options that would work for my department. Every department is Unique in service (We have Fire and EMS transport), Man-power, Overtime amount, etc. I know we didn't like the evolution to the Kelly style shift either. For us it was the fact we were minimum manned and worked alot of extra shifts. Today we have more floats hired to take that burden away. But, with all the departments who have tried this schedule, seriously enjoying it, none returning to their last schedule, how can you not TRY it. You have a responsibility to your family and others to try it. Those who would like to try this schedule should not be convincing others that they will like it. They should argue you have to try it.


Thankfully we will be trying it January,2005. Evolution Man, Kris Boyer




Tom Little


We are researching the 48/96 shift schedule and I need some good contacts from other departments who are currently working that schedule.


Thanks, Tom Little


Eastside Fire and Rescue in Issaquah WA.




48/96 committee member


We here at Central Pierce Fire and Rescue are just starting the process of looking into this schedule. Our admin. is skeptical at first glance. Any and all info about your department's process (wrestling match?) in getting the schedule implemented we would be grateful.. We will give the lowdown on our situation too. We are very grateful for this board.


Jim




Curious from Oregon


Hey jim,


This site has been a help to many departments and any help I can pass your way expect it. I found this site 6 months after we began looking into the schedule. We had a committee call every department working the 48/96 and ask a list of questions our members put to the committee. It worked well and we couldn't find a person who didn't like the schedule, anywhere. This schedule is designed for most families and people who are highly active. I come to think though that the schedule is frowned upon by those who are less active and don't have ways to fill their four days off. There is little you can do to sway those individuals. You can rest assured though that they appear to be the minority worker in the fire service.... oops fire call I'll check back another time.. Kris




Oregon


Tom & Jim... if you need a contact from a department who is working the schedule and recently went thru the procedure to a trial period you can reach me at boyer@coho.net. I can answer any questions and even hook up any of your members with members here that would offer feedback. We are Marion County Fire District #1 in Salem, Oregon. Kris


I'll check that email after the 8th


Food for thought (From Nov. 5th)




What are you willing to give up for the 48-96 this year or next? A 3.75% raise? A 50 to 100% increase in health care costs? You can bet the council will want to open the contract to change the work hours. In an era of tight money, and no raises for cops and other city employees do we really want to make the switch now? At least 2 if not 3 of the council members will be looking for concessions to make the switch. Maybe we ought to wait until negotiations in 2006.


Have a good day.






Perry Oldenburg


Mark, Please remember that I made the commitment not to open the contract or negotiate for the proposed schedule change. It simply won't happen. Thanks for your concern. I think everyone should be thinking about our new contract in 2006 and what is reasonable.




Skinner


You are correct in your thinking that the city will want something in return if we open the contract for a new schedule. Isn't it correct that the city will want something in return when we negotiate the contract in 2006 for a new schedule also? So we are going to negotiate for a new schedule in 2006, THAT HAS THE SAME # OF TOTAL HOURS, and give benefits up for it. That is crazy!! This schedule is a bad idea. Skinner




48/96 committee member


Many of our body believe that giving something up for the 48/96 would be worth it...the obvious benefit is to one's family. There are more mornings home and more full weekends home, so if you have kids in school, you can have a full weekend with them off for a change (We work the detroit here). Is there any better benefit? I can't put a price on at-home wake ups.


Jim




tcharles


My department works a 48 hour shift. It is not the 48/96. We work:


2 on 2 off 2 on 2 off 2 on 8 off. Working 48's is great, I get much more accomplished than I would if I worked 24 hours. You adjust your second day according to your first night. A nap is sometimes replaced with a couple hours of sleep. It's necessary to be flexible and disciplined. The only problem with our schedule is if we get held over or we take a shift of overtime, 2 days can easily become six. This is hard on the family. I wouldn't want to work 10 x 24.




fytfir


I must work in the same county as "TCHARLES", because our department also works the: XX OO XX OO XX OOOOOOOO (repeat) . As a Fire Captain in a small rural department, I feel that I get more accomplished in the 48 hours then I do working a 24.




TCHARLES talked about how picking up two days (48 hours) of overtime can become six days in a row worked. Think about the other end- taking vacation- if I take 48 hours of vacation at the end of my cycle, I get twelve days off in a row. Overall, I think that any 48 hour schedule is great, I would like to see more departments try our schedule with the eight days off. Thanks for allowing me to give my input. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this unique 48 hour work schedule.


Boise Fire Department's new approach to 48-96




After encountering a few difficulties trying to implement 48-96 through an MOU, we decided to pursue the schedule through negotiations. Here is the e-mail sent to our membership: 




Brothers and sister,




In the upcoming weeks as we prepare for negotiations, you are going to be asked what issues are important to you and your family. As you reflect on your answer, we ask that you consider a trial period of the 48-96 work schedule (2 on 4 off). We are not asking you to put this issue in front of items such as health care and wages, but rather make it one of your top 5 items. If we can have language added to the contract granting us a trial period, then many of the hurdles we have encountered in the last several months would be taken down. Again, we do not desire to trade away our raises or any other benefits to have a trial period, but we would like to see the city agree in writing to our pursuit of 48-96.




We have spent the last 2 years educating the department to the benefits of 48-96. A department wide vote was taken and we had a clear majority of over 64% in favor of a trial period. We ask you now to put us firmly on course to 48-96 by listing it as a priority for this round of negotiations.




If you have any questions, please feel free to contact any of us listed below or better yet, visit 48-96.com where you can review the progress we have made so far.




Thank you for considering 48-96.




Sincerely,




Perry Oldenburg


Greg Womack

Greg Briggs


© Greg Briggs 2012