AFD @ Orchard Valley fire last month
Town Manger John Musante told the Amherst Select Board he has come to terms with the Amherst Fire Department on a new three year contract. The good news for all concerned is that for the first time in over 20 years, minimum staffing level would move up a notch ... to eight on duty.
But only when our three institutes of higher education are in session. Still, an improvement.
In the early 1970s the department had a minimum staffing level of seven. In 1976 it dropped to six and would not return to seven until 1992, where it has remained ever since. Last year the department handled 5,490 emergency calls.
Musante was short on details since nothing has been signed, but he did indicate the union would be receiving a raise (probably 2%) and that a town approved drug and alcohol policy would be enforced. Local 1764 will vote on the contract sometime before the New Year.
12 comments:
Isn't your headline a bit misleading since in your last line you state the Union hasn't even voted on it yet?
Last line (the close) is every bit as important as the first line (lead) or headline.
I always assume my readers stay with a post until the end, as opposed to the average newspaper reader who pretty much only scans headlines.
And this assumption is based on what, exactly? Ego?
Well you seem to have read it all the way to the end.
And obviously you come here frequently looking for something to complain about.
I like our town manager; I even think he is doing a good job. But doesn't he have the same information I do (mine via FB) which frequently tells me that off duty staffing is called in to handle an overload of calls, many times during daylight hours, and not just on weekends at night? Why are we only at 8? We should have several more on hand. I know we have budget issues, but aren't there other places, like Leisure Services, that cuts can be made, since LS isn't a necessary town department while fire and police are?
Yeah, that $300,000 a year in Recreation losses would pay for a few firefighters AND police.
Actually, the headline isn't misleading, it's inaccurate. Why would he say they have an agreement before it's been signed?
Because they do have an agreement ... it has simply not been signed.
And if you read my very brief article you would know that.
I read to the end of your comment; I didn't read your post at all. There's no point reading them, except when it's necessary to understand the context of the comments. In this case, the context can easily be inferred: you wrote a misleading or unintelligible headline and/or post.
No complaints from me. The posts are easy to skip, and the comments are almost always entertaining.
Its not an agreement until their union votes on it. From what I hear they haven't even seen it yet. I hope he's not putting the cart before the horse.
Why the heck is the minimum staffing level something they have to negotiate for? Isn't more coverage something the residents should be asking for? What is wrong with this picture?
Unfortunately I cannot comment on the specificics at this time as I have not yet read the agreement. However I will say that until it is presented to the rank and file of IAFF Local-1764, the correct term would be "tentative agreement". In fact, the term tentative agreement only applies once everything is set to papaer and has been signed by negotiators for the union and the town. I'm not certain that this has evem happend yet. At last check, which admittedly was several days ago, town counsel had not yet produced a written document. Once thw document exists, it must be checked by both sides for accuracy and then be signed. At this point ot becomes a tentative agreement and a ratification vote is scheduled.
Jeff Parr
Post a Comment