Police and Fire put their life on the line every time a call is recieved, period. They deserve higher wages than other city employees. They are in a different league in my opinion. Arbitration is the fair way to go.

Yes, keep binding arbtration for Police and Fire. These men and women put there life on the line to protect us, now the scumbag politicians want to take away their rights to earn a decent wage. If the state is so broke then why dont the blowhard politicians take a paycut?

Police and Firemen deal with horrible situations that normal citizens can't even imagine. They deserve compensation. They protect the peace and save lives, while putting their own at risk. This isn't rocket science, don't screw them over.

Police and firemen earn every penny they make, it is a job that puts their lives at risk.

However, what is a fair price to pay for this service? The city , and us as taxpayers, are hurting financially in these hard times, yet we have to find the money somehow to pay for the police and fire services, and other city services. The Unions demand a fair wage. One way to determine a fair wage is to add competition to the big picture. If a group of volunteer fire fighters, trained and qualified, want to donate their time and help out the city financially, at a much lesser cost, that would help out everyone, including the existing firefighters, who now would have backup. The city cost would be minimal, as the city already owns the fire trucks, buildings, etc and this would make more efficient use of city equipment. Of course, if the unionized firefighters want to extend the binding arbitration, or even strike, which is often the case as the penalties are nil, the volunteers could fill in and keep us safe. If costs go out of control, we can always do what the city of Pontiac has done, farm out the services. Fair is fair with wages, but start taking advantage, then we must look for alternatives. There is a reason we live in Dearborn, one is safety, right?
But that cost of safety has an upper limit. At some point, we, as taxpayers , must choose to either pay more, or volunteer, or move on...... Just an opinion....

First, your Dearborn Fire Unions are in this with the City and residents together; nothing concerns us more than citizen’s safety. In metro communities, life safety is a benefit that one should expect. DFD provides you with services that are critical to life safety. The DFD’s average response time is less than 4 minutes. That is something that volunteers cannot provide when responding from their “real” job or home. Time is critical when it comes to the “golden hour”: getting a person extricated from a vehicle and on the operating table within 1 hour. Time is critical in a house fire rescue when fires double every 60 sec. Time is critical in a cardiac arrest when the heart has stopped pumping oxygenated blood to the brain. DFD also provides ALS (paramedics) and is in communication with Oakwood Hospital.

http://www.cityofdearborn.org/government/city-services/public-information/press-releases/548-fire-department-oakwood-set-standard-in-heart-attack-treatment

We are professionally trained. It is our profession, not our hobby. Who do you think puts more time and energy into continual training and professionalism?

See our call volume below. We are doing more with less.
Year Total Calls
1970: = 4,002

1980: = 5,908 (125 ff's)

1990: = 6,882 (117 ff's)

2000: = 9,111 (120 ff's)

2010: = 10,029 (120 ff's)

I hope you will reconsider your stance on the importance of life safety. I think it is pretty important.

I consider the importance of life safety to be very high, and my comment noted that fact.
I have also spent thousands of hours training, and being trained, to save lives, as a volunteer, (not FF) and, while 1st aid is not my profession, I do take it more seriously than a 'hobby'. You, as a FF, are 'called' to a scene. That means others, usually volunteers, must do your job for those critical minutes before you get there, minutes that can mean 'life or death' as you point out. We both agree Fire fighters and police are important to the city. So are volunteers. But again, at what cost? Volunteers cost little, but they often take little risk as well.
So, how much are you costing the city as professionals? In 2010 , from your numbers, an average of 27 calls were made per day. That was spread over 120 FF. With a 5 man crew (prox) that is about one run, per crew, per day. What does it cost the city per call? How much is the city billing back to the rescued? $600 per run? What are the taxpayer costs? Maybe they are extremely reasonable. It takes a special person to put their life on the line everyday, ditto for our military forces, and they should get decent money for that risk. So how much is 'decent money? If others, fully trained, 'professionals', offer to protect our city for considerably less, is it wrong to consider the cost saving option? If you can help the city by paying a fair of benefits like others, would you consider it?

I was a volunteer out of high school. While I appreciate what volunteers do in rural communities, it'd never work in a busy community as Dearborn. We have dedicated our lives to public safety. Albeit important to trained volunteers, please don't mislead yourself. Professionals devote their lives to life safety – fulltime, not when it is convenient. It may not be your "hobby," but it is impossible to have the same training and experience as professionals who do it every day. If you do, then your real profession is suffering as well as your family. Volunteers take breaks from their real job to think about and train fire; we don't. It is our real job so we do it all the time. We don't run "5 man crews." Our ALS engines have 3, ALS rescues 2, and Ladders 2. They do respond in conjunction at times when additional manpower is needed to provide a higher level of life safety. Calls are time consuming: ALS medicals can take a few hours, while fires even more. Professional firefighters aren't living lavish lifestyles. We are middle class Americans. There are a few who live higher... because they have spouses with high paying jobs. I appreciate the salary I am paid; we don't want, nor are we trying, to get rich off of the City. We are all in this together. Debating between volunteer verses professional firefighters is a silly argument. The citizens rightfully demand more. Its common sense with response times, advanced services, ALS, experience, and training professionals can provide.

We both agree that volunteers are not as well trained as professionals, if you read my email, I made that point. It is obvious that you side stepped the question of money, which is the crux of the matter, and the reason binding arbitration should be eliminated. You have free will. Don't like the pay, move on to greener pastures. It is also obvious that there are many equally trained professionals (not volunteers) that would work for less that perhaps what Dearborn FF are now receiving. The city is hurting for money. Reductions have to be made in all depts, so are you willing to share, like the private sector, in some of those expenses, ie a non cadillac health care plan, co-pays etc? I hope you do. It is obvious that you care about our city of Dearborn. We want to keep you, if we can afford it.
So, how much are you costing the city as professionals? So how much is 'decent money', a middle class income? If others, fully trained, 'professionals', offer to protect our city for considerably less, is it wrong to consider this cost saving option? Again, if you can help the city by paying a fair share of benefits like others in the private sector, would you consider it? As you say, we are all in this together.

I am not going to negotiate with you. I negotiate with the City. It wouldn't be fair to the City or firefighters to do that in this forum. What I will tell you is that we are just as concerned with the City's well-being as you are. We have worked with the City and will continue to do so. It's in all of our best interest to keep Dearborn strong while providing the absolute best services available to the citizens.

You have a misunderstood perception of what "binding arbitration" is and how it works. Working in the fire service is not like a standard job where one easily moves around. It is a profession where one becomes committed to the community they serve. Cities, including Dearborn, do not allow people to just move around and come into their department as equals. It takes time and money to maintain training and certifications. It is in the Cities best interest to retain their employees and not become a training ground for other communities. Arbitration occurs when the City and the Union reach an impasse on anything contractual, not just monetarily. It goes in front of an impartial third party selected by both the City and Union. The arbitrator analyzes the case, including financial ability of the City, and makes a decision. Studies have shown that Cities have won in over 60% of these cases. Dearborn FD has not been in arbitration for monetary issues in the thirteen years that I have been a firefighter here. We have a good relationship with the City.

This forum is an opportunity to share information, and learn more to understand the other side's perspective. I am just a Dearborn resident, not a negotiator. When you, as a FF, negotiate with the city, I assume you want the backing of the residents to support you. We are better able to do that by seeing your point of view. If the Dearborn FD has not been in arbitration for 13 years concerning monetary issues, then what contracts have they been in binding arbitration for? Additional firetrucks? Better equipment ? Red vs Yellow fire trucks? Those are all common sense issues and don't need binding arbitration to figure out. Binding arbitration is just another layer of govt that the city has to pay for, unless the arbitrator is doing it out of the goodness of his heart, which I doubt. Binding arbitration is a layer of costs that we, as a city, can't afford. It delays the process of running a city and we all know 'time is money'. Costs are a matter of public record, and should be 'transparent' on the city website. If they are not, another issue to address.
When the city is 'flush' , we can always bring 'binding arbitration' back, right? However, now is the time to 'reduce' govt and its costs, binding arbitration being one of the surplus costs on the table for consideration, is it really needed?

Two discipline issues in the thirteen years that I am aware of. The arbitrators results were split. It's not just another form of government. An arbitrator is an independent, fair resource that is rarely used. It keeps both Cities and Unions from being extreme. Without repeating myself, I have said all I have to say about it. The City has transparency and you can look everything up with them. I am sure there are no secrets. I was referring to that I am not going to discuss different methods of negotiations on here as to how we'd work with the City. Professionally and respectfully to the City, that will be directly dealt with the City and not hold their negotiations to a public forum. The results will be public. We do of course want public support. Anyone that unfortunately needs our emergency services can be comforted in knowing that caring, trained, professionals will be responding to assist them in potentially one of the worst experiences of their lives.

Cost savings and how to obtain them are on the table. The expense of arbitration, especially as it is little used, is an issue that will be debated, and not decided in this forum. Thank you for your professional input and being part of Dearborn's team of FF.

Arbitration costs are shared by the 2 parties involved. The arbitration process is rarely used to solve contractual empasse, with the city's or township's ability to pay being the primary issue looked at in any arbitration case. In these difficult economic times, one has to wonder why these cities are concerned with even the remote possiblity of going before an arbitrator?

Hi Outside,

I agree, there are many other places the city should be looking to cut costs besides binding arbitration. For one, the city should be looking at parity with the private sector with respect to Union health care benefits, and sharing those costs. My guess is that the majority of full time city union employees get cadillac health plans and contribute very little or nothing toward sharing the cost. The average tax payer doesn't know this, and, if you were getting a large benefit at taxpayer expense, would you talk about it? Exactly!
That is why there will be no details on such costs forthcoming from the unions in this public forum.
Cost reduction possibilties would be obvious, and the city unions don't want to open that door.

Lee, health care benefits are negotiated. Improved healthcare benefit packages are often taken instead of payraises. How are you going to compare police and fire department employees to the private sector? That sort of parity does not exist.

Hi Outside,

Comparison is a relative term. Private sector jobs have many comparable public sector equivilents. Did payraises go up or down in the private sector in Michigan over the last few years? Did the private sector as a whole pay more in sharing costs of health care benefits? Now look at the comparable folk in the public sector. Did they have paycuts? Increased sharing of healthcare costs? How do the costs compare side by side.? Odds are, police and fire dept employees do not have 'exact' clones in the private sector, but an average trend can be easily perceived. That trend shows that govt payrolls are currently still 'fat', and need to be trimmed, either by the govt employees sharing some of the costs, or less employees. I can't spend beyond my means or income in the private sector, neither can the local cities in the public sector. Only the Feds can print money, correct me if I am wrong......

Did private sector employees with similar educations and experience have a higher starting on average? What was the trend prior to our current economy? How does the average wage for a Michigan cops/firefighters fit in nationwide? Where do Michigan cops/firefighters stand nationwide on overall wage and benefit packages? How much have Michigan cops/fireman given up wage and benefit wise in the past 10 years? I am willing to bet the trend was that private sector payrolls were much fatter prior to the recent economic downturn. I took a $25,000 paycut to take a job in the public sector that I knew I would make a much more enjoyable career. My co-workers laughed at me when I left, their 401k's were making 30% and they enjoyed a generous wage. Most of them have had to take a paycut or other less paying jobs because their jobs/companies were outsourced, downsized or both. Not because their employers were spending beyond their means . Most of their salaries are now inline with what I currently make. They now complain that I make too much money and I should have my benefits and pension cut.

Comparing public sector to private sector is far from comparing or trending apples to apples.

Blaming public employees is the easy way out when the economy turns sour. Most politicans would like to totally ignore the massive tax base loss which is the main reason for these deficits.

Blaming employees is a tool of convenience and a simple way to pass the buck.

Instead of "outsourced", I should said shipped overseas.

Hi Outside,

The public sector is more secure for unions as there is more bang for the union buck. You really don't have a choice on where your union dues are spent politically, or even a choice of whether to be in the union or not. What smells is that union dues are used to elect the public officials that you negotiate benefits and wages with, how impartial to you expect public officials to be at negotiations when they are 'bought and paid for' with union contributions? They know who 'butters their bread'.
Also, when the economy goes 'sour', as you point out, the tax base is less. Less means cutbacks on public workers, no different when the sales and profits are nil in the private sector, and companies have to cut back on employees to survive. If you don't have the income, whether through taxes or sales, you must do with less as one can't spend what one does not have. It is not a matter of 'blaming ' anyone, it is the result of a bad economy. Blame the Feds. Why are there high import duties on our products, such as cars to Japan, while no duty on Japanese cars imported to the USA? That simple fact forces companies to go overseas, to build plants in China rather than here in the USA, with a loss of jobs. Where do you think most of Walmart's products come from? The law won't allow deficits. We the tax payers won't allow tax hikes. The politicians owe you but can't pay. You need to take cuts like us in the private sector until things turn around.

The public sector employee is more secure solely based on the fact that most of their jobs cannot be shipped overseas. Union dues are NOT used to elect politicians or for politcal purposes. That is ILLEGAL. Unions have political action commitees, those funds are seperate from union dues and the contributions are entirely voluntary. If these politicans know who "butters their bread", why in the world would they try to repeal PA 312? Their actions don't support your theory.
The tax base is less based upon property values. That system is broken. Property values fell due to a housing bubble bursting. Yet populations for the most part remained the same, the demand for services haven't changed, that is clearly shown by the call volume of the fire department.
If you paid $1,500 in taxes last year to your city under a levy of 10 mills on a house with a paper value of $150,000, is that really any different than paying $1,500 in taxes to your city this year under a levy of 15 mills on a house with a paper value of $100,000? If it took X number of dollars to run your city properly last year, why would any sane person think that it could be run at the same levels of service this year on FEWER than X number of dollars? Perhaps people need to stop, take a deep breath, THINK, and then begin working to change the Headlee Amendment and all those other words on paper that are creating these issues, instead of blaming the employees of these cities. Defending PA312 isn't about paycuts.

Hi Outside,

Your comment "union dues are not used to elect politicians" is a fantasy statement. Folks in Chicago would laugh at you. 95% of all union dues spent on donations in the country go to the democratic party. Is Dearborn heavily Democratic? Of course it is, and the main reason is union contributions . Comparing union wages in Dearborn with other union wages across the country does not mean anything. Those politicians owe the unions a favor, they are not impartial when negotiating my taxpayer money that pays you.
Let the negotiating be done by an independent panel of private individual taxpayers, those who do not 'owe any favors', and you will see the 'cadillac health plans fade away and parity come to the wage and healthcare structure , comparable to the private sector.

The city politicians are the ones who are 'buttered', not the newly elected state senators and representatives in Lansing, where the PA 312 law is being repealed.

How could a city possibly run efficiently on fewer dollars? By privitizing, by consolidating services. One thought would be to combine the fire depts, say Dearborn and Dearborn Hts.
Less paperwork, less administrators would bring down costs. Does it make sense to have a Dearborn Hts fire truck driving halfway through Dearborn to respond to a call when a Dearborn unit is nearby and can respond much quicker, save lives, and save money in the process?

We need to live within our means, and combine services.

I agree, this is not chicago, our politicians can easily be smarter and not get caught. WI fire fighters did get caught however, and details can be found here. http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/111766149.html

Negotiations? The generous contracts given to the unions show that the negotiations are a sham. The politicians have no reason to reduce spending, their election is dependent on campaign dollars from the various unions. If the private citizen / taxpayer were negotiating with you, the wages and benefits would be more in line with the private sector. Right now, the unions are in bed with the politicians and money is the 'bedding'.

Binding arbitration forces the city to compromise with a flawed system, when , in fact, the city wants to make deeper savings cuts that the unions don't necessarily approve of, but are needed to balance the budget. The city should not have its hands tied by an arbitrator that, while owing no one a 'favor', is trying to find middle ground between two flawed proposals. both favoring the union. Let's privatize and consolidate to save money, Dearborn wouldn't mind working with the Dearborn Hts firefighters to save jobs, would they? An alternative for cost savings is again, a volunteer fire dept. Troy, not exactly a small city, has a volunteer fire dept with 180 volunteers, larger than Dearborn, and are ranked in the top 3% for the country. More info at http://troymi.gov/faq/Fire.asp#q1

This is not Wisconsin....yet! The common thread between Wisconsin and Michigan is obvious. We are talking about politicians and unions. You have not addressed cost savings, one of which would be eliminating binding arbitration since it ties the city's hands from making signigicant cost cuts. Your examples nibble at the fringe of the problem , but do not address cost savings and union benefits that far exceed those paid in the public sector, and, if equalized, would solve much of our budget problems. This includes not just the firefighters, but all the city unions. The teacher's union alone would balance the budget if they just paid half of the healthcare benefits that the private sector does.
Regarding Troy, if they did not have a volunteer fire dept, the layoffs of police officers and other services would have been much more, good thing the volunteers saved them money to keep what they have. Time to consolidate with Dearborn Heights, and save some more money.

Lee, we have discussed binding arbitration in length… the little it is used, the impartiality of a third party arbitrator, and that Cities win over 60% of all arbitrations. Those are facts, not speculation. Please stop falling back on it as a crutch for your arguments. The volunteer thing… really, you are falling back on that? You need to find some legitimate arguments to support your case. See our above discussion where it talks about quality of care and response times that save lives. Volunteers are a ridiculous argument and Dearborn residents know it.

Lee, No one was feeling sorry for the public servants in the 1990’s while the private sector was getting huge bonuses and double digit raises. No one asked us to “share” in the wealth. No one cared about our modest pensions or 2-3% raises then. Now that the big banks took ridiculous risks (and lost), and “free trade” is allowing US businesses to ship all of our work overseas to countries that pay their workers pennies on the dollar with no healthcare or workplace safety provisions… public servants are expected to “share” in the pain. Do you really want a Country where our workers make peanuts and work in dangerous environments with limited healthcare? That’s where we are headed if we are going to “compete” with “free trade.” Actually, all of that is the hand that we are dealt; we are sharing the pain. We are working with Cities. It’s in all of our best interest to do so… but please stop blaming the public servants for the problems our country is in. We didn’t cause it… we are just trying to help fix it.

Troy is a hard lesson in running your city on the absolute minimum and trickle down economic nonsense.

One would expect that in Right to Work states (seen as the most business friendly) that do not allow collective bargaining for their public unions would be in the black. Yet the five states that fit this category are running huge budget deficits.

Va, NC, SC, GA and TX prohibit collective bargaining. Of these 5 states, 4 have state deficits in billions (Va: 2.3b,Tx: 27b, NC: 3.8b, GA: 1.7b). SC is at 877m.

MI: 1.5b

Texas is where the modern conservative theory of budgeting — the belief that you should never raise taxes under any circumstances, that you can always balance the budget by cutting wasteful spending — has been implemented most completely. If the theory can’t make it there, it can’t make it anywhere.

Your numbers are off, and many of the deficits are caused by the Federal government, not 'right to work' laws.

In a recent study by the govt over ten years, 1999 - 2009, states with right to work laws had positve economic growth of 3.8% compared to a decline of growth in union states of 2.8%. Personal income rose in right to work states by 28.3%, it declined in union states by 14.7%. Disposible personal income was $33,389 in union states, and $35, 543 in right to work states. So, in the right to work states, you got more freedom to do your own deciding on whether to join a union, and , you got an average $2,157 bonus to boot.
Morally, no one should be forced to join a union in order to keep their job. The biggest message Michigan can send to the world will cost nothing but show that we have 'woken up', and that is becoming a 'right to work' state. Overnight, companies would flock to Michigan, and jobs would come with them. The only reason you are against a right to work state is obvious, folk would use common sense and not see the value of joining, union membership would drop, and life would get tough for the union bosses. Organizing govt workers is their last 'hurrah', and govt and unions should not mix, the sweetheart deals on taxes for unions is blatant, such as the exemption on taxes for the UAW workers on their heath plans. The rest of us have to pay, why not them? .

I assure you, the numbers are accurate. If the Federal government is responsible for the deficits, how can right to work laws NOT be at fault in your conjecture filled summation, yet somehow collective bargaining and unions are? If the Federal governement is to blame, why the focus on unions? Could it be a political agenda? You bet.
The issue at hand is collective bargaining. In the majority of right to work states collective bargaining is allowed and the bulk of the collective bargaining exists within the public sector. Your own figures prove you wrong.
In the 5 states where collective bargaining is illegal, they are in the hole, big time. You cannot blame budget woes on unions or collective bargaining, they don't exist there.
http://politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/jan/12/talmadge-heflin/talmadge-heflin-says-claims-state-government-27-bi/
The arguements against unions and collective bargaining are baseless and very easily disproven. I can see why you don't want to accept reality. It is much easier to point the finger at someone else instead of working to find an actual solution.

Your numbers are speculative, based on continued spending without regard to curbing costs as stated in your own article. Other sources peg Texas's deficit at between 5 and 10 billion, too much.. Imagine where it would be if it were not a 'right to work' state.

The Federal government is responsible for state deficits through 'entitlements', all the programs that the states must either pay for , or contribute as a result of Federal legislation. That often eats up over half of a state's budget, leaving little left to balance the budget with. Texas and other border states are hard hit due to all of the illegal immigrants who 'sponge' off of the system. Where are unions at fault with the Federal government? They drive up costs on any Federal building project such as a courthouse , post office , etc, by eliminating the bidding process, only union-based
companies are allowed to bid and they set the cost threshold for the structure high from the get-go. If non-union firms were allowed in the bidding process, millions would be saved. That is why you have $40 per hour 'flagmen' directing traffic on road constuction projects. Can't blame budget woes on unions? Let the public have a vote on the issue. Wait, they already did, and guess what? They agree with me, the unions are 'too comfortable' with the political folk and need to do some sharing of costs like everyone else, at least 20% of healthcare benefits for a start if I had a say in the matter.

You entire opinion is speculative. We could "what if?" things all day. You have been shown multiple instances from multiple sources based on actual data refuting your claims. The best you can come up with is "What if?". "What if?" just don't cut it.

Speculation? Hardly!! I am giving you facts. Where is the' what if' regarding unions and excessive cost? It is a fact that only union firms are allowed to bid on Federal and State projects in Michigan, which raises their cost, (and the taxpayer's cost) dramatically. It is a fact that union state workers have much less, or no share in their health care benefit costs, unlike the private sector who has to pay for all of the public sector's excess at the trough in these areas and have no representation, until now, to remedy the situation. It is a fact that 95% of all union political contributions go to the Democratic party, and it is a fact that the major unions got tax exemptions from said party on their union benefits. What data have you presented to refute these facts? It is a fact that consolidation of like services saves money, and that consolidation of fire depts between Dearborn and Dearborn Hts would save money, but nary a peep out of the FF on that suggestion, makes too much sense. You just don't like the idea of cost cutting to stay within the law and budget 'if' it means some sacrifice from the unions for a change.

You are convoluting multiple issues and continue to stray off topic. The ones that are pertinent to this article have been refuted with actual data. Just because you believe something to be true, does not make it a fact.

The topic was binding arbitration and cost reduction as a result of it's termination. Cost reduction is a core topic.
You refuse to address the multiple issues of cost reduction. Binding arbitration is merely a 'bit player' in the overall big picture of reducing government expense. Debt is sinking our country, you are bailing out the water from a sinking ship of debt with a dixie cup of 'binding arbitration, when buckets and pumps are needed to effect some real change in the fisical situation that is sinking us. So refute all you want with dixie cup data, and ignore the really pertinent issues of cost savings by saying it is 'straying off topic' or 'convoluting issues'. In some circles, you would be considered 'backpedaling', unable to refute facts, and left with only trying to divert the topic. What I believe is true, is backed up by facts, and , more importantly, backed up by votes in the MI house and Senate. no doubt about it. Time for some cost saving suggestions, let's start with the unions paying a portion of healthcare benefits like the rest of us do.

Lee, let's be honest. You have no idea of what cost cutting/revenue gaining measures your firefighters union is currently doing. I know this from your statements and the fact that I am on the Union Board. I have facts. Apparently, you have hatred for Unions. I am sorry that you feel so strongly against something you have such little factual information about. The days of "Old Unionism," and fist pounding are gone. We recognize that we are all in this together: the Citizens, City Administration, and Firefighter's Union. Our sole goal is to provide the best possible service for the Dearborn residents and assist people in need. I didn't become a firefighter to be a "Union Boss;" I became a firefighter to help people. Of course we want to be treated fairly, as would anyone in any position or any profession. That third party, independent arbitrator that you despise so much... they keep those few union bosses from being greedy and unreasonable... as well as the few crazy City administrators. Fortunately, in Dearborn, you have reasonable parties on both sides of the table. That's why arbitration is used so little here. You would think that being so close to our station 2, you would see and recognize how busy and important your Fire Department is to the residents.

Hatred is a strong word regarding a view of unions. Reality is a more appropriate one. Dearborn firefighters do a great job, and I have toured Station 2 more than once. Your position allows you the inside track on data, and, like you, my data regarding unions is based on experience and interaction with others. My data on FF union relationships is limited. My brother-in-law is a volunteer firefighter, and is also a postmaster, working for the government, not Dearborn of course. We have , needless to say, interesting conversations on the role of each of us, one in the public sector, the other from the private sector. My experience with the reality of unions overall is not encouraging, from being a member, and then not. I run a manufacturing company. I buy many services, and bid everything out. Invariably, non-union suppliers, be it electrical, plumbing , construction, are way lower in cost than union firms. 20 to 40% less. My customers ask two questions, my quality rating, and whether we are unionized. When I say no, they send a request for quote. That is reality. Our employees are well paid, get healthcare, but contribute toward it as well. When times were tough, we work 4 day weeks. When times are good, we share via bonuses. Honesty between everyone is the key. When I was in the union, the union bosses were paid by the company. If there were complaints, "we're checkin on it" was the union boss response. They didn't . Reality.

What I get from your story is that you had a bad union leader (yes, as ever profession, a few sneak in), and you are a fair business owner. I applaud your honesty with your employees. Unfortunately, many are not as honest as you and the employees pay for it. Unlike the business world, police and fire do not have the same opportunities to deal with bad/unfair management. Again, fortunately we have a great City to work for, but that does not mean that we will always be this fortunate or that other departments will be either. I wish that you didn't let your bad experience with your union cloud your judgment for all Unions. I assure you that I am not being paid by the City (other than my standard fire paycheck). I, like you, want this City to be strong and thrive. I represent our membership when they need it and deal with the City (honestly and evenly) when is needed. It is my duty to my membership and my duty to the residents. I care for this City too. We are all in this financial mess together. Place blame where it belongs… Blame the banks and big government… not us.

We do have a common ground after all, blaming the banks and big government. Regarding bad experiences with unions, I have around ten more to share sometime, but this is not the time or place, and , as you say, bad apples are everywhere.

Is is presumpuous to assume that city management is always logical, reasonable, and fair? Of course it is, and , to some, the power to do something stupid is often reason enough to do it. In the private sector , those folk are soon gone, perhaps not so easy in the govt sector. In the end, it comes down to honesty and fairness. You and I apparently 'get it'. The banks and big govt need some lessons. The waste and duplicity of services is criminal. We end up paying for it, and , unfortunately, we all have to tighten our belts somewhat to balance the budget.