Stoughton, Massachusetts: "The Most Unpatriotic Town in the Country"

[Ian David]

" The Most Unpatriotic Town in the Country" Stoughton Rally at Noon
by: Liberal Linda
Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 08:53:29 AM EST

(This email with attached letter is from Richard Levine, Chairman Board of Selectmen
- promoted by Liberal Linda)

If you haven't heard already, there is more trouble (with a capital T) brewing in River City. We currently have a member of the fire department who has been activated for military duty. Right from the very beginning we have offered to pay the difference in his military salary and to continue to provide his health insurance to him and his family. This policy was adopted in 2001 when I was on the Board of Selectmen and was put into effect when another member of the same union was deployed. There was no controversy at that time. This policy would hold true for any municipal employee regardless of department. This policy is above and beyond what the State requires and that is that his position be held for him until his return and he would lose no seniority. The time to resolve these issues is during the collective bargaining sessions. There have been two new agreements discussed over the years and the union has not once brought this matter to the bargaining table.

The union has rejected this offer and as a result Captain Campbell has not been receiving any wages. They have also rejected other proposals that the town has put forward. They are planning a rally today at noon at which time they will name Stoughton as "The most unpatriotic town in the country". Their claims are totally untrue.


I have attached a letter that I sent to the union earlier in the week after they threatened to call a major press conference with leaders of the state firefighter's union. This should help in understanding the situation.

I wanted you all to be aware of the current situation in case you should be approached by residents asking you about my position. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thanks so much for your continued support.
Dick Levine

More:
http://www.soapblox.net/belowboston/showDiary.do?diaryId=1561

[proud2BlibKansan]

1. Why did the union reject the offer?

[Divernan]

3. Next time, check the OP's link - here's what it says about the union's position.

And the way it reads to me, the town/employer is being far more generous than is required by law. Most National Guard soldiers called up to active duty aren't treated this well by their civilian employers. I am usually pro-union, but not in this instance. (And the Texas Federal District Court decision which the union's attorney is waving around would not be binding upon Massachusetts.)

"In response to the Town's offer, the Union submitted a revised proposal just prior to the Board's December 18, 2007 meeting. Under the revised agreement, Captain Campbell would receive any and all benefits that he would be entitled to receive if he were actively working. This would have included uniform allowance, cleaning allowance, EMT stipend, holiday pay and a number of other direct and indirect cost items. Given that the Town was already going to be faced with the cost of covering Captain Campbell's shifts on an overtime basis, the Board was concerned with the breadth of the Union's proposal. While the Board remained committed to assisting Captain Campbell and his family during his period of active military duty, the Board had to balance those sentiments against the economic cost to the Town. Ultimately, the Board elected to improve on its offer and agreed to include some, but not all, of the additional monetary benefits the Union was seeking. This was communicated to the Union on January 12, 2008 when the Town Manager forwarded a revised draft of the agreement that included some of the additional items the Union was seeking. In his cover memorandum to the Union, the Town Manager stressed the importance of wrapping up the matter as soon as possible in light of Captain Campbell's impending deployment.

On January 15, 2008, the Union's attorney, Joseph Sandulli, telephoned Town Counsel Joseph Fair and informed him that the Union had two (2) issues with the Town's revised agreement. The first concerned the Union's desire to be able to arbitrate any disputes that arose between the parties over the interpretation of the agreement. The other concerned a decision issued by a Texas Federal District Court which Attorney Sandulli asserted stood for the proposition that Captain Campbell was entitled to earn and accumulate vacation and sick leave days during his deployment. In light of the fact that there is an overtime cost to the Town typically associated with firefighters taking paid time off from work, the Town was concerned about the economic impact of this latest issue being raised by the Union. For this reason, the Town Manager and Attorney Fair spoke with the Union at the conclusion of the parties' January 16, 2008 successor contract negotiation session and inquired as to whether the Union would be willing to agree to a compromise. In essence, the Town would expressly agree to accept Attorney Sandulli's view of the law and allow Captain Campbell to accumulate vacation and sick leave days while he was on active military duty in exchange for the Union agreeing to forego some of the other financial extras it was seeking. Without any real deliberation, the Union rejected this proposal and stated that it would be willing to drop the arbitration clause, but it was not willing to modify its position that all benefits had to be included as part of the agreement. The lone exception to this was that the Union would agree that Captain Campbell would not be eligible while he was on active duty in Iraq to earn the additional personal days that a firefighter can earn for not calling in sick to work.

At its January 22, 2008 meeting, the Board considered the Union's stance and, after balancing the interests of all parties, reached the conclusion that what the Union was demanding was more than what it could agree to. The Board remained willing, however, to grant to Captain Campbell the difference in his base salary and allow him to continue on the Town's health insurance at the usual employee rate. This was in addition to any other benefits that he was entitled to receive under the law. The Board's position was subsequently communicated to the Union, but was ultimately rejected by it.

This is essentially where the parties have stood until February 7, 2008 when the Union, for the first time, proposed to help defray some of the cost of its proposal. The Town Manager forwarded the Union's offer to Attorney Fair for legal review, who subsequently discussed the matter with Attorney Sandulli on February 13, 14 and 15, 2008. Attorney Fair advised Attorney Sandulli on the last of these dates that he would discuss the matter with the Board at its next scheduled meeting, i.e., March 4, 2008. Prior to the Board having an opportunity to do so, however, your letter of February 17, 2008, and its accompanying mischaracterizations, threats and artificial deadlines, was received.

To the extent that you assert that the Board has "dragged its feet for two months," as the above history reflects, that is not the case. In fact, the Town has been trying for over two (2) months now to grant Captain Campbell the difference between his Town and military base salaries and continue his health insurance, but has been thwarted in those efforts by the Union. As you know, the Town is not required to provide these benefits and did not ask the Union or Captain Campbell to give up anything in exchange for Captain Campbell receiving them. The Board's position on the matter to date is one that is fair and reasonable to Captain Campbell, the Union, the Town and the citizens of this community and I am perplexed as to why the Union has refused to allow the Town to provide these important benefits to Captain Campbell and his family by persisting with its all or nothing approach to the situation.

As for the Union's most recent proposals aimed at reaching a resolution of this matter, I intend to review the matter with the Board at its next scheduled meeting on March 4, 2008, as Attorney Fair previously advised Attorney Sandulli would be the case. The Board remains committed to attempting to reach an agreement on this important subject matter that is fair to all parties concerned. The Board will not be bullied into making a decision by the Union's setting of artificial deadlines and threats of press conferences, however. The Board will consider the Union's latest proposal at its March 4, 2008 meeting and will respond to same by the close of business on March 5, 2008.

If you have any questions in the meantime, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

Richard Levine, Chairman
Board of Selectmen

Tags: Stoughton, rally, Iraq, fire fighter, (All Tags)

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. Thanks for the info

It would have helped if that was included in the OP.

[BlueManDude]

2. Michelle Mcphee was whipping this up on the radio the other night.

[sepulveda]

5. fwiw

many police unions have it written into their contract that members who are activated will get the difference between their military salary and their cops salary paid by the dept. iow, they retain the same salary they had before being activated, while serving

also, many even guarantee the officer will return to the same position he had (specialized unit, rank, etc.) he had upon his return.

that's something many agencies have fought long and hard for