Report Inappropriate Comments

Concerned88, working for the city is the ONLY thing in common between the WFD and the teachers. The WFD shows up to work, whether theres a contract dispute or not. They don't wage "sickouts" under the guise of "doing it for the kids". They put their lives on the line, AND THEY ACHIEVE RESULTS. Yes, the 2 systems are very different, but so are the employees occupying both departments. There is MUCH GREATER RISK for the WFD day in and day out.

If your argument is to cap the amount of sick time used overall, thats a debate that can be had. If you are trying to argue our Firefighters should be required to PURCHASE sick days? That is something as a taxpayer I would NEVER get behind.

No one is saying the current system is perfect, and steps should be taken to curb total ot costs (commenters have told me the total ot # is less since new recruits started) but making our Firefighters purchase a sick day is a non starter (as I'm sure it would be to them as well).

Over the last few years I have commented on articles relating to pensions and legacy costs. I have always said that in order to achieve ANY savings, concessions will need to be given on the city side as well. You can't ask the WFD to slash their own benefits (unrealistic ask) without giving up some concessions as well. This is where the argument breaks down from Rob Cote (in my opinion) it can't just be cut, cut, cut. I don't think thats getting anyone to the negotiating table.

We've disagreed on this point before Rob, so I doubt I'd change your mind on the topic, thats not what I'm looking for. I'm just trying to frame the argument a little more realistically. Anyone is free to disagree.