| Letter to Human Resources
- RE: Pay Issues
Letter from Our President to H.R.
Topic: Pay Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 30, 2002
Joan Nebergal, Human Resources
2100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 511
Arlington, Va. 22201
Dear Joan,
Several weeks ago I submitted the Arlington Professional
Firefighters and Paramedics Association comments regarding
the pay comparisons for Fire Department positions within the
region. The next phase of the process is the solutions stage.
Since addressing Fire Department pay problems was approved
by the County Board last year, many of the APFPA members are
extremely interested in the progress of this initiative. They
are becoming increasingly concerned with the time lapse that
has occurred thus far with little movement towards final resolution
of this issue. This also places me in a difficult situation.
The County Manager has approved a process in which employee
representatives submit compensation and benefit program change
recommendations for consideration each year. Without knowing
the final disposition of the current pay evaluation, it is
difficult for me to submit the APFPA compensation and benefit
recommendations for FY 2004 to Marcy Foster by the deadline
of August 18, 2002. For this reason, I am submitting the APFPA
proposed solution to the pay problems. This will also be forwarded
to Marcy Foster since anything not done through the pay analysis
will become part of our request for next year. This should
not be construed as a statement that addressing these pay
issues can be put off until next budget session. Clearly,
some if not all of this recommendation can be done now.
It is only fair to mention that the APFPA has already approached
the County Manager about creating separate pay scales for
the public safety departments within Arlington County. This
is the way every other jurisdiction in the comparison area
currently addresses pay. Therefore, there will always be problems
maintaining comparability for Arlington County employees as
long as our pay system philosophically differs from every
other pay philosophy in the region. The manager has indicated
his preference for a single pay plan and believes we can fix
the current problems within our established system. This proposal
is, therefore, our attempt to cooperate with his agenda.
In analyzing the regional pay comparisons, a general theme
manifests itself The more tenure or rank achieved by an Arlington
County Fire Department employee, the farther behind they are
in comparison with like employees in the region, There are
two specific aspects of our pay plan that create this discrepancy.
The first issue is the inability of Arlington employees to
attain the top pay steps. This is illustrated by the fact
that all Fairfax County Battalion Chiefs are in the top two
pay steps. In addition, all Fairfax County Fire Department
employees with 20 or more years of service are in the top
pay step of their particular pay grade. Conversely, in Arlington,
no one is in the top two pay steps. There seems to be a simple
solution to this problem. We recommend that steps 16 and 17
in the Arlington County pay plan be correlated to 14 and 17
years of service respectively for Arlington County Fire Department
personnel. A current firefighter that remains a firefighter
without attaining a promotion currently acquires top pay in
seventeen years. Therefore, this represents no change for
the firefighter position but remedies some of the problems
outlined in our pay comparison recommendations for other positions.
It also applies retroactivity to the various changes made
to the Arlington County pay plan through the years which have
resulted in our current situation of tenured employees falling
far behind their contemporaries as outlined in our comparison
comments.
Another issue concerning the current progression through
the pay scale has to do with the change of the firefighter
position to a grade eight. While we applaud this decision,
it was not done in a comprehensive fashion. All firefighters
should move to a grade eight upon completion of their first
year of service. The decision to wait until the fifth year
was arbitrary and unfounded. We continue to require more from
our newly hired firefighters than any other jurisdiction in
the area. This is based upon the requirement to attend Paramedic
school and also work in the capacity of an operator/technician
(a promotional position in many departments). There is no
threshold achieved at the five-year mark for Arlington County
firefighters from a training or certification standpoint.
A.C.F.D. firefighters should be hired as a Grade 6, Step 3
and moved to a Grade 8, Step I at the completion of their
first year. All current firefighters with between one and
five years service should be moved to Grade 8 according to
the process used earlier this year for other firefighters.
The second area that needs to be addressed in addition to
creating a system in which Fire Department employees can move
through the pay scale is the need to bring our pay scale in
line with the surrounding jurisdictions. There are three ways
to achieve this goal. One alternative is to reclassify positions
such as the recent upgrade of the firefighter position to
grade 8. A second means is through a nonscheduled COLA adjustment.
The alternative we want to propose is increasing our hourly
wage through reducing our workweek hours. The following is
a proposed 53-hour workweek. Reducing our workweek from 56
to 53 hours would increase our hourly wage by approximately
5.4%. We believe this may even be a more cost affective way
to close the gap with respect to our pay shortfalls than a
straight 5.4% pay adjustment.
The fundamental approach to reducing firefighter work hours
is through the implementation of a 12-hour "Kelley"
day for each shift work firefighter during every 28-day pay
cycle. The 12-hour "Kelley" day would actually take
the form of assigning the firefighter off during the night
side of one of their regularly scheduled workdays. We have
chosen the night side because we realize sleep deprivation
plays a key role in bum out of shift work personnel (see attached
letter from EAP). Ultimately, we believe there will be unspecified
savings to the county through this aspect of the proposal,
Reducing sleep deprivation and allowing firefighters more
time with their families can only result in a more satisfied
and motivated employee.
Since this proposal does not advocate actually increasing
the pay scale, the costs associated with this proposal comes
from the need to add 9 or 10 personnel per shift to accommodate
the firefighters who are assigned off on that particular day.
We acknowledge the need for some analysis between adding 9
or 1O personnel per shift to determine the most appropriate
way to proceed. Henceforth, all recommendations will be based
upon an increase of 1O personnel per shift or a total of 30
new positions. Taking into account the savings associated
with this proposal that will be outlined later with the fact
that creating new positions affords an opportunity to address
other departmental issues, our definition of the 30 new positions
will go beyond the scope of pay. However, this seems an ideal
circumstance under which these issues can be addressed. We
recommend the 10 positions per shift be 10 Fire/EMS Captains.
Three of the Fire/EMS Captains would be utilized to cover
for the Captains assigned off on that particular day. The
other seven would actually represent the creation of a new
Captain position on each medic unit.
The creation of a Captain position on each medic unit would
bring us more in line with the way other jurisdictions address
quality assurance within their EMS services. The current system
of expecting each EMS Supervisor to evaluate as many as 14
paramedics spread out across the County on various medic units
is simply impossible. The span-of-control for our EMS officers
would be brought in line with that of our Fire Suppression
Officers through this change. Quality assurance would increase
dramatically if this change were made. Another long-standing
problem within our department has been the fact that going
into EMS has been a dead end job. Creating 21 promotions only
available to firefighters who achieve ALS certification could
create a much-needed incentive for firefighters to request
to go to Paramedic school. Currently firefighters are being
forced to go to Paramedic school. This is a policy we strongly
disagree with. It is also a policy that was tried previously
with miserable results.
Creating a Captain position on each medic unit would also
require redefining our current EMS operations structure. The
EMS Supervisor position would need to be reclassified to a
level of supervisor above our current Captain status. 'We
recommend the reclassification of our EMS Supervisors to a
Captain 11 position designated at Grade 14 pay. Again, this
would bring our department more in line with the other fire
departments in the region. The EMS Battalion Chief should
be reclassified to an Assistant Chief position which would
bring EMS in line with Fire Operations, Technical Services,
Fire Prevention and Administrative Services. Creating structure
within our EMS system could dramatically improve our ability
to retain ALS certified employees in the EMS system. During
the discussions of the pay problems, it has been pointed out
that the flattening of the Fire Department has resulted in
less 8.2% promotional increases thereby leaving our senior
officers, as a group, furthest behind in the pay comparisons.
There is clearly a need for another layer of Captain in our
Department and structure within our EMS system.
The costs of the aforementioned reduced workweek will be
offset somewhat by inherent savings also resulting from these
changes. First, remember this recommendation is in lieu of
a 5.4% across the board pay increase. Therefore, a net cost
of the proposal should be compared as such. We also feel that
a 5.4% increase is modest relative to the true degree to which
our pay trails that of our counterparts in the region.
The first area in which savings will be realized through
this proposal is relative to Fair Labor Standards pay. By
reducing our workweek to the 53-hour threshold, most of the
FLSA pay currently paid out will be eliminated.
Secondly, there should be a substantial reduction in callback
overtime as a result of this proposal. Callback overtime is
far more common during the dayside of the 24 hour workday.
This is because the majority of things employees must use
leave for occur during the day (doctors appointments, children's
school activities, etc.). This proposal increases each shift
by ten personnel to accommodate for the ten personnel assigned
off each night. But it also results in ten additional personnel
being available during the day when no one is assigned off.
Obviously, this will result in considerable savings.
We understand this proposal does go beyond the scope of pay
in some areas. However, in order to facilitate closing the
gap between our pay and that of the other jurisdictions in
the region, a comprehensive solution such as this is appropriate.
Reducing the burden placed on our families as a result of
our 56 hour workweek and adding much needed rank and structure
to our department are vital components of this compromise
to pay increases. We must point out that employees are compromising
quite a bit in this proposal. Not only are we foregoing needed
pay increases as a trade off for reduced hours, but all of
our 40-hour staff personnel will realize no benefit from the
work week reduction.
Since the County Board approved adjusting Fire Department
pay during the last budget process, APFPA members are extremely
interested in seeing some movement towards resolving this
issue in the near future. Change should be affected prior
to next year's budget process. At the very least, the proposals
we have made in regard to the pay steps (steps 16 and 17 correlating
to 14 and 17 years of service respectively and bringing all
firefighters up to grade 8) should be done immediately. So
far,as catching up the pay scales themselves through a shorter
workweek, we would like to see that concept implemented immediately
but could understand if parts of that proposal ran into next
year's budget.
I look forward to your response,
Sincerely,
Mike Staples
|
More President's Lines
|
