The Fight for Control-Michael Fitzgerald's Weighs in!

When Mike Fitzgerald's weigh in on a subject, it is time to pay attention. It seems that is how he permeates, and spreads his words like the sun spreading sunshine. Somehow it seems like arrogance or some sort of incredible flamboyance, at how he writes, sometimes he floats in a paragraph what others cannot seem to put in a novel. So after my long what may appear to be a vein attempt to call Mike out, but it is not!

Link to Blog Posting: The Fight for Control


I read his masterpiece about how public Unions are trying to take over, and take power out of the City government hands! Well, at first this post reminded me of the movie "Hoffa", and all the alleged corruption, and money schemes,and so on in the fight of the labor movement.

According to the

"The Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) creates rights and obligations on the part of unions, agency management, and employees. If either labor or management fails to perform its obligation to the other party, an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge may be filed. A ULP charge may also be filed if either labor or management interferes with the rights each has been given under the Statute. Employees may also protect their rights under the Statute by filing ULP charges against labor or management. For example, it is illegal for agency management to threaten or retaliate against employees for seeking union representation or to refuse to provide a union information that the law requires the agency to provide. Similarly, unions may not try to influence management to discipline employees who did not join the union or refuse to represent employees because they are not union members. Neither an agency nor a union may refuse to bargain with the other in good faith. You can find out information about how the Authority has interpreted and applied the Statute to specific situations by searching Authority decisions; you can find additional information on specific subjects by searching the Office of the General Counsel Guidance."

Here is where I get confused Mike, is it illegal for the police unions or any unions to advocate for their members, and do what the union fees paid for every month, are meant to do? Not according to the federal law!

However, here is the caveat the Unions cannot "refuse to bargain with other(presumably City)" in good faith! I understand that both unions and the City,  is a part of this molecular mass of bad judgment, refusing to negotiate, and or give more than either union wants to give! But in this City and how the Officials of this City have treated, backtracked, hustled, been hustled, spent money on saving things that do nothing currently for the City or it's benefit! So what is good faith? Not one group involved seems to trust one another, and I really feel sometimes the City bashes the Police and Fire Departments, and it is funny because the concessions that are wanted are not even comparable to the danger, harm, and daily threat of death. How can you even begin to find a price on sane men and women doing things which are insane, and that are against nature.


Yes, Yes, all FF and Police Officer makes the choice to become professionals, and so should they take what we give them because "the city budget is 80 percent public safety"? No, unfortunately in America we are violent, ideologically driven, and seeds are planted in the minds of the paranoid, who already think the police are bad, and out to get us. While I respect that it is the right of the Record and Mr. Fitzgerald to express and convey views which they feel are import to report on, but it is also absolutely the responsibility of the Press to back up what they are alleging or stating! Imagine if Washington Post had went to press with all the stuff they had on Watergate, from Deep throat, and other sources. To the frustration of the reporters, the editors would not print what at the time, was guess, conspiracies, innuendo, and a burglary! But the Post and the Courageous Reporters went out and made sure they backed up what they said, and made sure they backed up their story and their reasoning. I find the post in the blog by Mr. Fitzgerald as a brief, lose, an absolutely plausible idea, but reported with weight of the scale, one sided.


The City made an agreement with the Police and Fire Unions and what they agreed with, even if things have changed in the last two years-one thing about contract law is it likes certainty, and the real meat of the agreement is the bargain, meeting of the minds, non adhesion, and the legalese that mirrors ever other logical common English word in an agreement; But it is the plain language of the agreement, that gives its greatest continuity!

If the agreements are legal, valid, and withstand the four corners doctrine, then I say it is a bad deal for the us, but it was what was negotiated and therefore barring any legal remedy, City will have to keep up its end of the there broken arrows! Now should the fire department pay nothing for their medical benefits? No way, not when my benefits went from only 25.00 to over 186 in less than one year. Should all these special perks that worked when we had the money be honored? I think each case should be given consideration. I think it is shameful for the Record to make accusations like was done, then support it with a flimsily link to more obfuscation? Has all the wonderful years and perks, pay received by the Records most famous and most recognized, Columnist, created the aurora of a superstar who can say or do things, with the expectation that we will over look them, because they are not expected to know better? Its is not our business, but doesn't the Record have a Union? Don't every employee, and their family members benefit from Uniformity,and the collective process of bargaining.


I swear if the Police knew who was writing in support of them like I have, taking all the constructive advice from other concerned citizens, of which was not worded with constructively in mind, but giving me the fourth degree for being a few fries short of a happy meal! One more time I want to convey that I am not a big fan of the Police department, but I am sorry I will stand up for, argue for those, who I may not like, if it is the right thing to do? Noble of me? No, it ensures that we keep our freedom.

I am sorry I cannot take the view that what is going on is to circumvent the State of Emergency declared by the City government; what caused this declaration is the Odyssey of how to poorly manage a City!  Being a politician, for example having to listen and consider issues that you may not have not compulsion to approach, unless it becomes personnel. If you cannot take the heat of being where you are at, then get the hell out, and go cool down on that big ice hockey stadium floor.



"The common denominator is that control by city leaders — representing the public interests — does not suit the unions.",

Who is representing the public interest? Commonality only becomes analogous, when the two issues or ideas have a common footprint, and share issues which are common to both sides; The issue in my view lacks view of controlling unions, not sharing common interests, of which the public interest is not top priority--once again who is on the other end of this issue, those who are elected to represent the the public interest; According to all the information provided by the City, and all the other sources; The City whom is entrusted to have the public in the first row, are according to all the reports where the foundation cracked, and their actions after knowing we were facing some sort of issue, kept doing  all the spending, funneling sewerage funds to cover things, cost that were found to be illegal and improper, and hey the City was told about it, but they did it anyway, spending while at the same time attacking the public safety of the City!  This conduct and what I feel continues do not make me feel like the the public interest has been where the reins of being elected placed it; So the lack of the City to show they have thought and welfare of the public as the driver for this issue, shows me that we have a news paper that realizes how many years later public interest is an issue, and then somehow tries to tie it in with a plausible take over by a powerful union. No wake up and get real we are facing far worst issues then the police and fire department suits!

Both me and Mike seem to like to base our writing on facts. I wonder how much this drama has made in revenue for the Record in sales, internet visits, sign ups, and ad impressions?  Is it not the point of Unions negotiate to seek to enrich the members that are represented? How about this if you're in union, you drop out, or ask yourself this have all the years I drove a Saab and have been a smile to see, been admired, and you have attained it nothing other than your own enrichment? Do you maybe ever wander because you get xxx.xx dollars that you are taking away from the lowly customer service reps or service drivers? That extra money that you enriched yourself with might feed an family for a week or month. How much do they pay you to be in a business that is declining, and that is on the verge of collapse? How did the Record stay in business when others papers went flat? It charged to view the website, and made other changes to preserve your job, and others. Remember this, none of use are safe from the block!

This is written with respect and truly deep respect for you Mr. Fitzgerald, but like I told you once before I cannot drink the kool aid!