Pay Controversy Revisited

I wrote recently about the controversy surrounding the pay we recieved for the work we did in Mississippi. A union in one state went so far as to call for a Congressional investigation, claiming they were paid less than the prevailing wage, while the company made millions. Here's an excerpt:

They say that while EMS workers are toiling under extreme conditions for wages barely above what a teenager makes at a fast-food restaurant, (the ambulance company) is reaping huge profits.

The release was posted on our union board and everyday I walked by it, it made me madder and madder. I was also angry that a nearby union had filed a grievance against the company. I did not want our union to file a similiar grievance -- at least not without the support of the people who went down to Mississippi, my opposition notwithstanding. When I went in to vote for the new union contract, I told a union rep that I was offended by the release and wished them to take it down, or at least let me post a rebuttal.

I ended up being asked to post a rebuttal, which I believe is up on the board now. I was also later told that the union board member had posted the release as informational and that the union had decided against filing a grievance because no one had come forward to complain, and that because we were paid so much more than the local Mississippi workers, it would have looked bad for us. I have been having an email debate with one member of the board, who remains very concerned about the way we were paid and believes that you must never allow a union contract to be ignored. While I disagree with him on this issue, I respect his view. My arguement was if the contract was not followed to the letter, the fact that we got more than we normally would have if the contract(my interpretation of it) was followed. Instead of "no harm, no foul," "more pay no grievence."

Here is what I posted:

November 11, 2005

To the Union Leadership and Rank and File Members:

It is my hope that the union’s posting of the press release about the pay received by AMR employees who volunteered to be deployed in the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina does not constitute an endorsement of the release’s charges.

If it is the intention of our union to endorse these charges or file a grievance against (the ambulance company) on behalf of all of our employees, I ask the issue be discussed with the union rank and file, particularly those who went to Mississippi, to ensure that there is support for such an action.

For myself, I believe making the claim that our pay was cut by 35% is disingenuous. I was paid $3069 for a seven day work week period in which I worked only 72 hours, which would make my pay $42.62 per hours worked. To make similar pay in Connecticut I would have had to have worked 105 hours or seven days of 15 hour shifts. In addition my transportation costs, all my meals, drinks and laundry were taken care of. I had no expenses for the week.

As to the allegation of (the ambulance compnay) profiting exorbitantly from FEMA contracts, I take no stand on these serious charges because I have no access to AMR’s balance sheets. I do believe the press release’s interpretation of the given figures is naïve.

While I believe in taking on the company when there is just cause, I think claiming victimization for helping those who lost everything while we were paid so well makes us look petty, and pretending our pay was cut, does nothing for our credibility.

I respect the right of any union member to file a grievance on any issue, including this one, when they feel they have been individually wronged. And certainly if anyone was officially told they would be paid their regular rate 24-7, they have a legitimate grievance.

If the consensus of the union is to proceed with a grievance or endorsement, despite my disagreement, I will continue to support the union, and thank them for considering my opinion in the debate.

Respectfully,


(my name), EMT-P
Union Member

Disclosures: I own $2500 in company stock purchased in the recent employee stock offering. I also voted to authorize the union to issue a strike notice in the first contract vote.

I heard last week the company was issuing an IPO for its stock. Last night I looked it up on the internet and found not only that it was true, but also read financial documents filed on November 14. The documents included the following statement:

Hurricane Katrina and our Gulf Coast Operations

(Ambulance Company) provides ambulance services in Gulfport and
Biloxi, Mississippi and several other Gulf Coast
communities. Although our dispatch center was damaged
by Hurricane Katrina and we had damage to a small
number of vehicles, we were able to maintain
communications through our use of back-up generators
and other emergency supplies. We have worked closely
with FEMA and other federal, state and local agencies
and have deployed additional ambulance transportation
resources where they were most needed, particularly in
the coastal areas of Mississippi, Louisiana and
Alabama. We have deployed more than 100 additional
ambulances and nearly 300 paramedics, EMTs and other
professionals to aid the rescue effort in the Gulf
Coast, including the deployment of additional
resources to aid in the transport of evacuees to
medical facilities in Texas. For the three months
ended September 30, 2005, we recognized revenue of
$4.6 million and expenses of $4.7 million in the
deployment of additional resources in connection with
Hurricane Katrina and other Gulf Coast storms.

(Company) operations were generally unaffected by
Katrina, with only one facility in the affected area.
(Company) deployed additional resources to assist those
operations, and we have experienced a volume increase
in certain facilities in adjacent states where
evacuees were relocated.

We have been able to maintain our normal
operations in areas outside the Gulf Coast,
notwithstanding our transfer of resources to that
area. We expect that, for the foreseeable future, our
(Company) operations in Mississippi will continue to be
negatively affected by the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina, and that we will continue to provide
additional resources to assist local recovery efforts
throughout the region.

So they weren't making millions. They weren't profiteering. They were just serving the people. For the times I disagree with what the company does, I think they deserve praise for what they have done and continue to do in the Gulf Coast.