Layoffs of Paycuts?

[badger]

In a time of 'Great Recession,' it is a common misconception that people have a "we're all in this together" mindset, that everyone suffers a little so that nobody suffers a lot.

Instead of taking a 5.178 percent pay reduction Tulsa city employees (excluding fire and police) chose by vote yesterday to lay off 65 of their fellow workers.

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=334&articleid=20100121_11_A1_Kathle56984)

Rumor now has it that Tulsa Fire Department union decided via a vote to lay off 130 of their fellow firefighters instead of accepting a 7-8 percent pay cut, and rumor has it that Tulsa Police's FOP will do the same to 135 of their youngest officers (last ones in are the first ones out as per their union contract).

What is happening in your own communities and what would you do if met with this decision? I know that it wasn't my money to make the decision with, but I am disappointed in city workers and will be even more disappointed in TFD and TPD if it turns out that they chose layoffs too.

Sad day in Tulsa :(

[jkjsooner]

I wonder if they have a good idea of who is a candidate to get laid off - like less experienced employees. If so, then the more experienced majority knows they are safe and might choose the lay off route.

It's still sad. I'd take a pay cut if given the same choice.

[Breadburner]

The behavior by both the fire and police unions have been apalling....Especially the fire department.....The firemen at least have 48 hours to make up for the cut in pay....Alot of them do have another job.....I personally think the fire department in Tulsa is over staffed as is the city of Tulsa itself.....

[badger]

It's pretty much official - the firefighters chose to layoff 147 of their own rather than take 8.6 percent pay cuts.

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100121_11_0_hrimgs647315)

8.6 is a much bigger cut than city employees were looking at, plus they already had furlough days, so it's a significant pay cut to consider. Still, sad day in T-Town :(

[Mjcpr]

I don't know how it was decided that non-sworn employees would get layoffs rather than pay cuts, but it wasn't done by vote. There was a vote, but it was just a "public opinion" pole....the non-sworn "union" has no contract so the Mayor can imose whatever cuts he/she chooses on them. The police and fire unions do have contracts and can decide for themselves by a vote of the membership.

I am surprised that the unions chose to lay off the least-tenured and lowest paid of their group, but I don't know why. Time and again they act in the interest of themselves only. The more tenured and highest paid employees knew they would be safe so they chose to sacrifice the newbs.

[BillyBall]

We are about to have a large amount of layoffs in Chicago for our CTA (The L). They offered the union the choice of eliminating the 3.5% raises they all got, or there would be lay offs. They chose lay offs.

The sad thing is that one of the major reasons why we are in this position is because Blagojevich wanted to get seniors votes so he pushed a bill that allows them free rides on the CTA. Last year alone that would have contributed $60M in revenue and none of this would be happening.

[badger]

Well Billy, seniors do vote in droves... maybe all of this economic hardship will get other potential voters off their arses and to the polls next time :mad:

Seriously, though, Friday is going to be a very, very tough day in downtown Tulsa (the day the employees are getting served notice). It was originally projected that TFD would only have to layoff 130... and now they're letting go 147?! TPD was projected to layoff 135... I wonder what that number will climb to? :(

Have any posters ever been in a similar situation? Why choose layoffs over pay cuts?

[OklahomaTuba]

These guys are idiots.

And since things will be getting only worse economically IMO, not better, they can expect further layoffs in the future.

The recession may be over, but the depression will grind on.

[Chuck Bao]

This is a very interesting question.

I do know that every work team that I have ever worked with would have chosen layoffs over salary cuts and every management team would have preferred salary cuts, even when they have to take large salary cuts themselves.

I don't think the workers are heartless about the job loss of their colleagues. They are already struggling to make ends meet. They are also sending a message to management (or maybe in this case the public) that output/service will be affected.

Management, on the other hand, is responsible for the output/service. Any criticism will fall directly on them. Besides, they do not want to pay out on the redundancy packages.

Maybe it is fair to fire the last hired. But, it is not the most cost effective. Early retirement of senior management would pay for 2-10 of the salaries for the last hires.

So, there has to be a decision on output/service, loyalty/seniority and costs.

[badger]

The latest (and probably final) offer to firefighters is 5.2 percent pay cuts (down from 8.6, the original offer), no cuts to bonuses for stuff like bilingual skills and such... and the mayor will use reserve emergency funds to cover the rest of the gap.

This is as good of a deal as they can get. It will take $1.4 million from the reserve fund to get there, but both sides are talking and both sides are giving up something to get to where they need to be.

If they vote this down, I will be very, very disappointed. This has GOT to be give and take. The union HAS to make concessions here.

[OklahomaTuba]

It's a union, so don't hold your breath. But I hope they take that too, for their sake.

[OUHOMER]

This is a very interesting question.

I do know that every work team that I have ever worked with would have chosen layoffs over salary cuts and every management team would have preferred salary cuts, even when they have to take large salary cuts themselves.

I don't think the workers are heartless about the job loss of their colleagues. They are already struggling to make ends meet. They are also sending a message to management (or maybe in this case the public) that output/service will be affected.

Management, on the other hand, is responsible for the output/service. Any criticism will fall directly on them. Besides, they do not want to pay out on the redundancy packages.

Maybe it is fair to fire the last hired. But, it is not the most cost effective. Early retirement of senior management would pay for 2-10 of the salaries for the last hires.

So, there has to be a decision on output/service, loyalty/seniority and costs.

EXCELLENT POST.

We took to the route of reducing hours. Most of my folks have given up 1 hour a day. 3 of my folks have been with the company for over 30 years, they dont want to work, but to young to retire.

but so far they have not come head hunting, but if something doesnt break soon they will. I a will lose the best employee out of all of them :mad:

[KABOOKIE]

Pay cuts effect everyone. Union layoffs only effect the new people.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

See Badj, this is where we're having some trouble. Folks aren't getting the whole story. I've debated posting Tulsa's financial ills, but with my limited perspective, decided to hold off. The cat's out of the bag, so let's air the dirty laundry.

The Tulsa Fire Dept. are responsible for a number of pay cuts and reorganization in an effort to support the administration's efforts at balancing the city coffers. Through these efforts beginning late in the Taylor administration, there's nearly 5 million dollars of cuts already on the books with some cost savings from the reorganization still pending for 2010-2011. When Mayor Taylor asked for plans, she got plans. Ours, which started as an over 2 million dollar reorganizational cut which was then coupled with wage concessions, and diddly squat from other city departments, all with benchmarks for returns of concessions should times get better, further concessions should times get worse. TPD? If memory serves, their reduction proposal was a whopping 200,000 dollars. So once again, when our beloved city needed her firefighters, we stepped up and did what needed doing while others simply smiled and ignored the coming storm.

Enter the Bartlett administration.

I introduce to you the Fire and Police Arbitration Act. Mayor Bartlett demanded his opening rounds of cuts and they cut deep. However, time and time again IAFF Local 176 asked our Mayor to enter negotiations, our only legal outlet to taking contract concessions as per the FPAA. Our option was simply take X or receive Y layoffs, outside of formal negotiations. Fire Dept. administration presented alternative proposals (notice the plural) with similar total dollars cut. The Local all the while watching and waiting and continuing to offer the City to open negotiations, developing alternative proposals to present once negotiations were opened. All the while being outright ignored by the Mayor's office. Meanwhile, the necessary cuts grow, the political rhetoric sharpens, and the local media paints a disturbing picture flipping from doom on the streets from the public safety losses to union bosses running Tulsa with an iron fist. Until finally, the Mayor's office decides to open negotiations. But with a twist.

Ignoring the guidelines for negotiations, we are once again presented with 'take X or lose Y firefighters', with no good faith bargaining with a department that has shown time and time again that they are more than willing to do their part to see the city through her troubled times. No good faith bargaining which again results in a violation of the FPAA, state law which upon violation have the PERB have a District Court judge drop a restraining order on the city to force negotiations. But how does that have to happen? If the fire dept. administration and the membership negotiate a plan that addresses the same dollar amount necessary, why is our mayor so hellbent on plan X or Y layoffs? And why isn't the mayor willing to place contingencies based on actual sales tax revenues for the extension of concessions or the return of benefits based on certain benchmarks like the previous administration, like the LaFortune administration before it? With continued media coverage and blame on the "union" (which after all, are simply those same firefighters that have been bending from day one for our city) and the rhetoric of this being an issue where we're willing to sacrifice our brothers for a buck, we're stuck with a set of options where no matter what we do, we're bad guys. Stick the city with an Unfair Labor Practice ruling as per state law and we lock into our previous contract until impasse and an arbitrator rolls in which only delays the process. Vote on Dewey's cuts (which given the still existing concessions and extensions thereof puts the total closer to 20% overall), and we're still on the hook for layoffs and continued concessions even if revenues miraculously skyrocket in the next few months (ahem, Chili Bowl, anyone? December actuarials?), and be the department that takes. Which leads to a pretty simple conclusion from my perspective.

It's not about doing the right thing. If it was about taking care of Tulsa, we'd have hit the negotiating table as soon as the alarm bells rang, just like we did with Mayor Taylor, and the Fire Dept. would've already been on board. This is about something deeper, whether it be the removal of all or part of essential city services to the county umbrella (where it's easier to sway/lord over 3 commissioners as opposed to 9 council members + mayor) or breaking public service unions, or even something different, I don't quite know. But whatever it is, it is NOT because the Tulsa Fire Department isn't doing everything it can, just like every time the citizens call for our help. The Mayor simply doesn't care.

[SCOUT]

I personally, along with several of my co-workers, gave up my raise and bonuses to keep one of my employees.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

The comparison doesn't jive. I'm not belittling your sacrifice, but the comparison is apples and oranges.

We're very limited in our ability to provide concessions and remain within the law. Likewise, the City is limited in its ability to apply concessions. The only option a mayor has outside of negotiations is layoffs as per the City Charter. If we fail to negotiate, we break the law. If the City fails to negotiate, they break the law. If either party fails to negotiate in good faith, they're breaking the law. The entire argument has been and will be that we've given a number of cuts already (unlike a number of city departments), we need to know what our target is, and we need to come to these decisions as per the Fire and Police Arbitration Act in negotiations between the City and the membership of the Fire Dept. This isn't the UAW, milking GM into oblivion. This is making sure we're doing this right, by the law, and coming to an agreement that allows the City to get the numbers it needs while preserving fire and EMS coverage and protection, preserving jobs to ensure that level of service, and preserving the trust of the citizens that their Fire Department will still be able to do all the things we do for them in the best, most efficient manner it can.

[SCOUT]

The comparison doesn't jive. I'm not belittling your sacrifice, but the comparison is apples and oranges.

We're very limited in our ability to provide concessions and remain within the law. Likewise, the City is limited in its ability to apply concessions. The only option a mayor has outside of negotiations is layoffs as per the City Charter. If we fail to negotiate, we break the law. If the City fails to negotiate, they break the law. If either party fails to negotiate in good faith, they're breaking the law. The entire argument has been and will be that we've given a number of cuts already (unlike a number of city departments), we need to know what our target is, and we need to come to these decisions as per the Fire and Police Arbitration Act in negotiations between the City and the membership of the Fire Dept. This isn't the UAW, milking GM into oblivion. This is making sure we're doing this right, by the law, and coming to an agreement that allows the City to get the numbers it needs while preserving fire and EMS coverage and protection, preserving jobs to ensure that level of service, and preserving the trust of the citizens that their Fire Department will still be able to do all the things we do for them in the best, most efficient manner it can.
No offense taken, but no comparison made. The OP asked, "what would you do if met with this decision?" I answered.

[Mjcpr]

To be fair, all city employees including police and fire took a 4.4% pay cut (furlough) this year. To say no other city department contributed to the cutbacks due to the shortfall is not true.

[badger]

Here is a unique perspective on a few TPD officers who are getting married... and laid off... next week!

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100122_11_A1_TulsaP928218)

From reading Tulsa Fireman's perspective and that article, it sounds like people are willing to give up something for their fellow officers and firefighters... and it's their jobs and their co-workers, not the pay.

It sounds like we have really outstanding people on our forces who will easily find work elsewhere.

[C&CDean]

If the unions get busted out of this deal then it's a positive thing. Unfortunately, so many peons will get hurt in the whole deal (not calling my buddy TFireman a peon). In all seriousness, the unions have done more damage to this country/state than anything else. They served their purpose, and now federal law pretty much offers the protections the union promises. They need to die a quick death, and people need to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, go to work, and expect a good wage for a good effort. The unions have protected the **** off far too long, have kept salaries so stupidly high for the work performed (a guy on a line at GM who hits 4 bolts with an impact wrench every 1/2 minutes while reading a book does NOT deserve $40 per hour) and have kept union officials in nice cush jobs while they rape the rank and file members way too long.

I only wish the best for the fine folks on the TFP and TPD, but somebody is gonna have to pay the piper someday, and it might be now.

[Mjcpr]

Police Chief just got fired.

Wheee!

[badger]

Yeah, just saw that... but he resigned, he didn't get fired, I think.

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=439&articleid=20100122_11_0_hrimgs444519)

The layoff meetings here started at 9 a.m. and I think there are several more later today :(

[Mjcpr]

Yeah, just saw that... but he resigned, he didn't get fired, I think.

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=439&articleid=20100122_11_0_hrimgs444519)

The layoff meetings here started at 9 a.m. and I think there are several more later today :(

He submitted his resignation at the Mayor's request = got fired.

You work for the City? Good luck!

[JohnnyMack]

I'd love to see Bartlett break these unions. He probably can't, but I'd love to see it.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Why?

[JohnnyMack]

The record breaking murders we experienced in 09 is a start...

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Let me rephrase.

What does that have to do with breaking the collective bargaining power of the employees of the city?

[Mjcpr]

Let me rephrase.

What does that have to do with breaking the collective bargaining power of the employees of the city?

Police and fire employees. The non-sworn employees, even those in the AFSCME union, do not have collective bargaining power nor do they have an employment contract to negotiate.

[badger]

The chief said that he found out through the media that he was resigning. The mayor just had a press conference that I watched on Channel 6 up here.. the dude wouldn't stop twitching! Makes you wonder what will happen next :(

[C&CDean]

Would this be an appropriate time to say yet again that OKC >Tulsa?

[NormanPride]

No, I think that's in pretty poor taste, Dean.

[C&CDean]

I always have been a tasteless mother****er man.

And here's a tiny excerpt from a paper I wrote back in 1999 when working on my Master's at OU:

My personal belief is that organized unions are on their way out. I can’t see how companies will be able to survive in the future if the past, and in many cases current situations that exist in most union shops are allowed to continue. I believe management, for the most part is committed to making the workplace healthier, and providing fair and equitable pay and benefits to their employees. I believe that there was a time and a place for labor unions, but that time and place are gone. Unions have historically been involved in scandal and crime. They suffer from a well-earned reputation of keeping management and labor at odds with one another. Most workers, especially the younger generations of workers are beginning to see that members of management are not the “monsters” that most union reps make them out to be.
The only way a union can exist is to maintain the adversarial relationship between craft and management. If the two sides were to get along, there would not be any need for unions. I have seen most management efforts at communication or attempts at settling differences turned into “ploys by management to get you to drop your guard” by union folks.

Unions need to go away. Period.

[OklahomaTuba]

Especially public sector unions.

Biggest mistake JFK ever made was allowing such a thing. Now they are raping this country via pensions they can't afford that us tax payers have to bail out and **** like this in Tulsa.

**** unions.

[badger]

There is still a possibility that layoffs won't happen... for the fire department.

The city non-fire/police employees already said they wanted layoffs, so about 55 are out the door.

The police got an offer today that would bring layoff numbers down to about 30ish.

The fire got an offer yesterday or Wednesday that if everyone took 5 percent pay cuts that there would be no layoffs.

At this point, Tulsa is laying off at least 80 people across the board... including the police chief, apparently.

[MojoRisen]

I wonder if they have a good idea of who is a candidate to get laid off - like less experienced employees. If so, then the more experienced majority knows they are safe and might choose the lay off route.

It's still sad. I'd take a pay cut if given the same choice.

dog eat dog, but this is probably right!

[JohnnyMack]

I understand that the TPD and TFD are reluctant to make too many concessions here. A good friend of mine is TPD and his argument is that once they give across the board pay cuts, that the city will keep coming back and cutting again and again. Seems as though the PD & FD have literally conceded to eating their young at this point.

[Mjcpr]

I understand that the TPD and TFD are reluctant to make too many concessions here. A good friend of mine is TPD and his argument is that once they give across the board pay cuts, that the city will keep coming back and cutting again and again. Seems as though the PD & FD have literally conceded to eating their young at this point.

Their non-sworn counterparts can vouch for that because they were and still are taking pay cuts in 2002-2003 when TPD was getting raises and other annual increases that they don't consider "raises".

[badger]

The fire union just reached a deal with the mayors office. No TFD layoffs! Yay!

[C&CDean]

A temporary fix to a permanent problem. I hope those TFD and TPD fuggers get together now and kick their POS unions to the curb.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0110/698769.html

What Badj said.

I might as well be arguing with a fencepost. I don't have enough room on this page to list all the health, safety, and welfare issues my membership has addressed with administration and through a collaborative effort, saw through to today. From self-contained breathing apparatus, use of the incident command system over 20 years prior to the issuance of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 and 6, personnel accountability systems, training in emergency vehicle operations, physical and mental fitness programs, to even benevolence funds funded solely by voluntary firefighter contributions to the continued welfare of our retired members. Our elected leadership are firefighters still working right here in Tulsa.

But you guys with the union hate apparently don't give a rip about the volume of retired firefighters before the implementation of SCBA use that are suffering from any assortment of lung disease. Apparently don't give two shakes of a crap that all contract items given in negotiations are not only approved by the mayor, but voted on and approved by our city council. Apparently don't seem all that concerned that issues with fireground personnel accountability are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of firefighters over the years, including those recently in Charleston, SC. Or even studies funded by firefighter contributions into burn testing with NIST and NFPA researching, learning, and disseminating indicators and parameters of the phenomena known as flashover, the very thing that killed 3 firefighters in Oklahoma City in 1989.

This union isn't the strong-armed thuggery of the UAW. It isn't the mob-infested, self-serving puke of the Teamsters. It is the very firefighters everyone seems to respect for the work we do, standing together as one often quiet voice that's willing to shout in unison when necessary.

What about that is hard to understand?

[Crucifax Autumn]

Screw the evil onions!!!!!

[badger]

Firefighter buddy, I definitely respect that your union took the time and effort to work things out between your union the mayoral administration. It would be easy to just take a vote and cut the n00bs out like the non-sworn employees did (and what looks like will happen in the FOP). You guys talked it out, offered to restructure your hierarchy to save money and will pay back the reserve funds used to save jobs through hiring freezes and other sacrifices.

(and to think, just eight hours ago, about 150 of your brothers and sisters were hugging and in tears thinking they were gonna lose their jobs)

Other than that uplifting note, it's been a pretty sheety day up here in T-town. Hundreds still face layoffs.

[badger]

It sounds like in a complete reversal of fortunes, despite layoff notices getting sent out and such, that there is now the possibility of NO layoffs for either police or fire... pending union vote.

There were three police officers who were laid off earlier this fiscal year (actually 21 initially, but 18 were almost immediately hired back with federal grant money), and there is the possibility that those three will be hired back on now... pending union vote.

COME ON, UNION VOTE!!!!!!!!!!

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I'll be voting yes on this proposal. No brainer. But Tulsans, I'd like for you to pay reeeeeal close attention to this issue over the next few years.

Don't buy the hype that this was some sort of fire union conspiracy to squeeze every last dollar out of the city. I can't speak for the cops, but as was shown from the reorganization, the 3% pension contribution concession, and the freezing of annual performance increases and other benefits during the tail end of the Taylor administration, we've been willing to play ball. We've been trying to play ball since Dewey walked in the door but multiple proposals by the Local and fire administration were met with flat out denial. Long term AND short term solutions, all chock full of different styles of concessions to meet long and short term goals in decreasing the Fire Depts. footprint on the general fund. And functional plans, not just shouts of "raise taxes!", "cut IT!", and "layoff the new guys!"

So keep us in mind, gang. We've been scrambling to find answers since day one. And if it comes a time an answer comes to bear, I know myself and 684 others will appreciate the thought.

[badger]

I think NP and I wouldn't mind a tax increase to keep you all on the job. Alas, tax hikes have been voted down in this county for weird reasons and approved for weird reasons too (usually only if there's something for everybody) so when there's a sound reason for a tax hike, like public safety, I'd expect utter and incompetent failure for weird reasons, unfortunately.

[C&CDean]

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0110/698769.html

What Badj said.

I might as well be arguing with a fencepost. I don't have enough room on this page to list all the health, safety, and welfare issues my membership has addressed with administration and through a collaborative effort, saw through to today. From self-contained breathing apparatus, use of the incident command system over 20 years prior to the issuance of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 and 6, personnel accountability systems, training in emergency vehicle operations, physical and mental fitness programs, to even benevolence funds funded solely by voluntary firefighter contributions to the continued welfare of our retired members. Our elected leadership are firefighters still working right here in Tulsa.

But you guys with the union hate apparently don't give a rip about the volume of retired firefighters before the implementation of SCBA use that are suffering from any assortment of lung disease. Apparently don't give two shakes of a crap that all contract items given in negotiations are not only approved by the mayor, but voted on and approved by our city council. Apparently don't seem all that concerned that issues with fireground personnel accountability are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of firefighters over the years, including those recently in Charleston, SC. Or even studies funded by firefighter contributions into burn testing with NIST and NFPA researching, learning, and disseminating indicators and parameters of the phenomena known as flashover, the very thing that killed 3 firefighters in Oklahoma City in 1989.

This union isn't the strong-armed thuggery of the UAW. It isn't the mob-infested, self-serving puke of the Teamsters. It is the very firefighters everyone seems to respect for the work we do, standing together as one often quiet voice that's willing to shout in unison when necessary.

What about that is hard to understand?

For a boot-wearin' goon you shore got a pretty way with words Justin.

My loathing for unions (in general) comes from my own personal experience being in one, being a steward for 7 years, and seeing with my own two eyes the bull**** that goes down at the union hall. I've filed the same grievances time and time again for the same POS ****ers who deserve to be fired. I've looked the other way and let management **** up - even though I could have prevented the problem by just mentioning to them they were making a mistake. You'll have to pardon me when I lump all unions together since to me they're all corrupt or at least shady.

I'm seriously glad none of y'all got layed off. I also think you would have gotten all the nice gadgets and safety stuff whether you had a union or not. And if you're telling me all of your union folks are all firefighters first, and union folks second then maybe y'all should call it something other than a union. All the unions I know about have officials who started out as a firefighter (or whatever the job was) and then became union goons and never fought another fire again - instead they spend all their time starting fires over a bunch of horse****.

Does your union stand alone, are are you a part of a larger "firefighters are us" union?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Don't shine too kindly on my words, Dean. I stole most of 'em from that pretty blonde lady I follow around like a lost puppy.

To answer your question, the latter. To clear it up real quick, I guess when I say that our Local is entirely composed of active firefighters, I failed to say that there is one person in the local that doesn't ride a truck every third day and that's the president. He IS a firefighter, a captain to be specific. One of our fire chief's biggest implementations was what we call a Labor/Management Committee where policy changes, suggestions, public relations, et cetera have a vehicle for round table discussion. With that, the local president co-chairs this committee so he works a 40 hour week with department administration and ramrodding business at the local.

With that said, we pay dues to a larger union, the International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO. Why we do so is beyond me other than qualifying as a recognized bargaining agent per the Fire and Police Arbitration Act. It's my personal take that we tell the International to get bent if we can do so and still be recognized. It'll save us money or give us the chance to sock that money away to help fund retiree's insurance and things like that we try to do now, but have some trouble with.

So I can't say I don't share some union hate. I saw my old man's GCIU shop literally put them on the street with their backhanded bullcrap and good ol' boy sh*t. I've seen different trade unions before my time as a firefighter literally strongarm cash out of a guy's paycheck (my own and others) in exchange for the very prospect of even having a job. But while ours has the usual headsmacking of differing opinions, this is the closest thing to a pure collection of labor working together I've seen since I've been pushing a shovel. It's special. And it makes me proud to be a part of for the simple reason that it IS so different.

[JohnnyMack]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Public-sector-unions-bleed-taxpayers-to-help-Dems-83652517.html