Firefighters, Disney Government at Odds

General Grizz

New Member
Original Poster
Firefighters, Disney Government at Odds
Tue Jan 20
By MIKE SCHNEIDER, Associated Press Writer

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. - They use 15-foot ladders to pluck passengers from a broken Peter Pan ride. They treat theme park visitors who sometimes wilt in the summer heat. They free hotel guests from stalled elevators.

Whenever there's trouble at Walt Disney World, emergency workers from Disney's personal government come to the rescue.

But the 142 firefighters, paramedics and dispatchers who protect resort guests are dissatisfied employees, having worked without a contract for two years. They're unhappy with proposals on wages and health insurance for retirees. Union leaders complain they've been harassed by managers.

They feel they're not getting the same rights as other public workers when it comes to collective bargaining because Disney's government, the Reedy Creek Improvement District, answers to a private company rather than voters.

"Other fire departments, they can go and petition the mayor, city councilmen and other politicians, and they can go and work to influence the election, help them out at campaigns, contribute money," said Rick Spence, a firefighter for 15 years. "We don't have that opportunity here."

C. Ray Maxwell, Reedy Creek's administrator, said union leaders haven't allowed members to vote on a contract proposal that he described as competitive with the local market during the two years of negotiations.

"There is a question of acting in good faith," Maxwell said. "Every time you make an offer, they come back and want more."

The Legislature created Reedy Creek in 1967 at the urging of Disney officials who had just announced plans to build a theme park outside Orlando. Disney wanted political autonomy and the power to issue tax-exempt bonds like other governments to finance projects.

The 25,000-acre district is governed by a five-member Board of Supervisors, which is elected by landowners in the district. Disney controls about 90 percent of the voting power. Board members are non-Disney businesspeople from central Florida and must own at least an acre in the district.

Hidden away from Cinderella's Castle, far removed from the costumed workers dressed as Winnie the Pooh and Snow White, Reedy Creek keeps Disney World running. Its workers ensure rides get the electricity they need to run smoothly, potholes are filled on resort roads, and the water is running at Disney's 21 hotels.

The firefighters and other emergency workers are represented by the Reedy Creek Fire Fighters Association. The union wants to sue the state of Florida to challenge the constitutionality of the process for resolving labor disputes as it relates to Reedy Creek and other special taxing districts.

The process, called an impasse resolution process, is used when labor and management in a collective bargaining dispute can't resolve their differences. The firefighters declared an impasse last month and they're waiting for the state to appoint a mediator.

If the mediator's recommendations are rejected by either side, state law allows either side to bring their complaints to the controlling legislative body — in this case Reedy Creek's Board of Supervisors. The legislative body will hold a public hearing and decide the outcome, which is only binding for one year.

The firefighters argue that Reedy Creek's board is not a genuine legislative body elected by voters because Disney selects its members. The firefighters want an independent arbitrator to make any binding decisions.

"We have no way to effect the political system, to lobby our interests," said Rick Gorsuch, president of the Reedy Creek Fire Fighters Association Local 2117.

But Reedy Creek's Maxwell said that can be done through the board.

"I guarantee it, they're as independent as anybody can be," Maxwell said. "The integrity of that board is beyond reproach."

Maxwell said the board should be involved with the impasse resolution process because the firefighters are protecting the assets of Disney World.

The labor dispute centers on wages, whether certain retirees who have left the fire department before age 65 can get medical insurance retroactively and whether code enforcement workers can be included in the union contract. Disney's firefighters currently earn between $35,000 and $55,000 a year, which is competitive for the Orlando market.

Joseph Little, a law professor at the University of Florida, said the firefighters have a "contrived" argument if they sue to change the impasse resolution process and suggested they go to the state Legislature to seek a change. But he conceded there was a distinction between Disney's workers and other public employees.

"Whether or not that distinction is enough to make (the law) ... unconstitutional, that's what I'm dubious about," he said.
 

BwanaBob

Well-Known Member
_________<(rock) RCFD (hardplace)>__________

This sucks!

Hypothetical....

Maintenance continues decline...reinvestment slows...problems start occurring more frequently...

Disney firefighters go away?

=

"UH-Oh!"
 

HennieBogan1966

Account Suspended
This situation illustrates why we all need to be more involved in the political process in this country. I would agree that if their wages are "competitive with the market" then there is no reason to negotiate higher wages. I would also say that as long as they are offered comparable benefits packages, then there is no reason for negotiation/arbitration on this issue as well. I would not agree with giving retirement benefits retroactively/or otherwise, to those that chose to retire before the mandated retirement ages. If you do, how do you explain that to those americans out there who have to abide by the letter of the law when it concerns receiving retirement benefits and to those who "have" waited and worked until their retirement age. This would set a very bad precedent if this were to happen in their favor. I don't disagree that these are hard-working people. Or that they shouldn't have good representation. And I do agree that the Board members should be voted on and not "appointed" by Disney management. That too sets a bd precedent for our democratic process. But you have the state of Fla. to blame for that one in "taking the money" back in 1967.

Having lived in a state (WVA) for some 2 and a half years during the late 80's, I can tell you that Unions can be a double-edged sword. They're great for the union members at times. But in those times when the members would rather work and support their families, but the union leadership wants to strike, members are powerless to do anything but become pawns in the game.

I would caution all of you to be wary of this type of tactic. The most important issue here is making sure that the safety of all the visitors to the parks is maintained. This is not a money issue, as some would have you believe. The State of Fla. made its bed 36 years ago, and the men/women who serve today are paying a price for that. If anything, a movement should start to have Board members for the Reedy Creek District elected in a democratic election.
 

Scooter

Well-Known Member
While I am a union man myself, and I sympathize with the Reedy Creek Fire Department, this is topic that no one but the union members and Disney has any control over.

I don't know the whole story and would need to hear both sides of the story to make comments and voice opinions.

This story is bordering on Politics and I believe we were asked specifically NOT to discuss such things on this board.

Reedy Creek Firemen..I commend you for the hard work you do and good luck in your endeavors.


Scooter
 

caparamedic

New Member
HennieBogan1966 said:
This situation illustrates why we all need to be more involved in the political process in this country. I would agree that if their wages are "competitive with the market" then there is no reason to negotiate higher wages. I would also say that as long as they are offered comparable benefits packages, then there is no reason for negotiation/arbitration on this issue as well. I would not agree with giving retirement benefits retroactively/or otherwise, to those that chose to retire before the mandated retirement ages. If you do, how do you explain that to those americans out there who have to abide by the letter of the law when it concerns receiving retirement benefits and to those who "have" waited and worked until their retirement age. This would set a very bad precedent if this were to happen in their favor. ....

FYI: Those "retroactive" benefits were offered to those who retired after the contract expired and would have been covered if the contract had been negotiated prior to the expiration of the last contract. That was fair. These retirees served over 25 years in the world's most dangerous job. The union fought hard to ensure that those who serve will have health benefits when they retire.

Government employees tend to make less than the private sector, but traditionally have better benefits which somehow makes up for the low pay. The new contract gave the firefighters everything they asked for, although they suffered for over two years with no raises and rising health care costs.

The same thing is going to happen again with our fire inspectors who joined the union while the negotiations were stalled. The district's initial offer was NO raises and to have the inspectors lose their benefits and take a pay cut. These inspectors are the first line of defense for a fire department that focuses on fire prevention as its top priority. Fire prevention has proved to work at Reedy Creek, but without highly skilled and qualified inspectors it will fail. :brick:

Also....the lawsuit with the State of Florida is not going away and is moving through the judicial system.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom