Over and above specific prohibitions contained in Chapter 25 of the D. C. Personnel Manual and elsewhere, a strike by firefighters in the District of Columbia would be unconscionable. Local 36 recognizes this fact and adheres to it; nevertheless, an impasse of serious proportions exists between us and your representatives as to a proposed pay raise. We respectfully request that you engage your personal attention towards affording us a suitable alternative. In the past, when differences existed, we relied upon the Congress to act as final referee. This time, however, certain factors obtain which make this course of action both unreasonable and inappropriate. To begin with, the difference between the positions of the two parties is too great. Your representatives have apparently settled on an amount of about 10%, effective July 1, 1974. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has fixed the rise in the Consumer Price Index since May, 1972 (the effective date of our last salary increase) to November 1973 (the last available date for Metropolitan Washington, D. C. data) as 10.9%. The continued increase in the national cost of living to the present date, plus informed projections to July 1, 1974, leaves little doubt that the Consumer Price Index will rise by at least 18% within the time period, May 72 to July '74. In addition, we might add that increases in the cost of living should hardly serve as the sole criterion governing salary increases for active employees. Ironically, it might be added that retired District classified employees 14 Affiliated with AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR and CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS whose pensions are protected solely by cost of living increase have already had an increase of 17.3% in their pensions since our last salary increase, and this figure will undoubtedly rise to at least 22% by July 1, 1974. To repeat, our respective positions are poles apart. Secondly, it has become obvious to us that' due to such past occurrence as our joint presentation before the Pay Board, a Memorandum of Understanding, etc., key members of the Congress have the mistaken impression that true collection negotiations are being conducted concerning pay. In fact, there have been none. It is clear to us that the Congress does not care to arbitrate pay for the City, and we would like to cooperate along these lines. Obviously, when Home Rule is in effect, we will enter into true collective bargaining with, we trust, acceptable remedies for impasses. In view of our current situation, we believe that it would be appropriate to submit our differences to mediation and arbitration. and feel Congress would view this as reasonable. We have no reluctance about placing our case before an impartial arbitrator. We solicit your concern in this matter and hope that, should some impasse settlement machinery be applied, it will be a speedy process; for our members, especially those in the lower pay levels, are critically in need of relief to offset the insane spiralling cost of living in this area. May we meet with you in the immediate future to explore the course we have outlined? RFG: mwg opeiu # 2 Singely, Jay & Granads Ramon F. Granados President Fire Fighters Association, District of Columbia We open by restating our considered opinion regarding our proposed salary increase. First, it should begin by reinstituting the salary levels of May, 1972 (the date of our last pay boost); this to be done by increasing our present wages by the amount of the rise in the Consumer Price Index in the time frame May 72 to July 74. Second, it should contain something in the nature of a real wage increase (i.e., something more than would just put us back where we were before large-scale wage erosion set in). Third, we are deserving of being compensated to some degree (admittedly total restitution is impossible) for the dollar drain that has been exacted from us by virtue of the infrequency of our salary increases. Nothing more need be said to illustrate this latter point than that, as we sit here today, we have received one (1) pay increase in the last 4 years, eleven months and 12 days. 38-251 O-74-16 Affiliated with AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR and CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS -2 We ask you to examine the chart which is on the last page of our submission. illustrates in dramatic fashion not only the dollar loss occasioned by our sporadic wage raises, but also serves as a complete rebuttal to the contention of the District Government that the percentage of our raises, added together, is now in excess of the added percentages for Federal and District classified employees, and that their proposed 10% increase would further this excess, even after the coming October, 1974 increase for classifieds. The facts are that beginning in 1964, when the House decreed that a parity relation should exist between our officer ranks and certain GS grades, virtual parity existed between a Lieutenant and GS-12, between a Captain and a GS-13, etc. Parity between the firefighter and a GS-8 became a reality in October, 1967. In the chart attached, all raises are factual save the July, 1974 increase for us and the coming automatic October increase for classified. By giving us a hypothetical increase of 16% (the chairman of the sub-committee had inquired of us only comparisons of 10% and 16%), we will be at parity with the GS scale if they receive but a 4% increase jn October, a decidedly conservative estimate. Given a more rational increase of at least 6% for classified workers, it will require an 18% raise for us to achieve parity, and more importantly, this increase, large as it may seem to some, does absolutely nothing to retrieve the dollar loss over the past years. order. A brief explanation for our starting point in the chart is in Going as far back as we can in the records obtained from the House District Committee, we find that in 1955, 1958, 1960, 1962, and 1964 both classified workers and firefighters received wage increases. |