|
http://www.adfirefighter.org
E-Mail:
adfa@rmci.net
Hugh Carson,
Chair Carl Pence, Legislative Affairs
Dick Grace, Vice-Chair
Gerald Ivey, Media/Information
Joe
Bistryski,
Secretary
Dick Mangan, Training Coordinator
Gary Helsel
Treasurer
Ken Palmrose, Natl Membership Coord
Shari
Downhill, AD (Non-Retiree) Representative
December 16, 2004
To:
Tom Harbour,
Director, U.S. Forest Service, Aviation and Fire Management
Larry Hamilton,
Director, Fire and Aviation Management, BLM
Lyle Carlile,
Director, Fire and Aviation Management, BIA
Edy Williams-Rhodes,
Director, Fire and Aviation Management, NPS
Phillip
Street,
Director, Fire and Aviation Management, USF&WS
Kirk Rowdabaugh, Chair, National
Wildfire Coordinating Group and Western States Foresters’ Representative
From: Board of Directors, AD Firefighter
Association
Subj: Proposed 2005 AD Pay Rates
We recently received the proposed 2005 AD
Pay Rates. As you are aware, the AD Firefighter Association (ADFA) has
been working for almost two years to ensure logic and rationality to
both AD pay scales and standardization of processes and procedures.
our goal has been, and remains a “win-win” solution for both ADFA and
the agencies.
However, it has become apparent to our
membership that both the Interagency Business Practices Working Team (IBPWT)
and agency Human Resources personnel are unaware of the duties,
responsibilities, scope, and complexities of fighting fire in today’s
world. Additionally, there seems little recognition of the value of the
experience and mentoring that ADFA members offer during fire
assignments. Our concern is that the proposed pay rates are not
commensurate with these factors.
This perception is also shared widely by
those within the agencies who recognize the value of firefighters hired
under the AD emergency pay authority. Examples of those who share our
concern are Area Commanders and Type 1-2 Incident Commanders, the
dispatch community, agency public affairs professionals, geographic area
operations and coordinating group, as well as local fire staffs who
utilize AD personnel on a frequent, widespread basis.
NWCG IBPWT and agency HR staffs have
repeatedly stated that the 1951 AD Pay Authority was never meant to
provide equivalency in pay. We agree. The original intent was to hire
line firefighters off the street. However, the AD Pay Plan was also
never meant to hire highly skilled and experienced personnel. The
fact is, the AD authority has been expanded tremendously in the past
decade to meet the needs of a depleted regular workforce, with no
recognition of the skills, experience and mentoring the AD community
provides.
The 2005 proposed rates
may also be a misdirected attempt to cut firefighting costs by slashing
AD rates to levels that are unacceptable to our membership. While we
recognize that cost-cutting is a laudable and priority objective, it may
result in the loss of many highly experienced personnel, which could
actually result in increased incident costs in the long run. The impact
on safety from not being able to staff incidents quickly and adequately
may also be quite high.
The latest rate proposal is an astonishing
and disappointing “slap in the face” to everyone working under the AD
pay authority.
The AD pay authority does in fact allow
the agencies to recognize this fact and adjust the pay rates
significantly upward for the near term until an alternative hiring
authority can be developed.
We find many contradictions between what
the IBPWT and HR staffs are doing with AD Positions and Pay Rates and
what agency fire management and operations staff are saying with regard
to the value of the AD community and firefighting in general.
Specifically, the Final Draft of The
National Interagency Complex Incident Management Organization Study (NIMO),
Findings and Recommendations, November 2004 states that, for
at least for the next decade, the agencies are dependent upon retires
and non-retiree AD personnel to help staff incidents.
The NIMO also recommends implementing an
alternative hiring authority, which we would strongly encourage you to
pursue immediately.
The report bases the NIMO Team concept
(full-time GS employees) on a Type 1 IC being paid at the GS-14/5 ($47
hourly rate), with Command General Staff at 13/5 ($40), and Unit Leaders
at 12/5 ($34). Sub-Unit Leader personnel would be paid at an
appropriate lower level.
The rates in the NIMO are significant
different from the proposed 2005 rates (e.g., Operations Section Chief
AD-L rate of $28.16; FBAN AD-I rate of $19.40, etc.). Many of the
authors of the NIMO report were at some point in their careers both fire
staff officers, regional directors, and/or Type 1 ICs who recognize the
complexities of the ICS positions. They fully realize the value of the
AD workforce and that pay must be commensurate.
ADFA feels the NIMO-proposed rates are
appropriate AD rates, given the fact ADs receive no overtime or hazard
pay. This would correct a decade-long problem of agencies setting rates
at an arbitrarily low level.
In order to provide examples of just a few
of the numerous problems with the 2005 proposal, we offer the following
observations:
- We
have analyzed the proposed pay rates (see Attachment 1) and find
that most positions have received a $1-$7 cut in pay (average
$2.62), with many historic key shortage positions in all staff areas
being reduced by $3-$6. The reduction is such that
most of our members are unwilling to
fill positions in 2005. This could have an adverse
effect on the safety and efficiency of firefighting operations.
-
There are some glaring discrepancies
in the position leveling of the AD ICS positions. One of the most
obvious is the position of SEAT Coordinator at AD-L $28.16 and ATGS
at AD-J $21.36. Another is the payment of a HEB2 at the same rate
as a HEB1. A Single-Engine Airtanker Manager (SEMG) is paid
$3.80/hr. more than the ASGS, who supervises the SEMG? The IBPWT
leveling is rife with contradiction and questionable logic.
-
On the issue of rating/ranking
factors, the AOBD rate of AD-K $23.48 is incomprehensible.. This is
equivalent to a GS 10/4. An AOBD operating on a moderately complex
incident may be responsible for as many 20 aircraft, 4-5 remote
bases, airspace coordination, supervision of as many as 100
personnel, etc.. At the very least, and without exaggerating the
scope of the air operations job, the AOBD is equivalent to the
duties, responsibilities and complexity of a Regional Aviation
Officer/State Aviation Manager (GS 12/4 $30.92/hr.) or GS-14/4
($43.45 an hour). Similar discrepancies exist through the position
leveling documentation.
-
The discrepancies between 2 weeks at
an AD rate (with no overtime or hazard) and 2 weeks at a fairly
equivalent GS rate (with true overtime and hazard) are as much as
$2000-$6000 per pay period (see Attachment 1). This does not even
factor in the additional cost-to-government of permanent federal
employees (approximately 30%). This difference is not equitable,
contributes to conflict within a team, and simply reinforces the
impression by ADFA that the agencies consider the AD workforce a
“cheap, quick source of labor” who can be told to “take it or leave
it.”
-
The $30 cap is arbitrary and has been
in place for an inordinate amount of time. We see no reason that
the cap cannot be raised so that those individuals filling positions
with the highest level of complexity (e.g., Area Command and Type 1
Team Command and General Staff) are in the $45-$50 range. The
agency NIMO report supports this.
-
The spread between rates AD-A through
AD-M has been arbitrarily set with too great a gap between the
various levels, resulting in artificially low rates for the
positions analyzed by the IBPWT.
In short, we feel that the IBPWT has:
-
Inaccurately rated the positions
regarding scope, duties, responsibilities, and complexities
-
Set the rates artificially low, with
an arbitrary cap of $30
-
Needlessly complicated the pay rate
structure, and
-
Not taken into account that ADs do not
receive overtime, hazard pay, leave, or any benefits.
Our proposal would set the cap at $45 and
work downward from there, with a complete re-examination of the position
leveling. While this may seem high, it is high only in relationship to
the artificially low rates that have been set for a decade, and are
nowhere near what contractor personnel are paid.
In closing, we at ADFA remain committed to
continuing our support to the firefighting agencies.
However, this support is predicated on the
fire agencies, and particular top-level management at the National and
Regional/State level, making a good faith effort in the very near future
to resolve the issues we have brought up. Evidence of this effort will
be a significant revision to the proposed 2005 AD Rates.
If you have any questions or concerns,
please contact Hugh Carson,
Chair, AD Firefighter Association, at 970-921-5333 or at
adfa@rmci.net , or any of the Board Members listed below.
Yours truly,
The
ADFA Board:
Hugh Carson,
Chair, 970-921-5333,
adfa@rmci.net
Dick Grace, Vice-Chair, 541-935-3724,
dgrace@efn.org
Joe Bistryski, Secretary,
435-843-7917,
jrbistryski@msn.com
Gary Helsel, Treasurer, 208-884-0259,
glhelsel@cableone.net
Carl Pence, Legislative Affairs, 208-468-9318,
pencavi@msn.com
Bud Ivey, Media/Information, 530-241-3352,
hedera@c-zone.net
Dick Mangan, Training Coordinator, 406-544-8922,
blackbull@bigsky.net
Ken Palmrose, National Membership
Coordinator, 480-812-8102,
firecomm1@hotmail.com
Shari Downhill, Non-Retiree AD Representative,
541-955-0755,
shari@nwtimberfallers.com
As
well as ADFA’s 250+ Members, plus all ADs who have no representation
Cc: Alice
Forbes, Director-NIFC,
U.S. Forest
Service, Aviation and Fire Management
John
Lopez, Director of Human Resources Management, USDA-Forest Service
Tim Murphy, Asst.
Director, Fire and Aviation Management, BLM
Tom Boatner,
Group Manager, Fire Operations, BLM
Hallie Locklear,
Chair, Interagency Business Practices Working Team (IBPWT)
1 Attachment (16 pp):
Pay Decrease
Analysis: Difference Between 2005 And 2004 Ad Rates and Equitability
Analysis: Difference Between Pay Period Earnings At Gs Grade Levels 4-14
And 2005 Ad Earnings
|
