| From theysaid, 1/26/2012 :
Comments by Casey on Retention Bonuses: |
|
| 1/26 | AB, please feel free to condense this into a link. Kinda long. As odd as it may sound, I have struggled for several days, in fact several sleepless nights, trying to craft a thoughtful post regarding this issue. First and foremost, I am humbled by the kind commentary offered by many about the FWFSA. The organization is non-profit which means no one is getting rich here at the FWFSA. As I've said before, I likely make less than every member of the FWFSA and receive no retirement and no benefits. Candidly, that is the way it should be. Our efforts are based solely on the admiration, respect and affection we have for our Nation's federal wildland firefighters and the belief that it is a worthy cause and effort to try and effect positive change for them so that they can have rewarding and prosperous careers as federal wildland firefighters. Unfortunately, more often than not, at least over the last decade, we've seen little in the way of support and effort by the Agency's themselves in effecting such change. As some have mentioned, there has been movement, albeit painfully and ineffectively slow. As a result, it has become necessary to pursue legislative remedies. Sadly, many of the issues facing our firefighters could be fixed "administratively" by the Agency. This has not occurred because, in my opinion, the Agencies, primarily the Forest Service, continue to manage their fire programs with fundamentally flawed principles and policies not conducive to providing our taxpayers with the most effective & efficient federal wildfire response. In other words, the FS continues to refuse to acknowledge that it fields the largest "fire department" in the world and as such continues to refuse to manage it as such. Those of you living in or around large municipalities across the country wouldn't expect your City or County Fire Department to be managed by that City or County's Parks & Recreation Dept., but that is precisely the business model employed by our federal land management agencies. It simply does not fit in trying to deal with the complexities of wildfires in the 21st century. The FWFSA never pursued "retention bonuses" pre se for Forest Service firefighters in California. Rather it took the issue of retention and recruitment directly to Capitol Hill with, as Letterman said, the help of a considerable number of voices from the field who provided not only opinions but hard data as it related to staffing levels. Further, a number of those who left the federal sector for Cal-Fire & other non-federal agencies offered their assessments. The effort was naturally focused on Sen. Feinstein. I spoke personally with her in Dec. 2007 in San Diego. As a result, with her position as Chair of the Senate Interior Approps committee, she wielded the power of including $25 million in the Omnibus Appropriations bill to address retention & recruitment. While the FWFSA acknowledged that the majority of retention issues were being felt in California as a result of Cal-Fire's successful efforts to draw away many federal firefighters, The FWFSA did our best to suggest that such a sum would serve all of our Nation's federal wildland firefighters best by being used as "seed money" for a portal to portal pilot program that would benefit all firefighters in all agencies. We felt then as we do now, that the best course of action to create a more effective & efficient federal wildfire response and to address retention & recruitment was/is to reform fundamental, but currently archaic pay & personnel policies such as classification; proper compensation methodology on assignments; hazard pay on prescribed burns; benefits for seasonals etc. We raised concerns about the inequities of geographic-specific bonuses given the fact that at any time in the season, firefighters not receiving such a bonus would likely be fighting fires next to someone receiving a bonus. The $25 million was provided to the Forest Service without direction as to how to spend the money. When the Region decided to provide bonuses to those in grades 5-8 since data reflected those grades showed the greatest retention problems, we raised the issue that some 8's would be making more than their supervisors and that 9's were also leaving the system thereby exacerbating the chasm between chief officers leaving and those in lower grades we all expected to move up the ranks to eventually fill those higher grades. As you all know, some of the funds were also used to convert some seasonals to permanent employees. There is no argument to the fact that the current "numbers" show a decline in the number of federal firefighters leaving. That being said, a legitimate question might be whether the Region believes the decline in losses is a result of the bonuses achieving the overall goal of retaining employees, or whether it understands that the reduced losses are more directly related to the slowdown in Cal-Fire's hiring. Personally, I firmly believe that the fundamental reasons for why firefighters left the federal system in the first place remain intact. The retention bonuses did not do anything to reform longstanding archaic policies that have led younger folks to leave for better pay & benefits and which have led those in higher grades to leave simply because they are fed up with the management of the program. One could use the analogy of the bonuses as like being in a small boat and experiencing a leak. One places their finger in the hole to stop the leak. On the one hand, one could then consider the leak "fixed" and thus remove their finger from the hole i.e. eliminate the bonus or one could recognize that the underlying reason why the boat was leaking in the first place, i.e. the hole, wasn't actually "fixed" and that the hole actually needs to be repaired...not just covered up. There is no doubt the loss of the bonus will play havoc for some already experiencing a pay freeze, a lousy economy and a pervasive anti-federal employee sentiment in DC. However I firmly believe the focus of our ire and efforts and thus our voices ought to be towards an effort to continue to educate the agencies and Congress into fixing the underlying causes of why folks have left and may continue to leave. Another valid question is how much money the Agency/Region is saving by curtailing the bonuses versus the amount the Agency is once again expending on the consulting firm Dialogos to, in essence, ask the same questions it asked several years ago to come up with the same answers it got from the workforce several years ago which led to a lousy ranking in places to work which led to congressional hearings on employee morale which led to what?...another contract with Dialogos spending tax dollars to obtain the same information it passed on to the Agency which in turn did nothing and has done nothing with the previous results. This week, the Region/Agency spent considerable sums to send folks to Sacramento to be part of a diversity work group. Are they preparing for another lawsuit? Are we in another "pre-consent decree" era? Yet at what point this coming season will the Agency/Region impose travel caps on crews so they can't attend important training? With all due respect, the Agencies and those firefighters not in R-5 are not going to be sympathetic to someone who complains that because of the loss of their bonus, they cannot meet their financial obligations. What we all can do is refocus our efforts on the underlying, fundamental issues that give rise to people leaving in the first place. As long ago as 2003, we implored the Forest Service to recognize that Cal-Fire had negotiated a lucrative retirement package for its members and that in around 2007, the Forest Service would likely see a "raid" on its employees by Cal-Fire. We implored the Agency to initiate reforms to the "fundamentals" so that when 2007 rolled around, the incentives in place would significantly reduce the number of those lost by the Agency. They ignored us. In the end, they had to react, instead of being proactive. The "reaction" was a "band-aid approach" made easy by the fact that a large sum of money was dropped in its (Forest Service) lap by Sen. Feinstein. They could have used that money to initiate reforms to benefit all firefighters which in turn would be a long-term solution. Instead they took the short-term approach and now firefighters and taxpayers are truly paying the price. I'd encourage you to use your voice in a positive manner. Don't complain about whether you can make your house payment or not. Explain why addressing the fundamentals of how the agency's management of their programs need to be changed. If you're a FS firefighter, offer long-term solutions (solutions that the FS has acknowledged are beneficial since 1985) letting folks like Randy Moore and Tom Tidwell know that you want to make the FS a career but it has to change the way it does business. Tell the same thing to Sen. Feinstein and her staff. Be positive & proactive. We've made a difference before, we can continue to do so. Persistence is the key. If I didn't see change, albeit it at a snail's pace, I wouldn't continue doing what I'm doing. Casey Judd President Federal Wildland Fire Service Association 208-775-4577 |