At today’s Rules Committee meeting, supervisors Eric Mar and David Campos (and Michela Alioto-Pier, if she’s feeling well enough after having surgery) will hear Supervisor Chris Daly’s proposal to amend the City Charter to include a provision demanding termination of any firefighter found to be under the influence of alcohol while on duty. (PDF here: Download Firefighters Ordinance.)
Assuming progressives support the measure (and I suspect they will), this proposal will be on the ballot in June.
In 2004, the civil grand jury blasted the Fire Department for not doing enough to stop firefighters from drinking while on duty. (PDF here: Download June 2004 Civil Grand Jury.) Then in March 2005, 28 firefighters brought a lawsuit against the department demanding an end to “open and notorious” alcohol abuse among their ranks. About a month later, a battalion chief was found to be drunk while on duty. The lawsuit was later dismissed and the chief was fired, but it still looked like some fire stations were Stoppa Phi Rho frat houses filled with highly compensated beer-pong players.
In September 2005, the department began a drug and alcohol testing program that allows random screening (the prior policy did not). By March 2008, only two employees had tested positive for prohibited substances, and each was suspended 90 days and ordered into a yearlong substance abuse program that included regular screening.
This is both promising news and the genesis of the problem that Daly’s amendment seeks to address: Should a firefighter who is found to be under the influence of alcohol while on duty eventually be allowed to return to work, or should a legitimate positive test for alcohol result in automatic termination?
Of course, this would have been a much more pressing question back in 2005. In light of the fact that so few firefighters have tested positive for intoxication since the new testing policy has been in place, I asked Daly, “Why now?”
His response: “The only political upside to this is that it’s good public policy. Of course, that and $70 probably won’t be getting you a Fast Pass for much longer. Now I’m in my last year, and I’ll probably never run for anything again so there’s little political downside for me — other than having to listen to aging jocks yelling at me that I’m worse than [Dick] Cheney.”
We have given the Fired Department EVERY SINGLE PAY RAISE they demanded and we capitulated to them and kept redundant firehouses open despite the budget crisis. They are some of the biggest sources of budget pain ,and they can't even be asked to not get loaded on the job?
Next time they beg for more pay raises, I'm saying NO MORE.
Posted by: David Campos' Mini Me | January 21, 2010 at 09:54
God help me - I agree with Chris Daly. Better late than never.
Posted by: Howard Epstein | January 21, 2010 at 13:47
Sounds like a good law. Let's have it apply to supervisors too.
Posted by: Mad Dog | January 22, 2010 at 12:52
Hey I'm for this, in a way.
My old man (yea I said it) was the Batt Chief that was caught on duty. The guy had been in the business for 27 years, and was a full-fledged alcoholic. I never knew him to drink on duty until that last year. What he needed more was the threat of firing to get him into rehab. Well, he was a pantywaist and quit before being terminated. Since then, he's usedup his retirement checks to pay for years of rehab and counseling.
My point is, do guys on duty drink? Not the new generation, and not like you think they do. These guys aren't stubling around too inebriated to function. But like in my dad's case, more than a fair share have a problem. Doesn't make em bad guys, and a lot of them are incredible firemen. I dunno, I just think the system of forced rehab/counseling (a 2 strike rule) is more the way to go. You get one chance to redeem yourself. Do it again and it's goodbye. It gives these guys who work their tails off a reason to fix their lives with a little guidance, without ruining their famiy's lives as well.
Posted by: Madness | January 27, 2010 at 18:34
I don't understand people who hate Chris Daly. He is simply too entertaining to hate. I worked on his 2006 campaign, as part of my union job, but my wife never got why until he got into that thing with the MUNI driver. Then she was like "Oh - I get it. He's actually crazy. I thought it was an act. If he's actually that crazy, I'll totally vote for him. I just don't like phonies." Incidentally, she voted for Newsom for the same reason: "We knew we were electing a sleazebag, and we got one."
Posted by: Alek Felstiner | January 28, 2010 at 15:15