Pittsburgh paramedics overwhelmingly reject contract offer
Pittsburgh paramedics on Friday voted overwhelmingly to reject a contract offer from the city.
Members of Fraternal Association of Professional Paramedics Local 1 voted 134 to 9 not to approve the labor agreement, said Anthony Weinmann, the union's president.
The vote gives the union the authority to go on strike, but Weinmann said there are no immediate plans for a walkout.
“I think the number of no votes cast for this contract is a pretty clear indication that city paramedics are not happy with what has been offered,” Weinmann said.
The union, which represents about 160 paramedics, has been working under the terms of a contract that expired two years ago.
Joanna Doven, a spokeswoman for Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, could not be reached for comment.
Weinmann said there was no single issue that prompted paramedics to turn down the offer.
The union, however, has been unhappy about the city's proposal to move rescue operations, currently performed by paramedics, to the fire department in an effort to improve public safety and have more paramedics available for ambulance calls.
Changes would include one city team consisting of paramedics and firefighters for the most difficult rescue operations. Fire trucks would be equipped to handle all other rescue operations, including extrications from vehicle accidents.
More than half of the city's 600 firefighters are certified emergency medical technicians, and firefighters now respond with paramedics to vehicle accidents.
Tony LaRussa is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7987 or email@example.com.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.