Once upon a time there was a prodigious camel that was the pride of its owner. The camel could carry any weight and go the farthest of any of the herder's caravan. Then, accidentally, the camel was given such a heavy load that a single straw placed atop it caused the camel to collapse in a heap. That was it, the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.

Sometimes fire chiefs feel that way about problems. They can handle a pretty tough load until finally the last little problem seems to be just too much. This also affects organizations. The organization takes on more and more until — CRACK — the broken back, figuratively.

I was reminded of this phenomenon when talking to a fellow fire chief. He said he was researching the staffing issues associated with overtime costs because he was under a lot of pressure to reduce his overtime budget. I asked why, and he said that his workers' compensation and the related injury rate had gone over the top, and sick leave was accelerating. In short, he wasn't going to be able to live within his budget.

How this relates to the camel and straw is simple. What happens when we gradually grant benefits that aren't funded and they exceed expectations? Something has to give. You have to get more money or rearrange the system.

Have you ever heard the other popular admonition, if it ain't broke, don't fix it? The corollary to that advice is: If it's about to break, start fixing it. One popular management guru has even suggested that if it ain't broke, break it.

The intent of this column is to do neither. I'm not sure that the system is broke or that it needs a major fixing. But I am pretty sure that some preventive maintenance needs to be applied. I'm specifically referring to the increasing costs of benefits that are indirect, almost unmanageable and increasingly a subject of scrutiny for at least one level of government, the local fire department.

Now, before anyone goes off prematurely about how important all of our benefits are and how we can't touch them, don't worry. That isn't my intent. I, too, am a recipient of the benefits we have fought for over the last few decades. I was once badly injured on the job. I have taken my vacation leave after it was granted. I have accepted educational benefits from both tuition reimbursement and the GI Bill of Rights. I don't want to be a hypocrite by saying all of that is subject to criticism or a reduction in benefits.

What I am going to suggest is that we had better become much more sophisticated in planning how to pay for those benefits or the system will eventually pay a price. “What kind of price?” you ask. No gloom and doom here. I'm just stating one perspective on consequence and leaving it at that. If and when we ever exceed the capacity of the system to fund the benefits we have obtained, the system will change by reducing the value of those benefits.

Can't happen, you say! We're government. Have any of you read about what happened to the retirement benefits of private-sector companies that went belly up in the last few years? Whole groups of employees lost everything. Can't happen to us, right?

Don't be so sure. I know many of you are too young to remember the Depression, but I hope that you have read history books and learned that economic systems can fail. There have been countries that have seen inflation destroy the value of their monetary systems.

I don't want to be Chicken Little here, either, because the sky is not falling. However, if you as chief are held responsible for the cost containment of benefits within a system where there's no provision for containing usage, you may be at risk of losing your job.

Now, how many of us have benefited directly from gains obtained at the bargaining table? Go ahead, admit it. We all have. If the truth were known, many of us, including me, were labor leaders early in our careers, and as chiefs we've secretly, if not openly, supported proposals made by our personnel. What the heck — we got ours.

I also can say that I've seen more than one fire chief torn to pieces after taking a management position that has offended department personnel. Votes of no-confidence often follow scenarios where chiefs have taken unpopular stances on proposed actions within the negotiations process. Those of you who have felt the sting of criticism from your personnel may believe that they've abandoned you because you're not supporting their position on a specific issue.

In reality, chiefs probably can't win on this matter. If you seem too labor-focused, the city manager or similar will brand you as unfaithful to your role as a supervisor. If you're too management-focused, the labor force will brand you as a person who's forgotten what it's like to be on the line — what a place to be!

I have another suggestion. Keep good records and tell the truth. Don't take sides; be an umpire or referee, but always play by the rules. If the rules change, help to make sure that they're the right thing to do.

Why are records and the truth so important? Consider the meet-and-confer, or negotiation, process. Although today's labor-representative organizations often completely exclude the chief's participation, you had better be ready to provide records and analysis when asked. Why? Because without analysis the process can result in you being asked to manage things that you can't possibly be ready to contain.

For example, every time a benefit is granted at the table that provides employees more time away from the workplace, there are implications for staffing and overtime. In the case of shift workers, and specifically those who possess a specialty rank or other pay provision, there's a cost. Compare what granting a fire inspector one more week of vacation costs versus granting three more shifts per year to a firefighter on an engine company. One costs time away from workload, the other creates a cost of replacement.

If you as chief can't project the impact or costs of a recipient exercising a new benefit, then you aren't really managing the department. The fire chief should be the resident expert on exactly what every element of the department is doing and how much it costs to do it.

As chief, you should be able to fairly and objectively assess consequences. I recall one negotiation where an assistant city manager was prepared to grant a benefit that would have a $225,000 impact on the budget. He came to me and asked if I was for or against the proposal. I said that his estimate was off the mark by about $100,000 and produced documentation to prove it. I then asked if he knew what the labor force's interests were with respect to the requested action, but he said he didn't know. Back at the bargaining table, the issue was revisited in terms of what the group was trying to accomplish. Several other options were suggested, and one was selected that was far less expensive. Sometimes that works. Other times it won't.

The fire chief's role is to lead and manage. Sometimes this has been interpreted to imply control, but it doesn't mean that literally. Providing accurate data will allow you to guide, not dominate, when issues are raised in the context of labor relations. It isn't very prudent to try to control anyone's opinion of what they want, whether they're subordinates, peers or superiors.

A manager's job is to do things right, and a leader's job is to do the right thing — that's consistent with keeping good records and telling the truth. But what if you aren't allowed to be that magnanimous? What if your boss wants you to oppose some proposal, or your labor group wants you to come out against the meet-and-confer process? Well, that's what sweat glands are for, because it's going to get very hot. You're going to feel the heat, especially if either side wants to fight the issue out in a public forum.

If this happened to you right now, what would you do? Not unlike when a fireground operation goes bad in a hurry, you may not have a long time to mull this over. Many career-threatening events such as this have occurred when the gauntlet has been thrown down.

My answer is Plan B. Know what your own principles will lead you to think and do, and then use them. There are things you must be prepared to stand up for, and the best time to contemplate them is now. And you had better be prepared to justify your position with the two tools of truth and proof.

I once was told that city management was going to take a course of action that would have a draconian effect on the department. When advised of the action, I carefully prepared a report outlining my concerns and the anticipated consequences. I was told it was going to happen anyway. I then took the decision to the department and advised the labor group. They were outraged. I explained all of the facts that were available to me and answered every question of the labor group. The president of the association asked me to publicly oppose the decision.

I returned to my boss with an explanation of each implication of the decision and requested reconsideration. That request was not granted. Shortly thereafter the firefighters took the issue public and created a groundswell of opposition to the decision, which then was reversed at a council meeting.

What's the lesson here? I believe that the strategy for surviving this type of scenario also is two-fold: Maintain confidentiality and stick to principles instead of personalities. My conversations with my boss were always kept between us, as were my conversations with the labor leader. I explained their positions to each other only in terms of principles to be considered. You might see this as a form of shuttle diplomacy, but it's more importantly a process that builds relationship as opposed to creating conflict.

In the end, we're all afloat on the sea of discord when it comes to managing the consequences of unfunded or controversial labor-management situations. When sailing on uncharted waters you need to have a plan. My suggestion is always to know more about the consequences of any decision than anyone else. Tell the truth, even if it hurts. Treat your role as the chief as the strongest link in the communication chain. And, last but not least, always place principles at the center of the discussion, not personalities.

I'm enough of a pragmatist to realize there are situations that will push the envelope of using these techniques. There may be times when you have to take a position and defend it until one side wins over the other, but you should plan on those being rare occasions.

---

A 40-year veteran of the fire service, Ronny J. Coleman is the president of the Fire & Emergency Television Network, which features career development and succession planning in its Command Transfer series. He has served as fire chief in Fullerton and San Clemente, Calif., and was the fire marshal of the State of California from 1992 to 1999. He is a certified fire chief and a master instructor in the California Fire Service Training and Education System. A Fellow of the Institution of Fire Engineers, he has an associate's degree in fire science, a bachelor's degree in political science and a master's degree in vocational education.