Emergency services Looking for a commitment on black and white
GREAT BAY--After months of meetings that, in their view, circled the same unresolved points, shop stewards from the Fire Department and the Ambulance Department asked their union, WICSU-PSU, to prepare a formal commitment letter for the Prime Minister to sign. The draft, sent on November 3 with supporting attachments, distills what the workers say they have asked for since April 2025: correct placement in the function book, recognition of career lines, and retroactive effect where the law and prior decisions support it. The union’s cover letter frames the request as a practical way to end the go-slow that started on April 14 and to restore normal operations in two essential services.
The November 3 package, addressed to the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, lays out the union’s position and encloses five items: a joint letter from shop stewards of both departments, a notice of heightened go-slow measures, the draft commitment document for signature, the national decree on appointment and promotion requirements for firefighters, and an amendment to the Organisatiebesluit Algemene Zaken. The union says the matter has “dragged on for far too long,” and that confidence was shaken by the most recent government correspondence of October 23. The union stresses that many of the fixes are administrative and recognition-based, not across-the-board pay raises, and that a signed, stamped commitment would remove ambiguity and set clear direction for managers and staff.
The shop stewards’ joint letter, also dated November 3, describes “deep frustration, exhaustion, and growing concern,” and says both services have reached “a state of operational fatigue.” It notes that the Fire Department has been working under untenable conditions and that the Ambulance Department has limited responses to A1 and A2 calls, with an intent to intensify actions in solidarity if decisive steps are not taken. The letter warns of the cascading risk when critical services falter, stating, “when one essential service is neglected; all are affected. Touch one, touch all.” It gave government forty-eight hours to take “immediate and concrete action” to recognize the crisis, restore operational capacity and morale, and ensure the safety and dignity of personnel. It added that, should the stalemate continue, members are prepared to escalate through demonstrations and coordinated disruptions, even though “we do not wish to continue this go-slow.”
Government has responded in writing. In an October 24 letter, and again in correspondence dated November 5 and November 6, the Prime Minister says the administration agrees with the substance of the workers’ requests, confirms the start of a placement process guided by a general policy that includes a claim route for those who believe they qualify for retroactive payment, and reiterates that the function book will be revisited within three years under the CCSU framework. He urges an end to the go-slow, proposes returning to formal negotiations on the draft covenant, and stresses that correspondence has been timely.
The workers acknowledge receiving those letters, but say context matters. In their view, the replies do not bind government in the way a signed and stamped commitment letter would, and they leave room for interpretation on retroactivity, correct function placements, and career line recognition. They point to the three specific points they drafted and want formalized, arguing that a single signed document would remove doubt and clarify for the departments that must implement changes.
Speaking of departments, the elephant in the room is the capacity issue within the government’s Personnel and Organization (P&O) Department. This department is reportedly not operating at an optimal level. In fact, just this past week, MP Veronica Jansen-Webster raised the matter in Parliament, citing the lack of tangible results being produced. If this department will be tasked to handling matters by strict timelines for the fire and ambulance personnel, the government might want to consider outsourcing the task in order to avoid further delays.
A long road of issues discussed
There has been many issues and many discussions. Frustration over process and deadlines not honored has been a theme in the discussions from day one, and a key source of frustration. Several follow-ups from the union notes missed reply dates, including an agreed one-week turnaround after a September 26 session that fell due on October 3. It says a similar slippage occurred in August, and that the pattern has eroded trust. That same letter questions who sits at the negotiation table on government’s side and whether communication from the team reflects the Prime Minister’s position with clarity. The firefighters wrote many times that morale “is already at an all-time low,” and that the sense of neglect and disregard has a “profound impact” on workers who are continuously asked to put country above self.
The union submitted a Fire Department covenant on May 5, 2025 as a discussion guide and asked that it be placed on the August 6 agenda. They also indicated that a draft collective labor agreement would be built from those covenant discussions. Central to the dispute is the Function Book. The union’s understanding was that the Function Book would proceed on the condition that it be revisited within two years and that retroactive placement and payment be applied to both retired and current personnel.
Minutes later circulated did not reflect that condition, and the union says promotions have been held back because the Function Book was not formalized, with several firefighters who passed exams since 2013 still not formally placed. The parties broadened the agenda to include retroactivity for active and retired staff, and the union emphasized that retroactivity had become the crux of the go-slow. Questions followed about whether any written clause bars retroactive payment, where the idea of retroactivity originated, and whether any formal agreement on retroactivity exists. Government indicated it could not find such documentation, while the union maintained that items brought to the bargaining table were not reflected in the Function Book.
Further issues concerned the content and consequences of the Function Book itself. Draft functions that were missing were sent to the Prime Minister and re-sent, including operational roles and required FTE counts to enable promotion flow. The union says the current Function Book appears to move remuneration backward. There wee also questions about how to count contract years for “jubileum,” including whether counting begins from 10-10-10 and whether years served on contract or in lieu of receiving “LBs” are included. Concerns were also raised about the “toelage” allowance not counting toward pensions and the need to clarify any pension effects.
Structural human-resources questions occupy another strand of the dispute. The union argues that the Fire Department’s operational reality is incompatible with the new HR Cycle, which uses individual targets based on education or conditions suited to office work, making it difficult for firefighters to pass the cycle. The Fire Chief submitted an HR-cycle proposal and was told legal changes would be required for a new cycle, yet a new cycle has, in their view, been introduced without legislation.
So as the impasse drags on...
Again, in an attempt to expedite and close the matter, the union attached the national decree on firefighter appointment and promotion requirements and cites earlier administrative decisions as part of the foundation for retroactive placement where applicable. The union’s message is that the framework exists, the three points are known, and the issue now is to fix placements, recognize career paths, and apply retroactivity within that framework.
The shop stewards underline the stakes beyond paperwork. They write that the present path is “operationally unsustainable and publicly irresponsible” for two vital services. They emphasize that residents, visitors, cruise passengers, and businesses will inevitably feel the impact if the impasse continues. Their stated goal is not to extend the go-slow, but to end it with a signed commitment that restores confidence and provides a clear map for implementation.
The Prime Minister’s letters, for their part, signal a willingness to move through placement, enable a claim process for retroactivity, revisit the function book within an agreed horizon, and continue formal talks on the broader draft covenant.
The coming days will test whether both sides can convert parallel letters into a single instrument that gives the personnel the certainty they say is missing. They stress that the difference between a reply and a commitment is small on paper, but decisive in practice. If it is signed, the go-slow can end, if it is not...