Board index FAQ Search View unanswered posts View active topics Register Login
JBLC Forum
Jones Beach Lifeguard Corps
Home Boy Rule or In-house change in status
Page 1 of 1 [ 12 posts ] Post new topic Post new topic   Reply to topic Reply to topic

First unread post
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
Post Home Boy Rule or In-house change in status Posted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:48 am
James Rooney
Hey does anyone have the History of this rule?

When was it voted in?

What was the result of the vote?

How about records of the DRAFT? Are they kept?

It would be nice to have an actual count of how many spots are created and filled using the Home-Boy rule for in house changes from full time to part-time status. That way we could see how many spots each year are opening up.

We could also analyze how may people are affected by this rule.

Better record keeping would help us in the future, and in the day of computers can we keep a Computer Record of the BOARD? That way you could log on and see what the openings are prior to showing up for the actual Draft.

Does it work both ways Full-time changing to Part-time as well as Part-time changing back to Full-time?

Also what about spots that are kept quiet at the Draft, and only become evident after we reach full opening and we realize that these guards aren't actually coming back?
Post Re: Home Boy Rule or In-house change in status Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 9:11 pm
Ryan Clark
If the "Home Boy Rule" is so unfair because it unduly gives guards with less seniority an opportunity to stay at their beach, then how can the same people reconcile that with the desire to see "bumping" where guards with more seniority take advantage of their time and displace younger guards who have a legitimate board spot. If we as a corps vote to get rid of the in house switch, then we should remain consistent about the use of seniority and the validity of prior drafts. If a person used their seniority to get to the facility they wanted when the opening was available, it is unfair and just wrong to throw out the way we have picked facilities for longer than we have allowed the "home boy rule" to enable someone to stay at a field. The displaced draft worked well last year and is equitable to all based on seniority and available spots.
Post Re: Home Boy Rule or In-house change in status Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:53 pm
James Rooney
I think Cannach is a little off on his dates, it wasn't 18 years ago.

Prior to 1997 in the Jones Beach Lifeguard Corps there were full-timer guards, weekend guards, and split-line guards who were mostly police and firefighters.

In 1997 Arnie Norman and Roy Lester created the concept of part-timers in order to give every lifeguard the oportunity for a flexible work schedule. The original concept had a formula of staffing where I think 2 full time spots would be the equivelant of 5 part-timers.

Somewhere in 1998, 1999, or 2000 the HOME-BOY rule must have been instituted, and I think the vote must have taken place after the fact in order to legitamize what was being done prior to the DRAFT each season by Lifeguard Captains that wanted to maintain crew continuity.

We are talking about 10 seasons of HOME-BOY rules in force.

I think it's great we are finally discussing the effects of these rules, but I wish we as a UNION had kept better records. If we had actual OFFICIAL records we could analyze them and determine exactly how many lifeguards have benifitted and been hurt by the rule over the past 10 years. We could also have a better idea how our staffing has been handled by the Water Safety Office. Instead we are stuck with the vague memories of lifeguards and what they selectively remember.

Maybe someone can ask Arnie Norman what he remembers hearing back then in 1997 when he was our UNION president?
Post Re: Home Boy Rule or In-house change in status Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 9:22 am
Matt Rogers
Field Loyalty for the races should take top priority.
Post Re: Home Boy Rule or In-house change in status Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:54 am
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Scott Zanville <> wrote:

In response to Mike and more. . .

Unfortunately, I believe many people will vote to suit their own needs at a particular point in time. However, the "right" thing to do does not change with time. That is why I asked two questions. (SEE BELOW). It is very possible for someone to want the rule because it benefits them, but at the same time acknowledge that it isn't really fair.

I am looking at the rule purely from the standpoint of seeing if the it makes sense. If there were no layoffs, or 150 layoffs, my thought process about the validity of the rule would not change. Individual people need to look outside themselves--something easier said than done. As shop stewards and the executive board, we need to look at the bigger picture. For example, if 75% of a crew wants to keep the rule, but 80% acknowledges it is unfair, I think that says something. Time will tell.


On Apr 16, 2010, at 9:15 PM, wrote:

> Mike,
> This is not about effecting different people in different years. Years you may think there was no problem, you just were not aware of it. I guarantee that every year since the in house transfer began, someone took advantage of it. I will also guarantee that the person who took advantage of it was not the most senior guard in the corp.. What if Reggie new about some openings over the years, how absurd is it that a guard with 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 or even 45 years of seniority may have kept Reggie from taking that spot. I agree with Scott this may not be the popular thing to change, but I too feel, it is the RIGHT THING TO CHANGE.
> Stu
> P.S. I am also in the process in putting out a note to the RM III crew. If anyone can clarify one thing I would appreciate it. I know we never voted in the In House or Home Boy Rule. Was the five year rule voted in by the general membership, or by the shop stewards?

In a message dated 4/16/2010 6:37:55 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, writes:

there can't be exceptions. we need to get rid of it or not. what i said to cary last night is that when we make exception to seniority (such as in house transfers) we only hurt ourselves. That then lets the coordinators say "ok, well we're going to put so and so in this spot even though they dont have the seniority because we like them." and they can do that because we make exceptions, so they can too. past practice has allowed exceptions.
I think seniority needs to rule. period. no exceptions - and as much as it sucks, super rookies are an exception (and i had the benefit of being one).
we cant have seniority this year and a return of the "home-boys" a few years down the road.
my two cents.
and that's what i replied to zanville.

i cut most of the people off of my reply list. didnt want to harass them with my email - you guys are the lucky ones.

On Apr 17, 2010, at 2:06 AM, wrote:

> I didn't make up the rule, not even sure how it came to pass. Why this wasn't looked at more closely in the past is probably because it was tolerable - now it's not tolerable. As an official union the rule should be eliminated because it goes against seniority we worked so hard for. The bottom line is the younger guys will want to keep the rule and the older guys with more seniority will want it eliminated. So the correct answers should be 1. No 2. No
> peace.

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Scott Zanville <> wrote:

Hi Everyone,

I thought I would share this with the rest of you. This is basically what I sent out to my crew and a few others.

As you may or may not know, if someone from the same field wants to switch from full time to part time (or vice versa), and an opening exists at the field, he or she could take this spot without going to the draft.
It is referred to as THE UP-DOWN RULE or THE HOME BOY RULE. (You must have at least 5 years seniority for this to apply)

This HOME BOY RULE may have helped, hurt, or had no impact on your place of work so far.

At the most recent Shop Steward's meeting (April 14), a discussion about keeping or removing this rule was addressed. I am looking for opinions from my crew as to what they would choose if it was put to a vote.

Before you jump to an answer consider the following carefully:

1) Think about what is right, not necessarily what is right for you this year.

2) The HOME BOY RULE could help you stay at the same beach if you have limited seniority, but need to switch your status. The benefit is you can bypass the draft, thereby getting first crack at any openings that may become available.

3) This same rule could prevent you from ever being able to move to another field if you needed to become a part timer and wanted a change of venue. For instance, if I wanted to leave CM and try a part time position at RM2, I may never have the opportunity because any available part time positions at RM2 may be snatched up prior to the draft.

My personal opinion is that SENIORITY should be the guiding rule in deciding who gets to go where. SENIORITY is fair, transparent, and any changes that happen are made at the draft.

So, I have 2 questions, which are actually quite different.

1) Do you want the HOME BOY RULE to stay?


2) Do you think the HOME BOY RULE is fair?




Post Re: Home Boy Rule or In-house change in status Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 11:57 am
Fellow Lifeguards:

Let me answer some of the questions being thrown around before you vote Lockstep Yes and Yes.
(1) The reason the "Home Boy" rule is being revisited is because there has been a chance that Orient, Montauk Downs, Heckscher and WBHP are on the chopping block. IF this was about the displaced lifeguards from EBHP, Field 1 and West End 2 it would have been addressed last year.
(2) The "Home Boy" rule has nothing to do with Bumping. Bumping would possibly happen if there were mass layoffs. Right now it looks like that's not going to happen.
(3) There is never a wrong time to correct something that is unfair and by passes your basic rights as a union member. Seniority is a basic right.
If you want to keep the "Home Boy" rule because it worked for you or you never want to leave your field and co-workers, that's OK. But do not pretend it is Fair and Right. Then hope and pray your field never goes part time or closes. Seniority is what we must operate under in order to avoid favoritism and chaos.

Hey guys Canach
Before you decide on the Up and Down or " Home Boy Rule " please consider another perspective on this issue.
Let's say your a 10 year full time guard on the ocean and want or say has to go part time. Let's say that year there are no part time openings at his field. This guard then goes into the draft and finds out that all the part time slots have been taken( by lifeguards with less years than he has) due the pre draft switches or so called Home Boy moves. That 10 yr guard is now out of luck and maybe out of a job.
This is only one example of why we must follow seniority. Seniority simplifies everything. The Up and Down or In House rule may help you stay at your preferred beach or even keep your job but it could be at the expense of one of your fellow union members. Sooner or lather this rule might even cost that same guard who used the rule to his advantage his job at a later date.
The Home Boy rule was put in about 18 years ago when there was full employment and New York State wasn't broke. The rule was never voted in by the membership as it reads now. What we voted on was that a guard needed 5 years in order to be eligible for this rule. Under this rule your giving a 5 yr guard preferential treatment over a 6 yr to 50 yr guard. It doesn't make any sense and is unfair.
I have always thought this rule was wrong. I am currently at WBHO and am very happy there. My opinion is not based on my seniority or location but what I believe is the right thing to do. If we don't follow seniority we undermine the entire system we operate under howsoever flawed or imperfect it is. Any other choice is self serving and selfish.
Please consider these thoughts before you make your decision

Robert Cornacchia
Field 1/WBHO

Hey guys Canach again
As a follow up to my last posting, I would like to elaborate on another reason why the "In House" switches or "Home Boy" rule should be done away with.
How many times has an " in house" switch occurred without the majority of a crew having any knowledge of it? How many times has an "in house" switch occurred despite the fact the persons switching did not fit the proper criteria? There is no accurate answer to those questions, but I would guess more times than we would like to admit .
Right now most "in house" switches are done between two people, in private, or a captain brokers the switch between the two parties involved without the crews knowledge. In all fairness to the captains, I'm not sure they are even required to inform the crew of openings. This is another example of seniority being by passed.
If we do away with the "Home Boy" rule we don't have to monitor these infractions. It would also take the power away from individuals, captains and the Water Safety office and put it were it belongs! With the JBLC, enforced by our seniority rules.
We should remember the " Home Boy" rule is a stand alone item. It has NOTHING to do with the other subjects being discussed on the recent agenda.
Please consider these thoughts before you decide on this matter.

Robert Cornacchia
Field 1/WBHO
Post Re: Home Boy Rule or In-house change in status Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:21 pm
Rob Cannach (and All JBLC),

Great information, and a very good rationale supporting your case to eliminate the ‘in-house transfer’.

Personally, I HAD been of the belief that the rule was good; however I wanted to see it amended so that you now needed 10 years seniority, as opposed to 5 years. Rob, you make a great point. It has been proven through past experiences that this rule has been abused/bent to provide for ‘shady’ transfers. Eliminating it completely would prevent the opportunity for misuse. So given the choices, I am now leaning towards VOTING in a GENERAL MEMBERSHIP VOTE that this rule is eliminated.

Here is my concern. Based on the post of Tony Batisti, it seems that if we (the JBLC members) allow our Executive Board and Beach Reps to AMEND this rule in a BRA meeting, we are now also opening the door to ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS TO OCCUR IN THE SAME MANNER. It seems that moving forward, the EB/Beach Reps can now (and in the future) amend other rules without a general membership vote. It seems that we will have set a precedent, and that ANY Seniority rule can be changed by a vote that occurs at the BRA meetings.

I am concerned because I do not think the EB/Beach reps should have that authority to change a seniority rule without a general membership vote. We don’t know what issues will arise in the future.

I think we need to make sure that the PROCESS by which we make any changes do not negatively impact the future.

Scenario----- If in the future, the EB/Beach reps are all guards with 30 years seniority, or all guards with 5 years seniority, it seems that they could hijack a rule and have it conform to THEIR needs, and not the desires of the whole corps.

If someone could clarify, I would appreciate it.

I have excerpted from Tony’s post below, so that everyone can see what I am talking about. Please make sure to read the last two sentences.

Excepts Below:

…………“There was an attempt, using Article 9, to amend the By-Laws by making ALL OF THE SENIORITY RULES part of the By-Laws document. Now, the By-Laws and the Seniority Rules would exist as one document – the By-Laws. All of the Seniority Rules would now be just a section of the By-Laws. The In-House rule, because it is in the Seniority Rules, would now be part of the By-Laws; and, the Beach Reps could change them right at the meeting with an Article 9 amendment.

If the Seniority Rules had been incorporated into the By-Laws, they could have been amended right on the spot to abolish the In-House rule. That nearly happened. That act would have reversed a General Membership vote that had ratified the In-House Rule – (keep reading, it’s explained below).

And if the In-House rule were abolished with an Article 9 amendment, there would have been nothing to prevent the Seniority Rules from being amended again – right on the spot – with another Article 9 amendment, to adopt BUMPING........

...... Once Article 9 is used to amend a single Seniority Rule, all of the Seniority Rules can be changed in that way.”…………

………..I was also very concerned that had the Article 9 amendment been allowed to abolish the In-House Rule, an attempt could have been made to adopt BUMPING in the same manner……….
Post Re: Home Boy Rule or In-house change in status Posted: Wed May 12, 2010 9:55 pm
The dialog on the "In House transfers" aka "Homeboy rule" has slowed down, so here I go again. Here is another example why the rule is unfair and must be amended.
This time I speak as one of the "displaced lifeguards" in a temporary spot. Suppose there are cutbacks this year or in the future. I agree that no one should be indiscriminately bumped from their spot. If there were "substantial" layoffs, the guards with the least seniority, unfortunately, would most likely be the ones to be excessed . The displaced guards would then take the excessed guards' positions. That would put many senior guards into less desirable spots.

Those are our rules so thats the way it is. This is where the (IHT) rule becomes totally unfair. You could very well have Ocean lifeguards with 10 to 40 years waiting to get to a field or their choice after spending a year in the bay or pool - just trying to get back out to the ocean. In the meantime, you've got guards with 5 and 6 years switching within their fields before the draft (basically a form of reverse bumping before the draft). This is another example of seniority being circumvented. How could that possibility be fair?

Basically it comes down to this, you can't have "NO BUMPING" and "HOMEBOY" rule together - it's one or the other. You can't have 'em both guys.

It's looks like we're going to be OK this year, but we still have to determine what's right for the Corps going forward. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You may "like" the rule, but that doesn't make it right. It's never too late to do the right thing. Please take this scenario into consideration before make your decision on this matter.

Robert Cornacchia
Post Re: Home Boy Rule or In-house change in status Posted: Thu May 13, 2010 8:58 am
James Rooney
Hey Canatch;

That's a GOOD one......"Do the right thing?"

There have been senior guards getting stuck in Sunken Meadow and the pool for the past 10 years due to the HOME-BOY rule.

We even have the seniority Committee member Frank Salino getting screwed back in 1993 with 15 years on the beach and unable to get to the ocean over 2-3 year lifeguards.

He hasn't been able to address this situation after 15 years sitting on thr committee.

Well you've been on the Executive Board for a few years and NOW you want to fix this mess?

Is it coming to a VOTE?

Is it being addressed by our NEW Union?

What does out Labor Relations Specialist say?

How about the LORD of seniority DAVE SPENCE?

What does DUH have to say?

I guess at least we are talking about it, or is this another BIG secret?

Don't let the other side know our hand?

Yours in solidarity.............James Rooney

Watching the Watchman!


Has the current Executive Board gotten together and taken a stance on this issue?

OR is it EVERY Guard for themselves!
Post Re: Home Boy Rule or In-house change in status Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 2:13 pm
Matt Rogers
I am editing my original with this prelude. I am half joking here and if you don't know me, I exaggerate and say everything sux and is bullcrap all the time.

I am a private sector kinda guy, so I am not a big fan of public labor to begin with, so no one freak out please.

I am just voicing an opinion of younger members who are afraid to speak out and feel unrepresented. I am unable to attend meetings in recent years b/c of work.

Sorry to anyone who may have been offended.

If I understand correctly, a vote was taken to change a rule without the membership voting. Sounds a lot like how the government passed healthcare through the use of budgetary reconciliation against the will of the people. "We don't care what you think, we will do it anyway"

No major changes should be made in this fashion.


So now the rule that has been around for a long time, and benefitted those who want to destroy it when they were younger guards, is at the chopping block, because it no longer benefits them.

This is the opinion of many younger members who have told me so. They are afraid to speak out so they tell me, b/c I don't care what anyone thinks of what I say.

The bottom line is: More senior guards have been cut out of a spot for many years by the in-house rule. We never heard mention of it until this year. WHY?..... Last edited by Matt Rogers on Mon May 24, 2010 3:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post Re: Home Boy Rule or In-house change in status Posted: Mon May 24, 2010 3:08 pm
you're right but is the Corps a republic or a democracy...if i am right a republic votes people in to
make those ldecisions for us even if we don't like it and a democracy everybody votes for every piece of legislature...not trying to stir the pot but just wondering why we have officers (PRES., VP and so on) if we want to vote on everything....maybe we need an amendment that no new rules will be passed without a memebership vote (by mail or during in-season)!!???

Lifeguard for Life
Post Re: Home Boy Rule or In-house change in status Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 10:08 pm
Ryan Clark
If we follow the incorrect logic of Tony with regards to being a republic and electing leaders to think and act for us, then we should not elect an executive board, maybe NYSUT will be nice enough to appoint us a dictator for life. After all we are supposedly lifeguards for life, why not have someone who has the same term as we do.
Page 1 of 1 [ 12 posts ] Post new topic Post new topic   Reply to topic Reply to topic

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Jump to:  
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Powered by phpBB © 2002, 2006 phpBB Group
All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
subMerged by redhair