gamewell45

Do tell me; once you do what you've said we should all do and your manager politely tells you no to your requests, whats your next step???

Run for office, get elected and make a difference. Its really the only way your going to get some positive change.

If it involves money for Rural Metro, you bet they'd do it in a heartbeat if there is a legal way to do it and Wackenhut, well they have no souls anyhow so it wouldn't surprise me if they'd try and make a move. However if a strike ever occurred the mayor/supervisor/grand poohbah might consider calling out the national guard depending on the size of the department. Or to make things easier, they'd simply permanently replace everyone and start over. It's been done before. Glad you were only being sarcastic.

That sounds great at the beginning, but it wears thin really quick if you do strike. Speaking as one who endured a long strike some years ago (19 weeks to be exact) I witnessed union Brothers & Sisters having their cars repossessed, their houses foreclosed and bank accounts drained to nothing. And all while the company conducted business as usual (with the help of Scabs of course). Trust me, no one wins in a strike. You'll never make up the money you lose, pension credits lost and don't forget, unless the union can afford to pay it, there is the full cost of those nasty medical insurance premiums you'll have to absorb at the same time (sort of makes socialized medicine look attractive). The public isn't too sympathetic with unions these days and the municipalities know this. If they had to, they'd bring in replacement workers (Scabs) from companies like Rural Metro in a heartbeat. And if Rural Metro screwed things up (which they probably would), the municipality would blame the unions for walking off the job. It'd be a PR nightmare for for the union and could take years to repair. Oh, and to add insult to injury the municipality would have the right to permanently replace you. You guys have got the best of both worlds with Binding Arbitration and no strike clause. There are those of us in the private sector that wish we had that. Never give up binding arbitration/no strike no matter how bad things seem. It can get a lot worse.

Hopefully getting voted out of office.

I did take that into consideration, but there might be more to it then what we are aware of. The audio portion is just part of it. I'd much rather wait until we know all of the facts before casting judgment.

Don't you think it might be a good idea to hold off on judgment until you have all the facts? Perhaps placing him on administrative leave from his fire duties until the issue is resolved; but you literally have him convicted and sentenced based on what the newspapers have printed and we all know how accurate they are when it comes to the fire service.

FireMedic, I'm not looking to argue; just state the obvious. Each department is going to do what works best for it whether you or I are willing to acknowledge it or not. That's just the way it is unless the community in question demands changes and when it comes down to paying increased fire taxes, they are going to have their doubts, especially given today's economic climate. As I mentioned to another poster in here, when it comes down to changing how you do things, you have to be as realistic as possible. Its common sense.

I don't think that anyone has given up (read the last two lines of my post you responded to); rather I think they are being realistic and not dreaming in some fantasy world. There are some in here who maintain that staffing would be the end-all of most, if not all of the problems facing fire departments; its not; one must be realistic. Obviously we are all for saving more lives and property (tho' I place more value on lives then property as I'm sure most do in here), but at what cost? At some point its not just economically feasible to shell out so much money in taxes that people begin to question is what we spend on fire and safety protection worth what they may never need to use? Whether we want to admit it or not, costs do rise every year; anyone who refuses to acknowledge this is living in a dream world. I think if most of us in emergency services gave up, then we wouldn't come in here and offer opinions.

Glad to see you put some thought into your response my volunteer "brother".

Like it or not you'll still see houses with roofs burned off no matter how much staffing you have; Like it or not you'll still see people perish in fires no matter how much staffing you have; Like it or not you'll still have lawsuits filed no matter how much staffing you have; Like it or not you'll still have fires no matter how much staffing you have; Like it or not you will pay more for insurance and it'll only go up each year no matter what your ISO rating is or how much staffing you have; Like it or not you'll pay more for fire protection with contract salary raises each year as they get an increase almost every year; Like it or not you'll pay more for fire fighter benefits as the cost of medical insurance goes up each year; Like it or not layoffs and reductions of services are going to continue until the recession is over; Like it or not the public is going to have a great deal of input and/or choose what gets funded and what doesn't get funded whether we like it or not; Like it or not you'll get the job done as best as you can given the resources you have; Like it or not you'll do the possible; the impossible will just have to wait.

Hopefully their insurance premiums are paid up.

Amazingly for some strange reason, the job still gets done.

Yes, they are so long as the person is not an interior firefighter.

Chris, agreed that they paid 28k expecting to receive basic services. So the question is then, what in their mind (the homeowners) were basic services, in particular fire protection? And another question is, what level of service does the fire department provide for the 28k? I'm sure you'll agree that no matter what you pay in fire taxes, you'll get uniform protection regardless of how much you pay. Then the final question is; what does the city/town/village feel is an equitable level of protection for the monies spent on taxes? I think its all subjective when it comes down to it. As far as the problems predating the current economic crisis not being a valid excuse, you can go back 50 years and point the finger, but the problem still exists and the truth of the matter is that until the recession is over, forget about making any meaningful changes in the system that require money, even if it was touted to be cost neutral, the public has very little trust in government at this time and will take time to rebuild it. I"m sure we both agree, if you read the papers which I'm sure you do, you know as well as i do of all the layoffs and givebacks being requested of all public sector employees. There's just no money out there right now and that's a fact everyone in the public sector is going to have to accept as painful as that may be. As far as 5-6 fd's in a city and 59 departments in Westchester being cost effective; I don't live in either a city nor Westchester County, so I really can't make a statement on that. Finally, I agree that we need to work on making positive changes and while evolution in the fire service is inevitable, people need to be open minded about change and embrace sound, thoughtout decisions that are made.

Probably tough to do since she died in 2005, but its a noble thought.

Chris, I have to respectfully disagree with you. I don't know about you, but personally I happen to value my life. If I'm living in an area where I feel that I or any member of my family is in an unsafe situation you bet I'm going to move out of there to a place where I can feel safe. Its friendly advice because as emergency service personnel we are supposed to place a value on human life and safety of our citizens, which in this particular case was the thrust of my post. Furthermore it was constructive because it wasn't a condemnation of him living there, rather a positive piece of advice which would fix his immediate concerns of feeling safe where he resides. Its all how you read into it. That being said, you mention that homeowners in Stamford pay $27,800+ per year in Stamford. To me that's an outrageous sum of money and while you are correct that its not unreasonable for the taxpayer to expect a basic service for what they pay, nonetheless you will get what you pay for and obviously the elected politicians in Stamford feel that's what your entitled to receive at this point. If that's unacceptable, then vote out the politicians and replace them with ones that will march in lockstep with what the residents of the city want. But in the meantime the poster I originally responded to made a claim that he felt unsafe where he lived; I made a basic common-sense suggestion to him. Its what any normal human being would do if he/she felt that they were living in an unsafe situation. There are many examples of good combination, volunteer and paid departments around the US. Most of them are doing the best they can given the constraints and particular financial circumstances that the country currently finds itself embroiled in. As members of the emergency services, sometimes some of us may think that cities/towns/villages have an inexhaustible source of monies; we need to be cognizant of the fact that we are living in very rough times tax dollar wise and at the same time be realistic in our goals.

Good decision on your part!

Obviously your interpreting it differently then I am by putting your own spin on it.

Hello???? Did anyone in here suggest what you have stated? I think not. If you take the time and go back and read the original poster that i responded with you will find that he was concerned about his safety and I responded in kind to him with a suggestion. Whether or not the volunteer system works or does not work was not relevant to the question I responded to. Please go back and re-read the post until you have a better understanding about what the response was.

How about posting a link to your source so we all can digest what you maintain is the course of action that should be taken?

I would tend to agree with you. There's probably more to this then what we here at emtbravo.net are aware of. Let whatever investigation take place, if any, and then when we know all the facts, then we can pontificate about this all we want.

Goose, thats great, suppose the city gives them zero? how do you expect SFRD to fill out companies outside the city proper? Remember Stamford is crying poverty and your not going to get any sympathy from the taxpayers, many of whom are already overextended in paying taxes. Whats Stamford supposed to do? pay these guys in corn? Your suggestion appears to be nothing more then a knee-jerk reaction with little or no thought given towards being realistic.

As a friendly suggestion, If you feel that your not "safe" with "these guys" protecting you, then why do you continue to live there? Move to a place where you can feel that you have protection you are comfortable with. That's what i'd do if I felt as you appear to feel. While I'm sure that everyone who lives in Stamford would love to have a fully paid department, it all comes down to finding money to pay these fine gentlemen for their services, which means more tax dollars from those who either cannot afford to pay increased taxes or resent having the government dipping into their wallets yet again. Given the current state of the economy, this isn't feasible at this time.

I'm not sure if there were other factors in the judges decision, but it was probably cheaper to let him out on low bail then incurring the cost of incarceration, which can add up significantly over time.