gamewell45

Subject to the terms and conditions of his collective bargaining agreement, he'll most likely find himself out looking for another job. Maybe he can get a job coaching football at the local high school.

Most of the time when you come in here and post, in my opinion, you attempt to give the volunteers a black eye; If you read my post I said that while subjective; nowhere in my post did i mention enhancing or strengthening service in this context. so putting that aside, to attempt to answer your question, granted while the IAFF does in some cases look out for the interests of the public, some legislation such as The Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, does nothing for the interest of the public; rather its legislation granting fire fighters and police officers minimum collective bargaining rights by establishing minimum standards for state collective bargaining laws. Tell me, how does that benefit the public? Its a benefit for the "base membership" and nothing more. So thats at least one single piece of legislation proposed that doesn't benefit the public; if you spend more time reseaching, i'm sure you'll find plenty more. If you read the history of the IAFF you'll find that they were formed for "for the sole benefit of rank-and-file fire fighters in the United States and Canada". Nothing mentioned about the public interest at all. This all comes from a IAFF website of which i have provided a link for your reading pleasure. http://www.iaff2067.org/history.htm Likewise FASNY was formed to represent the best interests of the volunteer fireman in the State of New York and likewise I have provided a link for you should you so choose to read it. http://www.fasny.com/mission.aspx Notwithstanding the above, I think you missed the whole point of my post; the point i'm trying to get across is that both organizations have their own common goals which benefit their base membership and the importance of having an efficient lobbying base.

When I suffered an on-duty injury, I was banned from entering the firehouse until I was cleared to return to active duty. The only exception to that was if i wanted to attend a fire commissioners meeting since they are open to the public.

The answer is very easy; while subjective, it's the same reason why the unions representing paid personnel take certain positions on bills regarding the fire service in the state; they are looking out for the best interests of their base membership whether it benefits the public or not. Its the way its been with both volunteer associations and unions since they were formed. It will be a constant battle and whoever has the best lobbying effort will most likely prevail. While I can't speak for other states in the US, FASNY has a very efficient lobby network and they manage to get alot of bills passed that benefit the volunteer fire service. You want real change, petition the fire district you live in to disband (like they are doing in Fairview - Dutchess County) and merge with another district; I think thats the closest your going to get to any type of consolidation short of changing the state laws.

If this is the same group i'm thinking of, they are volunteers, based in the Bronx around Gildersleeve Avenue, but not a recognized unit in FDNY.

When you say "ban" do you mean ban as in "banned from entering the firehouse" or social functions?

It should be an interesting test case. At this point she has nothing to lose by trying especially if she can get the case heard in small claims court.

I don't think they speak for the volunteer firefighters of Dutchess County; The Dutchess County Volunteer Firemans Association (DCVFA) most likely is the mainstream organization that represents them; perhaps they (Exempts Club) represent exempt members? Chances are its probably another Poughkeepsie Journal faux pax.

I sure hope they straightened out the language regarding operation of apparatus; especially concerning the operation of it during non-emergencies, such as drills, training, details, etc.

I would substitute the words: ".....personnel who, through their choice to volunteer, in order to respond to a presidentially declared disaster." Even if the employer wanted to play games with the words, it I think the spirit of the language would take precedent over any employer attempting to discharge an employee who was responding and missed work under this bill. The US Department of Labor would have a field day with any employer trying pull a fast one with this.

I think the bill is a good idea. Its nice to see the government recognizing the value of volunteers in this country.

I think this has been a long time in coming; its all part of the volunteer fire service evolving to remain viable in many urban and suburban settings. There's no doubt that it will have a positive effect on response times and perhaps training as well. I know that other volunteer fire departments are seriously considering adopting similar programs that are in place around the country. Either way it will be interesting to see what the volunteer fire service looks like in 10 years from now.

I think the term "volunteer" is a natural term to mean "no salary paid" and that their time spent serving the community is considered "donated" in other words, without charge to the tax base. Obviously as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, nothing is for "free" anymore. Fire departments need to have the necessary equipment to train, fight fires, fire station to house the equipment, etc along with whatever insurance that is necessary to cover their volunteers. As far as ambulance service; in my town, they have a contract with a commercial ambulance service to provide ALS service 24/7, supplemented by the voluneer run BLS Ambulance. Patients insurance company is billed by the ambulance service (if they have insurance coverage) and all other uncovered expenses are paid for by the town. If memory serves me correct, the contract our town has with its commercial ambulance service is around 300k. which covers a town of approx. 10,000. BLS service by the Volunteer Ambulance is provided free of charge.

Ahhh...pleasant memories

While I don't agree with his line of thought (Lt. McCormack), it is an interesting concept. Makes me wonder what the fire service would look like if we jettisoned OHSA, NFPA, NIOSH, and relied on human instinct.

In Pleasantville, the horns on Fire Headquarters are still in service; the horns on Hays Hose in the old village have been out of service since Jan 1994 I believe when they cut the gamewell system loose which ran the horn and house bells.

In fairness, most of us have most likely never heard of Wake County so how would we know what kind of places to look for?

Goose, I'm very serious. Every reason you've given as to why we would be better off with a county-paid service is fixable by the employees of the commercial services by organizing under the banner of a credible union and don't start to tell me it can't be done because i've been there before and have seen it happen. Everything you opine about can be addressed in a labor contract if its important to the employees--at the bargaining table--if they so choose. Additionally the commercial paramedics/EMT's receive the same training as their public counterparts in order to get certified by the state, so in essence medically they are equals notwithstanding pay, benefits, etc. Public service employees are expensive to employ. All of their benefits; medical, pension, sick leave, vacation, 401.k, holiday pay, dental, life insurance, uniform allowance, longevity bonuses and other perks come from taxpayer's wallet and particularly given today's economic climate to broach putting EMS services under a county department would be ludricrious. Remember, as one poster in here mentioned, in Dutchess county, this is the same county that proposed to eliminate county road patrols and let each town make it's own arrangements. Other counties have probably taken note of that proposal and it wouldln't surprise me if you see more and more of that in the future if things don't improve economically. For most counties except possibly Westchester (they've historically had deep pockets) they wouldn't even give serious consideration to forming a county-wide system as some people in here dream about at night in their sleep. If not consolidating under a county-wide system subcontracted out to commercial companies, then it should be left to the individual towns to hire a commercial company and this way it gives them more control over how much monies are spent and the quality of service their residents receive. It's all about being realistic. Thats all; nothing more.

Why a paid county EMS service?? How about subcontracting out the work to the commercial EMS providers? You'd most likely save monies on benefits, sick calls, vacation and other perks that public employees enjoy.

While it may seem to you that "every department in gods creation has at least three brand new suv's" most departments that i'm familiar with normally keep their Chiefs cars, which may be SUV's or pick-up trucks and yes the occasional Crown Victoria for 4-5 years. As I said in a earlier thread if you have an issue with your districts policy regarding the purchase/use of chiefs cars, you should discuss it with the fire commissioners or Mayor; if its not in your district, its not your concern.

What determines the need for a new Chief's car every 3 years?? most likely mileage on the car; remember some districts are can be 60-70 sq miles, if your doing 600-1000 calls per year it all adds up; plus alot of chiefs cars remain running at fire scenes so there's additional wear and tear on the engines, etc.

I don't know how long you've been in the fire service, but its constantly evolving; how'd we get along all those years w/o SCBA's or portable radios or cell phones or bunker pants and the list goes on and on. Could you imagine the chiefs in NYC being told to use their own cars and we'll pay for the lights and sirens and give you an allowance for gas?? I honestly don't thing it'd go over to well with them. If your doing work for any public agency where you need to be able to go out on the road on a moments notice you need to have the tools to do the job properly; and in many cases having a chiefs car is a "tool" that they need to have.

Simple solution: Drink tap water; much cheaper and better for you!

Smoke, you make an awful lot of assumptions; how do you know he was going to work? Perhaps he was going to a seminar or other legally authorized Fire District business; but lets say for the sake of the debate that he was going to work; i'm sure the fire district has policy on when and how the chiefs use district vehicles. Furthermore, the chiefs need to have access to their district vehicles because unlike paid counterparts, they are not dedicated to staying at the fire station awaiting for the alarms to come in; it would be foolish if they were not allowed to take their vehicles say, to the adjoining town when on non-department business and an alarm came in and they were forced to take their personal vehicles back to the fire station or their residence to pick up the chiefs car and then respond. It would hamper their response time. Of course the argument could be made that they just drive their personal vehicles to the scene of the alarm, but unlike 40 years ago when most of them carried their turn out gear and a portable in their personal vehicles; nowadays most chiefs cars carry a full command center, turn out gear, books for hazmat, pre-fireplans, at least one fire extingusher, plus SCBA and other gear and equipment that might be needed. To ask a fire chief to squeeze all of that into his personal vehicle (which could also be the family car) is just being unreasonable. I think each district does what works best for it. If you see what you consider to be abuses in your fire district; then file a complaint with the proper authorities; if its involving another jurisdiction; its not your concern and don't lose sleep over it.

Maybe 10 years ago when the economy was a little better that might hold true; but in this age of cost cutting, communities are exploring every possible way of consolidating or disbanding services that they don't feel are necessary or those that can be either subcontracted out privately or perhaps as discussed in these threads; regionalizing services into at least towns.