FFPCogs

What will happen when the "senior guys" fade away? They'll be replaced by new "senior guys" just as they always have been. I think alot of concern comes from notion that the new guys of today aren't up to the challenge of becoming the senior ones tomorrow. Now I share that concern to an extent, in fact it was the topic of a rather lengthy discussion the other night around "the firehouse table". But I think every generation for at least the last 50 years has shared that concern and been proven wrong in having it. Society is different in many ways than from when I joined, just as it was for the senior guys of my early days and low and behold us "new guys" stepped up to fill the void...and so they will as we fade away. But that brings us to the heart of the matter..at least in by book. Maybe instead of asking what will happen when we fade away, we should be asking what example are we setting, or in other words what shoes are we leaving behind for our guys to fill? In the end new guys will always become senior ones but it is the foundation we set that will determine what will happen once we've faded away. Cogs

On top of that technically to be fully functional as a quint it must be staffed with 2 operators...1 for the pump and 1 for the aerial along with a compliment of FFs to carry out both functions.

Having spent a good deal of time there and in consultation with the administration in Montgomery I have to whole heartedly agree. There's is one of the most truly integrated systems going and IMO would make a good model to emulate. Cogs

Ahhh yes the good ole days and they were indeed good, wouldn't trade them for anything. I for one am glad I joined when I did (1980) and had the good fortune to have come up in those days and under the veterans I did. And while I can relate to everyrhing above nothing hits home more so than your last statement, so much so that I just have to repeat it: Cogs

I did in fact answer this question by stating that as far as I'm concerned I don't care what term, title, label or nomenclature is used to describe what are, for now and by legal definition, volunteer FFs that recieve stipends. Why others choose to call these responders volunteer is up to them although in the legal sense they have every right to. From another angle and if it helps just remember that we have had an all "volunteer" military since the mid 1970's. It is known as such in the media and this has now become it's common "traditional" description even though military personnel get paid. Along with it's legal definition per FSLA, I suppose one could transpose the term volunteer to the fire service in the much same way it applies to the military in this case. Cogs

per FSLA 20% of the prevailing wage for your area/region for any type of volunteer service provided...including firefighting. No I think it's the same. To the best of my knowledge volunteers here in CT and most other places are considered employees for worker's compensation only when engaged in department sponsored activities related to firefighting such as responses and training. And yes those under 18 are limited to the extent of the activities they can participate in as determined by Federal and State Labor laws as well as ConnOSHA for us in CT. Cogs

Then what is the question?

From the CT CFPC website regarding the FF recruit program: Training consists of theory backed with extensive skill development. Additional course components include training in Hazardous Materials Mitigation, Weapons of Mass Destruction Preparedness, Confined Space Rescue, CPR Defibrillator and Technical Rescue. Graduating recruits will be nationally certified to the level of Firefighter I and Firefighter II in addition to being awarded numerous certificates for specialized training. As I stated the course is far more intense and condensed than the method used for the majority of volunteer FFs in the State, but the fact remains that they are both certified using the same standard. And without doubt a recruit coming out of the academy will have many additional certfications...and be paid for the time it took to recieve them... in that 14 week period, but many volunters will aquire those very same levels within their first year or two in the service on their own time and dime. I'm not disputing the fact that career firefighters in general will by the very nature of their employment recieve training and certification faster or that that training is more intense due to that ability, but to say all career FFs are more highly trained or "better" than volunteers across the board is misleading at best. I will definitely agree that CT is blessed with some great instructors, including many of those FDNY guys you mention that are friends and colleagues of mine. Fortunately the majority of these highly knowledgable and experienced instructors train both career and volunteer members as a matter of course, much to the benefit of CT's fire service. Part-time FFs is also an option communities can explore, but not one germain to this particular discussion as part-timers are in fact employees under the law whereas nominally compensated volunteers are not. Thanks for the insight Cogs

Yes B, this type of incentive is taxable income and depending on the amounts earned may even change a person's tax bracket. And who woulda thought...different parts of the Fed looking at the same picture differently... Cogs

Hope this clears that up for you.

Yes I have spent quite alot of time in the sun of late and I will agree there has been little or no argument on the subject of incentives, but I think that has more to do with the fact that the "argument" here has veered far from the use of the term "paid volunteer" into the realm of volunteers being firefighters at all. We've had a number of posts outlining the differences that exist for some between the career and volunteer "sides" of the fire service and how those differences impact the service provided with no mention of incentves/stipends other than my own. And as for your question, simply put so long as the compensation you recieve to respond and stand by for calls falls within the parameters set by FSLA then yes you are still a volunteer...if not than you're not.

As always the information passed along here has proven useful and educational. Unfortunately it is as evident as ever that a middle ground is unreachable and we are still consumed by a contest of which side is "better". And as informative, interesting and entertaining as that contest may be in the end ultimately it doesn't matter which side is better, all that matters is how the fire service that serves any given community meets the challenges it faces. For those communities served wholly or in part by volunteers, nominal fees and/or stipends are another tool those communities can and should use to help ensure the challenge of recruiting and retaining members is met head on. Now for those who see this as a problem or inequity there is only a few choices. 1) Hit City Hall or the State capital and promote another agenda that forces communities to be served exclusively by "superior" career FDs only...good luck with that. 2) Petition the DOL for a change in the law. 3) Accept that these programs offer an opportunity to stabilze or maybe even reverse the trend of a diminishing volunteer fire service 4) Go have a beer and forget the whole mess and let nature takes it's course What ever choice is made fact is these types of programs are fast becoming a proven and acceptable option for many communities across the nation to provide for quality fire protection to their citizens. Time we here in the Northeast moved into the 21st century and proactively make the best of what such opportunities offer. Cogs

Thank you for the compliment and please know that I respect you and your views as well. I always relish the opportunity to engage in respectful debate here and elsewhere, because by doing so it is my ignorance that is diminished, and with that comes the opportunitiy to become a better fireman. The differences you outline may be the case in NY, but not all States or jurisditions make such a distinction. In CT, as nfd2004 pointed out, it is certainly true that the Academy's 14 week recruit program is far more condensed and therefore intense, but the firefighting course material is the same. There is no career only vs volunteer only versions of FF I & II or any other accreditied course for that matter. Gaining State certification means the candidiate has successfully passed all of the testing required and that testing is the same be they career or volunteer. In fact any State that offers accredited certification programs (IFSAC, NPQS) cannot make such a distiction, the material to be taught and completed is detemined by the accrediting agency not the local jurisdiction and therefore has to be the same to recieve the accredidation. And many States offer only accredited courses so the home rule issues which plague NY in this respect do not necessarily carry over it's borders. You are quite correct in that there is an expectation of service, but being served by a career FD does not necessarily guarantee that that expectation will be met. Nor does being served by volunteers guarantee that it won't. And as far as the ISO goes the 3:1 ratio is a bit misleading as there is not really a distiction made between career and volunteer FF. An ISO rating is more an averaged "score" based on a number of factors: Fire department Fifty percent of the overall score is based on the fire department. ISO reviews the distribution of fire companies throughout the area and checks that the fire department tests its pumps regularly and inventories each engine company's nozzles, hoses, breathing apparatus, and other equipment. ISO also reviews the fire-company records to determine things such as: type and extent of training provided to fire company personnel number of people who participate in trainingfirefighter response to emergenciesmaintenance and testing of the fire department's equipmentIf a volunteer FD can meet the same levels as a career department in determining these factors their community will recieve the same ISO rating. So since there is not one standard for career and another for volunteers that can be compared we really can't say that one career FF is equal to three volunteers across the board. I can only say that in the research I've conducted every VFD utilizing this type of incentive thus far has put minimum health, certification, training, response and in some cases even staffing requirements as well as verification procedures at the forefront for their implementation and continued use. Will every FD do so? I cannot say, but what I can say that any I'm involved with certainly will. Any fire service leader's first priority should be the public's welfare, yes even over that of "the men", in respect to what the level of competency of the troops should be. That said and as we both are all too aware, such is not always the case. The incentive/stipend programs I have thus far explored have all created an environment in which that competency has improved. Offering more to the members has also allowed the leaderships, or in some cases the communities themselves, to demand more from their firefighters. Some may find a problem with this but I definitely do not. Although by no means perfect it becomes a matter of giving to recieve with the end result being a "better" FD. Yes it is politicians that choose in the moment, but being a big fan of personal responsibility I see it a little differently in that politicians are elected and thus ultimately answerable to their constituents...the taxpayers. Now when it comes to budgets and ISO here's an excerpt from an article on the subject in which volunteers have had some success: Next, the committee initiated a comprehensive study of fire protection in the county to determine how to provide fire protection more cost effectively and to reduce the financial burden on property owners. The committee looked at the Insurance Service Office (ISO) grading and its effect on fire insurance premiums. Tom Torpey, a 15-year veteran volunteer firefighter and an employee of the Ducey Insurance Agency, provided documentation regarding fire insurance premium discounts based on ISO ratings. Improving ISO ratings could reduce property owner fire insurance rates. The fire protection committee hosted a series of ISO requirement workshops and helped each fire department prepare for its ISO survey. Ultimately, all 26 fire departments were able to lower their ISO ratings on average from 5 to 3; some of Rockland's volunteer fire departments now have an ISO rating of 2! As a result, many homeowners and commercial building owners are now saving hundreds of dollars each year in insurance premiums. George Doremus, a former chief of the Tallman (NY) Volunteer Fire Department and a committee member, reported that his homeowner's policy annual premium dropped by more than $100 because of his community's lower ISO rating! To further demonstrate the financial advantages of a volunteer fire department, the committee conducted comparative studies of volunteer fire departments with similar-size career departments. One study, comparing the all-volunteer New City (NY) Fire Engine Company No. 1 with the career-staffed Hackensack (NJ) Fire Department, revealed that New City's annual operating budget was approximately $3 million less than that of the New Jersey department. A recently released report by the Firemen's Association of the State of New York revealed that the state's volunteer firefighters save New York taxpayers more than $2.9 billion each year. Bottom line here is that every avenue needs to be explored and where practical and "worth it" implemented to better serve our communities. For communities that won't or more importantly can't fund and maintain a full time career FD, "paid volunteers" offers them the opportunity to provide quality fire protection at a reasonabe rate. Cogs

With all due respect to your many accomplishments, sorry but yes it is accurate. A firefighter is a firefighter when as I explained, they have met the requirements in terms of consistent, verifiable and nationally recognized standards for training and certification that that title requires...and guess what nowhere is it written that a paycheck is one of those requirements. And when it comes to who or what is a volunteer, you are entitled to any interpretation you want, but it is in the legal sense that it matters when dealing with this particular issue. I respect your views but must defer to the Federal Dept. of Labor on this since they are the ultimate arbitrator of the laws involved and have rendered their decisions as to the parameters of exactly what constitutes a volunteer. Also I will happily stop "spewing it costs too much" when it doesn't. But the reality is that's not my choice to make. The only people who have the right to decide what service is right for them is the ones who will pay for it, the taxpayers. After all it is their homes, businesses and ultimately lives that are dependent on the service they are willing to pay for. Incentives, such as the ones mentioned, do offer a potential solution to the staffing issues which neccesitate the need for them in the first place and they do so while keeping costs within the realm of what the taxpayers will or more importantly can bear. And as for the "gate keepers," well like any other organization or business there has to be safeguards built into any system to verify the numbers. I guess it would be not unlike those that ensures paid employees are fulfilling their obligations. Do the residents you serve generally stop you at a call and ask for your qualifications before you get to work? Do most people who go to the emergency room ask the doctors there to outline theirs? In the emergency services there is the expectation that those responding are qualified to do so. Now I will be the first to admit that those qualifications may differ from department to department and city to city, but that leads back to the previous point about the taxpayers willingness to pay for the service they get. Town X gets the firefighters they have decided they are willing to fund and no matter how much you or I think those FFs may not be qualified in the end it is not our decision to make unless we are paying for the service. Yes let's get serious and do away with the antics and semantics. Titles in the end have very little bearing on the quality of the service provided so why some are so worked up about FDs using the term volunteer when they are fully within the legal definition to do so is beyond comprehension. It may chafe some, but until the DOL makes a redetermination, the fact is if one recieves nominal compensation within the confines of FSLA to perform a service they are indeed volunteers. It is not a matter of opinion, but one of law....period Cogs

Agreed!!!.... with the caveat that so long as members meet and maintain recognized standards (such as NFPA) a fire fighter is a firefighter is a firefighter...end of story. Cogs

At the risk of yet more pontifcation I could care less what term is used, so long as the butts in the seats are those of FFs qualified to be there...which by the way these types of incentives can help ensure when applied properly. My distinction is directed at those who attempt to misinform that same public that a stipend constitutes a paycheck and therefore all manner of labor relation and compensation issues, which in fact they don't. Cogs

Before any get the idea that cash incentives are a cure all or magic bullet please read this conversation from another site on a similar topic. I think it applies here as well. Sorry about repeating some of my views. Effective recruitment is a vital part of providing for our communities and all avenues should be explored in that effort including incentives, but in the end it is just a part of a complex series of dynamics that make any VFD what it is. Cogs

Although I have only seen the quote above from the article something tell me this has the potential to devolve into quite a contentious thread, especially since I am one who supports the idea of "paid volunteers" in accordance with the LAW not a definition found in a dictionary. This is a subject that I have spent many hours researching. In the course of that excercise I have to come to the conclusion that since Federal law (FSLA) allows for certain cash incentives or stipends as a means to assist in the recruitment and retention of volunteer FFs, there is absolutely no reason why we, as a service, don't utilize such programs to the fullest extent allowed. Those FDs that have instituted such programs have seen at worst only modest sucesss, while most have seen far better results. This conclusion is based on my dicussions and correspondence with over 60 FDs and Fire Districts thus far nationwide (with more pending)**. Of those only 3 say that the succes has been only modest and that all things being considered they would not implement such a program again, but they would also not get rid of the one they now have either. And this had more to do with administrative headaches than anything else. Now while I have heard all the arguments against such a move including the expected "once you get any money your no longer a volunteer" which by one definition would be considered correct: (b. a person who does some act or enters into a transaction without being under any legal obligation to do so and without being promised any remuneration for his services), there are other definitions that also apply such as: a. a person who performs or offers to perform a service of their own volition. I will do my best now to be brief and and without my usual long wided diatribe in explaining my views on this.... As so many have repeatedly pointed out on this very site, bottom line here is that the world in which we live has changed considerably since the heyday of the volunteer fire service in the mid 20th century. As such the volunteer fire service and those served by it have got to adapt to the new realities of today. Many types of incentive programs have been tried to adapt and overcome this trend, tax abatements, LOSAPs, beach or dump stickers, civil service testing points ,gym memberships ect ect, but the most successful programs have been those more atuned to the immediate needs of the members and their families (and let's face it in 2012 those needs are a reality we all face). The most common of these being pay per call, mortgage assistance or monthly stipends. Fact is the demands of time for training, responses and other department activities as well as that of a generally high cost of living have grown considerably for volunteers in the past 30 years, while programs to help volunteers meet those challenges and thus join and stay members have not. IMO based on the research conducted, help in the form of legally allowed nominal cash stipends offer a small measure of relief from that dilema. In fact it could be argued that such programs offer a win win. For the volunteers the win takes the form of nominal fees to offset the immediate cost of fuel, food, clothing and other living expenses associated with their commitment to serve their community. And for the community there is the undeniable cost savings a volunteer FD offers it, as well as opportunities for members of the community to serve in an organization founded in and composed of that...of their...community itself. There is one view with which I agree with my many detractors more than any other and that is that the volunteer fire service has got to progress into the 21st century. Part of that progress is accepting that how and why we recruited and retained members in the past has changed and so too must the means of attracting and keeping them. "Paying" volunteers may be inevitable in the future as has happened in the UK, but for us here and now it is another option that may help in meeting the challenges we face. Cogs **All of the Dept.s thus far contacted have minimum requirements to recieve stipends including a combination of point or call reponse totals, certifcation (FF II/EMT universal thus far) and training standards in terms of time and content.

In answer to your question I can only refer you to my previous post Quite frankly as far as I'm concerned there should be far more outrage on the part of Americans to the very existence of the current Iranian regime...a regime by the way that has repeatedly called for our destruction and sponsored terrorist activities directed at us and our ALLY Israel since it's founding. They got their theocracy in 1979 and that's fine for them, but it is they who have shunned the live and let live attitude many expect we should adhere to since then. Cogs

Interesting take on our current world situation. I tend to agree with much of what the author says in the video...how about you? My link Cogs

I'm really not a fan of Monday morning quarterbacking but my impression based on what I could see in the video is that this fire started around the flue and spread through the attic area of that front room, so that's where the attack should have began initially. Conditions in that room didn't appear to be too bad when that first line made entry, and that is where an attack should have been made by opening the ceiling starting around the chimney and working outwards. Also it appeared that no line was stretched to the 2nd floor to open up and check for extension and hold the fire's advance in that direction. I will agree that manpower may have been an issue, but IMHO a lack of aggressiveness and no immediate horizontal ventilation by those on scene played a big part in this fire's spread. Cogs ps. Deep six the PPV as well.

Since Amadenijad and the theocratic Iranian regime has on numerous occasions called for the destruction of the the State of Israel and the extermination of the Jews in the Holy Land I think it's fair to say Israel is acting in self defense. Kudos to the Mossad and may they find and kill every last one of them before it's too late. Cogs

From Fire Geezer: My link There's alot wrong with this idea but to me the most troubling aspect is the outcome of the City's SAFER grant. I think many communities are going to be faced with this choice in the near future as their grants expire and this cockamamie idea offers politicians the perfect out. What is most important to remember is that while grants, and especially SAFER grants, offer a solution they are not a cure all and it is incumbent upon us all to figure out ways to survive once they've run their course...or better yet not rely on them in the first place. Cogs

It would indeed, especially since some of us have been taking on a blue tinge for quite awhile now...I suppose a little longer won't hurt. Cogs

I agree Mr. Jankowski is the right man for the job..kudos to Mayor Pavia for hiring him. Cogs