FFPCogs

B, Thanks for the link to the article. Quite frankly I do have mixed feelings about it because although I am one who believes in equal standards, I also believe that time served and experience should have a place in promotions as well. It seems Spotsylvania like just about everywhere else has issues when it comes to combining the career and volunteer sectors. What I find hard to understand is the insistence on the immediate implemetation of the regulations without a "grandfather" clause. I can think of at least one major area locally in which such a clause was insisted upon by the Local, that being medical certifications. When Stamford went to medical first responses those long serving union members that didn't want to take the classes and attain the certification didn't have to due to their years of service and seniority. And how about the State of CTs stance on FF1 certification that states if you were a serving FF prior to 1977 you can be automatically grandfathered as FF 1, (1986 for Officer 1)? Now I have no idea about this Chiefs qualifications other than to say that 48 years is a long time to serve if he's incompetent. I tend to believe that while stagnation is certainly a possibility, and even if Spotsylvania is a small backwater, in 48 years I'm sure he gained some valuable and applicable experience that will now be wasted. And let's face it he must also have had the support of his department and community to remain in such a position for so long. It's been my experience that allowances are made for those with long service records when implementing such changes on both sides of the career/volunteer divide, so to put this down to simple volunteer intransigence is somewhat hypocritical. Cogs

That you need to ask that question means that you are or have become far removed from what it means to be a dedicated volunteer firefighter. I think we've covered this already....the Declaration of Independence, specifically this passage: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — Well this isn't my fight at the moment, just passing along some scuttlebutt, but thanks just the same. Cogs

Interesting anology and although I get your intent it's not quite along the same lines since we're talking about someone's right to freely serve their community not take a paid job. I've heard of an interest in pursuing just such a course of action and who knows we yet see that collective effort to ban such provisions in the pblic safety field. Cogs

Yes that point can be argued and the validity of that argument is dependent on your point of view. What I'm saying is that to me this particular rule borders on Constitutional infringement and because of it's imposition another equally important sector of the Fire Service has been negatively impacted thereby reducing the overall level of public safety. Fair enough as well rules are rules and if enough peopel don't like it they can work to change it. Ding...Round 15...Draw... Cogs

And this comes as absolutely no suprise. Cogs

I too have been involved with combo depts and I along with members of other combo depts have seen what I consider a concerted effort on the part of some union staffers to eliminate volunteers from those FDs for a variety of motives ranging from increased overtime to personal animosities. Manipulated call records, unsubstansiated grievances and falsified safety claims are just some of the weapons that I've seen used to create an illusion that volunteers were unwilling or unable to perform. In every case I've been involved with or know of the misconduct of the career staff was proven but due to union protections, in my estimation little if anything of substance was done about it. This I believe can and has led to a situation where volunteers feel not only unwelcomed but unappreciated for their efforts in their own firehouses to the point where in the end, the agenda of ridding the house of volunteers is accomplished as members vote with their feet. But this is a symptom of the much larger career/volunteer problem that is out of the realm of this discussion. Each of us brings to this discussion our experiences, good and bad and of course they will shape our views, at least in part. The volunteers here are not your enemy and by and large I do not believe anyone from the local is ours just because we are volunteers. Contrary to what some may think this thread is not solely about Stamford. In the larger picture I think there are goals which the union locally and nationally wants to acheive and some of them are at odds with the goals of the volunteer sector. That will always be so. But in regards to this thread I believe the arguments used to support the ban are dubious at best and as shown in the article easily remedied. It can be argued (and as is obvious I support the argument) that the IAFF's ban does affect the volunteer service negatively. It matters not if it's one FF prevented from serving of their own free will or a thousand it is still a negative impact. Ultimately for me it boils down to a matter of personal choice. When all factors are considered (including the impact a union FF volunteering in another union shop will have) I simply believe it should be up to the individual to decide and they should be able to do so without fear of union sanctioned repercussions. Cogs

Well everyone's entitled to their opinions I just happen to disagree with yours on this issue. Cogs

I am not advocating any lay offs but when the budgets do not allow for full staffing in any field the axe must fall on some. To me saying a FFs job is more valuable than another municipal employees is unfair from the point of view of the impact losing a job has on anyone. Is firefighting more important that say gargage collecting? Well to me yes, but I'm sure the garbage collectors will see it much differently. And just so you know I am still a dues paying union laborer that has been laid off a number of times due to economics so I know firsthand from painful experience what a job loss entails. No the last time I was on the rig my **** was not in my hand. As far as your examples, yes according to the news reports volunteers are being used to "repalce" career FFs but what has not been substantiated is that it is at their behest. You may be misunderstanding my intent. Put another way I know of no volunteer FDs that have a by law provision that prohibits career FFs from joining because they are career FFs. I don't believe there is anything from the volunteer "side" that could be even slightly construed to be prohibitive to a volunteer working as a career FF either. On another note some would argue that there have been cases where the introduction of unionized career FFs has ultimately led to the demise of a VFD because they became a "rival organization". Cogs

If you think my tirades are solely directed at the union let me assure you that's not the case, that is just the nature of this particular thread. I am fully aware of the shortcomings and shortsightedness of the volunteer sector in regards to putting those qualified butts in the seats. The prohibition is but one aspect of a larger problem that need addressing. There are many cities and towns in RI, MA and elsewhere that have done just that. Fair enough but here again and in reference to your comments directly above it is not the volunteer sector that is encouraging or aiding, by virtue of a by law provision, the loss of jobs. Cogs

Yes the volunteer sector can at times be their own worst enemy. I happen to agree with standards across the board and programs to make them achievable, and there are many VFDs that do a great job of implementing them. They do great work and do work towards adressing much of what we're talking about, but I think we need some kind of bridge organization or at least dedicated open channels between the "sides" if there is ever to be a time when the collective good and similarities of the fire service as a whole outweigh our inherent differences. Cogs

You said it... the career staff "choose in majority to become members of SFRD", so in fact the choice was theirs. Why is it that you believe BFD was obligated to allow an SFRD rig in the house if they did not feel doing so was in the best interest of the distict and department? And by the way IMO Mayor Malloy's plan was an abomination and it is the pursuit of it that led to the debacle. Cogs

Thanks for your honesty. And I agree 100% that the 3 chefs should go, in fact they never should have been hired in the first place. Now when it comes down to insuffcient revenues to pay everyone who then should be on the block..teachers, cops, garbagemen. We all know there is wasteful spending in government, but if the money's not there it's not there now is it. The only real recourse then is to vote the bums that allowed it to happen out of office and hope for better luck with the next lot. I'm curious about one thing though, how is it that a FF's livelihood is more valuable than another municipal worker's? What of the other's families, mortages and kids schooling? Well I haven't held my **** in my hand getting my jollies off in a rig for quite some time so that is not my main concern anymore. What is my concern is the public's welfare and our ability to provide it. See although the spectre of unionized career firefighters being replaced by volunteers is often used there is no evidence to support such a belief. No instances have been cited to show an effort on the part of the volunteer sector to encourage such action. On the other hand it can be argued and some might say proven, that the prohibition on union FFs volunteering can have a direct negative impact on the volunteer sector, which by the way the IAFF regards as "rival" organizations. I do respect that you would willing walk away from your FD if jobs were to be lost and quite frankly if my or anyone elses volunteering were the direct cause of that outcome I too would walk away. But it has been my experience and to the best of my knowledge that of every other volunteer FF (career FFs that volunteer included) that I know, that our committment to volunteering in our community has never cost anyone their job simply because we volunteer. In the end I have dedicated my adult life to the fire service, albeit mostly as a volunteer, but without fail in the belief of upholding the core value of helping others in need. That to me that is what it is to be a fireman. If by my actions I can save a job I will, if I cannot I will still act in the service of my neighbors for if I don't who will? Cogs

I know this goes on and in fact I've been accused of being one being of those wishing to clean those very same toilets. I am not. I simply want to ensure that enough qualified butts are in the seats to do the job and since I live here I want to try and make that happen at as low a cost as possible. To that end I have a problem with the prohibition on volunteering not because I'm anti union, but because I believe that if qualified people are willing to volunteer they should be able to do so without repercussions to achieve the best possible protection at the best possible cost. Cogs

And CT you have every right to feel that way and even if I don't agree 100% I respect your views. Cogs

So I guess able bodied, quailifed, experienced guys shouldn't volunteer to offset any manpower shortages when the budgets do not allow for increased staffing even when they could, of their own free will, provide that staffing. You seem to be saying it's better to put the public at risk and stand by and do nothing as their neigbors house goes up in flames. Seems kinda like holding hostages if you ask me. Although examples have been cited in which FFs were laid off and "replaced" by volunteers, those situations were due to budgetary constraints. So in regards to your point about volunteering undermining or costing jobs by virtue of volunteering alone can you cite some examples? Now I'm not saying it hasn't happened but I don't know of any union FFs that have been affected in such a manner simply because they or other career firefighters volunteer in their house. Cogs

Those members choose to leave and become SFRD employees knowing full well what the consequences were, they were not forced out by the volunteers. Nice try though. Cogs

In your opinion yes my interpretation is "wrong" and that's no suprise considering it is diametrically opposed to the union stance vis a vis volunteering. By the way with a permit you can own automatic weapons in CT although unless you're going to mow down deer by the herd I don't know why you'd need to.... Cogs

This is a very valid concern and one which the article did address: Compensation claims for work-related diseases will create jurisdictional issues. This is easily resolved by pro-rating such claims based on a cumulative ratio of duty hours between the full-time and volunteer employers. This solution is not only a resolution of the argument, it’s a fair arrangement that makes the hometown department responsible for its share of the claim. This approach could also apply when a firefighter changes employers, going from one full-time department to another. If the compensation claim argument is valid, then why is it OK for a firefighter to leave one department and go to another? Perhaps it is because the union has no power to prevent such a personal career decision, or that there is no political leverage to be wielded against a neighbouring full-time department. I think we can agree that we all, paid and volunteer alike, have a vested interest in such concerns and as such a unified approach would probably yield better results for all. Cogs

Because they WANT to as is their right to do...aka freedom of choice. I've lost count as well and yes I may be on the ropes but no KO yet. Ding...round 10 Cogs

Although FSLA is not the point the number is 12, I didn't count SFRD in the tally. Adding SFRD FFs, if in fact FSLA does not apply which it turns out may be a possibility, the number increases even further. Cogs

That is not the point. The point is they were active members prior to being hired and would continue to be if the ban were not in place, thus increasing the total pool of volunteers available to respond to calls and save lives. As far as being employed by SFRD and the legal aspects of volunteering at BFD, well in delving into FSLA I have stumbled across some interesting info regarding what constitutes a "seperate agency" and on the surface BFD does appear to fit the bill since we no longer employ FFs or have a union presence in the house, along with some other factors. Further study is required though before taking any action in this regard. Cogs

Well I've been accused of being alot of things but being a minority is one of the nicer ones... And you are probably right to an extent, but if such representation were to offer a better service overall in terms of training, safety standards, LODD and injury benefits, recruitment assistance, equanimity, political activism and the opportunity for direct negotiation on issues affecting career/volunteer interaction to all FFs I would venture to say that there would be more interest than you might think....and by extension alot less animosity. But then again I realize not everyone believes what I do. As one who truly seeks to reduce rather than expand that which seperates the Fire Service what then would be the place (or organization) to collectively work together? Cogs

It has been my experience based on research of the volunteer fire service in general and direct communication with a number of VFDs that many VFDs do in fact rely to a lesser or greater extent on the career FF segment of their memberships to effectively answer alarms. If, as has been maintained, the number of FFs we're talking about is so negligible why do you think this policy is such an issue for a number of VFDs? On this I will have to respectfully disagree. Cogs

Let me address this since it is a direct question. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, yes I would pay $60.00 a month (or thereabouts depending on the level of representation) to increase the voice and better the fire service as a whole. Cogs

Gentlemen you have brought up some valid points and clearly indentified and supported the union's stance....well done and thank you for the insight. In the interest of time and space and since I happen to agree in principle with the view that VFDs need to modify their standards and work harder on recruiting I'll refrain from answering each post directly at this point and just hone in on this one: As I stated earlier while it may not be every VFD that is negatively impacted by the IAFF's ban on volunteering, for those that are it can have a considerable impact. To illustrate that point let me use my FD as an example. Currently we have about 40 (give or take a few) active members that are committed to serving our community. We also have roughly 25 additional or former members that have either modified their status to an inactive capacity or have resigned due to the IAFF's ban. Now to be fair a precentage of those who have left have done so for reasons besides just the ban and for the sake of argument I'll run high and say that amounts to 50%. But of those that are left...that other 50% or 12 members...to a man all have said they would continue to volunteer if they still had that option to do so. No matter how you slice it 12 members is still 12 members...that's 12 able bodied, well trained, experienced, dedicated, capable and most importantly willing FFs that could respond when available to aid those in need if they still had the ability to do so. 12 members or roughly 20% of the roster....now that does constitute a very noticable negative impact. And we are not alone in facing a similar decline due to a policy that we have no control over even though it does directly impact us. And B, with all due respect we're not talking about some abstract numbers culled from a compilation of dept.s that may not have or ever even have had career FFs as a part of their memberships, we're talking about the reduction in the potential to save lives for those that do. Going back to the article that started this thread, the arguments that support the ban on volunteering do not hold water in a practical sense, they only support a political agenda to expand the IAFF. Cogs