FFPCogs

Indeed he was.

Upon doing a little research I have to point out that while some communities were cited where volunteers "replaced" career FFs, it appears from all the available info that in every case it was done due to budgetary limitations, not because the volunteer sought to eliminate the career components of those FDs or "take" their jobs. In my 30+ yeas in the fire service I have never known of volunteers actively pursuing the removal of paid or unionized FFs from their jobs, nor have I ever seen any coordinated efforts to reduce their numbers by volunteers, or heard the IAFF referred to as a rival organization. Cogs

Fair enough although for those that do I'm sure the effects of losing these members has had a palable impact. I know some communites in the Hartford area were up in arms not so long ago when the City mandated that it's FFs could not volunteer with the surrounding FDs, so for them at least they did rely on those members. I may be overestimating the impact of the rule, but the bottom line here is that there has been an impact which has negatively affected the communities involved. So selective enforcement is the norm? It seems as though there are two different interpretations of the rule here. Union member can volunteer then so long as the dept in which they volunteer employs no union FFs, is that right? Not at all, the IAFf is not obligated to ensure the public's welfare, but it's members should have the option to do so if the so choose. So what I'm saying is that by taking away a union member's freedom to volunteer if they choose to, the IAFF is forcing VFD protected cities to hire FFs to ensure adequate coverage. Now if no career FFs want to volunteer that's fine and pay all the people you need to to ensure coverage, but when they do want to volunteer the choice should be theirs to make based on what benefit they and the communities in which they live stand to gain from their volunteering I agree that any disparities and seperation exist simply because of the nature in which the paid and volunteer sectors provide their services. but you hit on a good point, we are percieved to be doing "the same job" and in fact we are. Inclusion in the IAFF would allow for direct interaction between the "sides" and lead to cooperation on any number of fronts affecting the fire service as a whole, some of which were hit upon a few pages back. Gaining a unified political voice for the fire service as a whole for one thing, along with service on committees relating to FF health and welfare, LODD benefits, training standards, safety programs ect. as cited by X152. Also it will create the opportunity to engage in direct dialouge to deal cooperatively with issues affecting career/volunteer interaction at the source. Cogs

Guy, Volunteer firefighting is vastly different than the other occupations you cite in one very important aspect....the fire service in this country began and one could argue is still based on volunteerism. And since you mentioned it can you (or any union Ff here) please cite a few examples of where or when volunteers have "taken" the jobs of existing career FFs. Not being sarcastic here, just curious to see the proof of this often cited argument. Cogs

Well B, let's start with expusion from the union, which if I'm not mistaken is a possible action should a member violate the prohibition by law and the local decide to enforce it. Now every action has consequences and a violation is a violation, but that is not the point. The point is the by law itself is anti-volunteer. Here in CT it's FF 1 minimum for interior ops paid or volunteer, although most classes are now a combined 1 and 2 program which is about 240 hours plus medical first responder (either ERT fomerly MRT @ 120 hours or EMT-B @ 200+ hours) . Our By-laws require these to come off probation within 18 months although we do allow members to ride and gain limited experience before completing the classes. There is no statewide in service fire training minimum protocol in CT to my knowledge other than the OSHA requirements. For us at BFD training averages about 75-100 hrs of in service training per active member annually. Property taxes should pay all the expenses of a local FD and do here to the best of my knowledge Beyond that we have regional fire schools here in CT that are subsidized by the State but all FD have access to them and most use their services in addition to their local training. I believe it's the same here. I've been delving into this somewhat in my free time and have found some contradictory laws. When..or if..I get to the bottom of it I'll post the results. Cogs

It's not that I'm opposed to a career FF being a volunteer officer by any means, I'm all about putting those who earn their positions in them. The response in question dealt with the specific problem cited by Firemedic049 of union FFs commanding as volunteers and treating other union FFs unfairly. If that goes on then having a career FF or officer hold rank only to the level they do while being paid should help control that type of problem...at least in theory. Cogs

Well I am a volunteer so it probabaly affects me and my "side" of the service far more than the IAFF. That's what I thought although technically one would not be an employee since the recieve no compensation or in some cases only the limited compensation allowed under FSLA. Thanks Cogs

Good stuff Bnechis...thanks B, with all due respect I do not blame the IAFF solely for the decline of volunteers only for one aspect of it and one that is reversible. As far as CT's law goes it does not preclude an IAFF affiliate from "punishing" a FF should he freely choose to volunteer. I will give you that the prohibition is not always enforced, but in my experience it has been enforced selectively much to the detriment of the VFDs involved and their community. As expected I disagree with this view, but hey that should be no suprise The very idea of using volunteers as bargining chips is not only personally repugnant to me, but as far as I'm concerned woefully shortsighted and dangerous. Unfortunately it is highly unlikely that volunteers will rush to the side of their IAFF counterparts when they feel that they are constantly being assisled by them on other fronts...the prohibition on volunteering being one of them. Again B, with all due respect I have absolutely no illusions as to how difficult the recruiting of volunteers is or will be, nor do I think it will be anything less than a miracle for Stamford to get to the point where we need to be. My adamance in the other thread stems from the fact that Stamford as never attempted any concerted effort to recruit volunteer personnel. I and some others believe that given the resources we will see the increase necessary to achieve the goal. To be quite honest though at this point, given all the obstacles, I give it about a 5% chance of success. But that 5% is worth the effort as far as I'm concerned because with each addition to our ranks that chance of success increases exponentially. Here again you're preaching to the chior. I have absolutley no problem with equal standards so long as the availibilty to achieve them is an inherent part of the program. Cogs

I don't know B it's my impression that the IAFF is a well organized, financially strong, generally unified organization which gives it alot of juice on the State (at least mine) and federal level. While it IS illegal under FSLA to volunteer to perform the same duties you are paid to do for your employer, does that carry over if a FF works for Dept X but volunteers with all volunteer Dept Y even when both are in the same city? As I see it if they are two distinctly seperate and independent entities then the FF would not be volunteering for his employer. On a side note, is anyone familiar with the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act.? Without going into detail (as anyone who's interested can check it out for themselves) this bill was defeated just recently. On the surface I guess it's a good thing from a volunteer perspective, but, believe it or not, I do think this may have a somewhat negative impact for paid public safety employess that don't enjoy representation. It is unfortunate a middle ground is so hard to find because in the end we all suffer. Cogs

Even on a topic as charged as this we've shown that points can be made and opinions expressed without resorting to "low blows". And now back to our regularly scheduled bout Ding...round 3 Technically this is true, but there is one huge difference between these restrictions (other than coming to work drunk) and the prohibition on volunteering....public safety. I think it's a well established fact that many VFDs rely (or relied) on the availibility of their career FF members to help cover the traditionally lean times during the day when it is difficult for other volunteers to respond, especially in this day and age. That being the case one could argue that the IAFF's restriction on their members freedom of choice directly impacts a VFDs ability to provide an adequate response. This in effect forces those VFDs to hire career personnel to ensure the public's welfare even though there are willing FFs available to provide the service. I have heard this too and if this is indeed the case it needs to be addressed forcefully. In neighboring Montgomery County and other areas the policy is that career FFs that volunteer can hold rank, but only to the level they hold on the job i.e. a career FF can only be a volunteer FF, a career Capt only up to a volunteer Capt ect. Now while this is itself a prohibition, in the interest of preventing just the type of situation you are referring to it is a fair one. Upon rereading this topic I see that the below comments may be misconstrued when compared to statements I've made in other threads so I will refine them a bit lest I be accused of being a hypocrite or worse a liar. What I mean to say is that I do not advocate using the threat of replacing career FFs with volunteers as a bargaining tool. If by some miraculous turn of events a VFD or city that suffers a shortage of members and thus hires career FFs can somehow increase the number of volunteers, those new members should not be used against the existing career component. Now that being said I have no problem with redistributing career personnel or revising their schedules to better suit the conditions that exist so long as they don't suffer in terms of their working conditions or job security and more importantly in the wallet in terms of their base salary and benefits. Maybe as someone suggested earlier volunteer representation in the IAFF could address many of the disparities that exist and seperate the two "sides" of the Fire Service. Cogs

Not quite a KO but good points indeed and well presented too.....thanks Before anyone gets the wrong idea let me clarify a couple of things. 1) I believe that anything a union or CBU can negotiate for and get they are absolutely entitled to and the City or other party is bound by that agreement and should be held to it to the letter. 2) I have not, I do not, nor will I ever advocate replacing career FFs with volunteers. Guys earned their jobs and by and large earned whatever they get from it. I have the utmost respect for my career colleagues and all the effort most of them have put in to attain their positions. That being said I do have a problem with any organization that restricts personal freedoms or choice. And while others may disagree, to me that is what the prohibition on volunteering boils down to. Is there common ground whereby career FFs that want to volunteer where they live can? Maybe, maybe not. To me so long as someone's job is not threatened there shouldn't be a problem in career guys volunteering even if their volly house has career staffing also. This arrangement worked for years, everyone made a decent living, fed their families, served their communities and kept taxes down a little. The only real threat is to potential jobs, jobs that may not need to be filled if career FFs volunteer on their off time to help maintain an adequate response for their VFD thereby reducing the need to hire additional career FFs. Cogs

Give the man a cigar..you are correct. Thanks I stand corrected.

My thoughts as well. Injuries on off time occur when off no matter what the cause. If union members are to be prohibited from actively engaging in volunteer firefighting because they might get a boo boo than that policy should apply across the board and carry over to prohibit career FFs from engaging in ANY off duty activity especially side jobs that have the potential to cause injury while off duty. Cogs

I know many career FFs that volunteer and I commend them for it considering that it is the stated policy of the IAFF' President that VFDs are "rival" organzations. To me it seems that this belief is what sets the tone and in part creates much of the animosity that exists between career and volunteer FFs. It is true that there may be locals that turn a blind eye towards members volunteering, but it has been my experience that this latitude is very selective. And this is their right and some could argue their responsibility. But what about cities with a career dept and another one (or more) that is all volunteer in which union FFs want to actively volunteer for one of those all volunteer FDs in the same city? To the best of my knowledge this is strongly discouraged if not prohibited outright is it not? Why? It may indeed be true that these "two-hatters" volunteer simply for personal gratification but our nation's Constitution guarantees them the right to do so with the words "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". On a far more practical level it is a matter of simple economics, volunteers save money since a good 85-90% of a career FDs budget goes towards salaries. In PG and other such places it is a fact that volunteers be they career FFs also or not save the county millions of dollars every year....a benefit to the taxpayers many of whom are these very same career two-hatters. Personally I think that the union's stance is nothing more than an attempt to ensure the expansion of the union, regardless of the impact to the community, especially when you consider that many career FFs don't live in the same cities in which they work and therefore aren't footing the bill. Ding..round 1 Cogs

Excellent responses thus far, thanks fellas. I'll chime in on a couple of points First off I fully agree with the author's assertions regarding compensation claims and also with Bnechis in that the same should extend and apply for any disability pension costs as well. 585, you ask a valid question and I suppose the answer to that would be dependent on the willingness of the VFD to allow such an arrangement. I can remember years ago it was common for me to be working alongside a career guy from SFRD (SFD back then) or another department at a job in my district. We had a section of our roster titled "non members assisting" for just that type of situation. It was a win win...they got to work when they wanted to and we got the help if we needed it. Now things are somewhat different as you can well imagine, and quite frankly I think that's a shame. Ultimately for me and my fossilized dinosaur mentality I believe it should be as it used to be.....it is up to the individual to decide. Cogs

Interesting design and at face value it seems worthy of further research and trials. Storage should not be that big of a deal other than any conversion expenses for jumpseats and moving arond some equipment in compartmets. I have seen a similar approach on the Science channel ( I think). The design there was far more rigid and the tank and frame were more streamlined and seamlessly combined. Interestingly, along with air bladders it also incorporated a 2 or 2.5 gallon water resevoir with a hose and nozzle that extends down one arm for self protection or extinguising small fires (makes everyone a canman without the can I guess you could say). Unfortunately I don't remember the manufacturer. Assuming this all works out, like any new technology I think it will be awhile before we see this type of system in widespread use, although attractive pricing and a trade in/credit program for existing SCBA may speed up the process. If they get up my way for trials I'd definitely like to give em a shot. Cogs

Date:1/31/2011 Time:13:20? Location: 1 Mill Rd Frequency: Units Operating: LRFCo - E- 71,73,74 Tk-78, 714, 511 TRFD - E-62, Tk-68, 612 SFRD - E - 8,9 T-3, R-1, U-4, E-5 FAST SEMS- M-4 Weather Conditions: Clear, cold Description Of Incident: 2.5 story house fully involved upon arrival. Exterior ops only Reporters: Cogs Writer: Cogs Looks like a decent size joint from the maps Relocations SFCo - E-52 to LRFCo Sta. 1 for coverage SFRD E-6 to Sta 8 ( (TRFD District) for coverage Cogs

Ditto

Well Bnechis after all this time it seems we finally have something we agree on. Cogs

There is no doubt that someone that rises to the rank of Chief (even if by election only) deserves at least a modicum of respect and like some here I think that can be clearly shown on a Class A uniform. After a voluteer Chief's term is up though they generally go back to being a FF, albeit usually a senoir one, but a FF none the less and should be identified as such on the FG. So yeah in large part I tend to agree with those who see this sort of recognition as being ego driven. Cogs

Johnny, You bring up valid points and these are some of the ones that we are acutely aware of and have tried to address in developing alternative proposals. I know that this is not PG and that we see nowhere near the call volume or fire duty seen there, but there are other considerations that can lead to the success of a volunteer stand-by duty program such as: 1) You seem to be under the impression that we are talking about 24/7 volunteer coverage. We are not. That would be an impossibility here. What we propose is day paid / night and hopefully weekend volunteer coverage. This arrangement has been successful in a number of VFDs that we have either researched or had face to face interaction with in MD, VA, NJ, NY,DE and elsewhere. 2) While we do not see the call volume they do down there we have, through our efforts, found a number of VFDs, as referenced above, that do maintain successful programs while running a similar or even lower call volume and number of fires as we do. Remember too that when staffed as we propose the response numbers and with that the potential for active fire duty will increase, and with that increase we believe we will see an increase in the level of member participation. 3) We have among our ranks a number of highly qualified and experienced firefighters/fire officers/instructors that are committed to providing training that is second to none. This training potential has been and we believe it will continue to be a draw in attracting and retaining members. 4) Through our research of the successful VFDs we found many that faced some similar circumstances in their history. With all due respect to Alpine and his beliefs, from our research it has become apparent to some of us that without a commited effort to provide a quaranteed level of volunteer response with qualified personnel the VFDs will become, as T so eloquently points out, defunct. I can fully understand that such a change to our operations is difficult to envision but in the end it basically becomes a matter of survival...change or wither and die. 5) One of the most prevalent aspects of the success of many stand-by programs that we have found is the commitment of their local govenrments to support the VFDs through recruitment and retention programs. To that end we have been working diligently on developing such a program, based on the successes we have found, that we believe will provide both cost and operationally effective benefits to the members, the City and most importantly the public. Will any of this matter or succeed? I cannot say for certain, as there are many detractors who for a variety of motives do not want change or want to dictate only those changes that benefit themselves. In the end though it will come down to a decision on the part of each volunteer as to how much they are willing to do to remain a vital component of this city's fire protection. Cogs

T, this rumor has reached my ears as well and it may turn out to be fact, but until such time as it does it is all just speculation This may well be where we end up and all I can say to that is that I will do everything humanly possible to ensure that the volunteers (be they BFD alone or all of them) have a seat at the table when the operational plans for this department are decided. Cogs

Capt, Thanks for the input and point taken. My continued references to MD and VA have to do with taking what has been successful for them, along with some successful programs for elsewhere and melding them into something different still to suit our unique needs. Personally I see nothing wrong with taking what works from here, there, and everywhere and bringing it all together to build what is best for Stamford. Cogs

Almost missed this one Your preaching to the chior on this one, but be that as it may the fact remains that this has been the result of the introdution of SFRD into the volunteer houses. In TORs case and I can't really speak for them, I believe that the district needs paid people due to, if nothing else, the call volume and shear size of the district. And I will take some exception to the view that volunteers "don't want to come out" simply because they "don't like" the career staff. I have heard that there have been instances where volunteers were in effect driven from their own firehouses by some of the career staff that hold dear to the belief that all volunteers should be eliminated. Do I have proof of such a situation? No. Are such stories or rumors true? I can't say for sure but I can say that those who feel that way believe them to be true. Now unfortunately no matter how ridiculous or "childish" such attitudes may seem to you or I they are very real, visceral and justified to those who feel that way and they can't just be dismissed. I know that the Mayor's plan will provide a minimum of manpower to respond to calls and although that minimum is not what I'd like it to be it is a guaranteed standard. In terms of volunteer particpation, well as I've been yammering about for quite some time I think that will require an investment by the City into recruitment and retention incentives to encourage that particpation. Now I know Bnechis for one will take exception to that view, but I believe that in light of where we live, what's required and what we stand to gain incentives offer the best possible chance to increase the ranks and demand the level of commitment required to serve this city. Belltown is about the work and while I cannot speak for my Department, I can say that personally I will do everything I can and commit without reservation to making whatever path we embark upon succeed. If that means staffing another VFD one or two nights a week and BFD for a couple as well than so be it...(I'm very fortunate in that I have a wife and family that accepts that I'm married to the FD as well as them). All that I would ask of any other volunteers is that they make a commitment and stand by it to ensure that we meet the needs of the community. Cogs

Well that is one of my fears. Believe it or not the last thing I want to see is positions being lost. I think that there is the potential and justification to redistribute any personnel currently assigned up in Vollywood to existing units downtown to staff them to a level on par with that of say FDNY. Downtown Stamford is not a small town anymore and the demographics and fire load of their response area is considerably more than what it was just 20 short years ago. I for one am all for increased staffing downtown where it is needed. True enough but in all reality whenever a rig is on the road the potentail exists for there to be a shortfall. And yes there are drawbacks to my ideas and I'm the first to admit that they exist, but I think we've done a fair job of coming up with alternatives that take ALL the factors plaguing our system into consideration. Cogs