FireMedic049

Oops, somehow I missed M'ave's post before I posted this. I'm pretty sure there are Ferrara engines running front-line right now at 26 & 54. I wanna say that they are both HP pumpers. Not sure if there are any others. If I'm not mistaken, the Ferrara engine that was at the academy ran at 283 prior to that and was donated to New Orleans FD in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to help them out.

Now I realize this may be "splitting hairs" or such, but.........The area in which I grew up, like many areas in the country, has only volunteer firefighters. Therefore I would think that 20% of the prevailing firefighter wage for the area would be $0.00. Therefore any monetary compensation would be above the FLSA threshold. Here's an example to show just how silly this "I'm still a volunteer even though I'm getting paid" argument is......... Just down the road from us there is a large amusement park. During their operating season - basically over the summer, they employ a large number of seasonal workers to operate the rides, sell concessions, prepare food, clean, etc. Typically, these seasonal workers are paid minimum wage for their time. A person working at minimum wage, 40 hour/week, for 12 weeks would gross $3480 and would be considered and treated as an employee in every sense of the word by the public, the employer, the IRS and probably others. The county in which I live/work currently is predominately volunteer, but I'd put the "prevailing wage" for a basic career firefighter to be in the range of $50,000. Therefore, 20% of that would be $10,000. So, according to you and the info you are referencing, a volunteer firefighter could be paid up to $10,000 for his FD service and should still be considered a "volunteer". You can't see the blatant obsurdity of a person potentially making more than double this seasonal employee, but still claiming to be a "volunteer"? So, if they can be considered "employees" under the law, then I suppose your statement about part-timers being employees and volunteers not being employees would be incorrect.

Federal labor law may treat them as a "volunteer", however they are not really a volunteer in the traditional view of volunteerism. "Volunteer" in the traditional view equates to performing a service/task without monetary compensation. Regardless, if "titles" and other "labels" really don't matter, then why must the term "volunteer" continue to be used to describe a person being paid to respond to and/or standby for fire calls when clearly terms such as "per diem", "on-call", "part-time", "casual", etc would appear to be much more accurate?

What do you consider to be the "ceiling" on "nominal compensation"? At what point and/or under what conditions is compensation no longer "nominal" in your view? Maybe it's different in CT, but in PA volunteer firefighters are considered "employees" under the law for the purposes of worker's compensation coverage. Additionally, if a VFD utilizes members under the age of 18 (i.e. "Juniors"), the participation of those members is subject to the same restrictions and requirements of the child labor laws that regular employers must follow.

Nope, didn't clear anything up and didn't address the actual question either.

I'm not entirely sure, but what I do know is that a non-profit organization (which VFDs typically are) is required to issue Form 1099s to anyone paid more than $600 in a year and said amount is not a reimbursed expense. The IRS is supposed to be sent a copy also. I believe, technically, all non-reimbursement monetary income is supposed to be reported on an individuals tax return and therefore subject to taxation.

What about the other question in that post?

What do you consider "a lot of times" to be? What is your source for that statistic because that is not my experience? I work in a economically distressed small city. We have one of the highest arson rates in our County - excluding the one large city there. I can say without a doubt that for all of our arson jobs in vacant buildings over the last 10 years, there have been no victims inside the building. I would suspect that nationally the total number of times the person(s) who caused the fire are still inside when the FD arrives would amount to "a lot of times", however I would also suspect that the number of times this happens in the vast majority of jurisdictions is rather infrequent.

I sort of disagree. We should be prepared to fight any fire that we respond to in an aggressive manor regardless of the life safety status, however we also have to consider the big picture once we arrive and see the battlefield at hand. There is a big difference between an unoccupied house (as in when the building is not in disrepair, but doesn't have a current occupant) and an abandoned/derelict house (as in the building is in disrepair, boarded up, structural damage, etc.). Both are theoretically "vacant" buildings, but should not be handled in the same fashion - even if there potentially is a victim inside. There is also a big difference between a well involved fire in an early 1900s residence and one of modern lightweight construction. Another part of that big picture that needs to be considered is what is the realistic chances that there is an actual occupant inside? Are you in an urban setting with a large number of vacant building in which squatters and other unauthorized occupants is common or in a rural/suburban area in which vacant buildings and squatters are not commonplace? If the fire/building conditions are marginal for interior operations and all you have regarding somebody being inside is speculation, then the risk/reward profile in the second setting may not be high enough to justify the same aggressive tactics that may be appropriate for the first setting.

I think you're spending too much time in the sun. You seem to be arguing with yourself on this issue. I don't recall anybody arguing against the use of any sort of incentive program or outright compensation for non full-time career firefighters. The "debate" is solely about the use of the term "volunteer" to describe a firefighter who is actually being paid for their participation. Now, I'm not talking about those receiving a nominal amount annually that essentially "reimburses" out of pocket expenses related to serving as a volunteer FF, but rather those being paid per call and/or paid for duty shifts. Federal labor law may treat them as a "volunteer", however they are not really a volunteer in the traditional view of volunteerism. "Volunteer" in the traditional view equates to performing a service/task without monetary compensation. Regardless, if "titles" and other "labels" really don't matter, then why must the term "volunteer" continue to be used to describe a person being paid to respond to and/or standby for fire calls when clearly terms such as "per diem", "on-call", "part-time", "casual", etc would appear to be much more accurate? I am paid to respond to and standby for fire calls now, so I guess I must still be a volunteer too, eh?

I must admit I find a certain amount of humor/irony with this post. You're stating that "titles" are essentially "irrelevant" and there's no reason to get worked up over the term "volunteer" when a person being compensated still falls within FLSA definitions. However, when the term "professional" is used to describe a career firefighter - a use completely consistent with the definition of "professional" in any dictionary and most civilians too - the volunteer fire service gets all worked up about it and feels slighted. So why the apparent double standard?

No, because you are grossly under-informed on the matters you are attempting to discuss.

If this is your position, then you need to much better research on the history of unions and the labor movement. As I previously mentioned, I'm an Executive Officer in my Local. How am I and any other union officer or union member not supposed to take your remark personally? You just called us corrupt with no evidence to substantiate the claim for at minimum, the vast majority of us!

Clearly you have very limited knowledge of labor unions. For example, I am an IAFF member and Executive Officer in my Local. My Local is predominately an autonomous organization, as are all IAFF locals. We are bound by the Constitution & By-laws of the IAFF, but we, the firefighters ARE the Union. We handle our own business at the local level. If there is a grievance, WE are the one's who handle it. When it's time to negotiate a contract, WE are the one's who handle it. The IAFF and our State Associations provide a wide array of support services and other assistance, but they do not come in and "take over" and fight our battles. The disgruntled employees along with the gruntled employees directly represent themselves. As for the matter of union dues and initiation fees.........representing the interests of the group of employees (AKA bargaining unit) often requires money to do so. In order to properly handle many grievances, consultation with a labor attorney is essential and it's pretty hard to find one that doesn't bill for their services. Union dues is what pays for the attorney's advice. The IAFF and the State Associations do assess a monthly fee per member and IMO it's fairly nominal for what it can provide to you. These monthly fees are what provides those support services to each Local with no additional charge! I would suspect that all of the locals collect monthly union dues in excess of these two fees in order to cover their operating expenses. Whatever that amount is, the members of that Local voted to set that rate! In fact, my Local unanimously voted for a significant increase in our dues last year in order continue providing what we provide and decrease our reliance on fundraising activities for that funding. It's pretty ironic that you are advocating that employees engage in a concerted work stoppage (i.e. strike) in order to make improvements in their working conditions, but have repeatedly stated that you would cross a union strike line, that could feasibly be striking over the exact same issues as those non-union workers.

Thanks for the clarification. We have something similar in PA, typically referred to as "Act 111", that prohibits striking in exchange for binding arbitration to resolve disputes however it only covers Police and Fire. I think EMS was left out largely because when the Act was passed in 1968, EMS as we now know it was in it's infancy. A recent decision from the Commonwealth Court in a lawsuit involving Philadelphia and it's Paramedics appears to set precedence to include municipal, single-role fire based EMS providers.

Is this a State law or Federal law? Just curious because in PA, only police and fire are prohibited by law from striking. I know of a few EMS agencies in PA that have gone on strike.

Yup and that's why my (33 man) Local raised and donated almost $15,000 to various local and national charities last year. I guess you aren't aware that in the "right to work (for less)" states, membership in a union is typically not mandatory.

So what's your point? I can't speak to how this rate compares to the rest of that area, but a starting rate is typically just that - a starting rate. The starting rate for EMS in the major city in my area (Pittsburgh EMS - all ALS providers) is in the same ballpark, but after 4-5 years they are somewhere in the mid-20s. Regardless, the benefits of unionization do not lie solely in the $$ per hour an employee is paid.

Yes, having a union could potentially make it "harder" to get rid of a "problem" employee. However, it should be noted that "harder" is a subjective term and does not automatically mean it would be an "arduous" or "impossible" task to terminate an employee. The type of employee you describe would be rather easy to terminate for cause - if the employer does its due diligence. The reason many union employees don't get fired or end up getting reinstated is primarily due to the employer mishandling the situation. Typically, unionization brings a formalized disciplinary process into the mix. Too often, the employer "knee jerks" into whatever action they take and they end up paying the price for that - having to retain the employee that should have been terminated. If the supervisors of the employee with the issues you described filed the appropriate documentation detailing every time the employee was late, deviations from company policies, inappropriate conduct, substantiate complaints about the employee, etc., then a termination for cause should be able to withstand a challenge. If they fail to do these things, then any problems with getting rid of an employee are because of the employer, not the union.

It may just be a regional terminology difference kind of thing, but I believe most of what you appear to be talking about is called "automatic aid" - the automatic response of resources other than the "home" department. A "dual response" is when 2 separate jurisdictions are dispatched to send their normal response (for the incident type) to the same incident. Probably the two most common instances would be sending a full response from both directions to an incident on a limited-access highway or a call near jurisdictional boundaries and it's unclear who's call it is at the time of dispatch.

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 all of the 4-door HME/Saulsbury Rescues were replaced with the E-one/Saulsbury Rescues. If I'm not mistaken, the HMEs may have been coming due for routine replacement even before 2 were lost during 9/11. The Pierce unit that Rescue 1 has been using was acquired something like 4 years ago. Don't quite recall why it was acquired, but I think I heard that there was some sort of GSA/federal grant aspect to it. As for the spare/reserves, there was a Mack/General Safety and a Freightliner/ALF that were donated following 9/11 serving in that capacity. Not sure if there was anything else in use.

The agencies that I've worked for that have done non-transport billing have only charged a nominal fee - something like $50-$100. Not sure if they billed all non-transports or just the ones in which we provided actual assessment and/or treatments. Not sure if they billed more for ALS treat and releases, like a diabetic given D50 who then refuses transport.

I'm assuming you are referring to the unpaid balance as an "additional fee". That may be the case in NY, but is not the case in PA to the best of my knowledge.

I am by no means an expert in EMS billing, but it is my understanding that the EMS agency itself sets its own rates. This is typically done via whatever governing body the agency operates under (i.e. Board of Directors, Ambulance Authority, etc.) Typically there is also a charge per loaded mile (when a pt is onboard). Now there may be some places where this is not the case. Most insurance carriers along with Medicare/Medicaid have their own reimbursement rates for ambulance services. These rates are what they will actually pay for whatever service has been rendered. So an ambulance service could charge $1,000 for a BLS ambulance transport. If the insurance only pays $500 for a BLS transport, then the ambulance service can either accept that as payment or bill the patient for the balance. All ambulance services that I'm familiar with that do "subscription drives" will waive that balance for those who purchase those "subscriptions".

There's another thing that kills gear that can often be overlooked - UV exposure. Repeated direct exposure to sunlight and/or fluorescent lighting can damage the fabrics. Obviously, we can't exactly shade our gear while in use, but the problematic situations are things like storing the gear between use where it can be exposed to sunlight everyday - near an open garage door or window, storing it in a room using fluorescent lighting that is frequently on, laying/hanging it outside in direct sunlight to dry out after a fire or washing, storing it in a vehicle where the sun can shine directly onto it. Something else regarding the soap/detergent used to clean the gear, avoid anything that contains bleach in any fashion. I'd also avoid stuff with other "extras" like Febreeze, fabric softeners, etc. unless the manufacturer recommends otherwise. Liquid detergents are preferred because powders can be abrasive on the fabrics if not fully dissolved.