FireMedic049

Guess what, we all make money off somebody else's back. Your job is dependent on somebody else purchasing your company's product or service. The money to pay for that comes from somebody else purchasing the product or service that their employer provides and the cycle continues.Public sector employees also contribute directly to the economy. In some cases, we are the backbone of the local economy. We also help pay for our own salary and benefits and that of our co-workers via taxes unlike private sector employees. I don't agree with "pension spiking" either, not sure what the beef is regarding disability pensions or what double-dipping is occurring. Public sector employees can be fired. I've seen it done. The thing is, the employer has to follow the proper procedure to do so. Far too many make impulse decisions on these matters and the fired employee gets their job back, not because they didn't deserve to be fired, but because the employer violated their rights in the process, but that point is almost always "hide" from the public. News flash, we're bleeding too! Numerous public sector employees have been laid off, taken pay cuts to avoid/reduce layoffs and forced to take furlough days. We're losing our savings, jobs, houses and livelihoods too! We're also in many cases losing some of our workplace safety too. Unlike most other jobs, workforce reductions tend to largely mean that productivity slows down - less cars build each day, less offices cleaned each day, less cars fixed each day, etc. In public safety, the job doesn't slow down with layoffs or station closures. In hard hit areas, the job demands often increase and that doesn't mix well with workforce reductions.I think the vast majority of us are all in favor of reigning in the stupidity. We've proven that we're willing to make the sacrifices. So, how about we focus some more energy on the other half of the equation. Let's focus on the people's representatives that agreed to everything that the people hate in the union contracts. Let's focus on demanding real sacrifice by our government officials - reductions in pay, benefits, perks, size of legislative bodies, size of staff, etc.

As was just pointed out, the taxpayer's representative in collective bargaining is an elected official and/or a person designated to act on their behalf, but the contract is ultimately approved by elected officials. So, if you aren't happy with the results of collective bargaining, then maybe you should elect somebody else on the next election day. It happens in the Unions. If the membership doesn't like the new contract, there's a pretty good chance that the same people won't be negotiating the next one.Be upset with the Unions if you like, but please make sure that you are sending at least 50% of your ire to those elected officials that agreed to everything in the contracts. Hmmm. Since the only firefighters in my area that are in the private sector are volunteer, does that mean that all of the career firefighters in the area should also be paid nothing?

Prior to the "Citizens United" ruling by the US Supreme Court, your Union Dues in all likelihood was NOT going to any candidates since it was ILLEGAL to spend that money on political activity. Your Union may have had a Political Action Committee (PAC) Fund that spent money on political activities, however that would not have been funded by Dues money, but rather with voluntary contributions from the membership and possibly other sources. As far as the Union supporting candidates that you don't support, well that's not exactly anything unusual within a group setting. It's pretty rare that you would see a (large) group of people completely in support of a specific candidate. Doing what's believed to be "best" for the majority of the membership is not uncommon and quite frankly, the proper course. I can't speak to what your Union did, but can speak to what mine does. The Union supports candidates that support firefighters. Endorsements, when given, are given to the candidates that are believed to be the best option in the interests of our occupation. Typically, that will reflect the position of the majority of our members. However, all members are free to support whomever they feel best represents their interests overall. Some Locals have even made endorsements in opposition of the Union.

I may be wrong, but I believe your question is about equal access to "employer" provided medical care and benefits for job-related illness/injury. I would say "yes" for the part, volunteers and career firefighters should have the same coverage for job-related illness and injury. Now, the tricky part comes when attempting to prove some illnesses are job-related, particularly something like cancer that may not have a clear cut "origin" like breaking your leg on scene would. This difficulty is part of the reason why many states have enacted cancer presumption laws for firefighters. These laws basically say that we know firefighters are exposed to many different potential cancer causing sources during their career and therefore if they are diagnosed with cancer, then it is presumed to be job-related. My state is very close to finally enacting a cancer presumption law that the State Association for the IAFF members has been very active in pushing for adoption. Despite opportunities to get it passed sooner if the volunteers were removed from coverage, we refused. The "problem" regarding coverage for volunteers for something like this can be that of demonstrating "exposure". With career FFs, it's pretty easy to show a consistent exposure to in-station sources plus there's often a higher number of potential "exposures" over time based on usually being busier than most VFDs. Where the issue often is from those that would be paying for any benefits, is that collectively volunteers don't have the same "uniform" exposure that career FFs do. Most VFDs have a few of those members that you hardly see or members that are more of a "helper" than an actual firefighter. Plus, most volunteers don't spend as much time actually in the station and exposed to the diesel exhaust (pre-ventilation systems). The working theory being that why should they pay benefits for a person who's illness is possibly not job-related (without a specific significant exposure event) since they may have had a low amount of cumulative exposure. Also, my sympathies for your illness. Good luck.

Those are certainly factors that are normally included in determining when to remount. However, ambulance remounts are moving an existing patient module onto a new chassis. As such, the engine and suspension issues you mention wouldn't be present (unless the new chassis is a lemon like the 6.0 ).

Hard to give an accurate figure since all remounts are not the same. You could get a "basic" remount that essentially just puts the old body on a new chassis. More expansive remounts could include completely new electrical systems, new floor, reupholstering, limited reconfiguring of the interior, all new lighting just to name a few things. All of this would greatly influence the amount of savings over a comparable new unit. To the best of my knowledge, most manufacturers will perform remounts. There are also a number of non-manufacturers that will perform remounts.

I don't think there's a simple explanation that would fully answer your question. I'm sure there are various factors that would influence the decision to replace or remount. Some services run their units into the ground and remounting of the box, just isn't the best route. Some services may not have the financial limitations to force them to consider other options. Changes in equipment carried, new technology or other factors probably influence the decision at times. Depending on how old and what shape the unit is in, maybe when you factor in the revenue from selling the old unit, it offsets enough of the "savings" from a remount that they think, why not just buy new? There could also be the chance that some service may be ignorant to the potential viability of doing a remount.

That kind of was the point. There doesn't seem to be much of a flap with people taking jobs with "non-compete" clauses knowing that it could put them in a bad position in a future job hunt. There doesn't seem to be much of a problem from the companies potentially effected by these restrictions.Why no real fuss from people with potentially significant financial aspects at stake, but a lot of people are all worked up over not being able to work for free? BTW, could you show me what legal document says that a person has the right to serve their community in any fashion, particularly via what may very well be a private entity (i.e. non-municipally operated VFD)? Good luck with that.

OK, let's look at this from a different perspective. There's some industries in which the nature of their work includes "trade secrets". As such, it's pretty common in these industries to have (at least) certain employees sign a "non-compete" agreement of some sorts. These agreements would typically prevent an employee who leaves a particular company from immediately working for a "competing" company in that industry. Would you view a "non-compete" clause in an employment contract as bordering on "Constitutional infringement" too? Now, I'm in no way trying to say or imply that there's any sort of "trade secret" aspect in play with IAFF members volunteering, only that the effect is IMO very similar. One organization has instituted a rule that protects its own interest (the non-compete clause) and that rule would negatively effect another organization (not being able to hire a particular chemist, engineer, researcher, etc.). I would think that a restriction on a person's employment options would be a bigger deal than a restriction on a person's ability to volunteer as a firefighter. Personally, I'm not aware of any litigation that has determined that "non-compete" clauses are unconstitutional. Here's a thought that just popped into my head......... If this by-law is having such a profound negative impact on the volunteer fire service, then maybe you guys should all get together and file a lawsuit?

It can also be argued that the actions of some IAFF members while volunteering in another IAFF department are a significant factor in the creation of a by-law restricting this type of volunteering. I don't debate that some departments are feeling some sort of "negative impact" even if it is only the loss of one actual or potential volunteer. So, are you saying that an organization shouldn't enact rules to protect it's own interests because of the effect (real or potential) it would have on another organization? Fair enough. For me I simply believe that people should respect the rules of any organization they belong to.

I don't debate that the inherent impact of losing one's job is different simply because of the job held. I also don't necessarily debate that most people would tend to believe that their position is important enough to be spared layoff. I also don't debate that all municipal jobs (or at least most ) are valuable for what they each contribute to the overall state of the community and ideally no job is "more important" than the next.However, the fact still remains that there are differences among those jobs and differences in what the consequence of layoffs would be for each job. The garbage collector is most certainly an important position, but what is the net effect of one less person on what is normally a 3-person truck or the elimination of one truck altogether? It takes longer to pick up the trash and the remaining workers have to work a little harder and/or longer? What is the net effect of one less firefighter on a firetruck normally staffed with 4 or the elimination of a company altogether? On some calls, the impact might not be a big deal, like getting your trash picked up at 10am instead of 8 or 9 am. However, there are a lot of calls in which the loss of staffing or units means response delays in some areas due to closed companies and reduced effectiveness of individual companies or the inability to perform 2 separate tasks due to only having 3 firefighters. It could also mean a reduced overall manpower on the initial response to a building fire. It may not be fair, but it's hard to argue that overall, the loss of some garbage men will have a greater negative impact on the community than the loss of most public safety personnel. And as unfair as this might be, it's certainly equally unfair to layoff firefighters because there might be some people willing to replace them as a volunteer. I think you trying to split a very, very fine hair on this. IMO, the initiating factor of why career staff is being replaced is not the important factor. The important factor is that one way or another people volunteered to replace those displaced workers. It's pretty clear to me that if you didn't have people to replace the displaced workers, then even if you were doing it for budgetary reasons, then you'd need to rethink your plan and look at other options to reduce costs. For the most part, that's probably true. However, I do know of more than one volunteer FD that imposes volunteering restrictions on its members. Stuff like requiring them to live in district in order to volunteer at that VFD and forbidding them from being a member of another VFD while a member of that VFD. Don't hear much noise about that matter. Yeah, that could be possible, but I doubt that the Local just arbitrarily made the declaration and that specifically was the main cause of their demise.

To an extent, it may be more important based on the inherent nature of the two positions. However, what I'm kind of hearing from your question is the belief that the Firefighter positions are less important simply because no other facet of local government services typically attempts to utilize volunteers to do their work. You're wrong and have been told such. Yes, there are places where the appropriate application of the by-law is having a negative effect on individual VFDs. However, there are probably a number of places that are being effected by the inappropriate application of the by-law. Either way, as stated before, VFDs are not considered "rival organizations" strictly on the basis of being a VFD.

In the context of what the IAFF by-law restriction is, Yes. There's a difference between doing nothing to help your actual neighbors in a time of crisis and routinely responding to calls as a volunteer firefighter in the restricted fashion.Your right, it is kind of like holding hostages, but we probably aren't in agreement on who the hostage takers are. Is it really what is probably a small number of IAFF members in any given community that are abiding by the rules of an organization that they are affiliated with? or Could it in fact be the VFDs themselves, by not definitively addressing a potential problem and/or making the community aware of the problem and allowing them the opportunity to decide what level of service they want and/or are willing to pay for? Besides, there's probably more able bodies in the community that aren't IAFF members. All of those examples are relevant. The fact that there were "budget constraints" prompting the disbandment is irrelevant. Would you actually get rid of personnel performing an essential service if nobody volunteered to be their replacements? The third department I cited, the matter was toughted as a budget problem necessitating it, however via legal channels it was clearly established as more of a personal vendetta by the Mayor than any true budgetary problem.

Honestly, I don't know if that best organization currently exists. I don't know enough about the inner workings of the current organizations like the IAFC, NVFC, NFPA, etc to say if what you are talking about is potentially already in place or able to be expanded on. I do know, as I've said, the IAFF is not that place. I think the volunteers collectively are the obstacle when it comes to training issues. I've had the discussion locally regarding something like mandatory minimum training and in general, there's no interest in something like this because the belief is that "certifications are just a piece of paper" and that state imposed minimum training standards would cause them to loose members, in part because they wouldn't pass the test. The most ironic part about the discussion is that the written and practical exams for PA FF1 is based entirely on the information taught in what is pretty much universally agreed upon to be the accepted entry-level training course for FFs - "Essentials of Firefighting". It is also my understanding that about 20 years ago or so, the exams where part of the course, but where separated based on complaints by the volunteer side that their members were failing the testing. A lot of what you describe is stuff that existing organizations like the NVFC should already be providing to the volunteers and their departments.

My guess is that a lot of people, probably mostly volunteers, have never correctly understood the by-law. Now I'll give some the benefit of the doubt that they've never actually read it and are just going by word of mouth of others that may or may not have actually read it or may have misinterpreted it.I'll admit that I didn't correctly understand it when I was hired. I resigned from the 2 volunteer departments that I was associated with at the time thinking that I had to do it. If I'd know better, I might have stayed on at the one, because at that point, it was more of a part-time job for me (working on the FD ambulance). I really don't regret doing it because looking back, I simply didn't have the time for the jobs I was working and to give those VFDs reliable assistance and that has only worsened since the arrival of my first child. OK.

I'd guess that you'd be in the minority on that. Considering all of the efforts by many departments to recruit and retain volunteer members with various incentive type offerings and those that don't have the ability to do so, I don't think too many would be very interested in paying $60 a month to volunteer their time. Regardless, as I said before, the place for both sides to collectively work together (as members of the same organization) in order to improve the fire service as a whole is not the IAFF.

I won't debate the impact of this on your department, in part because I don't have any facts to counter them, however I still firmly believe that your department is the exception and not the rule in this matter. I would agree that there's a leak in the pail regarding the article, however efforts to expand the IAFF are probably more focused on organizing new Locals rather than increased hiring in existing ones.

Essentially yes from the standpoint that the enforcement of the rule occurs at the local level. The rule itself is consistent, but overall this really isn't as much of a concern as many outside the IAFF might think. It only becomes an "issue" if a Local files charges and makes it an issue. Yes, there are two different interpretations. There's the interpretation that the IAFF forbids ALL volunteering as a firefighter and then there's the correct interpretation that as long as an IAFF Local isn't effected, it's not an issue. I would tend to disagree, but I suppose that it's a matter of perspective. You see the removal of the IAFF volunteers from the equation as the cause for poor coverage and/or the need to hire personnel. I see the lack of participation of the vast majority of that community as the primary cause. We are only doing "the same job" to the extent that we all may be responding to the same types of calls and using the same equipment when doing so. There are many differences from dept to dept and person to person in how we do "the job" and/or how much of "the job" we actually do. I disagree. There are already organizations out there who's focus is on the fire service as a whole in terms of career/volunteer. The IAFC is one that comes to mind off the top of my head.The IAFF is about the needs of career firefighters and improving their work conditions. On the local level, this is accomplished via negotiation between the employer (the municipal leaders) and the employees (the firefighters). At the state and top levels, the effort is more about legislation. Some of what is done benefits everybody, like AFG & SAFER grant programs and LODD benefits. However, a lot doesn't necessarily affect volunteers. If volunteers were to be let in, should it be all of them or just those in IAFF combo departments? Who would a volunteer department negotiate with since they are both the employer and the employees? As was mentioned earlier, what about dues? Membership in my Local, the State Association & the IAFF costs me a little over $60 a month. How many volunteers would be willing to pay that? I agree that this stuff could be helpful, but membership in the IAFF is not the way to do it.

I have at least two in my county that I'm aware of. The Cities of Clairton and Duquesne (PA) eliminated their career firefighters and replaced them with volunteers. I believe this occurred in the late 80's/early 90's time period (before I moved into the area). Only the paid Fire Chief position remained. Clairton actually eliminated the paid Fire Chief position at the beginning of this year. Near the end of last year, another City in a neighboring county notified their career firefighters and fire chief that they would all be layed off at the beginning of this year and be replaced by the largely absentee volunteer component of the department. Fortunately, that situation was averted.

No, the by-law is actually "pro-IAFF". However, I can acknowledge that it can have a small negative impact on staffing in the volunteer fire service.

It's also well established fact that many, many more VFDs rarely have or don't rely on career FF members to cover any parts of the day. As a whole, I think you're overestimating the actual impact of this rule. Not to sound too crass, but as far as the need to hire career personnel goes, so what? Let's be clear. IAFF members choosing to volunteer in an all volunteer department is really not an issue at the top level. Any attempts at restricting that activity is likely coming at the local level and essentially not from the IAFF itself. The problem area, as clearly defined, is the combination department in which an IAFF affiliate is present. So, to me the argument against this restriction sounds like you are saying that somehow, the IAFF has a greater obligation to ensure the public's welfare (via providing volunteer staffing) than the municipality and/or VFD who is in fact actually charged with that responsibility, even if it does mean hiring some personnel? No, the disparities and separation are not because the volunteers don't have representation in the IAFF. IMO, the heart of the disparity can probably be narrowed down to the simply fact that some people are getting paid and some people are not for doing what is perceived as "the same job". That fact alone will create issues. What kind of representation in the IAFF are you talking about?

Thanks, I like a good clean fight. Sure, but doesn't pretty much every organization restrict (or attempt to restrict) personal freedoms or choice in some fashion? Stuff like uniforms, grooming standards, not working drunk are a few that come to mind. This issue is also about more than just jobs. It's also been about working conditions. From stories I've heard about some stuff in PG county, a significant factor in the move to create this rule was how the career staff in PGFD were being treated by their fellow union brothers (who in some cases were volunteer officers, but regular FFs at their job) while working in the volunteer houses. Basically "abuse of power" type stuff from what I understand and stuff that they more than likely wouldn't like or put up with if done to them at their place of employment.

You're only partially correct regarding the "rival" organizations thing. It's my understanding that VFDs are not considered to be rival organizations simply because they are VFDs. Clearly your question is about Stamford and yes, I believe this would fall under the prohibited category. As for why, well I'd suppose that even though they are separate organizations, since they are all within the same municipality it would likely be viewed as a quasi-combo department and fall into the don't volunteer where there is an IAFF Local in place. I'm not debating their constitutional rights. I was referring to the common justification argument of a career firefighter's "duty" to serve the community in which they live. In the PG situation I was referring to, I don't believe that the majority that are "two-hatters" in PG are there for that type of altruistic reasons. They are likely there not out of a sense of obligation to their community, but to satisfy their personal agendas and that makes what they are doing a problem for that Local. I disagree. Sure, there's probably some "protective" aspects to it, but I don't believe that it's as sinister as some have applied. Besides, who wouldn't want to protect their livelihood and organization?Many career FFs don't live where they work because they can't afford the cost of living in that community. Ding.....Round 2?

As I mentioned above, the IAFF's position on this matter is pretty simple IMO and is pretty much what you stated. Contrary to what some volunteers may think, in general the IAFF really doesn't care if its members volunteer as firefighters in all volunteer fire departments, particularly those in the less urban areas where the tax base and call volume usually doesn't support having career firefighters. What the IAFF does care about and has a by-law forbidding is its members serving as volunteer firefighters in fire departments in which another IAFF Local exists. I can't say how often this happens, but I do know it's very prevalent in the metro DC area - particularly in Prince George's County MD. Many of that county's volunteers are career firefighters in other departments in that region and I'd speculate that they come to PG County to run calls not out of the desire to serve their hometown community, but rather for their own personal gratification given the amount of fires they have there.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however that "freedom NOT to associate" that you mention also means that you have the freedom to not take a job in a closed shop if you don't want to belong to that union. This is pretty much all that the IAFF is asking of it's members on the issue.