AFS1970

I have never understood this interior/exterior designation. but I will dispute the fact that the roles do not exist in career departments. I remember hearing about one big city department in my state that had a "firefighter" who was never assigned any duty other than to take the hydrant. This was an individual who was hired during one of those waves when qualifications were not as important as genetics and this individual was known to not be able to do much else. On a more positive note there are the seniority based driver jobs, where a firefighter essentially never has to go inside again. While not technically an exterior member, the interior history can be measured in years not months with some. I realize these are often senior men who have in many ways paid their dues, but the same argument could be said about some of the veteran Volunteers. As for volunteer departments not calling on neighboring career departments, this works both ways. I know of and have heard of many other career departments that will call for a career department more than a town away bypassing multiple volunteer stations. There are usually many excuses given, like they don't know the capabilities, manpower or response time, but even when given the information there always seems to be a reason to use a career resource. My old department was canceled once when dispatched into a career district because the duty chief said he did not want just our 3 career guys he wanted a fully staffed truck. When he was told the truck was rolling with a crew of 5 he still canceled it, despite that being 1 more than all the trucks in that district.

FireMedic049, I hope I was able to convey the same point. I don;t think you should call people that can't go into a fire firefighters. I was just guessing at how the speaker was claiming someone who could not go in was "fully" certified but niot interior qualified.

Watching this episode right now on COSI.

I don't know the department involved so I am just guessing here. I will also add that i think any division between interior and fully certified is likely splitting hairs to beef up the rolls. However as a former volunteer, I am still fully trained and certified, however since I grew a beard right after leaving and haven't had the required type of physical in years of even gone near a drill field, it would be beyond a stretch to say I was interior qualified. Not that I couldn't get back into that state, but I couldn't be listed that way now. I have never really understood the terms interior and exterior firefighter, simply because both the FF1 & FF2 classes I took covered brush fires and structure fires, So I am not sure how you successfully pass the class without being trained in both. I do think there is room for training in non suppression support rolls and for the most part certifying agencies have let this pass them by. However I would not call support personnel firefighters.

The numbers certainly don't seem to add up to me. Saving 800K is an admirable goal, but if you are getting 1M to fund that 800K, it seems to me like you should have 200K left over. I am sure some of that may go for fuel and apparatus maintenance so it is probably not all profit, but the numbers still do not add up. If I were a resident I would be more upset at the failure to 1) abide by the tax cap and 2) fail to waive the tax cap. Now cutting 600K from a budget will leave only one option most of the time, that is to lay off staff. This is not because anyone wants to cut jobs, but in most departments payroll is the biggest piece of the pie and is the only place in the budget you can make such a large cut. As a chief, it would be great if you could stand up and object to any and all cuts made to your budget, in a way I think even if it has no effect it is almost a responsibility to do so. However all department heads know they will put in for X and get cut down to Y, that is just how budgets work. It can sometimes seem inevitable that you will be cut. In a public meeting nobody wants to be the one to stand up and cry out against the cuts, especially when the funding may not be possible because of other actions like the tax cap issue they apparently had. So now it will go to a referendum. Assuming the people vote in favor of restoring the jobs, thus voting in a tax increase. Now how will the village respond? Will they be able to restore the funding with the cap in place? I do not know the laws involved, but do they ever get a second chance at the cap or do they have to wait for next year?

Date: 06/03/2016 Time: 07:58 Location: 675 Atlantic St (access from Henry St) District: SFD Channel: Tac 3 Weather: Cloudy / Foggy Units: SFD: U4 (IC), E2, T2, R1, E5 (Rescue Support), SEMS: M1, M901 (Supervisor) SPD: 2A50, 2A58, 2B45, 2C41, 3C47, K9-4, 8S2 (Sergeant) Writer: AFS1970 Description: Initial report of man struck by pay loader at construction site. SPD first on scene reporting male down but conscious. SFD responded with standard Technical Rescue response. Victim was run over by pay loader and pinned against a concrete pump. Crush injuries suspected. Dispatch put Stamford Hospital on Trauma Alert by phone. Federal OSHA notified, responding from Bridgeport. SPD holding the scene until OSHA arrives. ** Special note this was called in by construction company in Torington and transferred via 9-1-1 system to Stamford **

Actually between this and the other thread, we did not learn that 3 chiefs got together and hatched some nefarious plan to get rid of career firefighters. All that has been reported was that the village council voted to do this. There was some indication of a meeting with the Chiefs before this vote was taken but I doubt anyone who posts here was in that meeting. What we did get was people immediately calling for the chiefs to be thrown out of office because they did not save the jobs. The problem with this line of reasoning is that politicians will do whatever they want, and no matter how loud a chief protests, they will generally not budge. It is the responsibility of a fire chief to run their fire departments and as any chief will tell you this is usually done with what you are given. Thus when the layoffs happened as much as it sucks there is still a fire department that needs to continue as best it can. Layoffs are never a good option, but they do happen. If a major city suffered layoffs would you call for the career chief to be fired because he did not protect the manpower? I am not knowledgeable about the situation in PCFD prior to the council vote. I don't know who said what to who, who had a grudge against who, or who had what influence on the vote. As for the public voting, this can be a double edged sword. The same public that wants more services from the government almost always wants to pay less taxes. One never knows just how the people will vote.

One of the things that keeps this sort of tension alive and well is the perception that all volunteer firefighters are just sitting waiting to get that career firefighter's position. That is why so many of the public ask if you ever wanted to be a real firefighter and so many career firefighters ask what tests you have taken. If there is any deep down feeling being harbored it is pure amazement that not every volunteer firefighter wants to be a career firefighter. Still despite this there is a great deal of brotherhood to be found in the fire service, even across the payroll lines. I have often suspected that that brotherhood has a limit, and that limit is when one side is required to support the other side. In the other thread it was asked why the volunteers in PCFD did not immediately stop responding to calls in support of their paid brothers. I would ask this, not that I expect an honest answer, but if the village council had voted to eliminate the volunteer fire department, how many of those 8 career firefighters would have walked out until the volunteers were brought back? See there are, no matter how hard we try to deny it, limits to our brotherhood. My first post here detailed what I thought about the remarks being attributed to the PCFD chief. Yet we are forgetting that these remarks were not seen as bad enough to come forward immediately. They were good enough to hold on until the moment is right. Nobody's windows were actually broken, so no firefighters followed any illegal orders. From the video I watched there was nothing worded as an order anyway. This thread, like many others before it, has shown the lack of fraternity. A thread was posted to show how bad relations were and we respond by making relations with each other worse. BMA!

The lack of volunteers who are paid in any given department (in this case FDNY) is not a good argument. Even if we assume that they are staying away from Garden City in droves because of solidarity, they would certainly not beat down the doors to volunteer there after layoffs. So like it or not the presence of the career staff has set its own course for the future. The lack of volunteers in a given department is often due to how we approach mundane things like recruiting but also training. Years ago people joined because they had roots in the community and were friends or relatives of memebrs. Now we have lots of people moving from place to place and not really setting down those roots. Plus while generally good, we have done a lot to make volunteers invisible. How many of our apparatus say volunteer on them? How many uniforms or even turnout gear say it? We have done so much to prove that volunteers are no different from career but that has been a double edged sword. Why do we train the way we do? is it the best option for the current department or is it because we planned drill around the local pinochle games that hasn't been held sine the 1930's? I know of one career department that has shift change scheduled around a trolley schedule from the early 1900's. Headquarters has moved since then and the trolley stopped years ago, but now it is a tradition. So when a new resident wants to join but works on your drill night do we ever consider alternatives to get them trained? As for being a pawn in the game, I wholeheartedly agree. I have been one of those pawns. I was one of a core group that chose to fill in to cover layoffs thinking it was a temporary fix while we tried to get the jobs restored. We didn;t want to see anyone roll out alone. Then the judge said we had actually proven that we did not need the staffing. Because on paper the situation was not as dire as those that lived it knew it to be. Statistics and other numbers are good to a point but can risk becoming dangerous, when relied on too much.

If the same statements were made by (and recorded) a career firefighter, there would be some discipline, after an investigation. Since this was made by a volunteer one news story and the words of a paid attorney spokesman are apparently enough. Look if someone does something wrong, let's get the facts out and let the chips fall where they may. Whatever the punishment may be, be it demotion, suspension, or even termination. However had this statement been made by a career firefighter or chief, and had a lawyer come out and said that this is why cities should not have career firefighters, he would have been laughed out of the room. I can only imagine what the thre3ad here on EMTBravo would have been like. Lets handle this the right way, but the same or a similar process as unions have fought hard to ensure that their members are subject to. Because if anyone suggested terminating a career firefighter over a similarly audio heard over a similarly shaking hand held video, there would be an outcry about maintaining his rights to a due process. A right we all possess and should all protect and defend. Yes we are held to a higher standard. Yes there are those that want a double standard. I have never been one of them, and towards the end of my time as a volunteer firefighter sought to carry over some new bylaw ideas that came from civil service rules. Largely because they had addressed situations that our bylaws had never dealt with, and why reinvent the wheel. However to take the DUI accident example, there is one difference. If it is a career firefighter involved the news just says firefighter. When it is a volunteer firefighter involved the news never forgets to add the word volunteer in front of that, thus giving the opinion that all volunteer firefighters are irresponsible drunks.

I have never visited this and never will for a few reasons. First when they started selling tickets to walk down a sidewalk and look at a hole, I realized this was going to be more like Disney's 9/11/2001 experience than anything reverent or somber. Second when there was talk of making a statue of the now famous picture of the firefighters raising a flag, but first they had to change the faces to be more inclusive, I realized how many disgusting the agendas were. Then when there was talk of making the museum into the international Islamic friendship center or some other such crap design to promote the revisionist history that 19 guys randomly just all had the same terrible idea at the same time that had nothing to do with anything, that opinion was cemented. Then there was the debate over listing the names by affiliation or not, and almost independent of the opinions of NYPD and FDNY I thought that the approximately 700 workers for Cantor Fitzgerald should be allowed to be remembered next to their coworkers. It just seemed to be that this whole project has been more about erasing memories than preserving them, and that is just plain wrong.

This looks like something interesting. I am sure it will answer many questions, but three that I wonder about first is will protocols allow this sort of treat and release practice? Will a priority dispatch system be part of this so the calls not requiring urgent care be identified and allocated the correct resources? Finally will the hospitals, which are all profit making entities as well as healthcare providers ever support a VEMS unit going out and providing free care that does not lead to a transport and E/R visit?

A few things jump out from this to me, I am pretty sure that not everyone here will agree with my priorities here, time for a rant. 1) Brotherhood or lack there of - Who made this recording? Who on earth records their brother firefighters in a moment of what can only bee seen off the cuff and obviously intended as comedic banter? This alone would make me not want to join a department where you have to worry about your fellow members recording what you say. It is bad enough we have to worry about the public filming public safety but now you have to set rat traps in your own parlor. For a thread dedicated to bad relations to depend so much on a video obtained in what can only be bad faith is startling. 2) Timing - This is apparently a year old. So someone knew of supposed misconduct but decided to wait and see when it would be the most opportune time to use it. This makes whoever sat on this video nothing more than a co conspirator at best. Had the windows been broken at this firefighter's house how would the holder of the video that could have prevented a crime be thought of? I for one would not call them a hero for coming up with evidence, I would think them a fool for not alerting the authorities. This is nothing more than an opportunistic person who for whatever reason has decided to kiss up to one side in an unrelated debate. I see the sudden unveiling of this recording as highly questionable. 3) Characterization - I know that nobody here has ever told or hear an off color or even mean spirited joke in a fire house. I know that every station in the world other than PCFD is apparently a monastic home for innocent choir boys that have never uttered an unkind word against another member. However for a lawyer to characterize this as encouraging vandalism is playing on the public's ignorance. What I heard was someone saying that he hoped to respond to a certain house that night (far more troubling to me) and that if they did to break every window in the place (which I took as a remark on the ongoing fire service debate on ventilation) To break windows or not break windows is something that gets discussed over and over, even among the choirboys. However even when one firefighter/department/chief sees what they think as too much glass breaking I don't think it rises to the level of vandalism. Plus the qualification of tying this to an anticipated response tells me this is not a call to go out and commit a crime as the shady ambulance chaser thinks it is. I am far more troubled by the idea that someone hopes to respond to another members home. This tells me that he wishes for a fire or other emergency to effect this member AND THEIR FAMILY. This is far worse than breaking a window or even all of them. As much as emergency services can sometimes be see as morbid in hoping for good calls, I don't think we should even entertain the concept of hoping for calls at other members homes. This is disgusting, but requires the baisc concept of brotherhood to be fully understood. This means that my opinion probably would not inflame the public enough to push an agenda. 4) Agendas - In the other thread about Port Chester it was asked why the volunteers were not standing up for their paid brothers. This lawyer is why! He says that this is why you can't have a volunteer chief. I don't get the connection. I have met idiots and [expletives] on both sides of the pay check. We are constantly told to see beyond the payroll and take each brother as an individual, so why is this not a case of investigating one person and finding out if they did something wrong? Why is this seen as an example of why no volunteer can ever possibly be chief? Because there is an agenda that comes from some (but not all) career staff that is guided by the overriding principle of getting rid of volunteers. I don't think there are conferences or pamphlets, I don't think any person or organization would be stupid enough to leave such a paper trail. Then again, it is apparently OK to secretly record your brothers, so maybe there is some grainy cellphone footage out there of a second gunman on the grassy knoll. This lawyer is certainly of the mind that PCFD not only needs career firefighters (which I don't think is up for debate) but apparently also needs a paid chief (which I think is absolutely debatable). This seems like a case of never letting a good scandal go to waste. It seems to me that actions by all of those involved here, The person who wishes ill on another member and their family, the person who secretly records the goings on in a firehouse and then sits on the recording for a year, and the lawyer who is willing to make broad statements to push an agenda are all the reason we have the acronym BMA!

So is this on the 24th or not? Seems like a Tuesday is an odd day for something like this.

Out of curiosity, how does a department get numbers in the 50's and the 260's for engine companies? I thought departments got blocks of numbers that were all together.

Thanks for the info. I was wondering how much use it got. Just the fact that it can be used to tow disabled apparatus probably makes it worth having with a fleet that large. For most departments around here there would not be a need for a department owned wrecker. Then again few departments around here have the cliffs that LA has or the freeway system, although we do have busy highways. This is why it seemed odd to me. I know of three companies I can call in Stamford for heavy duty equipment like this. I am sure there are a few more regionally. I can even remember one call where they debated special calling a crane from a local hauling company, but in the end did not need it.

These are certainly cool trucks, and they can do a lot. However I wonder just how busy they are? Do the runs justify having them in the fleet? Are they ever used (even internally) for towing, since they are essentially heavy duty wreckers?

A law allowing billing for non transport service calls might have an unintended bad effect. There are still significant callers who despite their symptoms will delude themselves into thinking EMS will just come and check them out. They do not think they need transport and thus in their minds are not calling for transport. If they see a fee for non transport calls then they may not call when they have an emergency. A better law, although likely not very enforceable, would be one that forbids facilities that care for individuals to have a policy that requires an emergency service to respond. This is because strictly speaking, it is up to an agency to respond or not to every call, subject to relevant laws. It is not up to the patient / facility to demand that we A) respond or upgrade or downgrade a response based on their policy. Many years ago our local homeless shelter had no day time programs, so everybody had to be out by 8AM. The only allowable reason for a daytime bed was illness. Their internal policy only allowed for illness that was confirmed by the doctor at the E/R and they did not accept even that if you went to the E/R under your own power. Thus anyone who wanted to stay in bed all day had to go to the hospital in an ambulance. The shelter would call 9-1-1 and not be able to provide a chief complain other than someone needs to go to the hospital to get checked out. That situation as well as the lift assists where staff is not permitted to lift up a patient would both be curtailed by such a law, thus allowing for all legitimate calls, but not allowing facilities to use EMS to supplement their staff or lack there of.

No these facilities do not manufacture the elderly. However they do by their very nature gather them together in one place. This has the effect of concentrating the call volume. It was said in a previous post that most of the residents were from the immediate area, but if they were living at home they would have been spread over multiple EMS districts. As for wasted resources being fixed by priority dispatching, that only works if the facilities fully participate. I am a dispatcher, I work with EMD every day, and sometimes it feels like facility staff work very hard to disrupt the EMD system. There is a code for inter facility transfer, but it is only used when there is no obvious chief complaint. After going through all the questions, there is a question on what response is being requested, because they called 9-1-1 the system codes this as an emergency response requested. If there is a chief complaint, say something relatively minor, like a fall this can be downgraded if we get the correct (or sometimes any) information. However when they decided to have security in the lobby call for EMS when the staff is in a 3rd floor room, so most answers go in as unknown (especially with level of consciousness) it triggers a high response with ALS & FD, simply because the information was not provided. Most facilities can not give you a patient age, when you ask you are given a DOB or a year of birth. This slows down the often adversarial call taking. The basic question "are you with the patient" is often met with the cryptic "someone is" which means we have to ferret out information like, "are you that someone"? No? OK now we can go on with more questions. Most of the time we are sending extra units to these facilities only to have them canceled on arrival by the first unit who gets there and realizes what is really going on. This directly leads to the characterization that these facilities are unreasonable system draws, which leads to all the other factors.

I think there are a few factors that come into play here, especially when a VAC is involved. First the dawn of these assisted living facilities was specifically to fill a void in between independent living and skilled (yeah I know) nursing care. This means that the residents are generally somewhat mobile and lucid but that the staff is barely medically trained. This means they will be more likely to call for help, which of course generates more call volume. The impact of that increased call volume still depends on other factors. People join VAC's (and VFD's) at least partially for the excitement. There are other volunteer opportunities but the emergency services offer something the others do not. However anyone quickly learns that the reality is that not every call will be exciting, the majority will probably not be all that exciting. So when there is an increase in low priority calls this magnifies the effect and begins to strip away the excitement factor. Talk to anyone involved in EMS for very long and you will learn about system abusers, both real and perceived. It can become very easy to think of an assisted living facility as a system abuser for no other reason other than so many calls at the same address, even if they are mostly for different residents. This leads to the burnout described here and the perception of a major system drain. It can contribute to a lack of volunteers if they do not think of themselves as still providing a vital service. So what is the answer? Obviously a shortage of volunteers leads to at least the discussion of career staff. This can take many forms including a town giving EMS over to a private company. The facilities could increase training of some staff so that better evaluations were done, but that means a profit making business will have to spend more money which is unlikely. It also means that the difference between the facility and an SNF is getting narrower which may not meet the community's need as well as hurt the business model. These facilities could me made to contract out to a private ambulance service, but that brings with it other issues. First the staff would have to know the difference between a routine call for the contractor or a true emergency which is better served by the local EMS. Any private company coming into a town, may offer to take the whole town not just the ALF's. Often there is a sense of pride / turf that makes a provider not want to see any other companies (commercial or otherwise) operate in their area, whcih may make this not an acceptable option. So there is no one simple easy solution.

This is so much a part of us that we accept it without thinking of it. This article brings it to mind, so we are somewhat defensive but generally in agreement. But look at the first excuse about poor examples in the command structure. No one in this thread will say anything other than the Chief needs to be fit as a fiddle. But in a previous thread about a chief going through RIT training, many were saying he didn't need to do that, his job was a desk job. Well if all he does is drive a desk, why can't he be 400 pounds? We have accepted this for so long that it is the norm. As for the union excuse and the career suicide excuses, they are tied together in that nebulous word "brotherhood". If you criticize other members too much you are thought of as not being a brother, even if you are looking out for their health. I once heard an HR staff member say that all unions did was to protect the incompetent, he said this to me while I was serving on a union negotiation team. Now I obviously did not agree with him, but I have seen where that perception comes from just because the union want's to make sure the process is fair. So try firing someone based only on being overweight and out of shape, the union is no so much defending being fat as making sure that a department that watched the employee get fat over a number of years is not unjustly applying a new rule or requiring a sudden weight loss in a matter of days. If a department decided to implement a new physical fitness standard, it would be met with resistance by anyone who could not meet it. In the volunteer sector there would be many calls for grandfathering of existing members. On the career side this would likely be subject to negotiations, and the union would want to get something in return for agreeing to this. Add this to most peoples only vague knowledge of the ADA and what can and can not be considered a disability and you kind of have a perfect store that will discourage members from speaking up.

Safe to assume that markings are coming in the future?

In the anonymous world of the internet much of this will likely remain unknown. That being said, the internet is not nearly as anonymous as some would think it is. While it would take some digging and probably a couple of court orders, I would be willing to bet someone with the right skills could probably find out what computer I was sitting at to make this post. If it is a computer with limited access like a home computer, that would lead pretty quickly to who I am. One of the articles I read about this mentioned that the same posters made references to events and information that would likely only be known to firefighters. So this is what lead others to think the posts came from her fellow firefighters. A couple of the articles, interestingly enoug, said that it was unknown if she even saw the comments that were posted about her. One thing that struck me was possibly a cultural change. Remember when Firehouses were open (at least to each other) in their comments? For better or worse if the guys didn't like you they told you up front. If you were a hairbag you were well aware of it. However that dirty laundry stayed firmly behind the bay doors where it belonged. Now apparently it is a big secret that can be allowed to fester and grow, to be plastered on someone Else's internet site, which frankly might as well be a billboard on the side of the highway. I never wanted to be the old guy bemoaning the good old days, but come on, this is not they way folks are supposed to deal with each other.

Border areas will always be a problem. The river also has some unique safety issues both for responders and victims. Having multiple radios is not the best option for responding crew, having a dispatch center capable of patching different channels together is really the best option. Here in Stamford we have a couple of areas that are generally dual response with Greenwich. We have a permanent patch with Greenwich so both agencies can talk to each other. However if the incident does not include Greenwich on the initial another ground or tactical channel may be assigned. If so I can manually patch that channel into the Greenwich channel and their incoming units can talk to anyone on scene as if they were all on the same channel. Sadly we do not have that capability with 60 control, so instead Banksville (and I think also Pound Ridge) used to carry portables on our old high band system. I do not think either have our trunked radios now. On a statewide level we have stocks boxes available to deploy that will take portable radios provided on scene and patch them together through a hard wire connection. I know there is a state one available in Fairfield. I have been told there is one available somewhere in Stamford but I have never seen it and don't have a clue where it is or how to mobilize it. So let dispatch be the resource they can be and give us the tools to do it right. As for who is in charge, as we have moved kicking and screaming into ICS over the years we have to remember that when several agencies are assigned to the same incident, that it is still only one incident and as such there is a single IC. There may be various groups of regional resources and it makes perfect sense to have a local officer in charge of that group, but they are not the IC. That being said, we tend to fall back on the most common terminology and often don't think of what we are saying, so I can see a chief on one side of the river arriving on scene (shore) and assuming command, despite not really being anything more than a group leader for a region. With the radio troubles it is likely that the IC on the other side was unaware of this and was probably not all that offended. As for what agencies responded and if they were really needed, just about every agency there is has a response plan. In the case of a river rescue (especially at night) that may include multiple agencies. Sometimes an agency calling for assistance is unaware of what the responding agency will actually send. Two local examples for me will follow. 1) Stamford Fire for a long time had a policy of sending their own RIT and Safety Officer on mutual aid fires. So one night New Canaan calls for a single Engine to help with in line pumping. They specifically needed this engine at a hydrant and gave directions to that hydrant. They got that engine, a second engine as the RIT and a Deputy Chief as a safety officer. To many this was overkill, and once it was determined that the RIT was not needed, New Canaan requested that Engine to relocate to their station for coverage. In the end the resources was not needed but was utilized in a better capacity. However Stamford still maintained the integrity of their SOG's and dispatched what they would normally send regardless of the specific request. 2) In Stamford our standard response to an MVC is 1 Engine, 1 Rescue & 1 Medic. Now on I95 the State Police gets on scene and tells their dispatcher they need EMS. They don't call us directly, they call Southwest C-Med who calls us. So all we really know is they want an ambulance. We still send all three, for a couple of reasons. First is for crew safety, the two big rigs can be blockers if nothing else. There is also the likelihood of needing additional manpower, since there are usually multiple patients, even when the injuries are minor. Third is that the State Police do not often give a good size up, and we have had EMS arrive and call for spill/leak control, extrication and even extinguishment, so now, no matter what the CSP asks for, they get EMS & FD. So if Rockland calls and says they have a River Rescue and want Westchester to come from their side, Westchester may just send a couple of boats, they may call for WCPD aviation, they will most likely do exactly what they would do if they were the primary agency getting the first call. That is not necessarily a bad thing.

Wow, seems like a somewhat complicated bowl of issues. I will start by saying that I never want to see anyone loose a job by lay off, regardless of union membership. As for the work rules quoted there, I would think that if that one that requires the paid rig to leave before the volunteer rig is true then it needs to change. Although I am not sure how much of an increase it actually has on response times. If both rigs are in quarters and get the call at the same time, it seems like mere seconds and largely academic which one pulls onto the apron first. If the volunteer rig is not staffed it would be delayed regardless of the paid rig's status. Seems like it would only be an issue if the paid rig had some sort of delay due to training or something similar, and that is probably in the minority of cases. As for the FDNY members not being allowed to volunteer, I am not in favor of rules being in place to prevent that. Many of us have long argued that this should be an individual choice. However part of accepting that has to be that the individual is free to choose not volunteering also. This can be for a variety of reasons and not wanting to work in another union's station is just as valid a reason as any other. So While I don't agree with that rule, I am not sure changing it would have that much of an effect. Plus even if that rule were changed, many union members, and not all of them firefighters, might not want to volunteer in a station that has laid off employees. The intimidation of members of other unions to stay away from volunteering can be a real thing. I am reminded of something I read years ago however that was talking about this very issue. It was praising firefighters in general as a different breed, saying that there are no other professions who's members are willing to volunteer their time off to do the very same thing they get paid for. So I have to chock up anyone who stops volunteering due to intimidation to once again be a personal choice, and even if I disagree with that choice, it is still for that individual to decide. Intimidation/bullying in the workplace needs to be prevented as much as humanly possible but it is still up to us how we respond to it. Lastly, I think they are using the term anachronism incorrectly. I have always heard of it describing something that was out of place in the modern times. If the current combination system is indeed serving the community well, then it is not out of place. Since the addition of paid staff is generally more recent than volunteer staff, I can't see a combination system being out of date, unless you were talking about adding more paid staff not reducing the paid staff. If they are doing so well with volunteer recruitment and retention that they are using this word correctly, I can think of a lot of departments that will want to know their secret.