Fire The Firemen!

[FF402 133]

Philadelphia FD is really going through some turbulent times with possible layoffs, contract disputes, funding issues, etc. This article, however, is a very interesting response to all of this by a member of the public

From: http://www.phillymag.com/articles/philadel...ire_the_firemen

Fire the Firemen!

We could do without half of them-and if they really cared about public

safety, they'd admit as much

BY NOEL WEYRICH

Philadelphia Magazine

September 2006

The Tussle over a new work contract for Philadelphia's firefighters took

a strange turn this summer when an independent arbitration panel decided

that the city can't shut down any of the fire department's redundant

engine and ladder companies until a union-approved consultant issues an

impact report. City officials claim the ruling far exceeds the normal

bounds of labor negotiations, but perhaps the panelists should be

forgiven for overreacting. They were likely spooked, as much of the city

has been, by a firefighters union that forecasts deadly daily holocausts

if one single firefighter is ever put out of a job.

In each of the past three budget seasons, the Street administration has

tried to downsize our increasingly underused fire department, and the

firefighters union has reacted with fear-mongering so brazen, it would

make Dick Cheney blush.

Union leaders distributed posters featuring a skull and crossbones and

the warning: "Fire Department cuts will place you in DANGER!" They

marched through Port Richmond with an ash-smudged baby doll tacked to a

placard that screamed "THIS COULD BE YOUR CHILD!" They revved up a

website full of panicky bombast called "SavePFD.com." It's a brand of

shameless histrionics that no other city union would ever stoop to, and

for a very good reason. The city needs every cop, teacher and sanitation

worker it can afford. Firefighters? That's another story.

Simply put, fire isn't half the problem it used to be. Last year, the

Philadelphia fire department answered 53 percent fewer calls to homes

and businesses than it did a mere 16 years ago. Construction codes have

improved, smoking is on the decline, the population is smaller, and

North Philly has just about run out of vacant-warehouse kindling. The

number of city fire companies, however, hasn't changed since 1989, and

with the low call volume, some stations are gathering cobwebs. A

blue-ribbon panel appointed by the Mayor revealed in 2004 that several

firehouses scramble into action less than once per week. In a city that

averages fewer than seven fires per day, there's just not enough work

for 60 engine companies and 29 ladder companies stuffed 24/7 with four-

and five-person crews. On any given day, a good number of Philadelphia's

firefighters are about as necessary as salad forks at Wing Bowl.

It's a terrible waste of money and manpower, but the real scandal is

that the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) division of the fire

department is vastly overworked and undermanned. Daily ambulance runs

have nearly doubled since 1990, and EMS units are catching hell for

taking 20 minutes or more to show up. That's why the Street

administration has been trying to shift the fire department's workload

away from firefighting and toward EMS. By closing eight engine and

ladder companies and starting eight new EMS units, the city could put

its resources where they can make the biggest difference, saving $7

million a year in the process. When this plan first surfaced, our

famously prickly mayor immediately aroused suspicions that he was

picking on the fire department or trying to embarrass some of his

enemies on City Council. But Street is hardly alone among big-city

mayors in trying to reduce the fiscal drain of underemployed

firefighters. Fire calls are way down in cities all over the country,

and mayors in Pittsburgh, Cleveland and New York have all made cutbacks

while facing the same hysterical flak from the fire unions. The Street

plan, rational as it is, has been met with irrational fear in the

neighborhoods, stoked by a fire union that disguises its featherbedding

with the pretense of civic concern. The public, in turn, avoids looking

at the firefighters' claims with any real scrutiny, perhaps because

firefighters are the only purely heroic civil servants we have. The work

is undeniably dangerous, and unlike the cop who -writes you a ticket or

the teacher who makes your kid go stand in the corner, a firefighter is

there only to help. Most of us don't care what they do with the rest of

their time?so long as they stay close by and ready.

This is where the firefighters have got the public hosed. Try as they

might to paint fire as a deadly foe ready to strike anywhere, anytime,

the union leaders know very well that the overwhelming majority of fatal

house fires take place in the city's poorest neighborhoods, in

residences without working smoke alarms. That's a national trend,

too?most fire fatalities are suffered by the old, the poor and the

disabled.

If union leaders would only put a cork in their catastrophizing for five

minutes, they'd admit that closing just one engine company (estimated

savings: $1 million per year) might save 10 or 20 lives annually?if

the cash were used to provide the city's 100,000 lowest-income

households with $10 smoke alarms. They would also admit that the number

one on-the-job killer of firefighters isn't fire or smoke

inhalation-it's heart attacks. Inactivity is proving more deadly to

firefighters than flames.

The brutal truth is that the city would probably be a better, safer

place if half the city's fire stations were shut down and the freed-up

dollars were put toward hiring more paramedics, bulk-ordering smoke

alarms, enforcing the fire code, and automating traffic signals to turn

green for emergency vehicles. Relocating the reduced number of fire

stations to modern facilities on major streets would make sense, too. To

this day, some of the city's firehouses happen to be on hilltops,

because when they were built, those locations made fire runs easier on

the horses.

It would be nice to see the fire union give the fear-mongering a rest

long enough to start working with the city on these kindsof plans.

Meanwhile, we're left to guess how low your self-respect has to fall for

you to march in the streets for the right to work at a firehouse that

gets one call per week. Volunteering to surrender such a dubious

privilege, on the other hand, would qualify as an authentic act of civic

duty. Somemight even call it heroic.

Originally published in Philadelphia Magazine, September 2006

E-mail: nweyrich@phillymag.com

[ny10570 745]

He is absolutely correct. While nothing would make me happier than mass ff hirings in New York, the city, just like Philly needs to shrink the FD. The only catch is, that money needs to be reinvested into Emergency Services. EMS is horribly underfunded and its members under paid in nearly every city I've looked at. And I don't think there's a mjor city in the world that wouldn't benefit from more police officers.

[JustSomeGuy 0]

I didn't even have to finish this article before being disgusted by it.

"The Street plan, rational as it is, has been met with irrational fear in the

neighborhoods, stoked by a fire union that disguises its featherbedding

with the pretense of civic concern"

"This is where the firefighters have got the public hosed. Try as they

might to paint fire as a deadly foe ready to strike anywhere, anytime,

the union leaders know very well that the overwhelming majority of fatal

house fires take place in the city's poorest neighborhoods"

"It would be nice to see the fire union give the fear-mongering a rest

long enough to start working with the city on these kindsof plans"

It obvious the papers are anti-union, I admit that the EMS is grossly underpaid. I am sorry that there havent been enough SCHEDULED fires for them. Why dont we just lay off half of every fire department because nationwide fires are down. I am sorry EMS brothers and sisters, I support your fight and will stand beside you. I just do not like that it is two sided one or the other.

[JustSomeGuy 0]

OH one more thing even though I qouted this already. But read this line again, "Try as they might to paint fire as a deadly foe ready to strike anywhere..." Uhm last time I checked fires werent scheduled

[27east 19]

Anything John Street says cannot be taken as rational.

[Guest]

He is absolutely correct.  While nothing would make me happier than mass ff hirings in New York, the city, just like Philly needs to shrink the FD.  The only catch is, that money needs to be reinvested into Emergency Services.  EMS is horribly underfunded and its members under paid in nearly every city I've looked at.  And I don't think there's a mjor city in the world that wouldn't benefit from more police officers.

←

if he's correct then surely you must think that insurance is useless too...why pay for the "just in case"? Hopefully this author will never need services of a reduced manpower Philly FD.

[Monty 35]

if he's correct then surely you must think that insurance is useless too...why pay for the "just in case"? Hopefully this author will never need services of a reduced manpower Philly FD.

←

That's why they offer different levels of insurance, different levels of deductible so you can decide on your level of risk. And if you own the home outright - you don't even any isurance! How many people don't have renters insurance?

The question is striking the right balance. Do you need a firehouse for every 10 square miles, 50, 100? How much are you willing to pay for?

Whatever happens, you're not going to make everyone happy.

[ny10570 745]

Why is it as soon as you suggest downsizing the FD you become labeled crazy and an idiot. Today you don't need as many ff's to fight a fire as you did 30 yrs ago. We have better tools and equipment that allow us to work longer and more efficiently. We also don't have the fire load we did; forget nation wide, but in cities like NY and Philly. When you have companies going first due to one or two fires a year that use to go to 10 to 15 then you need to realize that things have changed and so must the FD. In most smaller cities arround the tri-state area ff's are making multiple evolutions into a building for extinguishment. You can ask any of them if they deem that to be excessive, and they will say no. In NYC, its a minor miracle for a crew to go back in a second time. I'm not advocating stripping FD's of their manpower and compromising anyone's safety, but there is alot of room between an engine and a truck on every block and 20 minute reponse times for the second due.

And you you know what, asside from saving money you're giving ff's the single most important tool in their arsenal...experiance. Everyone knows, training is important and irreplacable, but nothing can touch the real thing.

Now that we've saved some money, what about using it to install 3-D mapping technology to determine a ff's exact loaction when they hit that mayday. Heck the system will even show you the ff's route. Or maybe to bolster the pension system. Money has to come from somewhere, and maybe if we're active and cooperative in this process we can make sure the savings end up helping us out instead of being funneled off to fix ot holes or cover the pol's pay hikes.

[Guest]

so reduce manpower so that firemen can get more experience, and go into a hazardous situation more than once...doesn't make much sense to me...I don't know that NYC can or should be used as a good example...we have more men and still have lost more brothers than any other department, that being said, of course saving money is important but what is the true cost. They aren't going to close any firehouse in an affluent area, so they'll look to a poor or middle class area where the solution to increased response time is a smoke detector?

Tell the family that loses a loved one that their family members death saved the city money...and maybe worse explain it to the family of the brother that loses his life because he was in a four man engine, the stretch was slowed and the fire was already highly developed by the time they got the alarm and fought inner-city traffic...I understand what you're saying but like someone said before you can never make everyone happy...and its not a union thing, whether you're paid, volunteer or both, your department should strive to have the most members to protect each other.

I'm not familiar w/ the Philly FD, but I would support their fight to at least maintain their current number of members

[ny10570 745]

so reduce manpower so that firemen can get more experience, and go into a hazardous situation more than once

←

fire fighting is no different than any other profession. You can practice it till you're blue in the face, but you don't get good at it unless you do it. Having guys sitting around doing nothing is dangerous because it breeds complacancy. Guys take trainning less seriously, they don't stay in shape, and they lose those intangibles that you only get doing the real thing; that sixth sense that so often inexplicibly gets guys out before they get hurt.

...doesn't make much sense to me...I don't know that NYC can or should be used as a good example...we have more men and still have lost more brothers than any other department,

←

So what does that tell you. Having 30+ ff's on scene with the first alarm and hundred more at a momens notice isn't enough. Even at the biggest emergencies, they still have dozens and dozens of guy standing there with nothing to do, actually becoming a hinderance. At the Manhattan building collapse how many were involved in the search and rescue and how many stood-by? How about the Bronx collapse? While it had no affect on pt care in the end do you have any idea how hard it was for EMS to get their equipment where it needed to be. Its not the ff's fault, they are all dying to get in there and help their brothers, but people had to fight through a sea of ff's to get anywhere.

that being said, of course saving money is important but what is the true cost. They aren't going to close any firehouse in an affluent area, so they'll look to a poor or middle class area where the solution to increased response time is a smoke detector?

←

Thats why the FD has to work with the city and make sure the people they are trying to protect are not forgotten. Get an independant analyst in there and make sure that if they have to give up hoses then those who need the protection most will get it. And about the smoke detectors...yeah they do reduce major fires, fatalities, and injuries. So why don't they push smoke detectors on every residence.

Tell the family that loses a loved one that their family members death saved the city money...and maybe worse explain it to the family of the brother that loses his life because he was in a four man engine, the stretch was slowed and the fire was already highly developed by the time they got the alarm and fought inner-city traffic.

←

Thats a riddiculous point. It's called risk vs reward. You, me and everyone around us make those decisions a thousand times a day. Do you drive the safest car money can buy? Is your house fully sprinklered with smoke and CO detectors in every room? Do you drive more than 5 or 10 mph? So now you're saying I'm being silly and exaggerating. Every medication you take kills a certain percent of the people who take it. Have you ever run a light, sped, or drove with a drink or two more in you than you would have liked to. When OSHA sets forth guidelines for contaminant and risk exposure they are looking at the cost of implementation vs the number of lives saved and injuries prevented. You pull up to a fire and the family tells you that their son or daughter is still inside just as the living room flashes and the whole house goues up. Are you sending the truck company in through that inferno to pull out a body? Every day we make decisions that could eventually cost someone their life.

[x152 179]

He is absolutely correct.  Philly needs to shrink the FD.........

←

I'm not advocating stripping FD's of their manpower and compromising anyone's safety.......

←

Well...which is it? You are not advocating that a Fire Department be stripped of manpower (also known as personnel/resources), but then you state that the Philadelphia Fire Department needs to shrink?

I am confused? Or.... were you suggesting that the City of Philadelphia only hire shorter or smaller Fire Fighters in the future?

[ny10570 745]

All right, I'll try and be a little more clear. I am not advocating stripping their manpower to the point of compromising the pubic's safety. Just reducing redundancy and waste reguardless how tall or fat they may be.

[STAT213 332]

I think valuable information would be # of FF per capita in other major US cities. How does Philly compare? How many houses per capita? How many calls are those engines going to? etc, etc. I think you need information such as that before you can make a full decision.

60 staffed engines sounds like a lot, but we only have 4.