Update on Stamford Merger

[FFPCogs 863]

While we are looking at costs, and it appears that there is some favoritism for the former system; then what was the average salary and benefits package under the old system, for the career staff, in the volunteer districts?

My understanding is that many of the VFDs former paid personnel were on par with SFRD LTs or in some cases Capts, but quite honestly I do not know for sure. I for one advocate for a more reasonable salary situation to the tune of FFs recieveing FFs pay across the board. As far as I'm concerned those that seek higher wages can do so by taking the SFRD test, getting hired, puting in the time and then getting promoted.

Let me just add that here again when considering costs the cost for incentives for volunteers pales in comparison to the salaries in question. After posting earlier I did a little quick math. Even at 13k per vollie the number of personnel gained far outstrips a career service by a margin or 6 to 1. So in other words when managed properly for that investment in dollars the SVFD could gain 6 active volunteers for the price on one career FF at top scale including benefits.

$13000 + 2500 (t.o gear) + 1000 (FF1,2 / EMT) x 6 = $99,000

1 x $100,000 (65k salary + 35K OT/benefits) + 2500 (FF 1,2 / EMT at the Academy) + 2500 (t.o.gear) = $105,000

Cogs

Edited June 16, 2011 by FFPCogs

[mstrang1 213]

Maybe Cogs or the anonymous sqd47bfd can answer this question, but before Mayor Malloy trashed the budgets of TOR, BFD and SFCo, how much of that budget was used/allocated for recruitment and retention of volunteers? Also, if either of you are privy to this information, how much was asked for and denied by the administration? ************** mentioned that the former Chief asked for an abatement and was stonewalled. Was this presentation packed up with solid proof of results? ************** also stated that there is no money for member perks. Was this asked for and denied, or just not asked for? Do volunteers pay dues? If so, is this money earmarked for anything?

[mstrang1 213]

I am not sure why the name got starred out towards the end, but not when I mentioned his name in the beginning. The person that I am referring to is the second one mentioned at the onset.

[sqd47bfd 20]

It's my super secret cloak of anonymity that caused my user name to appear as *********.

I also answer to "Gilligan".

Plenty of your coworkers know who I am, why don't you ask them?

[FFPCogs 863]

Maybe Cogs or the anonymous sqd47bfd can answer this question, but before Mayor Malloy trashed the budgets of TOR, BFD and SFCo, how much of that budget was used/allocated for recruitment and retention of volunteers? Also, if either of you are privy to this information, how much was asked for and denied by the administration? ************** mentioned that the former Chief asked for an abatement and was stonewalled. Was this presentation packed up with solid proof of results? ************** also stated that there is no money for member perks. Was this asked for and denied, or just not asked for? Do volunteers pay dues? If so, is this money earmarked for anything?

To be fair the answers I will give to the above are based on what information I have from other members, as I was not in Stamford at the time this debacle began. My understanding is that the tax abatement was brought up to the previous administration and denied. I am not sure what supporting info, if any, was given to that administration other than the fact that tax abatements are in use a large number of CT cities and towns. As far as budgeted recruitement and retention, I do not beleive much if any City operating funds were dedicated to that purpose, in part I believe because with paid employees in house no one foresaw the need. In regards to other more substantial incentives, to the best of my knowledge they have not been pursued, because the general consensus is that any request for them would be rejected. I can say that of the various incentive packages we have put together there has been "proof of results" in the form of actual statistics and statements from the managers and administrators of similar programs. As of yet these proposals have not progressed, but our efforts continue to rectify that situation.

As far as dues go BFD does not collect them so for us this is a non sequiter. i cannot speak on the other VFDs.

At Belltown we have discussed an in house incentive program based on accumlated points. (For BFD we use a point system whereby each call, drill, meeting, work detail ect constitutes a point and to remain in good standing members must achieve the minimum annual point totals). What this wouod entail is say for 100 points a member recieves a helmet flashlight, for 250 maybe a new harness, 500 a new pair of boots, 1000 a new leather helmet or gift card, and so on. To be fair annual points would be cumulative so that each years totals can be saved towards a more desired "perk". or towards items not yet recieved...after all how many flashlights does a guy need. This program would not use City funds, but rather funds accumulated through fund raising efforts specific to that program. I am not sure what the status of that proposed program is at the moment.

Cogs

Edited June 17, 2011 by FFPCogs

[CTFF 65]

Since your union forbids active volunteering I don't forsee this as a major problem in Stamford. SFRD members that also hold non-active membership in any of the City's VFDs cannot and do not respond, to do so means they face sanctions from your union as we have seen in the past. So no I don't think any of your union brothers will jeaporidize their employment for any nominal perks offered by the VFDs.

I know it is easy to pick on the union stance but I figured I'd bring up the FLSA here "When Congress amended the FLSA in 1985, it made clear that people are allowed to volunteer their services to public agencies and their community with but one exception - public sector employers may not allow their employees to volunteer, without compensation, additional time to do the same work for which they are employed."

We are not allowed by law to volunteer in Stamford.

Edited June 17, 2011 by CTFF

[FFPCogs 863]

I know it is easy to pick on the union stance but I figured I'd bring up the FLSA here "When Congress amended the FLSA in 1985, it made clear that people are allowed to volunteer their services to public agencies and their community with but one exception - public sector employers may not allow their employees to volunteer, without compensation, additional time to do the same work for which they are employed."

We are not allowed by law to volunteer in Stamford.

You are absolutely correct CT, thank you for pointing that out. My apologies for being remiss in stating such. Although to be fair some believe that technically SFRD employees could volunteer for any of the City's VFDs since as independent entities the VFDs are not their employer. It is my understanding that FSLA is meant to prevent abuses by employers in forcing employees to work for no pay. Not sure about that but that is why I did not mention FSLA and cited only the union's stance.

Cogs

[CTFF 65]

You are absolutely correct CT, thank you for pointing that out. My apologies for being remiss in stating such. Although to be fair some believe that technically SFRD employees could volunteer for any of the City's VFDs since as independent entities the VFDs are not their employer. It is my understanding that FSLA is meant to prevent abuses by employers in forcing employees to work for no pay. Not sure about that but that is why I did not mention FSLA and cited only the union's stance.

Cogs

I think you could also argue that Stamford is the community where we work and therefore can't volunteer as firefighter/emt's in Stamford.

Then I would make a case the city should not grant tax abatements to people who volunteer for independent entities.

[FFPCogs 863]

I think you could also argue that Stamford is the community where we work and therefore can't volunteer as firefighter/emt's in Stamford.

Then I would make a case the city should not grant tax abatements to people who volunteer for independent entities.

Well you might have a case at that, but in the end it is irrellevant. As I stated earlier your union Local forbids it's mermbers from volunteering (in Stamford at least) and enforces that ban, that alone is reason enough that double dipping will not be an issue.

Cogs.

[sqd47bfd 20]

I know it is easy to pick on the union stance but I figured I'd bring up the FLSA here "When Congress amended the FLSA in 1985, it made clear that people are allowed to volunteer their services to public agencies and their community with but one exception - public sector employers may not allow their employees to volunteer, without compensation, additional time to do the same work for which they are employed."

We are not allowed by law to volunteer in Stamford.

I completely understand that by law you are not allowed to volunteer in Stamford.

It's federal law.

And it's a good federal law, I understand many of the reasons it was enacted.

It is an important protection against abuse of an employee.

However, after a brief reading of the law, and discussion around it, I don't seem to see anything that outlaws volunteering in another municipality. Is it illegal, then, for a career firefighter from say Norwalk, or Danbury, or NYC to volunteer in Stamford? And is it illegal for a Stamford career firefighter to volunteer elsewhere? Or any career firefighter for that matter??

[FireMedic049 597]

Is it illegal, then, for a career firefighter from say Norwalk, or Danbury, or NYC to volunteer in Stamford? And is it illegal for a Stamford career firefighter to volunteer elsewhere? Or any career firefighter for that matter??

The direct answer to your question is No, it's not illegal (as in criminal law) to volunteer in another community. However, the career firefighter may be subject to other rules & regulations that may prohibit or restrict that activity. For example, the employer may have rules restricting secondary employment as a firefighter and this often includes volunteering as a firefighter. Additionally, if the FF is an IAFF member, then by the IAFF By-Laws, that member is prohibited from volunteering in a department in which an IAFF Local exists. Enforcement of this is left to the local level and the By-Law does not specifically prohibit volunteering in a fully volunteer department.

[lad45der 78]

Sqd47bfd Dont you charter that Boat called Captain Stabbin????

[sqd47bfd 20]

Sqd47bfd Dont you charter that Boat called Captain Stabbin????

IF THIS BOAT'S A-ROCKING, DON'T BOTHER A-KNOCKING !!

dicky.

[CTFF 65]

The direct answer to your question is No, it's not illegal (as in criminal law) to volunteer in another community. However, the career firefighter may be subject to other rules & regulations that may prohibit or restrict that activity. For example, the employer may have rules restricting secondary employment as a firefighter and this often includes volunteering as a firefighter. Additionally, if the FF is an IAFF member, then by the IAFF By-Laws, that member is prohibited from volunteering in a department in which an IAFF Local exists. Enforcement of this is left to the local level and the By-Law does not specifically prohibit volunteering in a fully volunteer department.

The no volunteer stance is also to protect the firefighter. Firefighters are going to run into problems in the future when making claims for job related illness and dieseas. A career firefighter is going to put in a claim and the city he works for is going to provide proof that he volunteered while he was a career guy. His employeer will then point the finger at his volunteer dept and tell him to go after them, guess where the volunteer dept/town/city is going to point the finger? guess who is stuck in the middle? Sometimes we have to protect people from themselves.

[CTFF 65]

Well you might have a case at that, but in the end it is irrellevant. As I stated earlier your union Local forbids it's mermbers from volunteering (in Stamford at least) and enforces that ban, that alone is reason enough that double dipping will not be an issue.

Cogs.

I'm not sure as I don't speak for anyone but myself, I have to wonder if by double dipping the poster was asking about SVFD paid personel and if they would be allowed to volunteer and collect any abatements?

[FFPCogs 863]

I'm not sure as I don't speak for anyone but myself, I have to wonder if by double dipping the poster was asking about SVFD paid personel and if they would be allowed to volunteer and collect any abatements?

If they are hired as firefighters than they would not be allowed to volunteer for the SVFD as firefighters under FSLA, Now should some other arrangement develop than I quess their ability to double dip will be dependent upon the terms of their contract. To that I would have to think that they would be as eligible for any "perks" as any other active volunteer that meets the rquirememts of any incentive program....lest someone decide they are being discriminated against.

Cogs

Edited June 17, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FireMedic049 597]

The no volunteer stance is also to protect the firefighter. Firefighters are going to run into problems in the future when making claims for job related illness and dieseas. A career firefighter is going to put in a claim and the city he works for is going to provide proof that he volunteered while he was a career guy. His employeer will then point the finger at his volunteer dept and tell him to go after them, guess where the volunteer dept/town/city is going to point the finger? guess who is stuck in the middle? Sometimes we have to protect people from themselves.

Right.

[FFPCogs 863]

The no volunteer stance is also to protect the firefighter. Firefighters are going to run into problems in the future when making claims for job related illness and dieseas. A career firefighter is going to put in a claim and the city he works for is going to provide proof that he volunteered while he was a career guy. His employeer will then point the finger at his volunteer dept and tell him to go after them, guess where the volunteer dept/town/city is going to point the finger? guess who is stuck in the middle? Sometimes we have to protect people from themselves.

While I do understand the rationale behind this aspect of the stance, to me the individual should still retain the right to make his/her own decisions in regards to what they do with their life in their off time. What you see as justifiably "{protecting people from themselves" others see as an infringement on their personal freedom of choice. But here again this is a non sequiter since, as was pointed out earlier, the law (FSLA) restricts that choice as well.

Cogs

Edited June 17, 2011 by FFPCogs

[CTFF 65]

While I do understand the rationale behind this aspect of the stance, to me the individual should still retain the right to make his/her own decisions in regards to what they do with their life in their off time. What you see as justifiably "{protecting people from themselves" others see as an infringement on their personal freedom of choice. But here again this is a non sequiter since, as was pointed out earlier, the law (FSLA) restricts that choice as well.

Cogs

Speed Limits, Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, the amount of booze we can drink then drive limit personal freedoms as well but they are simply the laws we live with. Now of course you can say but you may hurt someone else but not following the above and you'd be right, of course you may end up hurting your family by not following laws and rules laid down. You don't like the no volunteer rule, stop taking test, you're on the job and don't like it? Get off the job.

Edited June 17, 2011 by CTFF

[FireMedic049 597]

While I do understand the rationale behind this aspect of the stance, to me the individual should still retain the right to make his/her own decisions in regards to what they do with their life in their off time. What you see as justifiably "{protecting people from themselves" others see as an infringement on their personal freedom of choice. But here again this is a non sequiter since, as was pointed out earlier, the law (FSLA) restricts that choice as well.

Cogs

I can see how some may believe their personal freedom is being infringed upon, however it can be argued that it really may not be. The individual still has the right to make his/her own decisions, however like most decisions, there may be consequences to those decisions. If your employer says no secondary employment as a firefighter, you still have the ability to volunteer, however there may be consequences for doing so.

[FFPCogs 863]

Speed Limits, Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, the amount of booze we can drink then drive limit personal freedoms as well but they are simply the laws we live with. Now of course you can say but you may hurt someone else but not following the above and you'd be right, of course you may end up hurting your family by not following laws and rules laid down. You don't like the no volunteer rule, stop taking test, you're on the job and don't like it? Get off the job.

Yours is one side of a perfectly legitimate argument supporting your point of view. Others believe differently and in some cases have fought and won to retain their right to volunteer as firefighters in their communities. So while you say if your on the job and don't like the rule, quit ,others who stand on the other side of that perfectly legitimate argument will say if your on the job and don't like the rule fight it and win. Some have done just that. Unlike speed limits, seatbelt laws, helmet laws and booze consumption laws, volunteer firefighting is to many a noble and valuable service rendered to their community. To that end many feel that the right to do so shoud not be infringed upon because a law was passed in 1985 to protect migrant field workers that were being exploited by their employers. But in the end while a stimulating discussion, for now at least in terms of SFRD members volunteering in Stamford the law stands with you.

Cogs

Edited June 17, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

I can see how some may believe their personal freedom is being infringed upon, however it can be argued that it really may not be. The individual still has the right to make his/her own decisions, however like most decisions, there may be consequences to those decisions. If your employer says no secondary employment as a firefighter, you still have the ability to volunteer, however there may be consequences for doing so.

True. I do believe that here in CT a law was passed a couple of years ago prohibiting municipalities i.e. the employer from prohibiting their career firefighters from volunteering so long as that activity does not conflict with Garcia (FSLA).

Excerpt from Fire Chief magazine:

Jun 13, 2008 11:13 AM

Connecticut enacted legislation that codifies the right of career firefighters to volunteer during off-duty hours. The bill, An Act Concerning Volunteer Service by Paid Emergency Personnel or Paid Firefighters (H.B. 5646), received final legislative approval on May 7, became a public act on May 19, and was formally signed during a ceremony June 9, the National Volunteer Fire Council reports.

The new law bars municipalities from entering into a collective bargaining contract that prohibits paid emergency personnel, including firefighters, from serving as active members of a volunteer fire department during off-duty hours. It also directs the state fire administrator to develop model guidelines for municipalities with paid emergency personnel and municipalities with volunteer emergency personnel to develop agreements authorizing career personnel to volunteer.

“Both our career and volunteer firefighters are among Connecticut’s bravest public servants and an integral part of our communities,” State Rep. Sandra Nafis, the sponsor of H.B. 5646, told NVFC. “We’re pleased to have received the overwhelming support of the legislature to insure that our career firefighters have the choice to continue to serve as volunteer firefighters and support their communities.”

Of course Union By-laws can still prohibit volunteering as long as that language does not appear in the CBA.

Cogs

Edited June 18, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FD828 77]

So a question to my fellow union brothers and those familar with the ongoings in Stamford. There has been a lot of talk how L-786 declared the VFD's rival organizations. My question is this, does the union body have to vote on something like that? Does the E-Board have the authority to just declare something like that? If so, does something have to be put into writing? I have spoken to several past E-Board members that state that nothing of the kind was ever done. So, where is it coming from? Proof?

And just out of curiosity, if the SVFD plan is enacted, will the officers be equally trained, tested, and interviewed the same as the downtown ones or will they just continue to be elected? If one of the paid drivers(or volunteer) is injured on duty, who pays for that? Worker's comp, the overtime to fill his/her shift? The new volunteer department? The city? The tax payers? What about the cost of apparatus maintenance and replacement? Who pays for that? Will there be 1 for 1 overtime just like it was in the past? Will there be a minimun staffing?

And what if the paid drivers unionize? Who do they bargain with? The new SVFD? Would it be like the paid drivers of Long Ridge negotiating with themselves being that they are volunteers there? No conflict of interest there......

As far as I understand it, FLSA allows you to volunteer, just not in the same system that you work. IAFF does not allow volunteering where there is an IAFF local. We all new this when we signed on. (It was NOT mandatory that we joined the union. We DID have the choice)

[sqd47bfd 20]

So a question to my fellow union brothers and those familar with the ongoings in Stamford.

What about your union sisters?

Not very pc of you to leave them out.

Get thee to sensitivity training post haste!!

[CTFF 65]

True. I do believe that here in CT a law was passed a couple of years ago prohibiting municipalities i.e. the employer from prohibiting their career firefighters from volunteering so long as that activity does not conflict with Garcia (FSLA).

Excerpt from Fire Chief magazine:

Jun 13, 2008 11:13 AM

Connecticut enacted legislation that codifies the right of career firefighters to volunteer during off-duty hours. The bill, An Act Concerning Volunteer Service by Paid Emergency Personnel or Paid Firefighters (H.B. 5646), received final legislative approval on May 7, became a public act on May 19, and was formally signed during a ceremony June 9, the National Volunteer Fire Council reports.

The new law bars municipalities from entering into a collective bargaining contract that prohibits paid emergency personnel, including firefighters, from serving as active members of a volunteer fire department during off-duty hours. It also directs the state fire administrator to develop model guidelines for municipalities with paid emergency personnel and municipalities with volunteer emergency personnel to develop agreements authorizing career personnel to volunteer.

“Both our career and volunteer firefighters are among Connecticut’s bravest public servants and an integral part of our communities,” State Rep. Sandra Nafis, the sponsor of H.B. 5646, told NVFC. “We’re pleased to have received the overwhelming support of the legislature to insure that our career firefighters have the choice to continue to serve as volunteer firefighters and support their communities.”

Of course Union By-laws can still prohibit volunteering as long as that language does not appear in the CBA.

Cogs

Yes changing the laws and or rules would also work.

[CTFF 65]

So a question to my fellow union brothers and those familar with the ongoings in Stamford. There has been a lot of talk how L-786 declared the VFD's rival organizations. My question is this, does the union body have to vote on something like that? Does the E-Board have the authority to just declare something like that? If so, does something have to be put into writing? I have spoken to several past E-Board members that state that nothing of the kind was ever done. So, where is it coming from? Proof?

And just out of curiosity, if the SVFD plan is enacted, will the officers be equally trained, tested, and interviewed the same as the downtown ones or will they just continue to be elected? If one of the paid drivers(or volunteer) is injured on duty, who pays for that? Worker's comp, the overtime to fill his/her shift? The new volunteer department? The city? The tax payers? What about the cost of apparatus maintenance and replacement? Who pays for that? Will there be 1 for 1 overtime just like it was in the past? Will there be a minimun staffing?

And what if the paid drivers unionize? Who do they bargain with? The new SVFD? Would it be like the paid drivers of Long Ridge negotiating with themselves being that they are volunteers there? No conflict of interest there......

As far as I understand it, FLSA allows you to volunteer, just not in the same system that you work. IAFF does not allow volunteering where there is an IAFF local. We all new this when we signed on. (It was NOT mandatory that we joined the union. We DID have the choice)

I think the SVFD deal is only 85% done, I'm not sure they've agreed to any minor details yet.

[FFPCogs 863]

Yes changing the laws and or rules would also work.

Well if changing the laws or updating them didn't happen I can think of a whole host of things we take for granted today that would still be illegal, including collective bargaining. We as Americans have every right to pursue what we believe to be fair or "right", so while some may disagree with this law the fact is those in favor persevered, presented their case well and ultimately got the change they sought...much to the benefit of many communities throughout the State.

Cogs

Edited June 19, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

So a question to my fellow union brothers and those familar with the ongoings in Stamford. There has been a lot of talk how L-786 declared the VFD's rival organizations. My question is this, does the union body have to vote on something like that? Does the E-Board have the authority to just declare something like that? If so, does something have to be put into writing? I have spoken to several past E-Board members that state that nothing of the kind was ever done. So, where is it coming from? Proof?

And just out of curiosity, if the SVFD plan is enacted, will the officers be equally trained, tested, and interviewed the same as the downtown ones or will they just continue to be elected? If one of the paid drivers(or volunteer) is injured on duty, who pays for that? Worker's comp, the overtime to fill his/her shift? The new volunteer department? The city? The tax payers? What about the cost of apparatus maintenance and replacement? Who pays for that? Will there be 1 for 1 overtime just like it was in the past? Will there be a minimun staffing?

And what if the paid drivers unionize? Who do they bargain with? The new SVFD? Would it be like the paid drivers of Long Ridge negotiating with themselves being that they are volunteers there? No conflict of interest there......

As far as I understand it, FLSA allows you to volunteer, just not in the same system that you work. IAFF does not allow volunteering where there is an IAFF local. We all new this when we signed on. (It was NOT mandatory that we joined the union. We DID have the choice)

As far as your questions in point one, well since I am not a member of 786 I cannot answer them. I can say in regards to L-786 citing of the VFDs as rivals that this is a commonly held belief. Although to be fair it seems that while most believe a document exists stating such apparently no one has actually seen it. But we do have the fact the CT saw the need to pass a law in regards to career fFFs volunteering as stated earlier and statements from the IAFFs General President to that effect such as:

"Let me be as clear as possible. We as a union, by Convention actions, do not represent or condone volunteer, part-time or paid on-call fire fighters. This is also my personal position, as it has been from the time that I first joined the IAFF. It remains my position today as your General President, and I have reiterated this position to affiliate leaders on a number of occasions."

Definition of CONDONE

transitive verb: to regard or treat as acceptable

So if your General President and by Convention your union does not condone volunteers, by definition it regards and will treat them as unacceptable..or in other words, rivals.

On to the questions posed in the remainder of your post.

Since I cannot definitively answer them and to speculate would most likely only inflame the situation i will only say that quite franky your concerns are those many of us share as well.

And finally FSLA:

My understanding is that under FSLA laws one cannot volunteer for their employer, which in the case of SFRD personnel is the City of Stamford, not the VFDs. I would also take that to mean that any future SVFD employees hired as firefighters would be prohibited from volunteering as such for the SVFD.

Cogs

Edited June 19, 2011 by FFPCogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

And finally FSLA: My understanding is that under FSLA laws one cannot volunteer for their employer, which in the case of SFRD personnel is the City of Stamford, not the VFDs. I would also take that to mean that any future SVFD employees hired as firefighters would be prohibited from volunteering as such for the SVFD.

One must be very careful with this one. The telling case is from Mongomery County MD. The county operates a combination FD with career houses and volunteer houses (that are seperate incorporated entities contracted to provide service). A career FF complained that as a 10-20 volunteer in another station he was entitiled to overtime pay for all his volunteer hours over those 10-20 years. The county had no employees in that fire station and did not even own it. The courts determined that not only was he to be paid, but so was any other career ff's who volunteered.

If the SVFD is in anyway an "arm" of the City of Stamford, then FLSA appears to apply to employees of both SVFD & SFRD

Also so everyone understands the FLSA was not written for emergency services, it was written based on general employment and one of the main examples that the feds use is an employee of a church (a book keeper), they may not volunteer for the church in an "office" capacity as it is too close to their job.

[CTFF 65]

As far as your questions in point one, well since I am not a member of 786 I cannot answer them. I can say in regards to L-786 citing of the VFDs as rivals that this is a commonly held belief. Although to be fair it seems that while most believe a document exists stating such apparently no one has actually seen it. But we do have the fact the CT saw the need to pass a law in regards to career fFFs volunteering as stated earlier and statements from the IAFFs General President to that effect such as:

"Let me be as clear as possible. We as a union, by Convention actions, do not represent or condone volunteer, part-time or paid on-call fire fighters. This is also my personal position, as it has been from the time that I first joined the IAFF. It remains my position today as your General President, and I have reiterated this position to affiliate leaders on a number of occasions."

Definition of CONDONE

transitive verb: to regard or treat as acceptable

So if your General President and by Convention your union does not condone volunteers, by definition it regards and will treat them as unacceptable..or in other words, rivals.

On to the questions posed in the remainder of your post.

Since I cannot definitively answer them and to speculate would most likely only inflame the situation i will only say that quite franky your concerns are those many of us share as well.

And finally FSLA:

My understanding is that under FSLA laws one cannot volunteer for their employer, which in the case of SFRD personnel is the City of Stamford, not the VFDs. I would also take that to mean that any future SVFD employees hired as firefighters would be prohibited from volunteering as such for the SVFD.

Cogs

So much like your stance on L786 barring SFRD firefighter from volunteering in stamford (when in fact FLSA prevetns it), You have no documentation showing where L786 declared anyone a rival orginaztion?

Thats what your response feels like to me.