"Paid Chauffeurs"

[Guest Chiefmcfuz]

..And you lost me. Why would you ever want politicians making FD choices? They have no idea about anything having to do with the actual fire service, and those that think they do have usually been given all the wrong information.

You don't, it's just an expression I use. Politics is the reason the emergency services are so messed up today. Lots of this fighting is caused by them in my opinion because they have no clue and think they do. So let them pontificate in their offices and let us put out the fires.

[Guest]

What a great thread--lots of good comments--lots of feed back and every one is civil.

efdcapt a few years ago--- more then a few. The situation you described in the opening actualy happened here in Westchester. I wont go into details of what department thats not necessary---but what followed might be of interest. The firefighter that was operating the first enging on the scene(alone) was informed that some people were in the home. He set the pump in gear doned his scba and made entry-- thankfully they were with in 10 feet of the door. The citizens were removed sucessfully and turned over to a waiting ambulance. By that time other apparatus arrived and the fire was contained. However the Chief of the Department was screaming mad that the firefighter left the engine unmaned and was bringing the firefighter up on departmental charges-- I guess leaving the apparatus was a violation of some rule and regulation. Well charges were about to be filed against this firefighter but when it was learned that some one had fowarded all the information about the sucessfull rescue to the press and the NYSPFFA, The firefighter was awarded a metal for his bravery and honored at a convention.

Hopefully things have changed in that department. We stil haev a long way to go

I seriously doubt that things have gotten any better in that department. On a personal level, things have gotten worse in mine. The day of the one firefighter engine or ladder company long passed in this county and little has changed in my 20 plus years. We have been beating this dead horse now for over two decades. I was taught back in probie school that any change in the fire service is precipitated by tragedy, and, then change comes about painfully slow. Well, it has been 6 and1/2 years since 9/11 and if it happened again, we are no better off than we were back then. We've had the tragedy, now i guess we have to wait for the change.

Edited June 17, 2008 by 20+FF

[efdcapt115 1,511]

The Draft was sent to the chiefs. they were asked to comment on any factual errors in it and in the next week or 2 any issues will be corrected and then a final report will be released.

Its serious. there are good and bad points...all pointed out. The main issue is it will make every rig 3ff & 1 officer. with 22 on all 1st alarm responses. I think the locals will be ok with it, the bigger question will be the politicians.

Thanks for the support.

No problem. Thanks for the update. When the report does come out it might be time for me to head home to NY and start doing some advocating for the brothers. Then again in the convoluted world of the Eastchester Fire Department not so long ago, if you wanted something you pretended you didn't, and if you didn't want it you pretended you did. Worked like a charm haha.....

[FirNaTine 370]

Ya know what kills me? How so many guys in some Depts. that are undermanned and ill equipped constantly complain about these ever so important issues, but at the same time are quick enough to brag about how much they made for the yr. once they get their W2's. Then the BIG Safety Issues seem to disappear, because God forbid we increase our manning if that means reducing all the O.T.!

[Raz 14]

Ya know what kills me? How so many guys in some Depts. that are undermanned and ill equipped constantly complain about these ever so important issues, but at the same time are quick enough to brag about how much they made for the yr. once they get their W2's. Then the BIG Safety Issues seem to disappear, because God forbid we increase our manning if that means reducing all the O.T.!

A true increase in manning shouldn't mean less O.T. After all, it creates a new position that needs to be staffed 24/7. It works like this: "OT Shifts" divided by "Number of Staff" multiplied by "The Minimum Manning Requirement"

If your dept runs a rig with one man, that's a total of 4 guys on the job. Obviously, they'd each get 1/4th of the OT. If you added a second position, hiring 4 more guys to staff it, you'd be increasing staffing to 8, giving each man (obviously) 1/8th of the overtime. However, the overtime is now doubled because of the need to fill a second position at all times. Therefore, their 1/8th share of the doubled OT is equal to the 1/4th share of the OT before the staffing increase. I hope didn't butcher my point.

[FirNaTine 370]

A true increase in manning shouldn't mean less O.T. After all, it creates a new position that needs to be staffed 24/7. It works like this: "OT Shifts" divided by "Number of Staff" multiplied by "The Minimum Manning Requirement"

If your dept runs a rig with one man, that's a total of 4 guys on the job. Obviously, they'd each get 1/4th of the OT. If you added a second position, hiring 4 more guys to staff it, you'd be increasing staffing to 8, giving each man (obviously) 1/8th of the overtime. However, the overtime is now doubled because of the need to fill a second position at all times. Therefore, their 1/8th share of the doubled OT is equal to the 1/4th share of the OT before the staffing increase. I hope didn't butcher my point.

It all depends on the circumstances. That maybe true to some extent but not so much if your Dept. doesn't have a minimum manning agreement in their contract and will just ride short or put a rig o.o.s.. I know there's many of us out there, that would rather see a vacancy covered with O.T. then filled with a new hiree, whether it was due to a retirement, sick leave, l.o.d, etc.. For example, I bet the 3 guys in a 4 man Dept. would love to cover the 4th man's spot on O.T. if he was going to be out for an extended period of time, instead of hiring a new recruit. Same goes for Officer Promotions. There's many Officers out there that would rather see an Officer vacancy filled with O.T. then a member get promoted, especially if the Dept. has a lack of Officers to begin with. Again, it all depends on how the Dept. is structured. There's many factors to be considered. Hopefully I didn't butcher my point too badly either.

[Raz 14]

It all depends on the circumstances. That maybe true to some extent but not so much if your Dept. doesn't have a minimum manning agreement in their contract and will just ride short or put a rig o.o.s.. I know there's many of us out there, that would rather see a vacancy covered with O.T. then filled with a new hiree, whether it was due to a retirement, sick leave, l.o.d, etc.. For example, I bet the 3 guys in a 4 man Dept. would love to cover the 4th man's spot on O.T. if he was going to be out for an extended period of time, instead of hiring a new recruit. Same goes for Officer Promotions. There's many Officers out there that would rather see an Officer vacancy filled with O.T. then a member get promoted, especially if the Dept. has a lack of Officers to begin with. Again, it all depends on how the Dept. is structured. There's many factors to be considered. Hopefully I didn't butcher my point too badly either.

I see what you're saying, and indeed I'll admit to being one of those guys that would rather cover a vacancy with OT than see a new guy hired. After all, this is how I pay my mortgage and put food on the table. However, I would also like to see an increase in manning. I don't believe those issues to be mutually exclusive of eachother.

When we "complain about these ever so important issues" of staffing, we're not asking our department to hire a guy here and there when someone gets injured, promoted, or retires. That only serves as a stoploss to the standard attrition of running a fire dept. Instead, we're asking them to increase the minimum allowable staffing, putting an end to riding shorthanded or placing a rig o.o.s. That has nothing to do with overtime. Sure it will increase it, but it will directly increase everything related to the department, including quality of response and service. Also, when you consider things such as ISO ratings and grants, the taxpayers shouldn't even have to shoulder the majority of the increase in cost.

Look at that, paid guy and taxpayer advocate. Another two things that don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Edited June 17, 2008 by Raz