Welcome stance for VFDs

[FFPCogs 863]

I can't seem to post a link here, so...

It seems the IAFC has taken a stance on the issue of career FFs volunteering on their own time. The full story is at www.Firehouse.com in the news section.

I will just say that at a few career FFs and VFDs should be happy with the decision, and I wholeheartedly support their stance.

Cog

p.s. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of computers please feel free to post the link...thanx

Edited October 31, 2008 by FFPCogs

[texastom791 31]

http://cms.firehouse.com/web/online/News/I...s/46$61490

[SteveOFD 176]

I can't seem to post a link here, so...

p.s. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of computers please feel free to post the link...thanx

FYI

For all members who need info on hyperlinking here is how it is done:

1 - at the website's address (i.e. http://www.emtbravo.net) bring mouse to address, left click mouse address is highlighted blue.

2 - right click mouse on address, select copy.

3 - in reply box (where you are entering text of your reply), click on "Insert Link" (the green plus sign below the box that says Fonts".

4 - Explorer User Prompt box appears, right click mouse, select paste, then click OK.

5 - enter desriptive of what you want that link described as.

6 - click OK and you are done.

Any questions feel free to post or PM, it's easy once you know how.

[Bnechis 3,961]

It seems the IAFC has taken a stance on the issue of career FFs volunteering on their own time.

What a shock that the volunteer/combo section pushed for this. Noticed that the Metro chiefs section has not commented.

[FFPCogs 863]

What a shock that the volunteer/combo section pushed for this. Noticed that the Metro chiefs section has not commented.

And why shouldn't we....after all the IAFF ruling directly affects many small city and town volunteer departments who formerly relied on those career FFs who were members to cover the usually short daytime hours. This they did OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL for nothing more than their desire help their community, to remain loyal to a department many of them started out in , and to help keep their own taxes lower. I must say I've often heard the argument that public safety is the number one priority, and that if volunteers can't guarantee it than FFs MUST be hired. While this is true, isn't prohibiting trained, and experienced people from volunteering of their own free will depriving a community of a resource to provide that safety? Isn't a career FF volunteering doing just that...keeping the community safe by their CHOICE to respond? Does their recieving a paycheck for that response somehow make people safer? Remember it would be their decision to volunteer of THEIR OWN FREE WILL, so who loses really?

What a shock that SOME union members find a problem with people simply wanting to help their communities for the sake of doing so.

Cogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

While this is true, isn't prohibiting trained, and experienced people from volunteering of their own free will depriving a community of a resource to provide that safety? Remember it would be their decision to volunteer of THEIR OWN FREE WILL, so who loses really?

Why is it City A's responsability to provide safety to Village B? More importantly why should the taxpayers in City A have to subsidize village B, particularly when the taxpayers in village B are unwilling or unable to pay for fire protection.

Since it is a fact that firefighting is hazardous, when that member is exposed to products of combustion protecting village B, the taxpayers in city A get to pay the additional health insurance and pension costs, when the member becomes injured or ill, City A's taxpayers get to pay the overtime costs to cover when he is out on sick leave.

About 20 years ago the pension system in Mass. determined that smoking was a problem and they ordered that from that point forward any new hired FF could not smoke on or off duty or risk his/her pension. This was designed to reduce the pension costs to the taxpayers who pay for professional firefighters. I dont know if this is still the rule in Mass. If someone knows, please post.

But this regulation shows that a community can regulate what hazardous activities an employee can participate in while off-duty. Its called a condition of employment and the employeer does not have to subsidize other communities.

I do not have a personal problem with career members volunteering, but that should be the employeers right to determine, and not be forced into by the lobbying efforts of other communities.

[exmrvfc 0]

"Why is it City A's responsability to provide safety to Village B? More importantly why should the taxpayers in City A have to subsidize village B, particularly when the taxpayers in village B are unwilling or unable to pay for fire protection."

Isn't this already happening with a certain City sending 1 and 1 to working fires for a certain Village in the Sound Shore?

"I do not have a personal problem with career members volunteering, but that should be the employeers right to determine, and not be forced into by the lobbying efforts of other communities."

What about the dangerous "B" jobs that guys work such as roofing, tree work and contracting. Getting hurt, pulling muscles and generally being tired when you show up for the job can be just as detrimental. If a guy calls in sick because he is hurt, the community will likely have to pay overtime to cover the shift.

[Bnechis 3,961]

"Why is it City A's responsability to provide safety to Village B? More importantly why should the taxpayers in City A have to subsidize village B, particularly when the taxpayers in village B are unwilling or unable to pay for fire protection."

Isn't this already happening with a certain City sending 1 and 1 to working fires for a certain Village in the Sound Shore?

Is that village unwilling to pay? or do they pay for partial coverage and relied on volunteers (a combo dept) who had a tempertantrum and quit?

What about the dangerous "B" jobs that guys work such as roofing, tree work and contracting. Getting hurt, pulling muscles and generally being tired when you show up for the job can be just as detrimental. If a guy calls in sick because he is hurt, the community will likely have to pay overtime to cover the shift.

Yes, career members work side jobs and do get hurt doing them, how can we solve this? I know a local police dept that pays more than almost any PD in the U.S., they do not allow its employees to work side jobs (because they want them 100% focused and well rested). So if the employeer wants to stop this practice they can do it by paying a salery that allows members to live in the community without working a side job. The other option is to pay OT to cover contractual time off. THis would save the taxpayers $$ (even if the Journal news does not get it) and limit members from working side jobs. This is commonly done in smaller depts. and the numbers actually work.

The being tired is less of an issue since most of the work you mentioned is daytime work, and they have till 8am to be back to work, but going on a few minor fire calls in the middle of the night before coming to work is more likely to be an issue. Regardless of what the member is doing off duty, they are likely to be injured, but contracting generally does not run the cardiac and ca risks of firefighting.

[FFPCogs 863]

Why is it City A's responsability to provide safety to Village B? More importantly why should the taxpayers in City A have to subsidize village B, particularly when the taxpayers in village B are unwilling or unable to pay for fire protection.

Since it is a fact that firefighting is hazardous, when that member is exposed to products of combustion protecting village B, the taxpayers in city A get to pay the additional health insurance and pension costs, when the member becomes injured or ill, City A's taxpayers get to pay the overtime costs to cover when he is out on sick leave.

About 20 years ago the pension system in Mass. determined that smoking was a problem and they ordered that from that point forward any new hired FF could not smoke on or off duty or risk his/her pension. This was designed to reduce the pension costs to the taxpayers who pay for professional firefighters. I dont know if this is still the rule in Mass. If someone knows, please post.

But this regulation shows that a community can regulate what hazardous activities an employee can participate in while off-duty. Its called a condition of employment and the employeer does not have to subsidize other communities.

I do not have a personal problem with career members volunteering, but that should be the employeers right to determine, and not be forced into by the lobbying efforts of other communities.

Yes, MA still requires all FFs hired through the State civil service system to be non-smokers, as do a number of other states and individual depts. I'm sure any off duty activity could also be prohibited given the right legal and lobbying team.

In regard to the health and safety issues faced by career FFs volunteering in another jurisdiction, as I said their doing so would be well... voluntary, and the volunteer dept would have take the responsibility of workers comp in case of injury ect. Long term effects are what they are...(although I do not have the source in front of me) I believe statistically more off duty career FFs are injured pursuing their secondary means of income than by responding to fire/emergencies as a volunteer FF. By the logic of the argument that off duty activities can be regulated, ANY off duty activity that may POSSIBLY result in injury should then be prohibited. No side jobs as a plumber, electrician, roofer ect. especially since those types of work activities do carry a very real potential for injury..just as much as volunteering as a FF. To that end drinking alcohol off duty would fall in that category as well..everyone knows drinking can lead to long term health issues, not to mention DWIs and injury from aclohol related accidents. We could go on and on about the health and safety concerns..fact is career FF volunteering is just as safe as any other off duty work activity.

And to simply address city A having responsibilty for protecting village B. It really boils down to a firefighter who works for city A taking responsibilty for protecting his own village be it B, C D or E.

In the end, I will say again that if life safety is the PRIMARY concern then a career FF volunteering is only doing what is in THEIR communities best interest by doing so...they are protecting the lives of their neighbors.

Cogs

Edited November 1, 2008 by FFPCogs

[AFS1970 504]

I hate to be the cynical one about something that has obvious benefits to the Volunteer Fire Service, but upon reading the whole article a couple of things popped out at me.

The IAFC has never before taken a strong stance one way or the other on this issue.

This in and of itself is kind of strange because this is a hot button topic in the fire service, and I would assume that a Chief's organization would have some type of an opinion on it.

Then it says that in the DC case, two VCOS Board Members were among those charged, so it became personal for the VCOS to take up the issue. I am glad they did, but I think the motivation should have been there regardless of who was involved.

This position comes out now in 2008, after such restrictions are disallowed in programs such as the FIREAct grants and after some states have already addressed the issue legally. This is kind of nothing more than feel good legislation, basically saying the agree with what is already in place. 10 (or even 5) years ago this position would have been groundbreaking.

Will it help things? Probably in the long run, but I think any department that was waiting on the IAFC ruling to make their policy was probably missing the boat.

Oh and as for other dangerous outside employment, I suppose that someday those may become issues for pension boards to deal with. This issue with Firefighting is probably that a) it is much more dangerous than those other jobs so the injuries are, at least in theory, much more serious and since the fire does not know if you are getting paid or not, it might be hard to determine what fire a long term injury was sustained at.

Perhaps the answer to the pension issue is a statewide firefighters pension plan, with VFD's also required to pay into it, and prorated pensions for Volunteers like some places do for permanent part time employees. That way both Town B and City A have to bear some of the responsibility, and anyone who can make the commitment to two departments can earn a little bit more in their pension. Seems like a win/win for the fire service.

[exmrvfc 0]

Is that village unwilling to pay? or do they pay for partial coverage and relied on volunteers (a combo dept) who had a tempertantrum and quit?

Village B's partial coverage is being subsidized by City A when it comes to working fires. Whether Village B is career,combo or all volunteer, the taxpayers of City A are still supporting them which is contrary to the original post.

As to why Village B lost its volunteers. Do career departments ever have people transfer in or out? Plenty of career guys have transferred for higher pay, more action or just a better overall work environemnt. Does that mean they had temper tantrums and quit their old departments? Just because those guys were volunteers did they have stay forever? The Mayor changed the work environment, and the volunteers made their own choices. Some retired, some transferred and some stayed. Even one of the career members transferred out.

[ex-commish 490]

My issue is telling people what they can or can't do on thier time off. And I am not even adressing side jobs or even volunteering for a FD. There are other actvities that are dangerous. I know people who ride motorcycles, rock climb, are involved in sporting activities, hunt, etc. Maybe I am being a bit extreme but if a union or municipality can tell employees they can't volunteer than what's next?

The IAFC represents both volunteer and career fire chiefs. This is thier mission statement:

"To provide leadership to career and volunteer chiefs, chief fire officers, company officers and managers of emergency service organizations throughout the international community through vision, information, education, services and representation to enhance their professionalism and capabilities."

I wonder if taking an official stance violates thier mission statement?

[Bnechis 3,961]

Whether Village B is career,combo or all volunteer, the taxpayers of City A are still supporting them which is contrary to the original post.

Yes city A is subsidizing village B, but in this case does the City get mutual aid in return (yes, not to the same level). Since Village B has not called City A for help in decades, why the change now?

As to why Village B lost its volunteers. Do career departments ever have people transfer in or out? Plenty of career guys have transferred for higher pay, more action or just a better overall work environemnt.

Yes, career depts have members leave for "greener" pastures, but they are either replaced or there shifts covered by OT. The difference here, is dedicated volunteers quite (as a group) and left the dept "short". I use quotes because they claimed they were doing it in the best interest of the protection of the community. Unlike a career dept. they were not replaced.

Does that mean they had temper tantrums and quit their old departments? Just because those guys were volunteers did they have stay forever? The Mayor changed the work environment, and the volunteers made their own choices. Some retired, some transferred and some stayed. Even one of the career members transferred out.

When the group threatens to quite on numerious occasions over numerious different issues with multiple mayors over the course of many years if they don't get there way what would you call it?

1) Tempertantrum

2) Extorsion

3) fill in: ___________

These members told the community via letters to the newspapers that they would quit if they did not get there way. Then after they quit they unsuccessfully sued the village and the mayor not once but twice.

A wise chief told me that this concept is called: "addition by subtraction"

[Bnechis 3,961]

The IAFC represents both volunteer and career fire chiefs.

The VCOS is the largest voting block in the IAFC, they do not represent career chiefs, I wonder if they commented on this or was it just pushed thru?

Also isn't the IAFC one of the "anointed seven" (Tom Brennan, Fire Enginering Editor) that activly lobbied against Fire Act Grants? Isnt that grant program something that most chiefs would want? Isn't this and other grants in the best interest of the fire service? Whats the real politics behind what IAFC does?

[M' Ave 1,466]

When the group threatens to quite on numerious occasions over numerious different issues with multiple mayors over the course of many years if they don't get there way what would you call it?

1) Tempertantrum

2) Extorsion

3) fill in: ___________

These members told the community via letters to the newspapers that they would quit if they did not get there way. Then after they quit they unsuccessfully sued the village and the mayor not once but twice.

A wise chief told me that this concept is called: "addition by subtraction"

**Option #4 (For us career guys only)

STRIKE or at least threaten until the taylor law is thrown as us. This is what our union does. They make threats and demands AND SUE! This is how we better our situation. Why is this different than the volunteers?

Look, right or wrong. It's free-bee labor and you can't do whatever you want with them and expect them to just stick around. Hopefully the intentions of a volunteer fire dept. are what's best for the town or wherever (sometimes they are not) and this comes through. Some part of volunteerism should be selfless and without personal demands, however, it's also not slavery.

[joey01 10]

I think it is about time village B hired some additional career staff to better handle their own events and protect their tax payers. A little extra tax dollors is worth guaranteed fire protection . Time for the tax payers to pay up

[Bnechis 3,961]

**Option #4 (For us career guys only) STRIKE or at least threaten until the taylor law is thrown as us. This is what our union does. They make threats and demands AND SUE! This is how we better our situation. Why is this different than the volunteers?

Striking or even the threat is not an option since everyone knows that the municipality could get a court injunction within 24 hours, which would fine the union enough to bankrupt it within days and will charge the members who went out 2x what it costs the dept to fill in for them.

Can you even show one case of this working in NYS or does it just hurt the union if they even tried it?

How many unions "do it"? I dont believe any are stupid enought to consider it.

The only threat that the union can make is to get the mayor thrown out at the next election (if they have the political clout, which in most cases they do not). In this case the volunteers did threaten the mayor with this........she's still there and they are not.

You can sue, if the law is on your side. In this case the law was on the mayors side. Since municipalities almost always have the right to determine how they want to manage municipal services.

[gamewell45 258]

And why shouldn't we....after all the IAFF ruling directly affects many small city and town volunteer departments who formerly relied on those career FFs who were members to cover the usually short daytime hours. This they did OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL for nothing more than their desire help their community, to remain loyal to a department many of them started out in , and to help keep their own taxes lower. I must say I've often heard the argument that public safety is the number one priority, and that if volunteers can't guarantee it than FFs MUST be hired. While this is true, isn't prohibiting trained, and experienced people from volunteering of their own free will depriving a community of a resource to provide that safety? Isn't a career FF volunteering doing just that...keeping the community safe by their CHOICE to respond? Does their recieving a paycheck for that response somehow make people safer? Remember it would be their decision to volunteer of THEIR OWN FREE WILL, so who loses really?

What a shock that SOME union members find a problem with people simply wanting to help their communities for the sake of doing so.

Cogs

This is one of the reasons why unions, in particular, some public service unions are held in disdain by the public in general. You'd think that fire unions would put some value on public relations with the public and at least attempt to foster a working relationship with volunteers as a whole. Right or wrong, the public often preceives unionized career firefighters as being more concerned with making overtime & their own welfare over that of the public. I often wonder what kind of leadership is running these fire unions; their agenda appears tp be primarily focused on a very narrow segment of the population, that being their membership. While i can understand they have a duty to represent their membership, in the big picture of things, they fail to realize or at least give the appearance of indifference or outright rejections on issues that would benefit their image with the public. But no, they keep handing ammunition to those who are anti-labor to shoot back at them. The topic in this thread is a perfect example of that. Its high time for the fire unions to re-think their position on career members serving as volunteers and the volunteer service in general.

[FFPCogs 863]

This is one of the reasons why unions, in particular, some public service unions are held in disdain by the public in general. You'd think that fire unions would put some value on public relations with the public and at least attempt to foster a working relationship with volunteers as a whole. Right or wrong, the public often preceives unionized career firefighters as being more concerned with making overtime & their own welfare over that of the public. I often wonder what kind of leadership is running these fire unions; their agenda appears tp be primarily focused on a very narrow segment of the population, that being their membership. While i can understand they have a duty to represent their membership, in the big picture of things, they fail to realize or at least give the appearance of indifference or outright rejections on issues that would benefit their image with the public. But no, they keep handing ammunition to those who are anti-labor to shoot back at them. The topic in this thread is a perfect example of that. Its high time for the fire unions to re-think their position on career members serving as volunteers and the volunteer service in general.

AMEN !!!

[Bnechis 3,961]

This is one of the reasons why unions, in particular, some public service unions are held in disdain by the public in general. You'd think that fire unions would put some value on public relations with the public and at least attempt to foster a working relationship with volunteers as a whole. Right or wrong, the public often preceives unionized career firefighters as being more concerned with making overtime & their own welfare over that of the public.

The only members of the public that I have ever experienced that have a problem with the IAFF are posting here. The general public has no idea what services they have, what they pay for or even whose district do they live in.

My union supports Burn Care, A childrens hospital, and the MDA, we also run parties for holidays for disabled children. Why does the union need to foster a relationship with the volunteer sector, isnt that the roll of the dept.? Why would my taxpayers care if our union gets along with the volunteers, we rarely get assistance from them, and the public does not even know which depts around us have volunteers, infact many residence in those communities have no idea they have volunteers.

Most (I dont know about all) do not fight for OT, they fight for proper manning. Its pretty sad that the unions have to "fight" to maintain minimum manning, shouldn't the mayor or manager be providing that without a fight. Interesting in that under collective barganing the union CAN NOT negotiate manning if managment does not want to go there. All the public even knows about OT is when the News reports on a few employees who make tons and they never look at why or if its actually saving money.

I often wonder what kind of leadership is running these fire unions; their agenda appears tp be primarily focused on a very narrow segment of the population, that being their membership.

Since the union membership votes them in, thats who they represent, if they did not, they would be voted out. If your Senator voted for every bill that helpped another state because it was good for your states image, but never represented your intrests would you re-elect them?

While i can understand they have a duty to represent their membership, in the big picture of things, they fail to realize or at least give the appearance of indifference or outright rejections on issues that would benefit their image with the public. But no, they keep handing ammunition to those who are anti-labor to shoot back at them.

The only one I see who is anti-labor lives in communities without labor. Or are in the minority and as long as the majority is happy your point is moot.

[gamewell45 258]

Why does the union need to foster a relationship with the volunteer sector, isnt that the roll of the dept.? Why would my taxpayers care if our union gets along with the volunteers, we rarely get assistance from them, and the public does not even know which depts around us have volunteers, infact many residence in those communities have no idea they have volunteers.

Bnechis, thanks for reinforcing my point!

[ex-commish 490]

The VCOS is the largest voting block in the IAFC, they do not represent career chiefs, I wonder if they commented on this or was it just pushed thru?

Also isn't the IAFC one of the "anointed seven" (Tom Brennan, Fire Enginering Editor) that activly lobbied against Fire Act Grants? Isnt that grant program something that most chiefs would want? Isn't this and other grants in the best interest of the fire service? Whats the real politics behind what IAFC does?

I am not aware of the IAFC lobbying against any grants. Do you know which grants they were? I can't imagine why they would try to block against something that would benefit the entire fire service.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I am not aware of the IAFC lobbying against any grants. Do you know which grants they were? I can't imagine why they would try to block against something that would benefit the entire fire service.

The Fire Act Grant

Good question, I don't know why, but it was reported to us by both our Senate & House reps and was documented in at least 2 editorials in Fire Engineering magazine.

It was not just the IAFC, every fire service lobbying group in washington was against these grants, until they got a cut of the money for their organizations.

[Guest Photounit]

FYI

For all members who need info on hyperlinking here is how it is done:

1 - at the website's address (i.e. http://www.emtbravo.net) bring mouse to address, left click mouse address is highlighted blue.

2 - right click mouse on address, select copy.

3 - in reply box (where you are entering text of your reply), click on "Insert Link" (the green plus sign below the box that says Fonts".

4 - Explorer User Prompt box appears, right click mouse, select paste, then click OK.

5 - enter desriptive of what you want that link described as.

6 - click OK and you are done.

Any questions feel free to post or PM, it's easy once you know how.

Steve,

Thanks for posting this..... This should be made a "sticky" somewhere for future reference or maybe it is and I don't know it......

As far as the IAFC support ........ This is great........ I personally think somebody needs to challenge the IAFF on this issue and put this trash out at the curb.......

[FFPCogs 863]

As expected the IAFF views the IAFC stance as "meddling in the internal affairs of the union". It is a shame FFs can't just be FFs where they want to, be it paid or volunteer, but that's the way it is....for now. The IAFC's decision though could be a bit of added ammunition for any IAFF union member(s) willing to challenge the unions by-laws.

Cogs

[gamewell45 258]

The IAFC's decision though could be a bit of added ammunition for any IAFF union member(s) willing to challenge the unions by-laws.

Cogs

If enough of the membership gets fed up enough, they'll simply go CORE membership; it'd be a nasty wake-up call for the union. IAFF really ought to re-think their position on this while they still can.

[AFS1970 504]

I remember reading during my Officer 1 class about a CT state law that says if you are a member of 1 VFD, and you work in another VFD's district and can respond during the day, you can not be turned down for membership based solely on your 1st membership. Now I do not know all the background on this law, but I would be willing to bet it was in response to departments having rules that did not allow dual memberships at all. This is not just a union issue, although that is where all the current press directs attention.

So I can't see how the IAFC position will help a member challenge the IAFF rules, simply because they have no real effect on each other. Neitherone is a member of the other and neither one has any oversight of the other. This is a classic case of needing to agree to disagree.

The IAFC even says it recognizes other organizations rights to make such rules. I still stand on the fact that this was a meaningless resolution passed too late to be of much use. Any remedy (if indeed such remedy is even being sought) will have to be in the form of a law, but most legislative bodies are very reluctant to pass laws requiring private membership organizations to have or not have certain rules and for good historical reason too.