Only a volunteer?

[KRF178 49]

Being bored at work last night I came across a very interesting article at 1st Responder news. It's a good read because I know that we all have at least one of these in our organizations.

http://1strespondernews.com/webpages/news/...56-ece52a9d0a88

[Guest]

Excellent.

[markmets415 524]

+2, excellent, thank you for sharing it with us. There are still to many that wish it to be a social club first and will never change, glad I'm not one of them and will never be.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Excellent article on how it should be and it is in many cases, but read the next thread on Medivac useage to cover volunteer agencies that are picking which calls they want to cover and we are seeing more and more of that.

SOme interesting points in the article:

1) "Since Ben Franklin kicked it off some 220+ years ago, volunteering for the Fire Service has been synonymous with words like heroic, unselfish and proud."

It still amazes me how people use history, I've seen BF mentioned many times for how community minded he was with starting the Volunteer Fire Service. The truth is he started it the same day he started the 1st fire insurance company in America, and his VFD would only protect those that he insured.

I also have a big problem with the word "unselfish" when you look at how much money many depts are spending on recruting & retention.

2) "And, until the bureaucrats are taken out and shot, we must acknowledge the need for accurate record keeping, for sharing information and for compliance with even the unrealistic regulations. We must keep providing them with what they feed on, in the hope that we are contributing to the greater effort and to the bigger picture."

In other words, the author does not want anyone to know what level of service they are actually providing, i.e. I do not want to have records on how many members show up, how many are trained, or what we are spending tax money on. This line completely undermindes everything else he wrote.

3) "Volunteer" must never be used as an excuse for not fulfilling that public trust.

Agreed, how many agencies can you think of that fall into this trap? I know of a few.

[FFPCogs 863]

Couldn't have said it better myself and God knows the author says it with far less pontification than I....

Cogs

[COMMANDCHIEF 4]

This article rings so true. I have long said, ther people that utter the line "we're only volunteers" has set the volunteer fire service back 25 years. These are ignorant people who are more often there to serve only to the point it is no longer convenient for them. Unlike the auxillary police force that is a suplament to the department where if they don't respond will be picked up by a police officer. The members of the Volunteer Fire Service ARE the DEPARTMENT and if they don't respond. No one will.

[x134 46]

Oh my god!!!!!! This article is just what I was talking about with some younger members in my Volunteer house last week. This is so true, and I agree. Just because it says 100% Volunteer on the fire house, or 97% for P.V. does not mean the responsibility is less. You still have a job to do no matter who you are. NO EXCUSES!!!!! I heard a quote from F.D.N.Y. Capt. Metcalf SQ 252 "you have to be 100%.....100% of the time".

IF you can't do the job the right way, or just can't do the job anymore.... be an associate member!!

Edited April 12, 2009 by x134

[moggie6 54]

The article was good and it made a really good point. But how do you make accountability a factor in the volunteer fire service?

I really do feel that those who say i'm only a volunteer or we're only volunteers put emergency services as a whole back professionaly.

I wish there could be a way to create a more professional atmosphere for those who will quickly say "I'm only a volunteer."

Discipline is something that needs to be instilled back into emergency services.

[x129K 1,393]

LOL.....one of my favorite Chiefs, who i served under as an Officer, said to me - "You volunteer to join, afte that, your a** is mine!"

[x134 46]

The article was good and it made a really good point. But how do you make accountability a factor in the volunteer fire service?

I really do feel that those who say i'm only a volunteer or we're only volunteers put emergency services as a whole back professionaly.

I wish there could be a way to create a more professional atmosphere for those who will quickly say "I'm only a volunteer."

Discipline is something that needs to be instilled back into emergency services.

Chiefs and Officers need to make recommendations to the Board of Fire Commissioners and make decisions to suspend or terminate members if they don't do there job and not be wishy washy about it, and to let members know that there are consequences.

Edited April 12, 2009 by x134

[Bnechis 3,961]

Chiefs and Officers need to make recommendations to the Board of Fire Commissioners and make decisions to suspend or terminate members if they don't do there job and not be wishy washy about it, and to let members that there are consequences.

Why have Chiefs if they need to go to the commissioners for this?

Commissioners are supose to make policy not run the operation. If they set a policy that says all members must meet standards (what ever standard they state) then it is the Chief and line officers job to make that happen. If the commissioners do not have a problem with the concept of "we are just volunteers" then you have a bigger problem.

The biggest problem is to many commissioners have forgotten that they represent the interests & needs of the community 1st and not the interests & needs of the FF's. Since the majority that vote for them are members, they like most politicians work for those that vote for them.

The chiefs should have the authority to suspend or terminate members who do not meet the standards of the dept. Often quantity over quality is the motto.

[x134 46]

Why have Chiefs if they need to go to the commissioners for this?

Commissioners are supose to make policy not run the operation. If they set a policy that says all members must meet standards (what ever standard they state) then it is the Chief and line officers job to make that happen. If the commissioners do not have a problem with the concept of "we are just volunteers" then you have a bigger problem.

The biggest problem is to many commissioners have forgotten that they represent the interests & needs of the community 1st and not the interests & needs of the FF's. Since the majority that vote for them are members, they like most politicians work for those that vote for them.

The chiefs should have the authority to suspend or terminate members who do not meet the standards of the dept. Often quantity over quality is the motto.

In the Volunteer house that I am a member, the Chief must go before the Commissioners to suspend a member for 30, 60, 90 days etc......

[ex-commish 490]

Chiefs and Officers need to make recommendations to the Board of Fire Commissioners and make decisions to suspend or terminate members if they don't do there job and not be wishy washy about it, and to let members know that there are consequences.

I couldn't agree with this more but in my experiences as a chief commisioners ( not all) have failed to support the chiefs when it came to discipline of members. They were afraid of being sued or concerned of popular opinion. I could remember a time when you joined and were told to keep your mouth shut and learn. There was more pride then.

[x134 46]

I couldn't agree with this more but in my experiences as a chief commisioners ( not all) have failed to support the chiefs when it came to discipline of members. They were afraid of being sued or concerned of popular opinion. I could remember a time when you joined and were told to keep your mouth shut and learn. There was more pride then.

AMEN TO THAT BROTHER!!!!!!

[VistaFD126 0]

volunteering as a firemen is like joining the Army, you only volunteer once, after that you have a commitment

[FFPCogs 863]

Discipline....possibly the most reviled word in today's volunteer fire service.

Discipline takes many forms here and while discipline as punishment does have it's place there is a far more important and ultimately productive form of dicipline.....the self discipline of the membership to do what they signed up to do. Suspending members or even terminating them is a necessary step, of that there is no doubt, but when those doing the "disciplining" are not themselves acting in a discplined manner it becomes a farce or worse a popularity based tool. Far too often a double standard exists when it comes to punitive discipline, with the end result being a complete lack of discipline and breakdown of structure overall (no need to cite examples as I'm sure most if not all of you have seen this in one way, shape or form).

To be effective discipline has to start with members and especially the leadership having the motivation and dedication to do what is necessary without complaint or passing the buck. This is not always an easy thing to do, but it is of vital importance in maintaining the right atmosphere of professionalism that is the cornerstone of the fire service. How can one effectively punish (discipline) another when they themselves regularly break the "rules" or lack initiative? They can't. Members see right through that BS and if it doesn't change "vote with their feet".

By no stretch of the imagination was I a "disciplined" youth when I joined my first FD, that came from those who trained me. And not with threats alone but with their adherence to a professional attitude and not settling for less in training standards or department operations to make THEIR lives easier. They led by example. I try my damnest to maintain that self discipline myself and pass it on whenever I can. Those of us who sit and lament the current state of affairs or regularly digress into reminiscing of how "tough" or "better" it was in the "old days" need to get off the pity pot and step up and help instill the self dicipline that may be lacking back into our departments. We can do this not only through our words, but more importantly through our actions. We must stand firm in our commitment to our departments through good times and bad. We must respond even when we may not have to or want to, not to let others off the hook, but to be "role models" to the next generation on whom the burdens will one day fall. We can readily share OUR experiences on and off the fireground not to brag or point out the faults of others, but to encourage a higher commitment from those who follow us. We can and must show the self discipline to always remain professional while making every effort to help others find that self dicipline for themselves...we all have the potential, some just need a little help in that direction. We can train our newer member hard, as hard as we were trained, not for the sake of being hard, but so that they LEARN. This is how it worked for me, along with a few good swift kicks in the a** now and then when needed too.... .

For me only those who have self discipline have the right to dicipline others.

Stay Safe

Cogs

[Guest]

Very well said. I wonder how many people are gonna read this and "agree," and then go off an complain about how medical training and CDL's for drivers are just too much of a commitment...

[gamewell45 258]

Chiefs and Officers need to make recommendations to the Board of Fire Commissioners and make decisions to suspend or terminate members if they don't do there job and not be wishy washy about it, and to let members know that there are consequences.

Good luck dealing with all the potential litigation that could come from that. Better you than me.

[Guest]

LOL.....one of my favorite Chiefs, who i served under as an Officer, said to me - "You volunteer to join, afte that, your a** is mine!"

anybody I know???

[x129K 1,393]

anybody I know???

Yep...he is know a career man at the AFD

[EFFD4091-MLSS emt 13]

Good luck dealing with all the potential litigation that could come from that. Better you than me.

what litigation could arise from not upholding the standards set forth by the depts by-laws. If Joe Volly doesn't show up for the required amount of training "haz-mat, Right-to- know etc etc." Then Joe Volly must suffer the consequences of not upholding "his commitment to volunteer." Again like the article said you only volunteer to join, then you must do what is expected.

[gamewell45 258]

what litigation could arise from not upholding the standards set forth by the depts by-laws. If Joe Volly doesn't show up for the required amount of training "haz-mat, Right-to- know etc etc." Then Joe Volly must suffer the consequences of not upholding "his commitment to volunteer." Again like the article said you only volunteer to join, then you must do what is expected.

Changing the rules in mid-stream can have negative consequences depending on how you change them to what degree & along with the mechanism used to enforce it and that's how you could end up in litigation. That's why when changing the rules you have to take a lot of variables in to consideration.

Nothwithstanding the above, most departments already have rules in place that set certain standards which work best for the particular department and i know that my department has a set policy and enforces them to the last sentence for everyone no matter who you are.

[Bnechis 3,961]

what litigation could arise from not upholding the standards set forth by the depts by-laws. If Joe Volly doesn't show up for the required amount of training "haz-mat, Right-to- know etc etc." Then Joe Volly must suffer the consequences of not upholding "his commitment to volunteer." Again like the article said you only volunteer to join, then you must do what is expected.

The litigation that could arise is if someone is hurt or property is damaged as a result of action(s) or inaction(s) of a member(s) of a department, particularly if they do not have required training (particularly OSHA Hazmat training). i.e. my property was damaged because you put water on a spilled material in the street, that should not have had water put on it, and I find out that the dept does not meet minimum training as required under 1910.120

[EFFD4091-MLSS emt 13]

I wasnt quite sure what gamewell was talking bout and what he was refering to... But bylaws can change and therefor change what may be expected. bnechis I know that that opens you up to litigation.

Edited April 13, 2009 by EFFD4091-MLSS emt

[x134 46]

Gamewell I am not to sure where you are coming from. The rules and regulations, standard of training, and requirements in my Volly department have been in affect for at least 15 years, and I have been in the Fire Service in that Department for 22 years. So I don't see how any litigation could take place. The rules haven't changed. I GUESS I AM A LITTLE LOST WITH THE COMMENTS THAT YOU HAVE MADE.

The members of my Department know what is expected as far as training and how to conduct themselves on the fire scene. If they don't follow those rules, then whatever consequences come from there actions is on them.

[PVFD233 68]

Oh my god!!!!!! This article is just what I was talking about with some younger members in my Volunteer house last week. This is so true, and I agree. Just because it says 100% Volunteer on the fire house, or 97% for P.V. does not mean the responsibility is less. You still have a job to do no matter who you are. NO EXCUSES!!!!! I heard a quote from F.D.N.Y. Capt. Metcalf SQ 252 "you have to be 100%.....100% of the time".

IF you can't do the job the right way, or just can't do the job anymore.... be an associate member!!

Agreed there fella.

Everyone needs to pitch in. Your pagers go off for the same call and equipment responds to the same scene. Stop the whining and work together.

Gamewell I am not to sure where you are coming from. The rules and regulations, standard of training, and requirements in my Volly department have been in affect for at least 15 years, and I have been in the Fire Service in that Department for 22 years. So I don't see how any litigation could take place. The rules haven't changed. I GUESS I AM A LITTLE LOST WITH THE COMMENTS THAT YOU HAVE MADE.

The members of my Department know what is expected as far as training and how to conduct themselves on the fire scene. If they don't follow those rules, then whatever consequences come from there actions is on them.

Now your just dating youurself.

[AFS1970 504]

First off, excellent article, very well said.

Secondly, I can see this from an interesting perspective, because the only a [whatever] attitude was very prevalent in my profession. A few years ago there were several articles in trade journals about changing the attitude that we were "only dispatchers" as opposed to Police Officers or Firefighters. While a little more nuanced, this is pretty much the same concept.

I have also been on EMS calls where I have heard EMT's who are Firefighters tell a patient that we are "only the fire department" and that the "Paramedics are on the way". This does absolutely nothing to inspire confidence in you or the service you are providing to the patient. To put this back in perspective imagine being on scene of a house fire and telling the homeowner that you are "just a volunteer" and that the "firefighters are on the way". What is that homeowner to think of you and the service that you are able to provide.

Having seen this in the dispatch field as well as the volunteer fire service, I can say that the only way to be seen as something more than just something is by training and dedication or to use another oft quoted word: professionalism. Every time we allow there to be one set of standards for Career Firefighters and another for Volunteer Firefighters we fall into this trap. We have had endless debates on this very issue right here on EMTBravo, and to date they have solved nothing. In my opinion we should be coming at this from the standpoint that we should be looking for a minimum standard that is realistic for all Firefighters, not that either standard is better or worse, or that one side should be meeting the others standard.

As for changing requirements, we should be looking to have any such changes phased in to minimize the adverse effect on all our members. When I was taking Safety Officer a few years ago, I was in class with a Deputy Chief from a few towns away. He was taking the class because he was nearing the end of a 5 year phase in for new Chief's requirements and he would have to give up his position if he did not pass Safety Officer. His department had run the class at least once a year but he was taking it here because he had scheduling conflicts with all the local classes. I was very impressed with the way they did this, to allow anyone dedicated enough to meet the standard while still raising the bar for all future Chiefs.

It dopes not matter if this is our internal by laws or a new government regulation, we should be working towards making it as easy as possible to be the most professional we can at what we do.