Bill Introduced in Congress to Protect Volunteers During Disasters

[Guest]

Bill Introduced in Congress to Protect Volunteers

WASHINGTON - In their continued support of firefighters nationwide, Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced the Volunteer Firefighter and EMS Personnel Job Protection Act today.

This bipartisan legislation would prohibit employers from firing or disciplining volunteer firefighters or EMS personnel who were forced to miss work to respond to a presidentially declared disaster. First responders will no longer be required to make a choice between losing their job and responding to a presidentially declared disaster or emergency.

FULL STORY: http://www.emsresponder.com/online/article...n=1&id=9504

[Bnechis 3,961]

"Bill Introduced in Congress to Protect Volunteers

WASHINGTON - In their continued support of firefighters nationwide, Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced the Volunteer Firefighter and EMS Personnel Job Protection Act today.

This bipartisan legislation would prohibit employers from firing or disciplining volunteer firefighters or EMS personnel who were forced to miss work to respond to a presidentially declared disaster. First responders will no longer be required to make a choice between losing their job and responding to a presidentially declared disaster or emergency."

So what would happen if that volunteer was also a career ff, cop, medic etc. or worked for FEMA. They would not lose their job if they responded as a volunteer ,but who would do their job?

Maybe the country would be better of if every congress member did not feel the need to creat one new law after another.

[Guest]

So what would happen if that volunteer was also a career ff, cop, medic etc. or worked for FEMA. They would not lose their job if they responded as a volunteer ,but who would do their job?

Maybe the country would be better of if every congress member did not feel the need to creat one new law after another.

While I agree with your second sentiment, I also think you would be hard pressed to find a career ff, cop, etc who volunteer in an emergency when they could be paid to do their part. I can't imagine someone volunteering to run an ambulance for no pay for 3 or 4 days in a huge emergency, when they could be getting paid to enforce the law during the same emergency. That makes no sense whatsoever (but as we all know, common sense isn't the rule...)

[Guest mnfbhmc1]

This is the first step, now they should do something when we are either late for or miss work.

[Guest mnfbhmc1]

While I agree with your second sentiment, I also think you would be hard pressed to find a career ff, cop, etc who volunteer in an emergency when they could be paid to do their part. I can't imagine someone volunteering to run an ambulance for no pay for 3 or 4 days in a huge emergency, when they could be getting paid to enforce the law during the same emergency. That makes no sense whatsoever (but as we all know, common sense isn't the rule...)

It dose make sense we as volunteers took a sworn oath when we joined. Just take 9/11 no volunteer department ever thought of not helping in a huge emergency,we all stop what we are doing when our pagers go off when someone needs our help

[gamewell45 258]

I think the bill is a good idea. Its nice to see the government recognizing the value of volunteers in this country.

[Doc 11]

I think the bill is a good idea. Its nice to see the government recognizing the value of volunteers in this country.

Especially when all these disaster response plans, incident management systems and contingencies usually involve assuming that the volunteer emergency services will be playing a role in operations - and crucial ones at that. In this day and age it IS a bit much to assume that employers have the sense to not penalize their employees for acting in the communities best interest in even the most dire situations. Some cannot see beyond the immediate bottom line. My prior employer had no problem demanding employees disobey official local states of emergency and come into work.

[JimmyPFD 11]

At least for immediate emergencies; thankfully my co-workers and I are covered EMS/Fire Volunteers through our union contracts, ('within reason').

I can understand the, 'within reason' part. It isn't an issue on our jobsite, but you can usually find someone testing the limits.

The contract language seems vague enough that; how they treat large scale activations may vary from location to location.

[helicopper 1,050]

First, hasn't this been going on since 1997? Didn't this first get proposed during the Clinton administration?

Second, this would only apply to Presidentially declared disasters so if you're late for work because of a fire call, you're not protected. Perhaps a State law could be enacted for that level of protection. Since disasters don't always get a Presidential declaration until after the fact, it remains unclear how this would apply during the initial response, before a declaration.

Basically I wouldn't hold my breath.

[JimmyPFD 11]

.... this would only apply to Presidentially declared disasters so if you're late for work because of a fire call, you're not protected....

The protection that my co-workers and I have as state employees directly covers this. This is because of our Union contracts not the law. I suspect that this may have come from necessity as opposed to thoughtfulness. Less urban communities throughout the State may be exclusively dependant on Volunteer Fire and EMS services in their area.

If most legislators lived in such areas; I'm pretty sure this would have been passed as law a long time ago. I'm taking Chris' suggestion and not holding my breath.

Edited May 14, 2009 by JimmyPFD

[Guest]

NYS doesn't have a law that protects volunteers who are late to /miss work for emergencies?

[Goose 188]

There are far more pressing issues that need to be dealt with.....like the current health care reform debates.

[Guest FFNick]

There are far more pressing issues that need to be dealt with.....like the current health care reform debates.

Agreed.

Besides, according to the article, it is phrased as such:

This bipartisan legislation would prohibit employers from firing or disciplining volunteer firefighters or EMS personnel who were forced to miss work to respond to a presidentially declared disaster. First responders will no longer be required to make a choice between losing their job and responding to a presidentially declared disaster or emergency.

When in history has a volunteer firefighter or EMS responder been FORCED to respond?

So if you are not FORCED to respond, and you do respond, I am assuming that your employer can still discipline and/or fire you?

[JimmyPFD 11]

So if you are not FORCED to respond, and you do respond, I am assuming that your employer can still discipline and/or fire you?

Very good point!

So including the word, "forced" makes it completely pointless. I'm sure it will get passed with enthusiastic bipartisan support.

[NWFDMedic 58]

While this might be a "feel good" piece of legislation, it also has quite a few shortfalls as noted in the posts above. I attended a CME last night on Pandemic Preparedness and while not exactly a classic disaster, a lot of the things discussed are still poignant to this topic. It's all well and good to say that volunteer firefighters and EMTs are protected from losing their jobs but who is going to do their jobs while they are gone? Also, what impact does their regular job have on disaster mitigation?

For example, let's say a major flood hits New York City and the city was declared a presidential disaster. Volunteer firefighters and EMS workers from Orange County were "forced" down to the city to help with this disaster. Let's say, for argument's sake that 100 volunteers went down to the city to help. Well, now you have lost 100 workers in the local workforce right off the bat. You will lose probably double that number because of "effected families", people who are calling into work because they are doing what they can to shelter family members, attend funerals, etc. etc. To some extent, you are also going to lose local resources from commercial EMS/Fire agencies trying to do their part. You are talking about losing a significant portion of the workforce and that's going with the assumption that career firefighters, EMS, doctors, and nurses don't head that way.

Here come the problems. Problem #1: Transportation to the city is going to be nonexistent, increasing the population and the subsequent need for services in Orange County. Problem #2: Survivors from the flood will be headed here, straining our resources. Problem #3: Disaster mitigation requires resources. If you take truck drivers off the road because they are volunteer FF/EMT's, how long is it before you don't have food, gas, and medical supplies in the effected areas? Even if you take away 20% of the cashiers at Wal-Mart, how are people going to get the resources they need in a timely fashion here in Orange County?

While it's a nice thing for the bureaucrats in Washington to say that they will protect the jobs of volunteers in the case of an emergency, I sure hope there's some kind of verbage in this bill that protects employers and gives them first right of refusal to let their employees go. While the initial management of a disaster (24-48 hours) may be intensive for first responders, the continuing logistics of a major incident require the entire workforce to remain as intact as possible for successful mitigation.

[JFLYNN 681]

While this might be a "feel good" piece of legislation, it also has quite a few shortfalls as noted in the posts above. I attended a CME last night on Pandemic Preparedness and while not exactly a classic disaster, a lot of the things discussed are still poignant to this topic. It's all well and good to say that volunteer firefighters and EMTs are protected from losing their jobs but who is going to do their jobs while they are gone? Also, what impact does their regular job have on disaster mitigation?

For example, let's say a major flood hits New York City and the city was declared a presidential disaster. Volunteer firefighters and EMS workers from Orange County were "forced" down to the city to help with this disaster. Let's say, for argument's sake that 100 volunteers went down to the city to help. Well, now you have lost 100 workers in the local workforce right off the bat. You will lose probably double that number because of "effected families", people who are calling into work because they are doing what they can to shelter family members, attend funerals, etc. etc. To some extent, you are also going to lose local resources from commercial EMS/Fire agencies trying to do their part. You are talking about losing a significant portion of the workforce and that's going with the assumption that career firefighters, EMS, doctors, and nurses don't head that way.

Here come the problems. Problem #1: Transportation to the city is going to be nonexistent, increasing the population and the subsequent need for services in Orange County. Problem #2: Survivors from the flood will be headed here, straining our resources. Problem #3: Disaster mitigation requires resources. If you take truck drivers off the road because they are volunteer FF/EMT's, how long is it before you don't have food, gas, and medical supplies in the effected areas? Even if you take away 20% of the cashiers at Wal-Mart, how are people going to get the resources they need in a timely fashion here in Orange County?

While it's a nice thing for the bureaucrats in Washington to say that they will protect the jobs of volunteers in the case of an emergency, I sure hope there's some kind of verbage in this bill that protects employers and gives them first right of refusal to let their employees go. While the initial management of a disaster (24-48 hours) may be intensive for first responders, the continuing logistics of a major incident require the entire workforce to remain as intact as possible for successful mitigation.

Maybe employers should be educated about this law and then take this into account when making hiring decisions...I certainly wouldn't want to put my business and my livelihood in jeopardy by hiring employees who could just get up and leave without consequence and if I was aware of this law I just wouldn't hire anyone who I knew was a volunteer fire or ems worker but of course I wouldn't state this as the reason for my hiring decision...I'll be sure to point this potential liability out to my friends who own or manages private businesses...maybe we all should do the same??

[NWFDMedic 58]

Maybe employers should be educated about this law and then take this into account when making hiring decisions...I certainly wouldn't want to put my business and my livelihood in jeopardy by hiring employees who could just get up and leave without consequence and if I was aware of this law I just wouldn't hire anyone who I knew was a volunteer fire or ems worker but of course I wouldn't state this as the reason for my hiring decision...I'll be sure to point this potential liability out to my friends who own or manages private businesses...maybe we all should do the same??

Well, that wasn't quite the road I was headed down Chief, but I can see the point. Maybe there needs to be a list of essential job functions or some kind of provision that allows employers to only be responsible to let X-percent of their workers go.

[LFD34 12]

There are already many rules that protect employees, such as maternity leave etc.

The issue is how to fund a ready workforce that is capable of handling emergencies. I think limiting this to presidentially declared disasters isn't enough.

I believe more to the point would be to take all emergency responders and treat them in much the same fashion as the National Guard whereby they could be activated and ordered to respond by both the governer of their respective states and the President. Either FEMA or the NFA could create standards that all personnel would have to stay current with.

[gamewell45 258]

Agreed.

Besides, according to the article, it is phrased as such:

This bipartisan legislation would prohibit employers from firing or disciplining volunteer firefighters or EMS personnel who were forced to miss work to respond to a presidentially declared disaster. First responders will no longer be required to make a choice between losing their job and responding to a presidentially declared disaster or emergency.

When in history has a volunteer firefighter or EMS responder been FORCED to respond?

So if you are not FORCED to respond, and you do respond, I am assuming that your employer can still discipline and/or fire you?

I would substitute the words: ".....personnel who, through their choice to volunteer, in order to respond to a presidentially declared disaster."

Even if the employer wanted to play games with the words, it I think the spirit of the language would take precedent over any employer attempting to discharge an employee who was responding and missed work under this bill. The US Department of Labor would have a field day with any employer trying pull a fast one with this.