Flashpoint: Union stand on volunteers doesn't hold water

[FFPCogs 863]

It's also well established fact that many, many more VFDs rarely have or don't rely on career FF members to cover any parts of the day.

Fair enough although for those that do I'm sure the effects of losing these members has had a palable impact. I know some communites in the Hartford area were up in arms not so long ago when the City mandated that it's FFs could not volunteer with the surrounding FDs, so for them at least they did rely on those members.

As a whole, I think you're overestimating the actual impact of this rule. Not to sound too crass, but as far as the need to hire career personnel goes, so what?

I may be overestimating the impact of the rule, but the bottom line here is that there has been an impact which has negatively affected the communities involved.

Let's be clear. IAFF members choosing to volunteer in an all volunteer department is really not an issue at the top level. Any attempts at restricting that activity is likely coming at the local level and essentially not from the IAFF itself. The problem area, as clearly defined, is the combination department in which an IAFF affiliate is present.

So selective enforcement is the norm? It seems as though there are two different interpretations of the rule here. Union member can volunteer then so long as the dept in which they volunteer employs no union FFs, is that right?

So, to me the argument against this restriction sounds like you are saying that somehow, the IAFF has a greater obligation to ensure the public's welfare (via providing volunteer staffing) than the municipality and/or VFD who is in fact actually charged with that responsibility, even if it does mean hiring some personnel?

Not at all, the IAFf is not obligated to ensure the public's welfare, but it's members should have the option to do so if the so choose. So what I'm saying is that by taking away a union member's freedom to volunteer if they choose to, the IAFF is forcing VFD protected cities to hire FFs to ensure adequate coverage. Now if no career FFs want to volunteer that's fine and pay all the people you need to to ensure coverage, but when they do want to volunteer the choice should be theirs to make based on what benefit they and the communities in which they live stand to gain from their volunteering

No, the disparities and separation are not because the volunteers don't have representation in the IAFF. IMO, the heart of the disparity can probably be narrowed down to the simply fact that some people are getting paid and some people are not for doing what is perceived as "the same job". That fact alone will create issues.

I agree that any disparities and seperation exist simply because of the nature in which the paid and volunteer sectors provide their services. but you hit on a good point, we are percieved to be doing "the same job" and in fact we are. Inclusion in the IAFF would allow for direct interaction between the "sides" and lead to cooperation on any number of fronts affecting the fire service as a whole, some of which were hit upon a few pages back.

What kind of representation in the IAFF are you talking about?

Gaining a unified political voice for the fire service as a whole for one thing, along with service on committees relating to FF health and welfare, LODD benefits, training standards, safety programs ect. as cited by X152. Also it will create the opportunity to engage in direct dialouge to deal cooperatively with issues affecting career/volunteer interaction at the source.

Cogs

[antiquefirelt 994]

I have to say that the fastest most appropriate and positively progressive way (enough adjectives?) for the Volunteer Fire Service to take the wind out of the IAFF's sails nationwide would be to fight for equal training standards for all volunteers. If you could soundly argue that all volunteers had the same training as most career firefighters and the same standards for promotion, you'd take away the biggest disparity. Then develop a staffing schedule to get staffed apparatus out in under 2 minutes. If you can accomplish those two things, there'd be no fighting. In fact, you'd see more communities fighting to have free or low cost VFD firefighters if the end result was the same. Some of you are consistently bashing the IAFF and locals and career firefighters to a degree, yet are arguing that the IAFF is making it harder on VFD's by prohibiting trained firefighters from volunteering? Why would anyone volunteer in a FD where the membership continually bashes their job? I know there's anti-volunteer sentiment in th e career ranks as well, but we're starting to get like the discrimination-reverse discrimination issue.

VFD's provide a lower cost level of fire protection. In some places the product is poor, in others it's excellent and in most cases is something in between. The level of protection ultimately is determined by the taxpayers who weight the benefits of higher standards of training and better response times against what they're willing to pay. The real rub is that few taxpayers really know the difference between the levels of service. Most have little interaction with the FD and know(or think) in their time of need the red trucks will show up promptly. Beyond that, a fire is so dynamic that it's nearly impossible for the untrained witness to determine a quality response vs a crappy one. Thus many crappy responses go untouched. If the taxpayers were making a truly informed decision, then the IAFF and career firefighters really would have nothing to say, as we all understand the way the taxpayer/municipal services system works.

If your FD has a problem opening the books to the general taxpayers or will not honestly answer questions regarding training and officership standards, response times, numbers of training responders per incident, etc. you are the problem! If your honestly trying to do the best for the community by providing a service for little or nothing, then more power to you, I wish I lived in your town, but I doubt I have a large field of communities to choose from that meet that standard.

Edited February 6, 2011 by antiquefirelt

[FFPCogs 863]

Upon doing a little research I have to point out that while some communities were cited where volunteers "replaced" career FFs, it appears from all the available info that in every case it was done due to budgetary limitations, not because the volunteer sought to eliminate the career components of those FDs or "take" their jobs. In my 30+ yeas in the fire service I have never known of volunteers actively pursuing the removal of paid or unionized FFs from their jobs, nor have I ever seen any coordinated efforts to reduce their numbers by volunteers, or heard the IAFF referred to as a rival organization.

Cogs

[helicopper 1,050]

So selective enforcement is the norm? It seems as though there are two different interpretations of the rule here. Union member can volunteer then so long as the dept in which they volunteer employs no union FFs, is that right?

Not at all, the IAFf is not obligated to ensure the public's welfare, but it's members should have the option to do so if the so choose. So what I'm saying is that by taking away a union member's freedom to volunteer if they choose to, the IAFF is forcing VFD protected cities to hire FFs to ensure adequate coverage. Now if no career FFs want to volunteer that's fine and pay all the people you need to to ensure coverage, but when they do want to volunteer the choice should be theirs to make based on what benefit they and the communities in which they live stand to gain from their volunteering

I agree that any disparities and seperation exist simply because of the nature in which the paid and volunteer sectors provide their services. but you hit on a good point, we are percieved to be doing "the same job" and in fact we are. Inclusion in the IAFF would allow for direct interaction between the "sides" and lead to cooperation on any number of fronts affecting the fire service as a whole, some of which were hit upon a few pages back.

Gaining a unified political voice for the fire service as a whole for one thing, along with service on committees relating to FF health and welfare, LODD benefits, training standards, safety programs ect. as cited by X152. Also it will create the opportunity to engage in direct dialouge to deal cooperatively with issues affecting career/volunteer interaction at the source.

It isn't selective enforcement. Telling a union firefighter not to volunteer in another union FD is not selective. It's simply an effort to avoid conflict and protect the interests of their members. Much the same way a VFD screens its applicants before accepting a prospective member? Isn't that selective hiring?

The IAFF isn't forcing anyone to hire more career FF's. That's a really skewed way of viewing their position. The IAFF has a mandate to protect its membership - all of them. As for volunteering, are there any documented cases of a VFD being forced to hire career FF's because a career FF didn't/wouldn't/couldn't volunteer?

The disparities and separation exist simply because of the nature in which the paid and volunteer sectors provide their services? Sorry, cogs, I've been reading threads here and elsewhere and I hardly think we can all anything simple in the comparison of career and volunteer FDs. antiquefirelt does a great job of highlighting what is probably the biggest bone of contention, the different training standards for career and volunteer (at least in NY it's a pretty big difference).

Do you mean to tell me that the volunteer lobby will increase its minimum training standards to meet the career standard? If that's the case why haven't they done so already? Is the volunteer lobby so organized that it has actually approached the IAFF with a unified voice and asked to be included in their organization? The IAFF represents members who pay for said representation. In your plan for a career and volunteer IAFF do the volunteers pay for their representation?

I have to say that the fastest most appropriate and positively progressive way (enough adjectives?) for the Volunteer Fire Service to take the wind out of the IAFF's sails nationwide would be to fight for equal training standards for all volunteers. If you could soundly argue that all volunteers had the same training as most career firefighters and the same standards for promotion, you'd take away the biggest disparity. Then develop a staffing schedule to get staffed apparatus out in under 2 minutes. If you can accomplish those two things, there'd be no fighting. In fact, you'd see more communities fighting to have free or low cost VFD firefighters if the end result was the same. Some of you are consistently bashing the IAFF and locals and career firefighters to a degree, yet are arguing that the IAFF is making it harder on VFD's by prohibiting trained firefighters from volunteering? Why would anyone volunteer in a FD where the membership continually bashes their job? I know there's anti-volunteer sentiment in th e career ranks as well, but we're starting to get like the discrimination-reverse discrimination issue.

VFD's provide a lower cost level of fire protection. In some places the product is poor, in others it's excellent and in most cases is something in between. The level of protection ultimately is determined by the taxpayers who weight the benefits of higher standards of training and better response times against what they're willing to pay. The real rub is that few taxpayers really know the difference between the levels of service. Most have little interaction with the FD and know(or think) in their time of need the red trucks will show up promptly. Beyond that, a fire is so dynamic that it's nearly impossible for the untrained witness to determine a quality response vs a crappy one. Thus many crappy responses go untouched. If the taxpayers were making a truly informed decision, then the IAFF and career firefighters really would have nothing to say, as we all understand the way the taxpayer/municipal services system works.

If your FD has a problem opening the books to the general taxpayers or will not honestly answer questions regarding training and officership standards, response times, numbers of training responders per incident, etc. you are the problem! If your honestly trying to do the best for the community by providing a service for little or nothing, then more power to you, I wish I lived in your town, but I doubt I have a large field of communities to choose from that meet that standard.

So, let's see if we can pick out the components here...

RECRUITMENT

TRAINING

STAFFING

RESPONSE TIME

OPERATIONS

BUDGET/FINANCE

ACCOUNTABILITY

Right off the bat, the differences jump out at you. Until these mammoth differences are reduced or eliminated how can you ever expect a single association to represent all the FF?

[FireMedic049 597]

So selective enforcement is the norm?

Essentially yes from the standpoint that the enforcement of the rule occurs at the local level. The rule itself is consistent, but overall this really isn't as much of a concern as many outside the IAFF might think. It only becomes an "issue" if a Local files charges and makes it an issue.

It seems as though there are two different interpretations of the rule here. Union member can volunteer then so long as the dept in which they volunteer employs no union FFs, is that right?

Yes, there are two different interpretations. There's the interpretation that the IAFF forbids ALL volunteering as a firefighter and then there's the correct interpretation that as long as an IAFF Local isn't effected, it's not an issue.

Not at all, the IAFf is not obligated to ensure the public's welfare, but it's members should have the option to do so if the so choose. So what I'm saying is that by taking away a union member's freedom to volunteer if they choose to, the IAFF is forcing VFD protected cities to hire FFs to ensure adequate coverage. Now if no career FFs want to volunteer that's fine and pay all the people you need to to ensure coverage, but when they do want to volunteer the choice should be theirs to make based on what benefit they and the communities in which they live stand to gain from their volunteering

I would tend to disagree, but I suppose that it's a matter of perspective. You see the removal of the IAFF volunteers from the equation as the cause for poor coverage and/or the need to hire personnel. I see the lack of participation of the vast majority of that community as the primary cause.

I agree that any disparities and seperation exist simply because of the nature in which the paid and volunteer sectors provide their services. but you hit on a good point, we are percieved to be doing "the same job" and in fact we are.

We are only doing "the same job" to the extent that we all may be responding to the same types of calls and using the same equipment when doing so. There are many differences from dept to dept and person to person in how we do "the job" and/or how much of "the job" we actually do.

Inclusion in the IAFF would allow for direct interaction between the "sides" and lead to cooperation on any number of fronts affecting the fire service as a whole, some of which were hit upon a few pages back.

I disagree. There are already organizations out there who's focus is on the fire service as a whole in terms of career/volunteer. The IAFC is one that comes to mind off the top of my head.

The IAFF is about the needs of career firefighters and improving their work conditions. On the local level, this is accomplished via negotiation between the employer (the municipal leaders) and the employees (the firefighters). At the state and top levels, the effort is more about legislation. Some of what is done benefits everybody, like AFG & SAFER grant programs and LODD benefits. However, a lot doesn't necessarily affect volunteers.

If volunteers were to be let in, should it be all of them or just those in IAFF combo departments? Who would a volunteer department negotiate with since they are both the employer and the employees?

As was mentioned earlier, what about dues? Membership in my Local, the State Association & the IAFF costs me a little over $60 a month. How many volunteers would be willing to pay that?

Gaining a unified political voice for the fire service as a whole for one thing, along with service on committees relating to FF health and welfare, LODD benefits, training standards, safety programs ect. as cited by X152. Also it will create the opportunity to engage in direct dialouge to deal cooperatively with issues affecting career/volunteer interaction at the source.

Cogs

I agree that this stuff could be helpful, but membership in the IAFF is not the way to do it.

Edited February 6, 2011 by FireMedic049

[Bnechis 3,961]

Some of you are consistently bashing the IAFF and locals and career firefighters to a degree, yet are arguing that the IAFF is making it harder on VFD's by prohibiting trained firefighters from volunteering? Why would anyone volunteer in a FD where the membership continually bashes their job?

When the IAFF members who work in combination depts. complain about the work condition and how they are treated by the volunteers, its little wonder others dont want to volunteer. I personnally know of at least 1/2 a dozen different depts where the career staff either took their complaints to the Dept. of Labor or the courts and in every case, the courts or the state issued legal orders for the FD to correct the illegal or improper actions.

If your FD has a problem opening the books to the general taxpayers or will not honestly answer questions regarding training and officership standards, response times, numbers of training responders per incident, etc. you are the problem! If your honestly trying to do the best for the community by providing a service for little or nothing, then more power to you, I wish I lived in your town, but I doubt I have a large field of communities to choose from that meet that standard.

If depts were required to do this, many depts would be forced to make major changes. This is the single biggest item that would improve the fire service (career, combo and vol included).

[Bnechis 3,961]

I know some communites in the Hartford area were up in arms not so long ago when the City mandated that it's FFs could not volunteer with the surrounding FDs, so for them at least they did rely on those members.

And after massive lobbying efforts the volunteers convinced the state to make that illegal. Now how many volunteers did that generate? 10? 20? If the same effort was put into recruiting the results could have equalled or been even greater.

I may be overestimating the impact of the rule, but the bottom line here is that there has been an impact which has negatively affected the communities involved.

Lets consider how much impact we might be talking about. In NYS there are approximatly 1,800 fire depts. Approximatly 1,700 are 100% volunteer. The remaining 100 are career or combo and range in size from 4 career to 11,000 career (FDNY). There are approximatly 18,000 career firefighters. Since FDNY does not prevent it and other depts also do not, we are talking about 6,000 fireifghters state wide. My dept. at most about 10% volunteer in other depts. So lets say 20% of career FF's might volunteer if this rule is preventing them. Thats 1,500 firefighters or 0.8 firefighters per dept. If you think that 0.8 additional firefighters per dept will solve the massive volunteer shortage you have bigger issues.

Not at all, the IAFf is not obligated to ensure the public's welfare, but it's members should have the option to do so if the so choose. So what I'm saying is that by taking away a union member's freedom to volunteer if they choose to, the IAFF is forcing VFD protected cities to hire FFs to ensure adequate coverage. Now if no career FFs want to volunteer that's fine and pay all the people you need to to ensure coverage, but when they do want to volunteer the choice should be theirs to make based on what benefit they and the communities in which they live stand to gain from their volunteering

The IAFf has an obligation to ensure it's members welfare and in most cases its not the IAFF but the municipality that does not want its employees to volunteer. Based on the previous numbers. the average volunteer community has fewer than 1 career firefighter as a resident. Its not the IAFF that may be forcing the community to hire firefighters its the other 5,000 - 20,000 residence that are not stepping up to the plate.

we are percieved to be doing "the same job" and in fact we are. Inclusion in the IAFF would allow for direct interaction between the "sides" and lead to cooperation on any number of fronts affecting the fire service as a whole, some of which were hit upon a few pages back.

If the standards are not the same and the ratings are not the same and the response is not the same we do not do the same job. Inclusion in the IAFF will not solve the fact that volunteer groups like FASNY continue to lobby for reduced training standards and to reduce the requirements for minimum response standards (NFPA 1720).

Gaining a unified political voice for the fire service as a whole for one thing, along with service on committees relating to FF health and welfare, LODD benefits, training standards, safety programs ect. as cited by X152. Also it will create the opportunity to engage in direct dialouge to deal cooperatively with issues affecting career/volunteer interaction at the source.

We would have a unified voice if the volunteer lobbying effort would stop fighting against every standards the career fire service has fought for.

[FFPCogs 863]

Gentlemen you have brought up some valid points and clearly indentified and supported the union's stance....well done and thank you for the insight.

In the interest of time and space and since I happen to agree in principle with the view that VFDs need to modify their standards and work harder on recruiting I'll refrain from answering each post directly at this point and just hone in on this one:

Lets consider how much impact we might be talking about. In NYS there are approximatly 1,800 fire depts. Approximatly 1,700 are 100% volunteer. The remaining 100 are career or combo and range in size from 4 career to 11,000 career (FDNY). There are approximatly 18,000 career firefighters. Since FDNY does not prevent it and other depts also do not, we are talking about 6,000 fireifghters state wide. My dept. at most about 10% volunteer in other depts. So lets say 20% of career FF's might volunteer if this rule is preventing them. Thats 1,500 firefighters or 0.8 firefighters per dept. If you think that 0.8 additional firefighters per dept will solve the massive volunteer shortage you have bigger issues.

As I stated earlier while it may not be every VFD that is negatively impacted by the IAFF's ban on volunteering, for those that are it can have a considerable impact. To illustrate that point let me use my FD as an example.

Currently we have about 40 (give or take a few) active members that are committed to serving our community. We also have roughly 25 additional or former members that have either modified their status to an inactive capacity or have resigned due to the IAFF's ban. Now to be fair a precentage of those who have left have done so for reasons besides just the ban and for the sake of argument I'll run high and say that amounts to 50%. But of those that are left...that other 50% or 12 members...to a man all have said they would continue to volunteer if they still had that option to do so. No matter how you slice it 12 members is still 12 members...that's 12 able bodied, well trained, experienced, dedicated, capable and most importantly willing FFs that could respond when available to aid those in need if they still had the ability to do so. 12 members or roughly 20% of the roster....now that does constitute a very noticable negative impact. And we are not alone in facing a similar decline due to a policy that we have no control over even though it does directly impact us.

And B, with all due respect we're not talking about some abstract numbers culled from a compilation of dept.s that may not have or ever even have had career FFs as a part of their memberships, we're talking about the reduction in the potential to save lives for those that do.

Going back to the article that started this thread, the arguments that support the ban on volunteering do not hold water in a practical sense, they only support a political agenda to expand the IAFF.

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

As was mentioned earlier, what about dues? Membership in my Local, the State Association & the IAFF costs me a little over $60 a month. How many volunteers would be willing to pay that?

Let me address this since it is a direct question.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, yes I would pay $60.00 a month (or thereabouts depending on the level of representation) to increase the voice and better the fire service as a whole.

Cogs

[FireMedic049 597]

Gentlemen you have brought up some valid points and clearly indentified and supported the union's stance....well done and thank you for the insight.

In the interest of time and space and since I happen to agree in principle with the view that VFDs need to modify their standards and work harder on recruiting I'll refrain from answering each post directly at this point and just hone in on this one:

As I stated earlier while it may not be every VFD that is negatively impacted by the IAFF's ban on volunteering, for those that are it can have a considerable impact. To illustrate that point let me use my FD as an example.

Currently we have about 40 (give or take a few) active members that are committed to serving our community. We also have roughly 25 additional or former members that have either modified their status to an inactive capacity or have resigned due to the IAFF's ban. Now to be fair a precentage of those who have left have done so for reasons besides just the ban and for the sake of argument I'll run high and say that amounts to 50%. But of those that are left...that other 50% or 12 members...to a man all have said they would continue to volunteer if they still had that option to do so. No matter how you slice it 12 members is still 12 members...that's 12 able bodied, well trained, experienced, dedicated, capable and most importantly willing FFs that could respond when available to aid those in need if they still had the ability to do so. 12 members or roughly 20% of the roster....now that does constitute a very noticable negative impact. And we are not alone in facing a similar decline due to a policy that we have no control over even though it does directly impact us.

And B, with all due respect we're not talking about some abstract numbers culled from a compilation of dept.s that may not have or ever even have had career FFs as a part of their memberships, we're talking about the reduction in the potential to save lives for those that do.

I won't debate the impact of this on your department, in part because I don't have any facts to counter them, however I still firmly believe that your department is the exception and not the rule in this matter.

Going back to the article that started this thread, the arguments that support the ban on volunteering do not hold water in a practical sense, they only support a political agenda to expand the IAFF.

I would agree that there's a leak in the pail regarding the article, however efforts to expand the IAFF are probably more focused on organizing new Locals rather than increased hiring in existing ones.

[FireMedic049 597]

Let me address this since it is a direct question.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, yes I would pay $60.00 a month (or thereabouts depending on the level of representation) to increase the voice and better the fire service as a whole.

Cogs

I'd guess that you'd be in the minority on that. Considering all of the efforts by many departments to recruit and retain volunteer members with various incentive type offerings and those that don't have the ability to do so, I don't think too many would be very interested in paying $60 a month to volunteer their time.

Regardless, as I said before, the place for both sides to collectively work together (as members of the same organization) in order to improve the fire service as a whole is not the IAFF.

[FFPCogs 863]

I won't debate the impact of this on your department, in part because I don't have any facts to counter them, however I still firmly believe that your department is the exception and not the rule in this matter.

It has been my experience based on research of the volunteer fire service in general and direct communication with a number of VFDs that many VFDs do in fact rely to a lesser or greater extent on the career FF segment of their memberships to effectively answer alarms. If, as has been maintained, the number of FFs we're talking about is so negligible why do you think this policy is such an issue for a number of VFDs?

I would agree that there's a leak in the pail regarding the article, however efforts to expand the IAFF are probably more focused on organizing new Locals rather than increased hiring in existing ones.

On this I will have to respectfully disagree.

Cogs

Edited February 7, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

I'd guess that you'd be in the minority on that. Considering all of the efforts by many departments to recruit and retain volunteer members with various incentive type offerings and those that don't have the ability to do so, I don't think too many would be very interested in paying $60 a month to volunteer their time.

Well I've been accused of being alot of things but being a minority is one of the nicer ones...

And you are probably right to an extent, but if such representation were to offer a better service overall in terms of training, safety standards, LODD and injury benefits, recruitment assistance, equanimity, political activism and the opportunity for direct negotiation on issues affecting career/volunteer interaction to all FFs I would venture to say that there would be more interest than you might think....and by extension alot less animosity. But then again I realize not everyone believes what I do.

Regardless, as I said before, the place for both sides to collectively work together (as members of the same organization) in order to improve the fire service as a whole is not the IAFF.

As one who truly seeks to reduce rather than expand that which seperates the Fire Service what then would be the place (or organization) to collectively work together?

Cogs

Edited February 7, 2011 by FFPCogs

[valhalla2481 2]

When the IAFF members who work in combination depts. complain about the work condition and how they are treated by the volunteers, its little wonder others dont want to volunteer. I personnally know of at least 1/2 a dozen different depts where the career staff either took their complaints to the Dept. of Labor or the courts and in every case, the courts or the state issued legal orders for the FD to correct the illegal or improper actions.

If depts were required to do this, many depts would be forced to make major changes. This is the single biggest item that would improve the fire service (career, combo and vol included).

This is very simple I was an ex chief in a department with paid departments next town over I had paid fireman that volunteered in my town mainly because they grew up there and were volunteers before they became paid but if we went on mutual aid to a paidor combo department they did not respond and we were ok with that I have many relatives that are paid in westchester and FDNY and I believe if its paid then let it be all paid i am in a union so I think they should be able to get what they can get and to have volunteers there will hurt there attempt to get the most out of it we have volunteers who are paid that have attained the position of chief if you have people with qualifications and can help you why not use them most volunteers arent out to hurt or compete with the paid only help there town to provide protection Barry you comments on right on

[CTFF 65]

Gentlemen you have brought up some valid points and clearly indentified and supported the union's stance....well done and thank you for the insight.

In the interest of time and space and since I happen to agree in principle with the view that VFDs need to modify their standards and work harder on recruiting I'll refrain from answering each post directly at this point and just hone in on this one:

As I stated earlier while it may not be every VFD that is negatively impacted by the IAFF's ban on volunteering, for those that are it can have a considerable impact. To illustrate that point let me use my FD as an example.

Currently we have about 40 (give or take a few) active members that are committed to serving our community. We also have roughly 25 additional or former members that have either modified their status to an inactive capacity or have resigned due to the IAFF's ban. Now to be fair a precentage of those who have left have done so for reasons besides just the ban and for the sake of argument I'll run high and say that amounts to 50%. But of those that are left...that other 50% or 12 members...to a man all have said they would continue to volunteer if they still had that option to do so. No matter how you slice it 12 members is still 12 members...that's 12 able bodied, well trained, experienced, dedicated, capable and most importantly willing FFs that could respond when available to aid those in need if they still had the ability to do so. 12 members or roughly 20% of the roster....now that does constitute a very noticable negative impact. And we are not alone in facing a similar decline due to a policy that we have no control over even though it does directly impact us.

And B, with all due respect we're not talking about some abstract numbers culled from a compilation of dept.s that may not have or ever even have had career FFs as a part of their memberships, we're talking about the reduction in the potential to save lives for those that do.

Going back to the article that started this thread, the arguments that support the ban on volunteering do not hold water in a practical sense, they only support a political agenda to expand the IAFF.

Cogs

Of these 12 guys:

How many are employed by SFRD and therefore can't legally volunteer?

Of the rest how many live in Belltown?

[FFPCogs 863]

Of these 12 guys:

How many are employed by SFRD and therefore can't legally volunteer?

Of the rest how many live in Belltown?

That is not the point. The point is they were active members prior to being hired and would continue to be if the ban were not in place, thus increasing the total pool of volunteers available to respond to calls and save lives.

As far as being employed by SFRD and the legal aspects of volunteering at BFD, well in delving into FSLA I have stumbled across some interesting info regarding what constitutes a "seperate agency" and on the surface BFD does appear to fit the bill since we no longer employ FFs or have a union presence in the house, along with some other factors. Further study is required though before taking any action in this regard.

Cogs

Edited February 7, 2011 by FFPCogs

[CTFF 65]

That is not the point. The point is they were active members prior to being hired and would continue to be if the ban were not in place, thus increasing the total pool of volunteers available to respond to calls and save lives.

Cogs

If these 12 guys are employed by SFRD it is illegal for them to volunteer in Stamford and has nothing to do with the IAFF.

So I ask again, how many of these 12 are employed by SFRD?

[JohnnyOV 2]

That is not the point. The point is they were active members prior to being hired and would continue to be if the ban were not in place, thus increasing the total pool of volunteers available to respond to calls and save lives.

Cogs

It actually is the point under Federal Law. I see your point though, but have to agree with the ethical and moral issue of the Federal/union side. Why would anyone, in any job, be allowed to volunteer their time in the same "department/job function?" I see your issue of not being able to fill the volunteer ranks with qualified individuals, but when someone takes a fire test for a department that they are already volunteering in, and then get offered and take the job, you can no longer volunteer yourself in the same department, plain and simple. It is just not right under any circumstance. The volunteer knew and understood the circumstances when they applied and eventually accepted the job, and Federal Law says they must abide by them.

If you're having concerns about retaining active volunteers, maybe you need to look at the current recruitment/retention program that is in place at your department and modify that, rather then try and retain individuals who LEGALLY, again not by contract but under Federal law, can no longer volunteer themselves.

I'm going to have to give round (what are we on) 9(?) to the union.

edit: clarification

Edited February 7, 2011 by JohnnyOV

[FFPCogs 863]

If these 12 guys are employed by SFRD it is illegal for them to volunteer in Stamford and has nothing to do with the IAFF.

So I ask again, how many of these 12 are employed by SFRD?

Although FSLA is not the point the number is 12, I didn't count SFRD in the tally. Adding SFRD FFs, if in fact FSLA does not apply which it turns out may be a possibility, the number increases even further.

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Why would anyone, in any job, be allowed to volunteer their time in the same "department/job function?"

Because they WANT to as is their right to do...aka freedom of choice.

I'm going to have to give round (what are we on) 9(?) to the union.

I've lost count as well and yes I may be on the ropes but no KO yet.

Ding...round 10

Cogs

[FD828 77]

My thoughts as well. Injuries on off time occur when off no matter what the cause. If union members are to be prohibited from actively engaging in volunteer firefighting because they might get a boo boo than that policy should apply across the board and carry over to prohibit career FFs from engaging in ANY off duty activity especially side jobs that have the potential to cause injury while off duty.

Cogs

Injuries can occur any time any way. I think the bigger picture would be if God forbid, a firefighter contracts a communicable disease or comes down with cancer. You know damn well the city that the firefighter works for will argue that the firefighter contacted this illness due to volunteer activities. Now the member will have to fight tooth and nail to get the coverage that he/she deserves.

[FFPCogs 863]

Injuries can occur any time any way. I think the bigger picture would be if God forbid, a firefighter contracts a communicable disease or comes down with cancer. You know damn well the city that the firefighter works for will argue that the firefighter contacted this illness due to volunteer activities. Now the member will have to fight tooth and nail to get the coverage that he/she deserves.

This is a very valid concern and one which the article did address:

Compensation claims for work-related diseases will create jurisdictional issues. This is easily resolved by pro-rating such claims based on a cumulative ratio of duty hours between the full-time and volunteer employers. This solution is not only a resolution of the argument, it’s a fair arrangement that makes the hometown department responsible for its share of the claim. This approach could also apply when a firefighter changes employers, going from one full-time department to another. If the compensation claim argument is valid, then why is it OK for a firefighter to leave one department and go to another? Perhaps it is because the union has no power to prevent such a personal career decision, or that there is no political leverage to be wielded against a neighbouring full-time department.

I think we can agree that we all, paid and volunteer alike, have a vested interest in such concerns and as such a unified approach would probably yield better results for all.

Cogs

[CTFF 65]

Because they WANT to as is their right to do...aka freedom of choice.

Cogs

Your interpretation of freedom of choice is narrow and simply wrong.

Motorcycle riders in certain states would love to not be able to wear helmets but by law they have to.

I'd love to own fully automatic weapons and suppressors as I have the right to bear arms but CT does not allow them.

[FFPCogs 863]

Your interpretation of freedom of choice is narrow and simply wrong.

Motorcycle riders in certain states would love to not be able to wear helmets but by law they have to.

I'd love to own fully automatic weapons and suppressors as I have the right to bear arms but CT does not allow them.

In your opinion yes my interpretation is "wrong" and that's no suprise considering it is diametrically opposed to the union stance vis a vis volunteering.

By the way with a permit you can own automatic weapons in CT although unless you're going to mow down deer by the herd I don't know why you'd need to....

Cogs

[mstrang1 213]

I don't mean to make this a gang up on Cogs thread, but I'll add my piece. A few pages back you(Cogs) said that you know of no volunteers actively pushing career guys out. I think if you look in your own backyard, or front yard even, you will find Belltown did just that. BFD employed 9(I think that was the #) firefighter/drivers. In 2007, the city was going to incorporate those 9 guys and staff a full rig in BFD. That would have been 16 jobs, 7 more than before. How many paid guys are in BFD now? 0.

In addition, I remember giving money to guys that were laid off by Belltown FD because they did want to go along with the City. They voted NO on a proposal, knowing a few guys would, and did, get laid off. Sounds to me like they forced career guys out of BFD TWICE.

[JohnnyOV 2]

Because they WANT to as is their right to do...aka freedom of choice.

There is freedom of choice when it comes to what sandwich do I want for lunch today, or do I even want a sandwich at all, maybe I'll spice it up with some soup instead. For one to accept a career position in the fire service, regardless of whether a union is involved or not, it is understood that volunteering in the same house is taboo. Why? Because by volunteering you are giving the illusion that under their current contract, staffing is adequate. However when it the contract expires, and you start to haggle jobs around, it is quite possible the community you work in will look directly at you and go, "Well, you work here, but also volunteer your time here doing the same thing. Why should we continue to pay your salary when you have already made it quite apparent that you're willing to do the same job at no cost to the city." Now you have placed your job, and the jobs of all of the other career guys in the house, in jeopardy. Cities are doing what ever they can right now to cut costs. And when you have a career guy, volunteering his time in a career/combo town, it is basically the same thing as crossing the picket line during a strike.

Edited February 7, 2011 by JohnnyOV

[FFPCogs 863]

I don't mean to make this a gang up on Cogs thread, but I'll add my piece. A few pages back you(Cogs) said that you know of no volunteers actively pushing career guys out. I think if you look in your own backyard, or front yard even, you will find Belltown did just that. BFD employed 9(I think that was the #) firefighter/drivers. In 2007, the city was going to incorporate those 9 guys and staff a full rig in BFD. That would have been 16 jobs, 7 more than before. How many paid guys are in BFD now? 0.

In addition, I remember giving money to guys that were laid off by Belltown FD because they did want to go along with the City. They voted NO on a proposal, knowing a few guys would, and did, get laid off. Sounds to me like they forced career guys out of BFD TWICE.

Those members choose to leave and become SFRD employees knowing full well what the consequences were, they were not forced out by the volunteers. Nice try though.

Cogs

[mstrang1 213]

The guys that were LAID off did not choose to be laid off. They were laid off by way of BFD choosing to not go along with Mayor Malloys plan. So yes, the City was the one who actually laid them off, but it was the volunteer membership of BFD that caused it. Yes, the career staff at BFD chose in majority to become members of SFRD. That is not what I am saying. BFD COULDhave had an SFRD in its district, like GFD, SPFD, TORFD all do, and in doing so, create more jobs. BFD chose not to continue their relationship with Local 786 and have career guys in house. So yes, BFD did, in effect, through their own doing, "get rid of" a career engine that should have been in their district. Instead, they get a full volunteer response, plus the closest SFRD engine anyway. In the current situation, Engine 1,5,6,7,8 all respond into BFDs area anyway, when it simply could have been the hypothetical Engine 10 responding to these calls.

[CTFF 65]

Cogs,

Like most of the union members here have posted I am not anti-volunteer, I have no problems with guys who volunteer at home as long as it's not in a town that has career firefighters and they are not responding mutual aide into towns that employ career firefighters.

CTFF

[FFPCogs 863]

There is freedom of choice when it comes to what sandwich do I want for lunch today, or do I even want a sandwich at all, maybe I'll spice it up with some soup instead. For one to accept a career position in the fire service, regardless of whether a union is involved or not, it is understood that volunteering in the same house is taboo. Why? Because by volunteering you are giving the illusion that under their current contract, staffing is adequate. However when it the contract expires, and you start to haggle jobs around, it is quite possible the community you work in will look directly at you and go, "Well, you work here, but also volunteer your time here doing the same thing. Why should we continue to pay your salary when you have already made it quite apparent that you're willing to do the same job at no cost to the city." Now you have placed your job, and the jobs of all of the other career guys in the house, in jeopardy. Cities are doing what ever they can right now to cut costs. And when you have a career guy, volunteering his time in a career/combo town, it is basically the same thing as crossing the picket line during a strike.

So I guess able bodied, quailifed, experienced guys shouldn't volunteer to offset any manpower shortages when the budgets do not allow for increased staffing even when they could, of their own free will, provide that staffing. You seem to be saying it's better to put the public at risk and stand by and do nothing as their neigbors house goes up in flames. Seems kinda like holding hostages if you ask me.

Although examples have been cited in which FFs were laid off and "replaced" by volunteers, those situations were due to budgetary constraints. So in regards to your point about volunteering undermining or costing jobs by virtue of volunteering alone can you cite some examples? Now I'm not saying it hasn't happened but I don't know of any union FFs that have been affected in such a manner simply because they or other career firefighters volunteer in their house.

Cogs