Flashpoint: Union stand on volunteers doesn't hold water

[mstrang1 213]

I agree with CTFF in regards to my stance on volunteers. I did find, through personal experience, that after I became a career FF that there was animosity towards me from members of my volunteer dept. I had some people asking my opinion on things, and then lambasting me for trying to suggest easier/different ways of doing things. Often the same person asking my advice was the one criticizing my answer. This drove me to resign from my volunteer dept.

I have found that volunteers are often more critical of career FF than vice versa. In my experience, I found a lot of grief came from older guys who took tests when they were younger and did not get hired anywhere. I was relatively young (22-23) when I got hired by SFRD. There were guys I volunteered with who took tests for 10 years and did not get hired anywhere, and I found they resented me and were jealous. Yeah, they made fun of me for having to clean toilets and mop floors, but you could feel that a lot of these guys wished they had the opportunity to clean toilets at 629 Main St.

[FFPCogs 863]

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

And CT you have every right to feel that way and even if I don't agree 100% I respect your views.

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

I agree with CTFF in regards to my stance on volunteers. I did find, through personal experience, that after I became a career FF that there was animosity towards me from members of my volunteer dept. I had some people asking my opinion on things, and then lambasting me for trying to suggest easier/different ways of doing things. Often the same person asking my advice was the one criticizing my answer. This drove me to resign from my volunteer dept.

I have found that volunteers are often more critical of career FF than vice versa. In my experience, I found a lot of grief came from older guys who took tests when they were younger and did not get hired anywhere. I was relatively young (22-23) when I got hired by SFRD. There were guys I volunteered with who took tests for 10 years and did not get hired anywhere, and I found they resented me and were jealous. Yeah, they made fun of me for having to clean toilets and mop floors, but you could feel that a lot of these guys wished they had the opportunity to clean toilets at 629 Main St.

I know this goes on and in fact I've been accused of being one being of those wishing to clean those very same toilets. I am not. I simply want to ensure that enough qualified butts are in the seats to do the job and since I live here I want to try and make that happen at as low a cost as possible. To that end I have a problem with the prohibition on volunteering not because I'm anti union, but because I believe that if qualified people are willing to volunteer they should be able to do so without repercussions to achieve the best possible protection at the best possible cost.

Cogs

Edited February 7, 2011 by FFPCogs

[JohnnyOV 2]

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.

To be blunt, yep, that is exactly what I am saying... for the first statement. Municipalities should be able to properly budget their departments and not put public service as the first line item on the chopping block. The 3 private chefs for the Mayor should be the first to go. It is not the fireman's fault that there is no money, and it lies soley on the municipality when someone's house does burn down

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.

We're not talking about getting our jollies off while riding around on rigs with our **** in our hands (there is a reason we're referred to as jolly vollies). We're talking about ending someone's career and replacing it with someone who will do it for free. This is how they pay for food for their families, how they save money to put their kids through school, and afford to pay the mortgage. I will never stand for replacing an existing career spot with that of a volunteer, plain and simple. If tomorrow (and if I was in a combo house) some paid guy was about to lose his job because of volunteers staffing in the department, my door key, badge, and gear would be at the front step of the firehouse that instant with a note saying, "My passion, isn't worth this mans lively hood. Thanks for the fun times." And that is me just as a volunteer. How are other guys in the firehouse going to look at the "picket crosser" when they start coming around volunteering their time, and then Jimbo's job get's cut. I sure wouldn't want to be that guy.....

[FireMedic049 597]

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?

My guess is that a lot of people, probably mostly volunteers, have never correctly understood the by-law. Now I'll give some the benefit of the doubt that they've never actually read it and are just going by word of mouth of others that may or may not have actually read it or may have misinterpreted it.

I'll admit that I didn't correctly understand it when I was hired. I resigned from the 2 volunteer departments that I was associated with at the time thinking that I had to do it. If I'd know better, I might have stayed on at the one, because at that point, it was more of a part-time job for me (working on the FD ambulance). I really don't regret doing it because looking back, I simply didn't have the time for the jobs I was working and to give those VFDs reliable assistance and that has only worsened since the arrival of my first child.

On this I will have to respectfully disagree.

Cogs

OK.

[FireMedic049 597]

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.

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

Honestly, I don't know if that best organization currently exists. I don't know enough about the inner workings of the current organizations like the IAFC, NVFC, NFPA, etc to say if what you are talking about is potentially already in place or able to be expanded on.

I do know, as I've said, the IAFF is not that place.

I think the volunteers collectively are the obstacle when it comes to training issues. I've had the discussion locally regarding something like mandatory minimum training and in general, there's no interest in something like this because the belief is that "certifications are just a piece of paper" and that state imposed minimum training standards would cause them to loose members, in part because they wouldn't pass the test.

The most ironic part about the discussion is that the written and practical exams for PA FF1 is based entirely on the information taught in what is pretty much universally agreed upon to be the accepted entry-level training course for FFs - "Essentials of Firefighting". It is also my understanding that about 20 years ago or so, the exams where part of the course, but where separated based on complaints by the volunteer side that their members were failing the testing.

A lot of what you describe is stuff that existing organizations like the NVFC should already be providing to the volunteers and their departments.

[FFPCogs 863]

To be blunt, yep, that is exactly what I am saying... for the first statement. Municipalities should be able to properly budget their departments and not put public service as the first line item on the chopping block. The 3 private chefs for the Mayor should be the first to go. It is not the fireman's fault that there is no money, and it lies soley on the municipality when someone's house does burn down

Thanks for your honesty. And I agree 100% that the 3 chefs should go, in fact they never should have been hired in the first place. Now when it comes down to insuffcient revenues to pay everyone who then should be on the block..teachers, cops, garbagemen. We all know there is wasteful spending in government, but if the money's not there it's not there now is it. The only real recourse then is to vote the bums that allowed it to happen out of office and hope for better luck with the next lot. I'm curious about one thing though, how is it that a FF's livelihood is more valuable than another municipal worker's? What of the other's families, mortages and kids schooling?

We're not talking about getting our jollies off while riding around on rigs with our **** in our hands (there is a reason we're referred to as jolly vollies). We're talking about ending someone's career and replacing it with someone who will do it for free. This is how they pay for food for their families, how they save money to put their kids through school, and afford to pay the mortgage. I will never stand for replacing an existing career spot with that of a volunteer, plain and simple. If tomorrow (and if I was in a combo house) some paid guy was about to lose his job because of volunteers staffing in the department, my door key, badge, and gear would be at the front step of the firehouse that instant with a note saying, "My passion, isn't worth this mans lively hood. Thanks for the fun times." And that is me just as a volunteer. How are other guys in the firehouse going to look at the "picket crosser" when they start coming around volunteering their time, and then Jimbo's job get's cut. I sure wouldn't want to be that guy.....

Well I haven't held my **** in my hand getting my jollies off in a rig for quite some time so that is not my main concern anymore. What is my concern is the public's welfare and our ability to provide it. See although the spectre of unionized career firefighters being replaced by volunteers is often used there is no evidence to support such a belief. No instances have been cited to show an effort on the part of the volunteer sector to encourage such action. On the other hand it can be argued and some might say proven, that the prohibition on union FFs volunteering can have a direct negative impact on the volunteer sector, which by the way the IAFF regards as "rival" organizations.

I do respect that you would willing walk away from your FD if jobs were to be lost and quite frankly if my or anyone elses volunteering were the direct cause of that outcome I too would walk away. But it has been my experience and to the best of my knowledge that of every other volunteer FF (career FFs that volunteer included) that I know, that our committment to volunteering in our community has never cost anyone their job simply because we volunteer. In the end I have dedicated my adult life to the fire service, albeit mostly as a volunteer, but without fail in the belief of upholding the core value of helping others in need. That to me that is what it is to be a fireman. If by my actions I can save a job I will, if I cannot I will still act in the service of my neighbors for if I don't who will?

Cogs

Edited February 7, 2011 by FFPCogs

[FFPCogs 863]

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.

You said it... the career staff "choose in majority to become members of SFRD", so in fact the choice was theirs. Why is it that you believe BFD was obligated to allow an SFRD rig in the house if they did not feel doing so was in the best interest of the distict and department? And by the way IMO Mayor Malloy's plan was an abomination and it is the pursuit of it that led to the debacle.

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

Honestly, I don't know if that best organization currently exists. I don't know enough about the inner workings of the current organizations like the IAFC, NVFC, NFPA, etc to say if what you are talking about is potentially already in place or able to be expanded on.

I do know, as I've said, the IAFF is not that place.

I think the volunteers collectively are the obstacle when it comes to training issues. I've had the discussion locally regarding something like mandatory minimum training and in general, there's no interest in something like this because the belief is that "certifications are just a piece of paper" and that state imposed minimum training standards would cause them to loose members, in part because they wouldn't pass the test.

The most ironic part about the discussion is that the written and practical exams for PA FF1 is based entirely on the information taught in what is pretty much universally agreed upon to be the accepted entry-level training course for FFs - "Essentials of Firefighting". It is also my understanding that about 20 years ago or so, the exams where part of the course, but where separated based on complaints by the volunteer side that their members were failing the testing.

Yes the volunteer sector can at times be their own worst enemy. I happen to agree with standards across the board and programs to make them achievable, and there are many VFDs that do a great job of implementing them.

A lot of what you describe is stuff that existing organizations like the NVFC should already be providing to the volunteers and their departments.

They do great work and do work towards adressing much of what we're talking about, but I think we need some kind of bridge organization or at least dedicated open channels between the "sides" if there is ever to be a time when the collective good and similarities of the fire service as a whole outweigh our inherent differences.

Cogs

[FireMedic049 597]

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.

In the context of what the IAFF by-law restriction is, Yes.

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.

There's a difference between doing nothing to help your actual neighbors in a time of crisis and routinely responding to calls as a volunteer firefighter in the restricted fashion.

Your right, it is kind of like holding hostages, but we probably aren't in agreement on who the hostage takers are. Is it really what is probably a small number of IAFF members in any given community that are abiding by the rules of an organization that they are affiliated with?

or

Could it in fact be the VFDs themselves, by not definitively addressing a potential problem and/or making the community aware of the problem and allowing them the opportunity to decide what level of service they want and/or are willing to pay for? Besides, there's probably more able bodies in the community that aren't IAFF members.

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

All of those examples are relevant. The fact that there were "budget constraints" prompting the disbandment is irrelevant. Would you actually get rid of personnel performing an essential service if nobody volunteered to be their replacements?

The third department I cited, the matter was toughted as a budget problem necessitating it, however via legal channels it was clearly established as more of a personal vendetta by the Mayor than any true budgetary problem.

[FFPCogs 863]

In the context of what the IAFF by-law restriction is, Yes.

There's a difference between doing nothing to help your actual neighbors in a time of crisis and routinely responding to calls as a volunteer firefighter in the restricted fashion.

Your right, it is kind of like holding hostages, but we probably aren't in agreement on who the hostage takers are. Is it really what is probably a small number of IAFF members in any given community that are abiding by the rules of an organization that they are affiliated with?

or

Could it in fact be the VFDs themselves, by not definitively addressing a potential problem and/or making the community aware of the problem and allowing them the opportunity to decide what level of service they want and/or are willing to pay for? Besides, there's probably more able bodies in the community that aren't IAFF members.

If you think my tirades are solely directed at the union let me assure you that's not the case, that is just the nature of this particular thread. I am fully aware of the shortcomings and shortsightedness of the volunteer sector in regards to putting those qualified butts in the seats. The prohibition is but one aspect of a larger problem that need addressing.

All of those examples are relevant. The fact that there were "budget constraints" prompting the disbandment is irrelevant. Would you actually get rid of personnel performing an essential service if nobody volunteered to be their replacements?

There are many cities and towns in RI, MA and elsewhere that have done just that.

The third department I cited, the matter was toughted as a budget problem necessitating it, however via legal channels it was clearly established as more of a personal vendetta by the Mayor than any true budgetary problem.

Fair enough but here again and in reference to your comments directly above it is not the volunteer sector that is encouraging or aiding, by virtue of a by law provision, the loss of jobs.

Cogs

[FireMedic049 597]

I'm curious about one thing though, how is it that a FF's livelihood is more valuable than another municipal worker's? What of the other's families, mortages and kids schooling?

To an extent, it may be more important based on the inherent nature of the two positions. However, what I'm kind of hearing from your question is the belief that the Firefighter positions are less important simply because no other facet of local government services typically attempts to utilize volunteers to do their work.

Well I haven't held my **** in my hand getting my jollies off in a rig for quite some time so that is not my main concern anymore. What is my concern is the public's welfare and our ability to provide it. See although the spectre of unionized career firefighters being replaced by volunteers is often used there is no evidence to support such a belief. No instances have been cited to show an effort on the part of the volunteer sector to encourage such action.

You're wrong and have been told such.

On the other hand it can be argued and some might say proven, that the prohibition on union FFs volunteering can have a direct negative impact on the volunteer sector, which by the way the IAFF regards as "rival" organizations.

Yes, there are places where the appropriate application of the by-law is having a negative effect on individual VFDs. However, there are probably a number of places that are being effected by the inappropriate application of the by-law. Either way, as stated before, VFDs are not considered "rival organizations" strictly on the basis of being a VFD.

[helicopper 1,050]

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

It is not the IAFF that is saying that you cannot volunteer for your employer - it is the Department of Labor. The DOL via the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) states this and it is not because they are anti-volunteer, it is to protect the rights of all involved.

Employees could be "compelled" to volunteer against their will, employees could claim volunteer hours worked should be paid at an overtime rate, etc. etc. etc. They didn't just pull it out of the air, it was developed with good reason.

We're truly beating the proverbial dead horse here and this last page is nothing but a circular argument. Cogs, the volunteers who left your department left. It's time to move on and recruit ome new ones. You may have a bona fide ax to grind over the 12 members who you're talking about but this is not solely about Stamford and its patently absurd quagmire of disjointed service(s).

The IAFF is not solely responsible for the declining numbers of volunteers, there's much more to it than that.

Please, for the sake of everyone here, let's agree to disagree and move on!

[mstrang1 213]

You said it... the career staff "choose in majority to become members of SFRD", so in fact the choice was theirs. Why is it that you believe BFD was obligated to allow an SFRD rig in the house if they did not feel doing so was in the best interest of the distict and department? And by the way IMO Mayor Malloy's plan was an abomination and it is the pursuit of it that led to the debacle.

Cogs

First off, I think the fact that at least 8, and probably 9, of the guys voted to go to SFRD is resounding. Secondly, how is a non guaranteed volunteer response better than a 4 person guaranteed response? In addition, an SFRD Engine from a neighboring district still goes on every call in BFDs district, thereby stripping that neighborhood of its resources to cover calls for Belltown. I am not saying that Mayor Malloys plan was perfect, but the residents of Belltown should have a career engine in their district. They went from having 2 career guys, plus a third on weekdays, to zero. This does not sound like the best interests of the district. Unless you count the freeloading that BFD takes from E1,5,6,7,8. Sounds to me like, instead of the best interests of the district and department, those chose the interests of the department OVER the district.

[firemoose827 324]

A lot of reading here, took me a while, being there were no pictures but I finaly finished.

Wanted to reply to a lot of the posts but it would take a lot of room to add the quotes so here are a few general thoughts and reflections.

I have read a lot of you say that there is animosity from vollies towards career guys; Sorry, but it sounds like just a simple case of jealousy that you got the job that they all dreamed about since childhood, nothing more than that. Not to mention an isolated event at your department and not like it was a group of vollies protesting on the front lawn of the white house. Me personally, I have worked with career guys at a fire before and had no issues with them and unless they just kept quiet, they had no issues with me. We worked together and got the job done.

Training...I am totally on your side when you say that training should be the same across the board, whether you volunteer or get paid. I would love to see the volunteers have to get the same training, this would make us better at what we do and be able to help people more. It would also cut back the LODD rate for volunteers, so what isnt there to like about that? But too many of us sadly will spend more energy on arguing the fact that we shouldnt have the training than they would actually taking it...sad I know but true unfortunately for us. Question for anyone; If I wanted to take the career fire academy training just to better myself would I be allowed? And how would I go about doing it? I am now a level II firefighter but think that there is still more than what I have. Just curious.

What is everyones thoughts on the County Fire District that is more prevalent down south? I only know little about it having talkied briefly to a member of one when I helped move my uncle to virginia, but it seems to work well and the coverage is better. It seems to be one large county wide combination department correct? Would this work up here? Again, just my curiosity.

Excellent posts by all, very informative and respectful.

Stay Safe.

[FFPCogs 863]

To an extent, it may be more important based on the inherent nature of the two positions. However, what I'm kind of hearing from your question is the belief that the Firefighter positions are less important simply because no other facet of local government services typically attempts to utilize volunteers to do their work.

I am not advocating any lay offs but when the budgets do not allow for full staffing in any field the axe must fall on some. To me saying a FFs job is more valuable than another municipal employees is unfair from the point of view of the impact losing a job has on anyone. Is firefighting more important that say gargage collecting? Well to me yes, but I'm sure the garbage collectors will see it much differently. And just so you know I am still a dues paying union laborer that has been laid off a number of times due to economics so I know firsthand from painful experience what a job loss entails.

You're wrong and have been told such.

No the last time I was on the rig my **** was not in my hand.

As far as your examples, yes according to the news reports volunteers are being used to "repalce" career FFs but what has not been substantiated is that it is at their behest.

Yes, there are places where the appropriate application of the by-law is having a negative effect on individual VFDs. However, there are probably a number of places that are being effected by the inappropriate application of the by-law. Either way, as stated before, VFDs are not considered "rival organizations" strictly on the basis of being a VFD.

You may be misunderstanding my intent.

Put another way I know of no volunteer FDs that have a by law provision that prohibits career FFs from joining because they are career FFs. I don't believe there is anything from the volunteer "side" that could be even slightly construed to be prohibitive to a volunteer working as a career FF either.

On another note some would argue that there have been cases where the introduction of unionized career FFs has ultimately led to the demise of a VFD because they became a "rival organization".

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

First off, I think the fact that at least 8, and probably 9, of the guys voted to go to SFRD is resounding. Secondly, how is a non guaranteed volunteer response better than a 4 person guaranteed response? In addition, an SFRD Engine from a neighboring district still goes on every call in BFDs district, thereby stripping that neighborhood of its resources to cover calls for Belltown. I am not saying that Mayor Malloys plan was perfect, but the residents of Belltown should have a career engine in their district. They went from having 2 career guys, plus a third on weekdays, to zero. This does not sound like the best interests of the district. Unless you count the freeloading that BFD takes from E1,5,6,7,8. Sounds to me like, instead of the best interests of the district and department, those chose the interests of the department OVER the district.

Well everyone's entitled to their opinions I just happen to disagree with yours on this issue.

Cogs

[antiquefirelt 994]

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

The problem with them "wanting to" is that their employer could make them "want to". In fact the real purpose of FLSA is to protect the employee from being coerced or otherwise screwed by the employer. What if an employer only happened to hire firefighters who said they'd also "volunteer" after hours? Or the employer could stop having any overtime for certain work, only to ask the "volunteers" to do it after hours for free? I know one FD locally that hired two fulltimers for the first paid personnel. They hired two of their current POC members and were going to pay them after hours from the POC payroll, until they learned different! One was a Captain after hours and a FT Firefighter by day making for a real Goat &%#@. In the end they were properly compensated and both moved on to larger career FD's and local FD started hiring from abroad as the value in just hiring from their own ranks was severely diminished.

And on the "freedom of choice" subject, these same employees have the right not to be members of the Union. They may have to pay dues but the Union does not have the power to fire them, only drop them from membership. So if you want to volunteer then drop out of the Union. Most organizations have membership rules and you have the freedom of choice to join and abide by the rules or not to join. In the end, most of us would like to have some say and voice in the CB process, thus Union membership provides us an opportunity to be heard on any number of issues.

Edited February 7, 2011 by antiquefirelt

[FireMedic049 597]

I am not advocating any lay offs but when the budgets do not allow for full staffing in any field the axe must fall on some. To me saying a FFs job is more valuable than another municipal employees is unfair from the point of view of the impact losing a job has on anyone. Is firefighting more important that say gargage collecting? Well to me yes, but I'm sure the garbage collectors will see it much differently. And just so you know I am still a dues paying union laborer that has been laid off a number of times due to economics so I know firsthand from painful experience what a job loss entails.

I don't debate that the inherent impact of losing one's job is different simply because of the job held. I also don't necessarily debate that most people would tend to believe that their position is important enough to be spared layoff. I also don't debate that all municipal jobs (or at least most ) are valuable for what they each contribute to the overall state of the community and ideally no job is "more important" than the next.

However, the fact still remains that there are differences among those jobs and differences in what the consequence of layoffs would be for each job. The garbage collector is most certainly an important position, but what is the net effect of one less person on what is normally a 3-person truck or the elimination of one truck altogether? It takes longer to pick up the trash and the remaining workers have to work a little harder and/or longer?

What is the net effect of one less firefighter on a firetruck normally staffed with 4 or the elimination of a company altogether? On some calls, the impact might not be a big deal, like getting your trash picked up at 10am instead of 8 or 9 am. However, there are a lot of calls in which the loss of staffing or units means response delays in some areas due to closed companies and reduced effectiveness of individual companies or the inability to perform 2 separate tasks due to only having 3 firefighters. It could also mean a reduced overall manpower on the initial response to a building fire.

It may not be fair, but it's hard to argue that overall, the loss of some garbage men will have a greater negative impact on the community than the loss of most public safety personnel. And as unfair as this might be, it's certainly equally unfair to layoff firefighters because there might be some people willing to replace them as a volunteer.

As far as your examples, yes according to the news reports volunteers are being used to "repalce" career FFs but what has not been substantiated is that it is at their behest.

I think you trying to split a very, very fine hair on this. IMO, the initiating factor of why career staff is being replaced is not the important factor. The important factor is that one way or another people volunteered to replace those displaced workers. It's pretty clear to me that if you didn't have people to replace the displaced workers, then even if you were doing it for budgetary reasons, then you'd need to rethink your plan and look at other options to reduce costs.

You may be misunderstanding my intent.

Put another way I know of no volunteer FDs that have a by law provision that prohibits career FFs from joining because they are career FFs. I don't believe there is anything from the volunteer "side" that could be even slightly construed to be prohibitive to a volunteer working as a career FF either.

For the most part, that's probably true. However, I do know of more than one volunteer FD that imposes volunteering restrictions on its members. Stuff like requiring them to live in district in order to volunteer at that VFD and forbidding them from being a member of another VFD while a member of that VFD. Don't hear much noise about that matter.

On another note some would argue that there have been cases where the introduction of unionized career FFs has ultimately led to the demise of a VFD because they became a "rival organization".

Yeah, that could be possible, but I doubt that the Local just arbitrarily made the declaration and that specifically was the main cause of their demise.

[CTFF 65]

Cogs,

I know you've asked for proof of volunteers working against career Firefighters or blocking the adding of positions in combination departments. I'll offer up what I've seen in one combination dept.

I was a non-resident member of a combi dept. Being a non-resident made it rather tough to make calls in a timely fashion, most of the time I was lucky to make it to the firehouse before the rigs were back. The volunteer side of the dept had a very liberal definition of "making a call". The union there gave a more realistic account of actual responses to the local government and the volunteers countered with their version of what was going on. Guys who had not been around the dept in years were asked and begged to comeback, some guys returned and went right back on the line with no training. This was used to bolster the appearance of a bigger volunteer component of the dept. Much of the information was relayed to the local government behind closed doors as to not scare the public. In my opinion the volunteers did actively work against the union when it came to staffing, I believe this put the public and firefighters (Union and Volunteer) in greater danger. In my opinion what was done by the volunteer leadership was to protect volunteering and had zero to do with budget concerns or public safety. I am certain that this still happens in that dept today.

I've seen volunteers working against the career side of the same Dept and it's been happening for years in that dept.

Now I see some of the same things happening in Stamford.

CTFF

[Bnechis 3,961]

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?

Because they are getting despirate as they see the lack of support from the community.

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.

So the 1% or less in a town is holding the other 99% hostage? Who's putting the public at risk...is it the public that does not support the FD (with funds to hire or time to volunteer) or the dept/municipality that fails to tell the community that their is a problem, or the 1% of IAFF guys who live in town how do not volunteer?

They do great work and do work towards adressing much of what we're talking about, but I think we need some kind of bridge organization or at least dedicated open channels between the "sides" if there is ever to be a time when the collective good and similarities of the fire service as a whole outweigh our inherent differences.

They dont need a bridge organization, they just need a pay off and Tom Brennan. Remember the Anonted 7? they included the IAFC, IAFF, NVFC, NFPA (and I cant remember the other 3) that refused to back the Fire Act Grant Legislation. THey all work together against the fire service until Fire Engineering's Tom Brennan shammed them and they each got a cut of the federal $$$$.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Question for anyone; If I wanted to take the career fire academy training just to better myself would I be allowed? And how would I go about doing it? I am now a level II firefighter but think that there is still more than what I have. Just curious.

Your dept can sponser you to go to a career acadamy. They need to sign you up and you (or they) need to cover the costs.

What is everyones thoughts on the County Fire District that is more prevalent down south? I only know little about it having talkied briefly to a member of one when I helped move my uncle to virginia, but it seems to work well and the coverage is better. It seems to be one large county wide combination department correct? Would this work up here? Again, just my curiosity.

It would solve many many problems, would save money and provide better service. Its coming to NYS, but we may have to go bankrupt before we get there.

[16fire5 693]

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.

Due to the IAFFs ban? If they are FDNY members they resigned because they are not allowed to live in CT. I'm sure a lot of other things go into decision making like wives and kids and second jobs. Quit blaming the IAFF for the true external forces that have diminished volunteer numbers over the years. I'm begining to think this thread should be "Cogs position dosn't hold water"

[moggie6 54]

I'm curious...why do cops not have this problem? I have never heard of the PBA taking a stance on Full Time Officers working for Part Time Depts. What about part time police officers working at full time jobs? I have a police officer that comes into the fire house every now and then and will say, "Hey man I do your job for free. There is no difference between you and me except you get the pay check." So I tell him that i'm taking the 8 hour security class and the NYS Armed Guard Class and I can do his job for less. There is no difference between him the law enforcement officer and me the "qualified armed guard". He backs up and says no no no no you can't do that.

I agree with Bneichs. the big thing is training standards.....

[FFPCogs 863]

Cogs,

I know you've asked for proof of volunteers working against career Firefighters or blocking the adding of positions in combination departments. I'll offer up what I've seen in one combination dept.

I was a non-resident member of a combi dept. Being a non-resident made it rather tough to make calls in a timely fashion, most of the time I was lucky to make it to the firehouse before the rigs were back. The volunteer side of the dept had a very liberal definition of "making a call". The union there gave a more realistic account of actual responses to the local government and the volunteers countered with their version of what was going on. Guys who had not been around the dept in years were asked and begged to comeback, some guys returned and went right back on the line with no training. This was used to bolster the appearance of a bigger volunteer component of the dept. Much of the information was relayed to the local government behind closed doors as to not scare the public. In my opinion the volunteers did actively work against the union when it came to staffing, I believe this put the public and firefighters (Union and Volunteer) in greater danger. In my opinion what was done by the volunteer leadership was to protect volunteering and had zero to do with budget concerns or public safety. I am certain that this still happens in that dept today.

I've seen volunteers working against the career side of the same Dept and it's been happening for years in that dept.

Now I see some of the same things happening in Stamford.

CTFF

I too have been involved with combo depts and I along with members of other combo depts have seen what I consider a concerted effort on the part of some union staffers to eliminate volunteers from those FDs for a variety of motives ranging from increased overtime to personal animosities. Manipulated call records, unsubstansiated grievances and falsified safety claims are just some of the weapons that I've seen used to create an illusion that volunteers were unwilling or unable to perform. In every case I've been involved with or know of the misconduct of the career staff was proven but due to union protections, in my estimation little if anything of substance was done about it. This I believe can and has led to a situation where volunteers feel not only unwelcomed but unappreciated for their efforts in their own firehouses to the point where in the end, the agenda of ridding the house of volunteers is accomplished as members vote with their feet.

But this is a symptom of the much larger career/volunteer problem that is out of the realm of this discussion.

Each of us brings to this discussion our experiences, good and bad and of course they will shape our views, at least in part. The volunteers here are not your enemy and by and large I do not believe anyone from the local is ours just because we are volunteers. Contrary to what some may think this thread is not solely about Stamford. In the larger picture I think there are goals which the union locally and nationally wants to acheive and some of them are at odds with the goals of the volunteer sector. That will always be so. But in regards to this thread I believe the arguments used to support the ban are dubious at best and as shown in the article easily remedied. It can be argued (and as is obvious I support the argument) that the IAFF's ban does affect the volunteer service negatively. It matters not if it's one FF prevented from serving of their own free will or a thousand it is still a negative impact. Ultimately for me it boils down to a matter of personal choice. When all factors are considered (including the impact a union FF volunteering in another union shop will have) I simply believe it should be up to the individual to decide and they should be able to do so without fear of union sanctioned repercussions.

Cogs

[FFPCogs 863]

I'm begining to think this thread should be "Cogs position dosn't hold water"

And this comes as absolutely no suprise.

Cogs

[FireMedic049 597]

It can be argued (and as is obvious I support the argument) that the IAFF's ban does affect the volunteer service negatively. It matters not if it's one FF prevented from serving of their own free will or a thousand it is still a negative impact.

It can also be argued that the actions of some IAFF members while volunteering in another IAFF department are a significant factor in the creation of a by-law restricting this type of volunteering. I don't debate that some departments are feeling some sort of "negative impact" even if it is only the loss of one actual or potential volunteer. So, are you saying that an organization shouldn't enact rules to protect it's own interests because of the effect (real or potential) it would have on another organization?

Ultimately for me it boils down to a matter of personal choice. When all factors are considered (including the impact a union FF volunteering in another union shop will have) I simply believe it should be up to the individual to decide and they should be able to do so without fear of union sanctioned repercussions.

Cogs

Fair enough. For me I simply believe that people should respect the rules of any organization they belong to.

[FFPCogs 863]

It can also be argued that the actions of some IAFF members while volunteering in another IAFF department are a significant factor in the creation of a by-law restricting this type of volunteering. I don't debate that some departments are feeling some sort of "negative impact" even if it is only the loss of one actual or potential volunteer. So, are you saying that an organization shouldn't enact rules to protect it's own interests because of the effect (real or potential) it would have on another organization?

Yes that point can be argued and the validity of that argument is dependent on your point of view.

What I'm saying is that to me this particular rule borders on Constitutional infringement and because of it's imposition another equally important sector of the Fire Service has been negatively impacted thereby reducing the overall level of public safety.

Fair enough. For me I simply believe that people should respect the rules of any organization they belong to.

Fair enough as well rules are rules and if enough peopel don't like it they can work to change it.

Ding...Round 15...Draw...

Cogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

Here is a timely article:

CHIEF TO RETIRE, CITES NEW RULES

Spotsylvania's training standards spark a heated debate

BY AMY FLOWERS UMBLE

Chief Thomas Oesterheld preached fire and brimstone to Spotsylvania volunteer firefighters at this year's annual banquet.

His message: The county government doesn't care about you.

It's a message Oesterheld said came loud and clear over the past 12 months, a period he refers to as "the year of hell."

His 55 years of service mean nothing to county officials, Oesterheld said as he announced he would retire this year.

SETTING NEW STANDARDS

His indignation stems from the new minimum training standards, approved in October by the county's Fire and Emergency Medical Services Commission. The Spotsylvania Board of Supervisors asked for these new standards as a reaction to a Feb. 5, 2010, fatal fire, when a resident died while on the phone with an emergency dispatcher. The scene of the incident was chaotic, according to internal and external reviews of the incident.

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/022011/02062011/604772/index_html?page=1

[FireMedic049 597]

Yes that point can be argued and the validity of that argument is dependent on your point of view.

What I'm saying is that to me this particular rule borders on Constitutional infringement and because of it's imposition another equally important sector of the Fire Service has been negatively impacted thereby reducing the overall level of public safety.

OK, let's look at this from a different perspective. There's some industries in which the nature of their work includes "trade secrets". As such, it's pretty common in these industries to have (at least) certain employees sign a "non-compete" agreement of some sorts. These agreements would typically prevent an employee who leaves a particular company from immediately working for a "competing" company in that industry.

Would you view a "non-compete" clause in an employment contract as bordering on "Constitutional infringement" too?

Now, I'm in no way trying to say or imply that there's any sort of "trade secret" aspect in play with IAFF members volunteering, only that the effect is IMO very similar. One organization has instituted a rule that protects its own interest (the non-compete clause) and that rule would negatively effect another organization (not being able to hire a particular chemist, engineer, researcher, etc.).

I would think that a restriction on a person's employment options would be a bigger deal than a restriction on a person's ability to volunteer as a firefighter. Personally, I'm not aware of any litigation that has determined that "non-compete" clauses are unconstitutional.

Here's a thought that just popped into my head.........

If this by-law is having such a profound negative impact on the volunteer fire service, then maybe you guys should all get together and file a lawsuit?