Health Coverage For Volunteer Firefighters

[ffp20 14]

Well 38, we disagree on stuff. and thats ok. however, i guess in your fire service world, a guy who:

-does nothing

-makes few or no calls

-does little or no training

-purposely shows up late for runs

-stands down the road in pretty, shiney new gear showing civilians he's a "fireman" while the other same few are doing all the work

-is there for meeting night and free beer, but wasnt there for the run 15 mins before meeting starts

should be looked upon and should be treated the same as those who:

-are there very frequently

-has training and certifications up the who-ha

-goes out of thier way to make the dept a better place

-stays on top thier game

-can be counted on to do the right thing

-are those that others feel good putting their lives in the hands of

I dont wanna be in that fire service world.

[ffp20 14]

(The LOSAP program was designed as a shop up today and we will pay you later system.)

Sir, you got the right!! we were told by the losap provider that now that people are collecting, we arent paying in enough per year. HUGE increases, like more than double the cost over a two year peroid. When they got the job, they told us XX amount per year and then they say, oh, you need to pay more than double to keep up.

So, with 6 figures going into the LOSAP every year, we still cant man the rigs with firefighters. Maybe thats why i have a bad attitude towards losaps. We have enough fire police and a bunch of exterior people, we dont have enough interiors, especially during the day. As a recruitment tool, i feel it was a huge failure. As a retention tool for older members, it helped, but they're not interior qualified ff's.

[38ff 250]

Actually we agree on a bunch of things. Im not for the "do nothings/very littles people" to get the same "stuff" that the "break their asses people" get.

There are jobs that need to be done on the fireground of all sorts. Interior attack, drivers/pump operators, Line/chief officers, and yes, even fire police. Each one does an important job that deals with keeping everyone on the fire ground safe. If people show up to do their jobs with profiecency when the tones go off, thats all thats really counts.

Im all for getting rid of the "do little/do nothings/never show ups". Im all for offering the people who show up and do their job/attend training to further their job skills/knowledge/ect benefits. It's just how to define standards and level the field so those who want to do more can. And then there is the whole paying for it.

As far as training, show up at any state offered OFPC class with a "in house" training cert thats not state issued, and they tell you to pound sand. Depts who provide in house training are a great thing, but for instance, without having a state cert saying you completed OFPC FF1, the state instructors dont let you take FF2 or any other follow on class. Some districts hire state instructors and pay for it out of hide, and this is a good thing. But not all can do that. Some depts have people waiting to take state FF1 for long periods of time due to no class space or "not even remotely close to home" locations. Yes, they are getting good inhouse training, but all that really counts as far as OFPC is concerned is OFPC classes. (Due to a new change, OFPC is offering reciprocity come 1 April for FF1 and FF2, as long as the out of state training met thr national cert for NFPA 1001 Levels 1 or 2,) so they are doing somthing about it, but how many out of state FF's are moving to the town and joining???...

I think we agree on a bunch of points, but see some things differently. Thats OK as long as we are for bettering the fire service...

Edited March 9, 2011 by 38ff

[gamewell45 258]

(So we should only extend these benefits to a interior FF's only? What about those who drive the apparatus to the call? Are they not important? Thats a law suit waiting to happen right there.)

If your exteior only, you'd get less or different benefits. exteriors and drivers are important, but are totally useless if theres nobody there to put out fires.

I don't think it would work; it would be the same thing as telling a career firefighter who is assigned to desk duties that he must take a cut in pay because he is not doing "interior" work and under your scenario, be totally useless since he wouldn't be able to put out fires.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I don't think it would work; it would be the same thing as telling a career firefighter who is assigned to desk duties that he must take a cut in pay because he is not doing "interior" work and under your scenario, be totally useless since he wouldn't be able to put out fires.

Nice concept, except firefighters asssigned to desk duty fall into 1 of 2 catagories:

1) Members working in training, Safety, Special Operations, Development, Codes, OEM, etc. and must maintain their interior status. And they respond to working incidence and are assigned as needed, including to interior operations.

2) members who are on "light duty" because they are recovering from an injury or medical problem. THese memebrs are expected to either recover and go back to the line or retire (due to the medical problem) and are awaiting a determination from the pension doctors.

In either case it would be illegal to pay them differently unless the union contract allowed for it, which is highly unlikely.

In fact many of those positions require additional training/certification, which may mean an increase in pay. Which incourages members to compete for those positions.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Bnechis

[Bnechis 3,961]

There are jobs that need to be done on the fireground of all sorts. Interior attack, drivers/pump operators, Line/chief officers, and yes, even fire police. Each one does an important job that deals with keeping everyone on the fire ground safe. If people show up to do their jobs with profiecency when the tones go off, thats all thats really counts.

Yes there are jobs that need to be done, but if you do not have enough interior firefighters, you might as well not even bother to respond because all your doing is being a spectator. If you look at most career incidents about 80% of the firefighters are inside. The few exterior people include the IC, safety officer, pump operator(s), FAST and those waiting to go back in. Out of 20-30 members on-scene thats about 5 members plus FAST. This is a very real difference from most of the scenes I've been to in volunteer communities, where crowed control on the front lawn is needed.

As far as training, show up at any state offered OFPC class with a "in house" training cert thats not state issued, and they tell you to pound sand. Depts who provide in house training are a great thing, but for instance, without having a state cert saying you completed OFPC FF1, the state instructors dont let you take FF2 or any other follow on class. Yes, they are getting good inhouse training, but all that really counts as far as OFPC is concerned is OFPC classes.

This is only partially true. If you "show up" without OFPC certs they will turn you away. You can and I have applied for equivalance certs from OFPC where you must provide them with course outlines and instructor qualifications prior to showing up. Again the law is clear that its the depts responsability and OFPC can not legally complete the training your dept needs to meet the law.

[FFPCogs 863]

The only problem with finding (and paying for) new incentives is the LOSAP program, once adopted must payout at the end and even if the dept went 100% paid because of no volunteers, money will still need to be spent on past "earnings". The LOSAP program was designed as a shop up today and we will pay you later system.

True enough, but once enacted a municipality is on the hook to pay LOSAP just like it is to pay the pensions of it's full-time employees. A deal is a deal is it not?

So yes past "earnings on the incentive must be paid, but a LOSAP or any other program could be dropped from date X forward and the payments for all those who would become eligible transferred to other programs to be used in the here and now.

Yes the taxpayers foot the bill, but that does not mean they decide on anything. There are many studies in NYS (By the Comptroller & by the commission on governmental efficiencies) that have shown that very few members of the general public, vote in Fire District Elections or on budget and other items. In municipal depts, there is almost no comment by the general public about the FD. In Westchester their are FD's that have ignored the will of the voters on more than one occasion (particularly when spending large amounts of money).

The will of the voters is often ignored until the voters get fed up with those ignoring their voice and remove them. I'm sure there are voters out there right now who feel that public sector employees are getting too much and feel their voice is being ignored in that regard. Once enough people agree there will be a shift in the commissions, or politicians who make those decisions....ala Wisconsin and Ohio et al. So while it may take awhile it IS the voters who ultimately decide. And to be frank uneducacted voters or worse those who don't vote really have very little ground to stand on when complaining or being ignored. It is not the fault of FD X that the voters didn't act when they had the chance to be heard now is it?

Cogs

[ffp20 14]

(I don't think it would work; it would be the same thing as telling a career firefighter who is assigned to desk duties that he must take a cut in pay because he is not doing "interior" work and under your scenario, be totally useless since he wouldn't be able to put out fires. )

Sir, thats not exactly true since a guy doing desk duty typically isnt up for OT (extra pay). Besides, desk duty in many places is a bid position, so if he wants it he bids it knowing a potential difference in pay.

[ffp20 14]

Oh Gamewell, you maybe took my post out of context about "under your scenario, be totally useless since he wouldn't be able to put out fires." my intent, and my entire statement supports that without those who can do the actual interior work, all the other functions are for nothing then. Thats not to take anything away from other functions but the reality of the world is that without folks who can do the most dangerous and physically demanding work, fires will go out by running out of fuel and rescues dont take place. Those are the people we (and many or most other depts) lack the most of.

[ffp20 14]

(True enough, but once enacted a municipality is on the hook to pay LOSAP just like it is to pay the pensions of it's full-time employees. A deal is a deal is it not?)

It is, except in wisconsin, ohio, and indiana apparently.

[FFPCogs 863]

(True enough, but once enacted a municipality is on the hook to pay LOSAP just like it is to pay the pensions of it's full-time employees. A deal is a deal is it not?)

It is, except in wisconsin, ohio, and indiana apparently.

True dat. Not endorsing simply citing an example.

[helicopper 1,050]

MODERATOR NOTE:

When quoting a prior post, please use the "REPLY" button at the bottom of the post to be quoted so the original text shows up formatted as a quote in your post. Some members have been using parenthesis, quotes, italics, or nothing at all to highlight quoted text and that makes it difficult to follow.

If you have any questions, please contact a moderator for assistance.

Thank you.

[Bnechis 3,961]

True enough, but once enacted a municipality is on the hook to pay LOSAP just like it is to pay the pensions of it's full-time employees. A deal is a deal is it not? So yes past "earnings on the incentive must be paid, but a LOSAP or any other program could be dropped from date X forward and the payments for all those who would become eligible transferred to other programs to be used in the here and now.

The difference, is the pension bill must be paid annually (with occasional 1 year extension) and since it is up to date, if the member leaves, is fired or the dept is disbanded, no additional costs are incurred (as long as no disability claim exists). The LOSAP programs have been traditionally underfunded (the NYS Comptroller around 2000 reported that in some cases massivly underfunded) this may require continued costs to the dept/municipality even after the member is no longer participating in the FD (particularly if they complete the minimum service time).

The will of the voters is often ignored until the voters get fed up with those ignoring their voice and remove them. I'm sure there are voters out there right now who feel that public sector employees are getting too much and feel their voice is being ignored in that regard. Once enough people agree there will be a shift in the commissions, or politicians who make those decisions....ala Wisconsin and Ohio et al. So while it may take awhile it IS the voters who ultimately decide. And to be frank uneducacted voters or worse those who don't vote really have very little ground to stand on when complaining or being ignored.

The real issue out there is politicians have heard the call to "cut my taxes" and have promised to do so. No one has asked what the effects will be. I can cut the FD budget and that will reduce the tax, but the effect is we will provide less service and the property owners insurance will go up 10 times more than the tax reduction.

Another example that was on the news this evening, to save money the state is cutting the funding to the 192 year old school for the deaf in Greenburgh. the 180 students will be sent back to there home school district. Each of those school districts by state law will have to provide an interpreter for each student for the school year, thats 180 employees. Will this reduce the state budget? Yes. Will it raise or lower the total tax burden on New Yorkers?

It is not the fault of FD X that the voters didn't act when they had the chance to be heard now is it?

Very true, but how many FD's (or other gov.) actually take advantage of this and do things that they know would be unpopular, but because the voters are not looking figure they can get away with it. Even if the voters do not like what a fire district is doing, with only 1 board member per year up for election, you need to get multiple candidates over multiple years to change the board. It is designed to maintain the status quo

[gamewell45 258]

In either case it would be illegal to pay them differently unless the union contract allowed for it, which is highly unlikely.

That of course is assuming that they are union in the first place.

Edited March 10, 2011 by gamewell45

[Bnechis 3,961]

That of course is assuming that they are union in the first place.

In NYS they all are.