7 Boston FF quit after failing EMT test

[DWC295 70]

This article was posted on FB by BFD's Local 718. I am curious as to how this will play out.

My link

[PFDRes47cue 653]

This article was posted on FB by BFD's Local 718. I am curious as to how this will play out.

My link

Interesting article...

“There was no way to hold people’s feet to the fire to get it done,’’ Fraser said yesterday. “The majority of our business is medical calls. We are taking this seriously, because it’s a serious issue. . . . Do you want someone to come to your house to respond if you are having a heart attack that’s not an emergency medical technician? I don’t think so.’’

I have a problem with this statement. I understand that the majority of calls are medical but to lose a qualified firefighter who could potential play a huge hand at a fire or other non medical emergency, because he/she fails the EMT test is not right in my opinion. Times this by 7, as is the case in Boston, and now you are down 7 qualified firefighters.

[PEMO3 523]

I have a problem with the logic here. Did these seven men join as firefighter or EMTs. To lose 7 qualified firefighters because a fire service is trying to justify its existence by doing medical calls due to a decrease in fire calls is a shame. Throughout the country Fire departments have entered the medical response system to ramp up the number of runs per year. Even FDNY started doing it with the CFR engines in the late 1980's before the take over of NYC EMS from HHC in March of 1996.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Seems like the firefighters were given ample opportunity to gain a certification and were indeed informed of the requirement and given tutoring to comply with it The 7 decided they did not want to do it so they resigned instead of being hired so they can keep their jobs, maybe. Unless I am missing something it seems they dropped the ball, not BFD. Also, I can't seem to agree that the chief is being nefarious, he could have fired the firefighters but decided to let them resign so they could potentially get the EMT cert.

Given the turmoil of the Mass. EMT scandal from last year, I really don't think the department is being out of line. If someone thinks im wrong/can correct me please do.

[JJB531 652]

I'm failing to see the problem. They were hired as probationary firefighters, and one of the terms of their employment that they had full knowledge of and agreed to was to become state certified EMT's , which they failed to properly complete, and in lieu of termination they were afforded an opportunity to resign and be rehired upon successful completion of passing the exam. If there are terms of employment that an employee must meet to remain employed, then they need to meet the minimum standards set forth by the employer, otherwise dismissal is appropriate. They knew they had to pass this exam to keep their job, and for whatever reason, they failed to do so. Sorry but maybe there are 7 others out there who are better suited for the position then.

[Future Fireman 4]

Uh, last I knew, Boston operated at the CFR level.

So even if they made their EMT, they could only practice at the first responder level.

Unless BFD is trying to up it to EMT. (which I've never heard of that happening.)

Edited September 24, 2011 by Future Fireman

[ny10570 745]

I have a problem with the logic here. Did these seven men join as firefighter or EMTs. To lose 7 qualified firefighters because a fire service is trying to justify its existence by doing medical calls due to a decrease in fire calls is a shame. Throughout the country Fire departments have entered the medical response system to ramp up the number of runs per year. Even FDNY started doing it with the CFR engines in the late 1980's before the take over of NYC EMS from HHC in March of 1996.

Read the article. Boston firefighters have been required to be EMTs for 15 years. In the faked training scandal in Massachusetts many BFD members got caught, so the EMT cert has gained greater scrutiny. They were given ample opportunity to get their cert and can still come back if they get their EMT.

[JJB531 652]

Uh, last I knew, Boston operated at the CFR level.

So even if they made their EMT, they could only practice at the first responder level.

Unless BFD is trying to up it to EMT. (which I've never heard of that happening.)

I just looked at the Massachusetts Office of EMS website and the CFR level of training isn't even offered, just EMT Basic, Intermediate, and Paramedic.

[IzzyEng4 427]

Boston has been first responder EMT for several years. When I used to take the test up there you would receive points if you were already a MA certified EMT, otherwise you needed to apply for reciprocity.

As for these firefighters by my understanding, if you are expected to have your EMT and keep it, also you agree and sign your name agreeing to have the certification, it is called a condition of employment. If you do not meet the condition of employment, then your employer has every right to terminate you. If this was negotiated and is in the union's contract with the city, well there is nothing the union can do about it. If it was added in with out any agreements (either contractual or procedural) then the union has a chance to save these seven jobs. Unfortunately if there is some sort of agreement on the books the union will have a hard time trying to claim a "past practice" grievance.

With out all the proper info in the article we can only speculate.

Edited September 24, 2011 by IzzyEng4

[Bnechis 3,961]

I understand that the majority of calls are medical but to lose a qualified firefighter who could potential play a huge hand at a fire or other non medical emergency, because he/she fails the EMT test is not right in my opinion. Times this by 7, as is the case in Boston, and now you are down 7 qualified firefighters.

I'm sorry but the job is the job....If you are very good at 50% of your job, but cant do the other 50% your employer has 2 options, live with you or replace you with someone who can do 100%. Boston has 100's if not 1,000's of potential candidates that are willing to do 100% so if you can only do 50% your out.

Is passing EMT that hard? you want a great job with good pay/benefits? Pass the EMT.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I have a problem with the logic here. Did these seven men join as firefighter or EMTs.

If they joined in the last 15 years it was both.

To lose 7 qualified firefighters because a fire service is trying to justify its existence by doing medical calls due to a decrease in fire calls is a shame. Throughout the country Fire departments have entered the medical response system to ramp up the number of runs per year. Even FDNY started doing it with the CFR engines in the late 1980's before the take over of NYC EMS from HHC in March of 1996.

Over 75% of "EMS" in the 1970's in the US had Fire Service 1st response or transport since then it has increased, but how many decades does an FD need to be doing it before in your eyes its not to beef up its numbers?

So FDNY started over 25 years ago, how many current FDNY firefighters were hired before they started? Last I heard they had less than 200 firefighters {not officers) who predate CFR.

We have some members who have said the same........ "why did we start doing EMS"? They think its a new thing.....

1) All members hired in the last 30 years have had to maintain EMT and all officers to be promoted had to as well. Less than 2% of our members do not have to be EMT (and they are all approaching manditory retirement).

2) 40 years ago we were doing EMS 1st response "Inhalator" Calls. Without training we probably did more harm than good, but most "EMS" was that way in 1972.

3) Most of our members did not know until I post pics this year that we had FD ambulances in the 1940's & 50's

4) I found documents from the chief to the City requesting they purchase an ambulance in 1904 (I do not know if they bought it then).

[JFLYNN 681]

Uh, last I knew, Boston operated at the CFR level.

So even if they made their EMT, they could only practice at the first responder level.

Unless BFD is trying to up it to EMT. (which I've never heard of that happening.)

I respectfully recommend that you re-read the wonderful Ben Franklin quote which you have posted on your profile...then re-read it again...then, take a deep breath...now think about how old you are....deep breath again...Ben Franklin.....ok, now... may I humbly suggest that you seriously consider refraining from posting your opinions in regard to the fire service for at least several years.?

[FirNaTine 370]

Better off being a felon then you don't even have to take the TEST.

[Future Fireman 4]

I just looked at the Massachusetts Office of EMS website and the CFR level of training isn't even offered, just EMT Basic, Intermediate, and Paramedic.

As a Mass resident & current CFR holder, (As well as a Mass. EMT) I know it exists.

The state doesn't "officially" recognize it in the protocols, but it is a form of EMS provider here in the Bay State.

JFlynn, point taken.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Future Fireman

[INIT915 1,119]

As a Mass resident & current CFR holder, (As well as a Mass. EMT) I know it exists.

The state doesn't "officially" recognize it in the protocols, but it is a form of EMS provider here in the Bay State.

JFlynn, point taken.

How (or why) can you concurrently hold both CFR and EMT certifications? That seems strange to me. Do other states allow you to hold multiple different levels of EMS certification?

And why would Massachusetts not "officially" recognize CFR in the protocols, yet continue to recognize it as a level of certification?

Now I can see why their officials had such a poor handle on certifications in light of the recent scandals.

[Future Fireman 4]

I don't know the exact answer to that one, but I think that CFR refreshers can count as Cont. Ed. I will check on that though and get back to you.

As to CFRs not being in the protocols, basically the role of CFRs is to do the basics of the basics (I.e. C-Spine, CPR, Oxygen if trained, BP & pulse, etc.). CFR training varies depending on who's teaching it. It's sort of "recognized, but not recognized."

Granted, you generally practice to your particular dept. or agencies EMS level. Every firefighter in the state is required to be, at minimum, a CFR. Pretty much that and Haz/Mat training for the feds is the only "mandated" training for every firefighter in the state. Yes, our system needs some tweaking and fixing here and there.

Gotta love the Office of EMS.

[JJB531 652]

I researched the CFR level in Massachusetts, and so far it seems to me the "CFR" concept isn't really a certification, but a defining term for first responders such as police officers, firefighters, and other emergency responders (who do not play a primary role in EMS response) who have CPR and basic first aid training. Maybe Future Fireman can elaborate if that is correct.

[Future Fireman 4]

I researched the CFR level in Massachusetts, and so far it seems to me the "CFR" concept isn't really a certification, but a defining term for first responders such as police officers, firefighters, and other emergency responders (who do not play a primary role in EMS response) who have CPR and basic first aid training. Maybe Future Fireman can elaborate if that is correct.

That would be correct.

I checked with a friend who was a CFR & is a Mass EMT. Per him, there's no Con Ed hours and no really reason to keep it, so I was wrong about that.

[IzzyEng4 427]

All you want to know about MA CFRs: http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/regs/105cmr171.pdf

Google is your friend!

Sorry for the legalize in it but this is directly the PDF from the Commonwealth.

[DWC295 70]

Update on the original posting. Not surprised this was the outcome.

My link

[INIT915 1,119]

As a Mass resident & current CFR holder, (As well as a Mass. EMT) I know it exists.

The state doesn't "officially" recognize it in the protocols, but it is a form of EMS provider here in the Bay State.

JFlynn, point taken.

That would be correct.

I checked with a friend who was a CFR & is a Mass EMT. Per him, there's no Con Ed hours and no really reason to keep it, so I was wrong about that.

Now I'm getting confused. It appeared to me in your first post above, you stated you are a current CFR, that's how you "know it exists". In your second post above, you seem to acknowledge JJB531's observation that it doesn't actually exist? Could you clarify?

[TSull 33]

How (or why) can you concurrently hold both CFR and EMT certifications? That seems strange to me. Do other states allow you to hold multiple different levels of EMS certification?

And why would Massachusetts not "officially" recognize CFR in the protocols, yet continue to recognize it as a level of certification?

Now I can see why their officials had such a poor handle on certifications in light of the recent scandals.

The answer is yes to the question if you can hold both a CFR and EMT certification at the same time. In New York State I am a certified EMT-D #185331 since 1993. I am also a certified CFR-D # 185331 since 2000 when I was hired/trained by the FDNY. There have been 3 times since then when I have taken my recertification exam for CFR-D at Ft Totten in the morning and then taken my EMT recertification exam the same night in Putnam County where I live. And yes I am aware that I have the same number but each time I recertify, the state sends me a new EMT card and a new CFR card

Edited October 6, 2011 by TSull

[SOlsonBFDL14 35]

Update on the original posting. Not surprised this was the outcome.

My link

Nor should you be. Local 718 & the Boston Fire Department, at the Suffolk Superior Court's urging, reached a compromise agreement. The seven FFOP's will continue to be FFOP's for the next 6 months while they continue to study for & attempt to pass the Commonwealth of Massachusetts EMT-B exam. If they do not successfully do so within the six month period, they will be terminated with no cause to appeal per the agreement. The union's point was that the city never enforced this provision it seemed arbitrary to start now. Now precident has been set so that enforcement can begin with the next class. Seems to me that reasonable people reached a reasonable compromise agreement.