Paid Volunteers

[Dinosaur 844]

Taken from an article about another disgrace in the fire service.

He says the lie started at Cherokee Springs Fire Department where he was a paid volunteer since January of last year until today.

Why the hell can't we call it what it is? He's not a paid volunteer. He's a part-time paid employee.

This paid volunteer crap is totally ridiculous and stands in the way of true progress.

[FFPCogs 863]

Although I have only seen the quote above from the article something tell me this has the potential to devolve into quite a contentious thread, especially since I am one who supports the idea of "paid volunteers" in accordance with the LAW not a definition found in a dictionary.

This is a subject that I have spent many hours researching. In the course of that excercise I have to come to the conclusion that since Federal law (FSLA) allows for certain cash incentives or stipends as a means to assist in the recruitment and retention of volunteer FFs, there is absolutely no reason why we, as a service, don't utilize such programs to the fullest extent allowed. Those FDs that have instituted such programs have seen at worst only modest sucesss, while most have seen far better results. This conclusion is based on my dicussions and correspondence with over 60 FDs and Fire Districts thus far nationwide (with more pending)**. Of those only 3 say that the succes has been only modest and that all things being considered they would not implement such a program again, but they would also not get rid of the one they now have either. And this had more to do with administrative headaches than anything else.

Now while I have heard all the arguments against such a move including the expected "once you get any money your no longer a volunteer" which by one definition would be considered correct:

(b. a person who does some act or enters into a transaction without being under any legal obligation to do so and without being promised any remuneration for his services), there are other definitions that also apply such as:

a. a person who performs or offers to perform a service of their own volition.

I will do my best now to be brief and and without my usual long wided diatribe in explaining my views on this....

As so many have repeatedly pointed out on this very site, bottom line here is that the world in which we live has changed considerably since the heyday of the volunteer fire service in the mid 20th century. As such the volunteer fire service and those served by it have got to adapt to the new realities of today. Many types of incentive programs have been tried to adapt and overcome this trend, tax abatements, LOSAPs, beach or dump stickers, civil service testing points ,gym memberships ect ect, but the most successful programs have been those more atuned to the immediate needs of the members and their families (and let's face it in 2012 those needs are a reality we all face). The most common of these being pay per call, mortgage assistance or monthly stipends. Fact is the demands of time for training, responses and other department activities as well as that of a generally high cost of living have grown considerably for volunteers in the past 30 years, while programs to help volunteers meet those challenges and thus join and stay members have not. IMO based on the research conducted, help in the form of legally allowed nominal cash stipends offer a small measure of relief from that dilema. In fact it could be argued that such programs offer a win win. For the volunteers the win takes the form of nominal fees to offset the immediate cost of fuel, food, clothing and other living expenses associated with their commitment to serve their community. And for the community there is the undeniable cost savings a volunteer FD offers it, as well as opportunities for members of the community to serve in an organization founded in and composed of that...of their...community itself.

There is one view with which I agree with my many detractors more than any other and that is that the volunteer fire service has got to progress into the 21st century. Part of that progress is accepting that how and why we recruited and retained members in the past has changed and so too must the means of attracting and keeping them. "Paying" volunteers may be inevitable in the future as has happened in the UK, but for us here and now it is another option that may help in meeting the challenges we face.

Cogs

**All of the Dept.s thus far contacted have minimum requirements to recieve stipends including a combination of point or call reponse totals, certifcation (FF II/EMT universal thus far) and training standards in terms of time and content.

Edited February 24, 2012 by FFPCogs

[gamewell45 258]

Although I have only seen the quote above from the article something tell me this has the potential to devolve into quite a contentious thread, especially since I am one who supports the idea of "paid volunteers" in accordance with the LAW not a definition found in a dictionary.

This is a subject that I have spent many hours researching. In the course of that excercise I have to come to the conclusion that since Federal law (FSLA) allows for certain cash incentives or stipends as a means to assist in the recruitment and retention of volunteer FFs, there is absolutely no reason why we, as a service, don't utilize such programs to the fullest extent allowed. Those FDs that have instituted such programs have seen at worst only modest sucesss, while most have seen far better results. This conclusion is based on my dicussions and correspondence with over 60 FDs and Fire Districts thus far nationwide (with more pending)**. Of those only 3 say that the succes has been only modest and that all things being considered they would not implement such a program again, but they would also not get rid of the one they now have either. And this had more to do with administrative headaches than anything else.

Now while I have heard all the arguments against such a move including the expected "once you get any money your no longer a volunteer" which by one definition would be considered correct:

(b. a person who does some act or enters into a transaction without being under any legal obligation to do so and without being promised any remuneration for his services), there are other definitions that also apply such as:

a. a person who performs or offers to perform a service of their own volition.

I will do my best now to be brief and and without my usual long wided diatribe in explaining my views on this....

As so many have repeatedly pointed out on this very site, bottom line here is that the world in which we live has changed considerably since the heyday of the volunteer fire service in the mid 20th century. As such the volunteer fire service and those served by it have got to adapt to the new realities of today. Many types of incentive programs have been tried to adapt and overcome this trend, tax abatements, LOSAPs, beach or dump stickers, civil service testing points ,gym memberships ect ect, but the most successful programs have been those more atuned to the immediate needs of the members and their families (and let's face it in 2012 those needs are a reality we all face). The most common of these being pay per call, mortgage assistance or monthly stipends. Fact is the demands of time for training, responses and other department activities as well as that of a generally high cost of living have grown considerably for volunteers in the past 30 years, while programs to help volunteers meet those challenges and thus join and stay members have not. IMO based on the research conducted, help in the form of legally allowed nominal cash stipends offer a small measure of relief from that dilema. In fact it could be argued that such programs offer a win win. For the volunteers the win takes the form of nominal fees to offset the immediate cost of fuel, food, clothing and other living expenses associated with their commitment to serve their community. And for the community there is the undeniable cost savings a volunteer FD offers it, as well as opportunities for members of the community to serve in an organization founded in and composed of that...of their...community itself.

There is one view with which I agree with my many detractors more than any other and that is that the volunteer fire service has got to progress into the 21st century. Part of that progress is accepting that how and why we recruited and retained members in the past has changed and so too must the means of attracting and keeping them. "Paying" volunteers may be inevitable in the future as has happened in the UK, but for us here and now it is another option that may help in meeting the challenges we face.

Cogs

**All of the Dept.s thus far contacted have minimum requirements to recieve stipends including a combination of point or call reponse totals, certifcation (FF II/EMT universal thus far) and training standards in terms of time and content.

I would tend to agree with you; the volunteer fire service is evolving, albeit slowly and its quite possible that in time many towns and cities will adopt this mindset,which initially could show some promise of a new revitalized fire service. It wouldn't surprise me if the title of "volunteer" disappears from many departments and instead of volunteer or career you could see a generic title of "firefighter" regardless of employment status. Plus you might actually seen training standards more in line with what many feel firefighters should attain since their would be some form of compensation paid and prospective firefighters would embrace that concept.

Either way it'll be interesting to see how this all flushes out over the next 10-20 years.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Massachusetts just calls them "Call Firefighters" or something to that effect. I agree you're not a volunteer when you get paid for responding.

[FFPCogs 863]

Before any get the idea that cash incentives are a cure all or magic bullet please read this conversation from another site on a similar topic. I think it applies here as well. Sorry about repeating some of my views.

Originally Posted by XXXXXX

In reality, most people actually do know whether their town is served by volunteers or career guys. Many don't care either way, unless maybe they need a response.

Some people have cited some ideas here on some potential perks that they believe assist with recruitment, I thought along some of those lines years ago, but my thoughts have changed.

I no longer believe that the tax abatement program, or many of these other perks attract potential volunteers. Let's say a town offers a $1000, and you complete ONLY the 200 hours of FF-1 (forget meetings , drills, calls, etc), and that works out to $5/hr. THEN, you have to pay taxes on that abatement now.

So this tax abatement program? Not so lucrative..

The key to recruitment is developing an organization that people WANT to join, a team that they WANT to be a member of.

The FIRST thing I would suggest to anyone with lacking membership, is to look hard at your operation. Take a different view on things: WHY dont people want to join your organization?? Look at your members. Are they ALL the same flavor? All male? All young? Would someone who is "different" feel comfortable joining? Does your membership make up reflect the community?

Ask some people in your district why they WOULDN'T join your organization and see if you can learn anything from that.

Bernie

While there are as many reasons people join a VFD as there are members no amount of incentive is going to bring members in on the incentives alone. Incentives must be used to enhance an organization that, as he said, people WANT to join. For those that are unaware the single biggest factor in recruiting and retatining volunteers is the leadership of the organization...and this is right from both the VCOS (Volunteer and Combination Officers Section of the IAFC) White Ribbon and Blue Ribbon reports on the subject. And the jury is out on the effectiveness of tax abatements, LOSAPs and most other similar programs. One incentive that has shown a higher success rate though is monthly or quarterly cash stipends for either pay per call or stand-by duty tours. These offer an immediate result in the form of cash to offset expenses incurred for fuel, clothing, and food or other related expenses involved in either covering shifts or responding. They also offer a little help to offset the high cost of living, and the loss of time to pursue other avenues to relieve it, that may occur due to training requirements, responses and other operational activities associated with membership in a VFD...which as we all know have increased dramatically over the years.

But regardless of what type of "perk" is offered if the programs are mismanaged, favoritism is rife, or the leadership is just not up to the task of running a tight ship, they will come to naught as members vote with their feet or simply don't join. Recruitment and retention programs involve a number of different aspects. Some are universal but most are dependant upon the department and it's membership (as Bernie pointed out), the local political administration and the community at large working together to achieve success. Remove any one leg of the triangle and that success will be extremely difficult if not impossible to achieve.

In the end VFDs are community organizations and as such we should always represent and contribute to our communites for the greater good, not just that of our departments or ourselves. Incentives do work, but they work better when they are a part of a well run, community based and inclusive organization, not a self serving and exclusive one.

Cogs

Just a quick note:

During the warmer months, say late March to mid November the bay doors at my FD in Stamford are almost always open..and that openess is a sign of welcoming to our nieghbors. Almost daily people stop in to ask a question, look around or let their kids climb the rigs. We always have the time and more importantly willingness to "allow" the residents of our neighborhood to just stop in to what is in fact their Fire Department. This simple act has been a way of life in the place since before I was born and it has kept us in touch with the people we serve.....our neighbors who support and many times join us.

Effective recruitment is a vital part of providing for our communities and all avenues should be explored in that effort including incentives, but in the end it is just a part of a complex series of dynamics that make any VFD what it is.

Cogs

[osufire90 18]

The fire department where I grew up has full time, part time, and paid on call volunteers. The difference between a part time and a volunteer is that part timers staff stations for an entire shift during daylight hours, while volunteers respond to calls nights and weekends. I believe the volunteers are paid $15 when the tones drop, and $8/hour while on a call. With a call volume of 2 or 3 calls a night, and an abundance of volunteers, most volunteers only see a few calls a week, definitely not enough to make any significant amount of money. They run the calls because they want to, not for the money, therefore they, in my mind, are volunteers.

[abaduck 123]

I refer the honorable gentleman to the reply I gave some time ago:

http://www.emtbravo.net/index.php/topic/41809-european-firefighting/page__p__237579#entry237579

I think the UK system is about the best way to do this.

Mike

[Dinosaur 844]

Massachusetts just calls them "Call Firefighters" or something to that effect. I agree you're not a volunteer when you get paid for responding.

This is my point. Cogs can pontificate all he wants about other definitions for volunteer, the volunteer fire service for years has associated it with no pay. To call a person a paid volunteer is just confusing to the public. Cogs, you may understand it perfectly but the average local resident isn't reading your blogs on the subject.

Why can't we just call them "paid members" or "call firefighters" or something else so we don't confuse the point?

I'm not trying to start a career volunteer issue here, I just think the term is an oxymoron and confuses people who don't understeand us anyway.

[FFPCogs 863]

This is my point. Cogs can pontificate all he wants about other definitions for volunteer, the volunteer fire service for years has associated it with no pay. To call a person a paid volunteer is just confusing to the public. Cogs, you may understand it perfectly but the average local resident isn't reading your blogs on the subject.

Why can't we just call them "paid members" or "call firefighters" or something else so we don't confuse the point?

I'm not trying to start a career volunteer issue here, I just think the term is an oxymoron and confuses people who don't understeand us anyway.

At the risk of yet more pontifcation I could care less what term is used, so long as the butts in the seats are those of FFs qualified to be there...which by the way these types of incentives can help ensure when applied properly.

My distinction is directed at those who attempt to misinform that same public that a stipend constitutes a paycheck and therefore all manner of labor relation and compensation issues, which in fact they don't.

Cogs

[gamewell45 258]

This is my point. Cogs can pontificate all he wants about other definitions for volunteer, the volunteer fire service for years has associated it with no pay. To call a person a paid volunteer is just confusing to the public. Cogs, you may understand it perfectly but the average local resident isn't reading your blogs on the subject.

Why can't we just call them "paid members" or "call firefighters" or something else so we don't confuse the point?

I'm not trying to start a career volunteer issue here, I just think the term is an oxymoron and confuses people who don't understeand us anyway.

I think that replacing the term "volunteer" and "career" with the generic term "firefighter" regardless of employment status would be appropriate.

[IzzyEng4 427]

Do you have the link to the original article?

[firedude 985]

Paid-on-call, paid volunteer, call firefighters... Call it what you want, they are still firefighters, right?

Edited February 24, 2012 by firedude

[firemoose827 324]

Paid-on-call, paid volunteer, call firefighters... Call it what you want, they are still firefighters, right?

If the training levels are the same yes, but that is a whole other discussion!

I agree with the term "Call Firefighter", being they are "On Call" and get paid when they respond. It should be based on training levels though.

[FFPCogs 863]

I think that replacing the term "volunteer" and "career" with the generic term "firefighter" regardless of employment status would be appropriate.

Agreed!!!.... with the caveat that so long as members meet and maintain recognized standards (such as NFPA) a fire fighter is a firefighter is a firefighter...end of story.

Cogs

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Agreed!!!.... with the caveat that so long as members meet and maintain recognized standards (such as NFPA) a fire fighter is a firefighter is a firefighter...end of story.

Cogs

Sorry...but no...not accurate at all. You might be by some basic standard be a "firefighter" but there are caveats within that realm simply put. This isn't to rattle cages..but it is what it is. I see and have seen all levels of "firefighters" in my experience as a professional firefighter, volunteer firefighter, fire instructor, EMT, Paramedic etc. And the bottom line there is a difference. All this nonsense of paid "volunteer" has me literally cracking up. Take any other person who volunteers..for example most hospitals have volunteers...if they in turn compensate for time...they are then PER DIEM EMPLOYEES, not paid volunteers. Spare me the antics with titles. Call it what it is. And the biggest blaring thing that no one has touched...if you are looking at now paying per call..you have a staffing issue...get off of it already and actually look at the staffing costs instead of spewing the sky is falling it will cost too much money routine. Then there is yet another issue...who becomes the gate keeper? Will there be an interview process for new EMPLOYEES? Or will it stay the same? How are you going to deal with the potential flood gates opening for those who want to make a few bucks and not take the process serious?

Saying a firefighter is a firefighter is like saying a doctor is a doctor. But if I'm sick or injured a person comes up and say "hi I'm doctor so and so.." that's great..but what kind of doctor is he? When did he go to school. Where did he go to school. How much has he practiced? Is he board certified? Is he a family practitioner? Podiatrist? Proctologist? Optimalogist? ...Or even better...what if he has nothing more then a PHD.

So lets get serious...I don't see very many apparatus with "XYZ Professional Fire Department" or "XYZ Combination Department" but I see quite a few "XYZ Volunteer Fire Department" or combination departments where the volunteer side on all their t-shirts, stickers and forms adds "volunteer" in front of the FD part. If you get paid for a service...you are no longer a volunteer period. You are hired help and masking yet a bigger issue.

[FFPCogs 863]

Sorry...but no...not accurate at all. You might be by some basic standard be a "firefighter" but there are caveats within that realm simply put. This isn't to rattle cages..but it is what it is. I see and have seen all levels of "firefighters" in my experience as a professional firefighter, volunteer firefighter, fire instructor, EMT, Paramedic etc. And the bottom line there is a difference. All this nonsense of paid "volunteer" has me literally cracking up. Take any other person who volunteers..for example most hospitals have volunteers...if they in turn compensate for time...they are then PER DIEM EMPLOYEES, not paid volunteers. Spare me the antics with titles. Call it what it is. And the biggest blaring thing that no one has touched...if you are looking at now paying per call..you have a staffing issue...get off of it already and actually look at the staffing costs instead of spewing the sky is falling it will cost too much money routine. Then there is yet another issue...who becomes the gate keeper? Will there be an interview process for new EMPLOYEES? Or will it stay the same? How are you going to deal with the potential flood gates opening for those who want to make a few bucks and not take the process serious?

With all due respect to your many accomplishments, sorry but yes it is accurate. A firefighter is a firefighter when as I explained, they have met the requirements in terms of consistent, verifiable and nationally recognized standards for training and certification that that title requires...and guess what nowhere is it written that a paycheck is one of those requirements. And when it comes to who or what is a volunteer, you are entitled to any interpretation you want, but it is in the legal sense that it matters when dealing with this particular issue. I respect your views but must defer to the Federal Dept. of Labor on this since they are the ultimate arbitrator of the laws involved and have rendered their decisions as to the parameters of exactly what constitutes a volunteer.

Also I will happily stop "spewing it costs too much" when it doesn't. But the reality is that's not my choice to make. The only people who have the right to decide what service is right for them is the ones who will pay for it, the taxpayers. After all it is their homes, businesses and ultimately lives that are dependent on the service they are willing to pay for. Incentives, such as the ones mentioned, do offer a potential solution to the staffing issues which neccesitate the need for them in the first place and they do so while keeping costs within the realm of what the taxpayers will or more importantly can bear.

And as for the "gate keepers," well like any other organization or business there has to be safeguards built into any system to verify the numbers. I guess it would be not unlike those that ensures paid employees are fulfilling their obligations.

Saying a firefighter is a firefighter is like saying a doctor is a doctor. But if I'm sick or injured a person comes up and say "hi I'm doctor so and so.." that's great..but what kind of doctor is he? When did he go to school. Where did he go to school. How much has he practiced? Is he board certified? Is he a family practitioner? Podiatrist? Proctologist? Optimalogist? ...Or even better...what if he has nothing more then a PHD.

Do the residents you serve generally stop you at a call and ask for your qualifications before you get to work? Do most people who go to the emergency room ask the doctors there to outline theirs? In the emergency services there is the expectation that those responding are qualified to do so. Now I will be the first to admit that those qualifications may differ from department to department and city to city, but that leads back to the previous point about the taxpayers willingness to pay for the service they get. Town X gets the firefighters they have decided they are willing to fund and no matter how much you or I think those FFs may not be qualified in the end it is not our decision to make unless we are paying for the service.

So lets get serious...I don't see very many apparatus with "XYZ Professional Fire Department" or "XYZ Combination Department" but I see quite a few "XYZ Volunteer Fire Department" or combination departments where the volunteer side on all their t-shirts, stickers and forms adds "volunteer" in front of the FD part. If you get paid for a service...you are no longer a volunteer period. You are hired help and masking yet a bigger issue.

Yes let's get serious and do away with the antics and semantics. Titles in the end have very little bearing on the quality of the service provided so why some are so worked up about FDs using the term volunteer when they are fully within the legal definition to do so is beyond comprehension. It may chafe some, but until the DOL makes a redetermination, the fact is if one recieves nominal compensation within the confines of FSLA to perform a service they are indeed volunteers. It is not a matter of opinion, but one of law....period

Cogs

[Bnechis 3,961]

Agreed!!!.... with the caveat that so long as members meet and maintain recognized standards (such as NFPA) a fire fighter is a firefighter is a firefighter...end of story.

I agree, but that would make a lot of NYS "members of fire departments" nothing more than lawn furniture wearing turn outs. If they do not meet the standards they are not firefighters.

[nfd2004 750]

Would somebody be willing to attend a full recruit school. In Connecticut, most depts send each new firefighter to recruit school just outside of Hartford which last about 14 weeks. They go Monday - Friday and the course is very strenous. The bigger depts, Bridgeport, Hartford etc have their own recruit school. Also, now most depts in Connecticut require all their firefighters to maintain an EMT card throughout their career. For most career depts there is training EVERY DAY. These are just a few of the requiremnts of todays career firefighters.

Would a part time, or paid on call firefighter be willing to go through the entire hiring process of written test, oral interview, cpat, criminal investigation, all just to get a PART TIME JOB. After all that, if an opening came up, they should certainly get first shot at it. But I just don't know of too many people willing to go through all that for a few extra hours pay.

But in reality, if all is equal, those are just some of the requirements that part timers would have to maintain.

[Bnechis 3,961]

and guess what nowhere is it written that a paycheck is one of those requirements.

NYCRR Part 426

The only people who have the right to decide what service is right for them is the ones who will pay for it, the taxpayers. After all it is their homes, businesses and ultimately lives that are dependent on the service they are willing to pay for.

You are right. But how many other services are people willing to pay for without any knowledge of that service? When you need a new Doctor, do most people look to see if they are qualified? What about getting references? or a 2nd opinion?

How many taxpayers have any clue if the local FD has the personnel, equipment & training needed to get the job done? How many Mayors, Council members, Managers have a clue?

How many firefighters know if their depts is worth what ever it costs?

How many firefighters even know what the cost of fire protection is?

In the emergency services there is the expectation that those responding are qualified to do so. Now I will be the first to admit that those qualifications may differ from department to department and city to city, but that leads back to the previous point about the taxpayers willingness to pay for the service they get.

The tax payers also rely on the FD leadership to insure that legal requirements and regulations (including minimum training standards) are meet, but we all know that some depts do it and others do not.

so why some are so worked up about FDs using the term volunteer when they are fully within the legal definition to do so is beyond comprehension. It may chafe some, but until the DOL makes a redetermination, the fact is if one recieves nominal compensation within the confines of FSLA to perform a service they are indeed volunteers. It is not a matter of opinion, but one of law....period

So when the public see's "100% Volunteer" on the side of the engine, they should know that the dept. of labor says they are volunteers, even if they are paid on call?

[Guest alsfirefighter]

With all due respect to your many accomplishments, sorry but yes it is accurate. A firefighter is a firefighter when as I explained, they have met the requirements in terms of consistent, verifiable and nationally recognized standards for training and certification that that title requires...and guess what nowhere is it written that a paycheck is one of those requirements. And when it comes to who or what is a volunteer, you are entitled to any interpretation you want, but it is in the legal sense that it matters when dealing with this particular issue. I respect your views but must defer to the Federal Dept. of Labor on this since they are the ultimate arbitrator of the laws involved and have rendered their decisions as to the parameters of exactly what constitutes a volunteer.

Also I will happily stop "spewing it costs too much" when it doesn't. But the reality is that's not my choice to make. The only people who have the right to decide what service is right for them is the ones who will pay for it, the taxpayers. After all it is their homes, businesses and ultimately lives that are dependent on the service they are willing to pay for. Incentives, such as the ones mentioned, do offer a potential solution to the staffing issues which neccesitate the need for them in the first place and they do so while keeping costs within the realm of what the taxpayers will or more importantly can bear.

And as for the "gate keepers," well like any other organization or business there has to be safeguards built into any system to verify the numbers. I guess it would be not unlike those that ensures paid employees are fulfilling their obligations.

Do the residents you serve generally stop you at a call and ask for your qualifications before you get to work? Do most people who go to the emergency room ask the doctors there to outline theirs? In the emergency services there is the expectation that those responding are qualified to do so. Now I will be the first to admit that those qualifications may differ from department to department and city to city, but that leads back to the previous point about the taxpayers willingness to pay for the service they get. Town X gets the firefighters they have decided they are willing to fund and no matter how much you or I think those FFs may not be qualified in the end it is not our decision to make unless we are paying for the service.

Yes let's get serious and do away with the antics and semantics. Titles in the end have very little bearing on the quality of the service provided so why some are so worked up about FDs using the term volunteer when they are fully within the legal definition to do so is beyond comprehension. It may chafe some, but until the DOL makes a redetermination, the fact is if one recieves nominal compensation within the confines of FSLA to perform a service they are indeed volunteers. It is not a matter of opinion, but one of law....period

Cogs

First...I respect your opinion..and as usual thoroughly enjoy your post as you also bring facts and can have a intelligent conversation that we can agree to disagree with nonsense. Its a true compliment to you and you earned my respect as a writer a long time ago.

With that said...I have a few responses for some of the things you mentioned.

1. National standards are great sounding...but are fragmented in nature. While it doesn't say verbatim that a paycheck isn't required...in NY State its pretty close to alluding to it and Barry pointed Part 426 of NYCCRR. Most volunteers do not every achieve becoming a certified "firefighter" in NYS. There is a huge difference between what is required as a professional firefighter then what meets the standard for volunteer firefighter. With that said let me chime in that I think that this is ridiculous...but in fact the ones that stop even any conversation about it are organizations that represent volunteer firefighters in this state. You get hired by a department that has the minimum amount of staff, you have to meet the "229" standard as a minimum. In Westchester the career academy far exceeds this by double the hours.

2. Do those in my municipality ask...yes...now more often then it use to be. Again not a dig..but its not hard to to tell who is who..when some are uniformed and others..well...show up in whatever. Do most people ask the doctor when they walk into the emergency room what they are or their qualifications are? No...now take your questions further....Why? Because they have expectations of a high level of qualification and service. If anyone honestly thinks that the current status of training for volunteers is adequate and can include the word high in qualification...they're in la la land. Even as a young volunteer when I got back to NY from Virginia I realized how sub par our state is with training. Has it gotten better...yes...actually hell yes...but its still not where it should be. Like it or not..ISO also makes a delineation of the 2. According to them...it takes 3 volunteer firefighters to equate to 1 professional firefighter.

3. I don't mean you literally but figuratively when I use the term "spewing." While the sound of "safeguards" sounds great...the fire service for the most part is not doing that now. I see it consistently as an instructor where departments instead of being progressive send a person who knowingly more then likely will not be successful. Be it by weight, known issues with respirators, behavioral/personality issues or so be it. If we can't get it right now...do we really believe that it will be right any other way? And not in normal fashion of reactive instead of proactive.

4. If I'm the head of a department...it is my decision of the qualifications of the firefighters and fire officers. And my job to explain to them why things need to be the way that they are. If it involves staffing, the simple explanation of why it needs to be...devoid of power issues and pride and how it benefits them and what can be done to offset the tax increase be it budget maneuvering of funds and the decrease in fire insurance premiums.

5. Its been my general experience that taxpayers do not choose what they're willing to fund. Its politicians, city/village managers and commissioners who make those decisions. Its also been my experience that its often based on information that's not all that factual. You take most budgets and you can find offset money. You hire responsibly and it costs about the equivalent of a family of 4 to go out to dinner 1 extra night a year...and then again theres the improvement that can occur with ISO rating.

Edited February 25, 2012 by alsfirefighter

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Would somebody be willing to attend a full recruit school. In Connecticut, most depts send each new firefighter to recruit school just outside of Hartford which last about 14 weeks. They go Monday - Friday and the course is very strenous. The bigger depts, Bridgeport, Hartford etc have their own recruit school. Also, now most depts in Connecticut require all their firefighters to maintain an EMT card throughout their career. For most career depts there is training EVERY DAY. These are just a few of the requiremnts of todays career firefighters.

Would a part time, or paid on call firefighter be willing to go through the entire hiring process of written test, oral interview, cpat, criminal investigation, all just to get a PART TIME JOB. After all that, if an opening came up, they should certainly get first shot at it. But I just don't know of too many people willing to go through all that for a few extra hours pay.

But in reality, if all is equal, those are just some of the requirements that part timers would have to maintain.

I know your basing your post on CT..and well put brother. But do you really think in NY they would make all that a requirement? CPAT...we still have municipalities in Westchester that have not switched to it.

[Bnechis 3,961]

CPAT...we still have municipalities in Westchester that have not switched to it.

The 4 cities (MV, NR, WP & Y) are prohibited from using any testing other than the testing approved by the Federal courts (in 1980). All of the probies from those depts still have to pass CPAT to complete probation.

[FFPCogs 863]

First...I respect your opinion..and as usual thoroughly enjoy your post as you also bring facts and can have a intelligent conversation that we can agree to disagree with nonsense. Its a true compliment to you and you earned my respect as a writer a long time ago.

Thank you for the compliment and please know that I respect you and your views as well. I always relish the opportunity to engage in respectful debate here and elsewhere, because by doing so it is my ignorance that is diminished, and with that comes the opportunitiy to become a better fireman.

With that said...I have a few responses for some of the things you mentioned.

1. National standards are great sounding...but are fragmented in nature. While it doesn't say verbatim that a paycheck isn't required...in NY State its pretty close to alluding to it and Barry pointed Part 426 of NYCCRR. Most volunteers do not every achieve becoming a certified "firefighter" in NYS. There is a huge difference between what is required as a professional firefighter then what meets the standard for volunteer firefighter. With that said let me chime in that I think that this is ridiculous...but in fact the ones that stop even any conversation about it are organizations that represent volunteer firefighters in this state. You get hired by a department that has the minimum amount of staff, you have to meet the "229" standard as a minimum. In Westchester the career academy far exceeds this by double the hours.

The differences you outline may be the case in NY, but not all States or jurisditions make such a distinction. In CT, as nfd2004 pointed out, it is certainly true that the Academy's 14 week recruit program is far more condensed and therefore intense, but the firefighting course material is the same. There is no career only vs volunteer only versions of FF I & II or any other accreditied course for that matter. Gaining State certification means the candidiate has successfully passed all of the testing required and that testing is the same be they career or volunteer. In fact any State that offers accredited certification programs (IFSAC, NPQS) cannot make such a distiction, the material to be taught and completed is detemined by the accrediting agency not the local jurisdiction and therefore has to be the same to recieve the accredidation. And many States offer only accredited courses so the home rule issues which plague NY in this respect do not necessarily carry over it's borders.

2. Do those in my municipality ask...yes...now more often then it use to be. Again not a dig..but its not hard to to tell who is who..when some are uniformed and others..well...show up in whatever. Do most people ask the doctor when they walk into the emergency room what they are or their qualifications are? No...now take your questions further....Why? Because they have expectations of a high level of qualification and service. If anyone honestly thinks that the current status of training for volunteers is adequate and can include the word high in qualification...they're in la la land. Even as a young volunteer when I got back to NY from Virginia I realized how sub par our state is with training. Has it gotten better...yes...actually hell yes...but its still not where it should be. Like it or not..ISO also makes a delineation of the 2. According to them...it takes 3 volunteer firefighters to equate to 1 professional firefighter.

You are quite correct in that there is an expectation of service, but being served by a career FD does not necessarily guarantee that that expectation will be met. Nor does being served by volunteers guarantee that it won't.

And as far as the ISO goes the 3:1 ratio is a bit misleading as there is not really a distiction made between career and volunteer FF. An ISO rating is more an averaged "score" based on a number of factors:

Fire department

Fifty percent of the overall score is based on the fire department. ISO reviews the distribution of fire companies throughout the area and checks that the fire department tests its pumps regularly and inventories each engine company's nozzles, hoses, breathing apparatus, and other equipment. ISO also reviews the fire-company records to determine things such as:

• type and extent of training provided to fire company personnel
• number of people who participate in training
• firefighter response to emergencies
• maintenance and testing of the fire department's equipment

If a volunteer FD can meet the same levels as a career department in determining these factors their community will recieve the same ISO rating. So since there is not one standard for career and another for volunteers that can be compared we really can't say that one career FF is equal to three volunteers across the board.

3. I don't mean you literally but figuratively when I use the term "spewing." While the sound of "safeguards" sounds great...the fire service for the most part is not doing that now. I see it consistently as an instructor where departments instead of being progressive send a person who knowingly more then likely will not be successful. Be it by weight, known issues with respirators, behavioral/personality issues or so be it. If we can't get it right now...do we really believe that it will be right any other way? And not in normal fashion of reactive instead of proactive.

I can only say that in the research I've conducted every VFD utilizing this type of incentive thus far has put minimum health, certification, training, response and in some cases even staffing requirements as well as verification procedures at the forefront for their implementation and continued use. Will every FD do so? I cannot say, but what I can say that any I'm involved with certainly will.

4. If I'm the head of a department...it is my decision of the qualifications of the firefighters and fire officers. And my job to explain to them why things need to be the way that they are. If it involves staffing, the simple explanation of why it needs to be...devoid of power issues and pride and how it benefits them and what can be done to offset the tax increase be it budget maneuvering of funds and the decrease in fire insurance premiums.

Any fire service leader's first priority should be the public's welfare, yes even over that of "the men", in respect to what the level of competency of the troops should be. That said and as we both are all too aware, such is not always the case. The incentive/stipend programs I have thus far explored have all created an environment in which that competency has improved. Offering more to the members has also allowed the leaderships, or in some cases the communities themselves, to demand more from their firefighters. Some may find a problem with this but I definitely do not. Although by no means perfect it becomes a matter of giving to recieve with the end result being a "better" FD.

5. Its been my general experience that taxpayers do not choose what they're willing to fund. Its politicians, city/village managers and commissioners who make those decisions. Its also been my experience that its often based on information that's not all that factual. You take most budgets and you can find offset money. You hire responsibly and it costs about the equivalent of a family of 4 to go out to dinner 1 extra night a year...and then again theres the improvement that can occur with ISO rating.

Yes it is politicians that choose in the moment, but being a big fan of personal responsibility I see it a little differently in that politicians are elected and thus ultimately answerable to their constituents...the taxpayers.

Now when it comes to budgets and ISO here's an excerpt from an article on the subject in which volunteers have had some success:

Next, the committee initiated a comprehensive study of fire protection in the county to determine how to provide fire protection more cost effectively and to reduce the financial burden on property owners. The committee looked at the Insurance Service Office (ISO) grading and its effect on fire insurance premiums. Tom Torpey, a 15-year veteran volunteer firefighter and an employee of the Ducey Insurance Agency, provided documentation regarding fire insurance premium discounts based on ISO ratings. Improving ISO ratings could reduce property owner fire insurance rates. The fire protection committee hosted a series of ISO requirement workshops and helped each fire department prepare for its ISO survey. Ultimately, all 26 fire departments were able to lower their ISO ratings on average from 5 to 3; some of Rockland's volunteer fire departments now have an ISO rating of 2! As a result, many homeowners and commercial building owners are now saving hundreds of dollars each year in insurance premiums. George Doremus, a former chief of the Tallman (NY) Volunteer Fire Department and a committee member, reported that his homeowner's policy annual premium dropped by more than $100 because of his community's lower ISO rating!

To further demonstrate the financial advantages of a volunteer fire department, the committee conducted comparative studies of volunteer fire departments with similar-size career departments. One study, comparing the all-volunteer New City (NY) Fire Engine Company No. 1 with the career-staffed Hackensack (NJ) Fire Department, revealed that New City's annual operating budget was approximately $3 million less than that of the New Jersey department. A recently released report by the Firemen's Association of the State of New York revealed that the state's volunteer firefighters save New York taxpayers more than $2.9 billion each year.

Bottom line here is that every avenue needs to be explored and where practical and "worth it" implemented to better serve our communities. For communities that won't or more importantly can't fund and maintain a full time career FD, "paid volunteers" offers them the opportunity to provide quality fire protection at a reasonabe rate.

Cogs

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Agreed!!!.... with the caveat that so long as members meet and maintain recognized standards (such as NFPA) a fire fighter is a firefighter is a firefighter...end of story.

Cogs

Until they get rid of the separate NFPA standards for volunteer and career fire departments (1710, 1720) you're going to have a hard time making that argument hold water.

[FireMedic049 597]

Yes let's get serious and do away with the antics and semantics. Titles in the end have very little bearing on the quality of the service provided so why some are so worked up about FDs using the term volunteer when they are fully within the legal definition to do so is beyond comprehension. It may chafe some, but until the DOL makes a redetermination, the fact is if one recieves nominal compensation within the confines of FSLA to perform a service they are indeed volunteers. It is not a matter of opinion, but one of law....period

I must admit I find a certain amount of humor/irony with this post. You're stating that "titles" are essentially "irrelevant" and there's no reason to get worked up over the term "volunteer" when a person being compensated still falls within FLSA definitions. However, when the term "professional" is used to describe a career firefighter - a use completely consistent with the definition of "professional" in any dictionary and most civilians too - the volunteer fire service gets all worked up about it and feels slighted.

So why the apparent double standard?

[Guest alsfirefighter]

The 4 cities (MV, NR, WP & Y) are prohibited from using any testing other than the testing approved by the Federal courts (in 1980). All of the probies from those depts still have to pass CPAT to complete probation.

I'm aware of the situation and the requirements once hired...just didn't want to take the time to type that all out.

Cogs...while you have some merit to your point about no one can guarantee a career dept. can meet expectations and a volunteer can't. I'm a numbers guy...and while I can easily do well with the "give me a cause and I'll give you statistics to support it", the one thing that is consistent for the most part is response time. There's always that 10% that will be fools. On both sides.

I came from Virginia where the training issues didn't exist. But I'd be amiss if I didn't say there was a glaring difference in the county I volunteered with in regard to the services given when the career staff were on duty (at the time they did day shifts monday thru friday) and when we were either in the station or responding from home. It also became evident over time as now most stations are staffed 24/7.

As far as your ISO input..very well stated. But I do believe and I'm going off memory as I cannot find my documentation on it...but ISO does get into that for any incident they require x amount of personnel. And with that and I hope Barry can clarify...its 12 career or 36 volunteer firefighters. Again...I'm not stating this as hard fact but from memory of experiences dealing with it through my career.

I applaud Rockland for what they did...and that's great...but yet they still pay enormous taxes for other services and do not always receive consistent service for fire and EMS. Rockland will have a huge dilemma if their volunteer system starts to deteriorate...which as in other places it is...but if it gets to the point that they cannot hold...its going to be a difficult fight to talk about further premium decreases to offset staffing costs...when people are paying taxes on high ranches less then 2000 square feet for what people in other areas own 3000 square foot, 2 car garage colonials on 3 acres of land.

[Bnechis 3,961]

And as far as the ISO goes the 3:1 ratio is a bit misleading as there is not really a distiction made between career and volunteer FF. An ISO rating is more an averaged "score" based on a number of factors:

Fire department

Fifty percent of the overall score is based on the fire department. ISO reviews the distribution of fire companies throughout the area and checks that the fire department tests its pumps regularly and inventories each engine company's nozzles, hoses, breathing apparatus, and other equipment. ISO also reviews the fire-company records to determine things such as:

• type and extent of training provided to fire company personnel
• number of people who participate in training
• firefighter response to emergencies
• maintenance and testing of the fire department's equipment

If a volunteer FD can meet the same levels as a career department in determining these factors their community will recieve the same ISO rating. So since there is not one standard for career and another for volunteers that can be compared we really can't say that one career FF is equal to three volunteers across the board.

While ISO does not use the terms career and volunteer, the MAJOR distinction they use is onduty (in the fire station) and oncall (at home, work or anywhere but the firehouse) and yes volunteer depts are rated the same as career IF they respond with inhouse crews 24/7.

Now while all the things you listed as going into the rating are true, the single biggest point catagory is personnel and its the only catagory ISO has that is unlimited. ISO wants a minimum of 2 engines and 1 ladder (or service company) on every fire call and at a minimum they want 4 firefighters (&or officers) per rig plus an IC. Now if you respond with onduty personnel you get 1.0 points for each, if you are using "oncall" members you get 0.33 points for each. so to get the same personnel rating you need 36 firefighters (&/or officers) + IC.

The 2nd biggest point area is for training and the way they calculate the training is they take every members hours and average them over the number of members. Since most departments do not meet the 290 hours per year per memebr average for inservice training and ISO will include the VFD's 75 y/o active members annual training in the average (even if they no longer fight fire) you are fighting a big uphill battle as well. Another component of the training requirement that is not commonly performed by VFD's is Fire Inspection & Prefire planning of all commercial and multi dwellings in its district.

Also, ISO requires a minimum of 240 hours for new fire fighter training and 40 hours of new driver training.

So 48% of the Fire Dept. ISO rating is for personnel & training. You can not make up for a poor score here with shinny trucks.

I can only say that in the research I've conducted every VFD utilizing this type of incentive thus far has put minimum health, certification, training, response and in some cases even staffing requirements as well as verification procedures at the forefront for their implementation and continued use. Will every FD do so? I cannot say, but what I can say that any I'm involved with certainly will.

Would you also consider the 1,100 paid "housemen" in Long Island VFD's to be part of this?

Any fire service leader's first priority should be the public's welfare, yes even over that of "the men", in respect to what the level of competency of the troops should be. That said and as we both are all too aware, such is not always the case. The incentive/stipend programs I have thus far explored have all created an environment in which that competency has improved. Offering more to the members has also allowed the leaderships, or in some cases the communities themselves, to demand more from their firefighters. Some may find a problem with this but I definitely do not. Although by no means perfect it becomes a matter of giving to recieve with the end result being a "better" FD.

1) I agree that the priority of the leadership should be the public's welfare, I find this is commonly not the priority. Last month I was sitting in a public hearing where the chairman of the Fire board publicly told the mayor and council that they did not want the anyone outside the FD to know how bad ISO said they were, in fact he felt it was none of the publics buisness to know. I wonder if he would have said that if he knew the cameras were running.

2) Do you include LOSAP in your incentive programs that created an environment in which that competency has improved? I know there are many volunteers here who have posted here that they hurt the depts more than they help.

To further demonstrate the financial advantages of a volunteer fire department, the committee conducted comparative studies of volunteer fire departments with similar-size career departments. One study, comparing the all-volunteer New City (NY) Fire Engine Company No. 1 with the career-staffed Hackensack (NJ) Fire Department, revealed that New City's annual operating budget was approximately $3 million less than that of the New Jersey department.

Wow lets compare apples with oranges:

New City (a Hamlet within Clarkstown)

Population: 35,168

15.6 miles, 2254 people per mile

Income 2x state average at $111,747

Per capita income $46,000

Over 50% have BA degrees, 91% HS Deplomas

20% minority, 70% married

Unemployment (3/2011) 6.5% - Below state average

Hackensack

Population: 42,839

4.12 miles 10,398 people per mile

Income $59,504 (20% below state average).

Per capita $31,523

29% have BA degrees, 79% HS Deplomas

67% minority 42% married

Unemployment (3/2011) 10.1% - Above state average

Now lets compare Fire Departments:

New City: 2 eng, 1 TL, 1 tanker, 1 brush

Ambulance: No

EMS 1st Response: No

Hazmat: No, (provided by county)

TRT: No, (provided by county)

Hackensack: 5 eng, 2 lad, 2 amb, 1 rescue, 2 TRT units

Ambulance: Yes

EMS 1st Response: Yes

Hazmat: Yes

TRT: Yes

Now lets not forget that New City is a Hamlet within the Town of Clarkstown. Clarckstown has a population of 82,777

And has in addition to the New City Fire Dept: The Central Nyack FD, Congers FD, Nanuet FD, Rockland Lake FD, Valley Cottage FD and the West Nyack FD. Plus EMS provided by additional services and not the FD's.

So the New City FD spends $3,000,000 Less than HFD. They are not providing the same service level and the community is a very different type of community. I do not know how much all of those other FD's end up costing, but $3 million is sounding cheap.

Now what really counts to the tax payer is what the pay for service each year: The median property tax in New City is in 2009 was $9,015 and in Hackensack it was $6,430. I think I would rather pay $2,500 les per year.

Note: I am not trying to say anything negative about either dept. just they are clearly apples and oranges.

A recently released report by the Firemen's Association of the State of New York revealed that the state's volunteer firefighters save New York taxpayers more than $2.9 billion each year.

LOL...recently was 20 years ago. This report had more incorrect info than anything I have ever read. The money was based on the replacing 100% of the volunteers with career. So in one case a 150 member volunteer dept covering 1.5 square miles with 2 engines, 1 ladder & 1 rescue would need to build a new career fire station, buy 2 eng, 1, lad & 1 rescue (even though the rigs & station were owned by the village) and then hire 150 firefighters. Now multiply this by the 2,000 VFD's in the state and what a shock it would cost $2.9 billion.

Now if we dropped the number only in half (75 career), that would give us an onduty shift of 15 members 24/7. Thats more than double the shift of every career dept covering this size community. Based on these 2 sentences, the FASNY study is inflated by $1.45 Billion and that does not include the 2,000 new fire stations and 5,000 new apparatus they think the tax payers would have to buy. They also fail to mention the costs of LOSAP, House men, meals and other existing costs that would no longer be needed.

[FFPCogs 863]

As always the information passed along here has proven useful and educational. Unfortunately it is as evident as ever that a middle ground is unreachable and we are still consumed by a contest of which side is "better". And as informative, interesting and entertaining as that contest may be in the end ultimately it doesn't matter which side is better, all that matters is how the fire service that serves any given community meets the challenges it faces. For those communities served wholly or in part by volunteers, nominal fees and/or stipends are another tool those communities can and should use to help ensure the challenge of recruiting and retaining members is met head on. Now for those who see this as a problem or inequity there is only a few choices.

1) Hit City Hall or the State capital and promote another agenda that forces communities to be served exclusively by "superior" career FDs only...good luck with that.

2) Petition the DOL for a change in the law.

3) Accept that these programs offer an opportunity to stabilze or maybe even reverse the trend of a diminishing volunteer fire service

4) Go have a beer and forget the whole mess and let nature takes it's course

What ever choice is made fact is these types of programs are fast becoming a proven and acceptable option for many communities across the nation to provide for quality fire protection to their citizens. Time we here in the Northeast moved into the 21st century and proactively make the best of what such opportunities offer.

Cogs

[FireMedic049 597]

As always the information passed along here has proven useful and educational. Unfortunately it is as evident as ever that a middle ground is unreachable and we are still consumed by a contest of which side is "better". And as informative, interesting and entertaining as that contest may be in the end ultimately it doesn't matter which side is better, all that matters is how the fire service that serves any given community meets the challenges it faces. For those communities served wholly or in part by volunteers, nominal fees and/or stipends are another tool those communities can and should use to help ensure the challenge of recruiting and retaining members is met head on. Now for those who see this as a problem or inequity there is only a few choices.

1) Hit City Hall or the State capital and promote another agenda that forces communities to be served exclusively by "superior" career FDs only...good luck with that.

2) Petition the DOL for a change in the law.

3) Accept that these programs offer an opportunity to stabilze or maybe even reverse the trend of a diminishing volunteer fire service

4) Go have a beer and forget the whole mess and let nature takes it's course

What ever choice is made fact is these types of programs are fast becoming a proven and acceptable option for many communities across the nation to provide for quality fire protection to their citizens. Time we here in the Northeast moved into the 21st century and proactively make the best of what such opportunities offer.

Cogs

I think you're spending too much time in the sun. You seem to be arguing with yourself on this issue.

I don't recall anybody arguing against the use of any sort of incentive program or outright compensation for non full-time career firefighters. The "debate" is solely about the use of the term "volunteer" to describe a firefighter who is actually being paid for their participation. Now, I'm not talking about those receiving a nominal amount annually that essentially "reimburses" out of pocket expenses related to serving as a volunteer FF, but rather those being paid per call and/or paid for duty shifts.

Federal labor law may treat them as a "volunteer", however they are not really a volunteer in the traditional view of volunteerism. "Volunteer" in the traditional view equates to performing a service/task without monetary compensation.

Regardless, if "titles" and other "labels" really don't matter, then why must the term "volunteer" continue to be used to describe a person being paid to respond to and/or standby for fire calls when clearly terms such as "per diem", "on-call", "part-time", "casual", etc would appear to be much more accurate?

I am paid to respond to and standby for fire calls now, so I guess I must still be a volunteer too, eh?

[FFPCogs 863]

I think you're spending too much time in the sun. You seem to be arguing with yourself on this issue.

I don't recall anybody arguing against the use of any sort of incentive program or outright compensation for non full-time career firefighters. The "debate" is solely about the use of the term "volunteer" to describe a firefighter who is actually being paid for their participation. Now, I'm not talking about those receiving a nominal amount annually that essentially "reimburses" out of pocket expenses related to serving as a volunteer FF, but rather those being paid per call and/or paid for duty shifts.

Federal labor law may treat them as a "volunteer", however they are not really a volunteer in the traditional view of volunteerism. "Volunteer" in the traditional view equates to performing a service/task without monetary compensation.

Regardless, if "titles" and other "labels" really don't matter, then why must the term "volunteer" continue to be used to describe a person being paid to respond to and/or standby for fire calls when clearly terms such as "per diem", "on-call", "part-time", "casual", etc would appear to be much more accurate?

I am paid to respond to and standby for fire calls now, so I guess I must still be a volunteer too, eh?

Yes I have spent quite alot of time in the sun of late and I will agree there has been little or no argument on the subject of incentives, but I think that has more to do with the fact that the "argument" here has veered far from the use of the term "paid volunteer" into the realm of volunteers being firefighters at all. We've had a number of posts outlining the differences that exist for some between the career and volunteer "sides" of the fire service and how those differences impact the service provided with no mention of incentves/stipends other than my own.

And as for your question, simply put so long as the compensation you recieve to respond and stand by for calls falls within the parameters set by FSLA then yes you are still a volunteer...if not than you're not.