Paid Volunteers

[Bnechis 3,961]

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.

What does Federal Tax law say?

Earnings are taxed, volunteering can be a right-off in amny cases. Interesting, different parts of the federal government look at this differently.

[wraftery 1,275]

WOW!

This thread is a job for NIMS. They might be working on these kinds of TYPING questions.

The answer will come in about 5-10 years and will look like this:

CFF-Career FF

VFF-Volunteer FF

POCFF-Paid on call FF

VFFWGPAS-Volunteer FF who gets paid a stipend

FFF-Forestry FF

POCFFFWJOOP- Paid on call FFF who jumps out of planes

...And on and on

[FireMedic049 597]

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.

What about the other question in that post?

[FireMedic049 597]

What does Federal Tax law say?

Earnings are taxed, volunteering can be a right-off in amny cases. Interesting, different parts of the federal government look at this differently.

I'm not entirely sure, but what I do know is that a non-profit organization (which VFDs typically are) is required to issue Form 1099s to anyone paid more than $600 in a year and said amount is not a reimbursed expense. The IRS is supposed to be sent a copy also.

I believe, technically, all non-reimbursement monetary income is supposed to be reported on an individuals tax return and therefore subject to taxation.

[gamewell45 258]

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

Cogs, I have to agree with you on this; attempting to "force" communities to be served exclusively by paid firefighters is not going to be viable since in the public's eyes, the cost outweighs the benefits regardless of ISO ratings or any other benefit which is fed to the public. The politicians aren't that stupid; they know that they'd be strung up by their thumbs by the taxpayers.

We could attempt to petition the DOL for a change in law, but at this time and juncture (at least in NY & the Feds) both houses are not really in a very cooperative mood with each other, so its unlikely that they'll be able to make changes in the labor laws.

I think that the programs will offer an opportunity to revitalize the volunteer fire service, tho' the term "volunteer" should go away if they are being paid for responding to calls. The terms "volunteer" and "career" are really nothing more than terms of division; hence the term "firefighter" for all regardless of employment status. Obviously training standards will have to be reviewed and increased where deemed necessary (city/industrial vs. rural); indeed the concept could help the so-called combo & "volunteer" departments in improving manpower staffing and at the same time possibly reducing overtime costs to the taxpayers in the combo departments.

While i can't forget the whole mess, I'd love to have a beer.

[FFPCogs 863]

What about the other question in that post?

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

Hope this clears that up for you.

[FFPCogs 863]

What does Federal Tax law say?

Earnings are taxed, volunteering can be a right-off in amny cases. Interesting, different parts of the federal government look at this differently.

Yes B, this type of incentive is taxable income and depending on the amounts earned may even change a person's tax bracket.

And who woulda thought...different parts of the Fed looking at the same picture differently...

Cogs

Edited February 26, 2012 by FFPCogs

[nfd2004 750]

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.

Please let me point out a few facts that certainly pertain to Connecticut, but also maybe some other states. Some places in Connecticut now are requiring EMT and Fire Recruit School in order to become a career firefighter. If its not required prior to testing, it surely is required as part of the employment process. Apparently many cities now really don't recongize FFI or FFII as the standard. And rightfully so. How can you compare the training of a 14 week, full time Monday thru Friday training schedule (roughly 560 hours) to that of FFI and II.

The 14 week Recruit School in Connecticut uses some of the best instructors out there. Many officers from Cts larger busier cities, and even a few members from the FDNY. They are the Best out there. I have seen the results of the training that each recruit recieves. Every one of those recruits no matter what city they are in is an Excellent Firefighter.

In comparison, I have seen many, many Firefighter I and II's in action. I took the course on my own a few years ago. Whether anybody recongizes it on paper or not, there clearly is "NO COMPARISON". In fact, many volunteer firefighters are now attending this Recruit School at their own expense and time, in hopes of landing a career firefighters job. Most are Firefighter I and II's but realize themselves that there is quite a difference in the training hours and standards. I know that the dept I retired from now requires newly hired members to attend that 14 week recruit school. It says nothing about Firefighter I or II requirements.

Will Part Time Firefighters be a thing of the future for many cities that have only fulltime career firefighters now ? I couldn't tell you that. It certainly would depend on contract negotions with curent members. But I do think that those P/T'ers should be held to the same very high standards as their F/T career firefighters, not just a simple, few hour FFI or II class.

[FFPCogs 863]

Please let me point out a few facts that certainly pertain to Connecticut, but also maybe some other states. Some places in Connecticut now are requiring EMT and Fire Recruit School in order to become a career firefighter. If its not required prior to testing, it surely is required as part of the employment process. Apparently many cities now really don't recongize FFI or FFII as the standard. And rightfully so. How can you compare the training of a 14 week, full time Monday thru Friday training schedule (roughly 560 hours) to that of FFI and II.

The 14 week Recruit School in Connecticut uses some of the best instructors out there. Many officers from Cts larger busier cities, and even a few members from the FDNY. They are the Best out there. I have seen the results of the training that each recruit recieves. Every one of those recruits no matter what city they are in is an Excellent Firefighter.

In comparison, I have seen many, many Firefighter I and II's in action. I took the course on my own a few years ago. Whether anybody recongizes it on paper or not, there clearly is "NO COMPARISON". In fact, many volunteer firefighters are now attending this Recruit School at their own expense and time, in hopes of landing a career firefighters job. Most are Firefighter I and II's but realize themselves that there is quite a difference in the training hours and standards. I know that the dept I retired from now requires newly hired members to attend that 14 week recruit school. It says nothing about Firefighter I or II requirements.

Will Part Time Firefighters be a thing of the future for many cities that have only fulltime career firefighters now ? I couldn't tell you that. It certainly would depend on contract negotions with curent members. But I do think that those P/T'ers should be held to the same very high standards as their F/T career firefighters, not just a simple, few hour FFI or II class.

From the CT CFPC website regarding the FF recruit program:

Training consists of theory backed with extensive skill development. Additional course components include training in Hazardous Materials Mitigation, Weapons of Mass Destruction Preparedness, Confined Space Rescue, CPR Defibrillator and Technical Rescue. Graduating recruits will be nationally certified to the level of Firefighter I and Firefighter II in addition to being awarded numerous certificates for specialized training.

As I stated the course is far more intense and condensed than the method used for the majority of volunteer FFs in the State, but the fact remains that they are both certified using the same standard. And without doubt a recruit coming out of the academy will have many additional certfications...and be paid for the time it took to recieve them... in that 14 week period, but many volunters will aquire those very same levels within their first year or two in the service on their own time and dime. I'm not disputing the fact that career firefighters in general will by the very nature of their employment recieve training and certification faster or that that training is more intense due to that ability, but to say all career FFs are more highly trained or "better" than volunteers across the board is misleading at best.

I will definitely agree that CT is blessed with some great instructors, including many of those FDNY guys you mention that are friends and colleagues of mine. Fortunately the majority of these highly knowledgable and experienced instructors train both career and volunteer members as a matter of course, much to the benefit of CT's fire service.

Part-time FFs is also an option communities can explore, but not one germain to this particular discussion as part-timers are in fact employees under the law whereas nominally compensated volunteers are not.

Thanks for the insight

Cogs

[FireMedic049 597]

Hope this clears that up for you.

Nope, didn't clear anything up and didn't address the actual question either.

[FireMedic049 597]

Part-time FFs is also an option communities can explore, but not one germain to this particular discussion as part-timers are in fact employees under the law whereas nominally compensated volunteers are not.

What do you consider to be the "ceiling" on "nominal compensation"? At what point and/or under what conditions is compensation no longer "nominal" in your view?

Maybe it's different in CT, but in PA volunteer firefighters are considered "employees" under the law for the purposes of worker's compensation coverage. Additionally, if a VFD utilizes members under the age of 18 (i.e. "Juniors"), the participation of those members is subject to the same restrictions and requirements of the child labor laws that regular employers must follow.

[FFPCogs 863]

Nope, didn't clear anything up and didn't address the actual question either.

Then what is the question?

[FFPCogs 863]

What do you consider to be the "ceiling" on "nominal compensation"? At what point and/or under what conditions is compensation no longer "nominal" in your view?

per FSLA 20% of the prevailing wage for your area/region for any type of volunteer service provided...including firefighting.

Maybe it's different in CT, but in PA volunteer firefighters are considered "employees" under the law for the purposes of worker's compensation coverage. Additionally, if a VFD utilizes members under the age of 18 (i.e. "Juniors"), the participation of those members is subject to the same restrictions and requirements of the child labor laws that regular employers must follow.

No I think it's the same. To the best of my knowledge volunteers here in CT and most other places are considered employees for worker's compensation only when engaged in department sponsored activities related to firefighting such as responses and training.

And yes those under 18 are limited to the extent of the activities they can participate in as determined by Federal and State Labor laws as well as ConnOSHA for us in CT.

Cogs

Edited February 26, 2012 by FFPCogs

[FireMedic049 597]

Then what is the question?

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?

[FFPCogs 863]

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 did in fact answer this question by stating that as far as I'm concerned I don't care what term, title, label or nomenclature is used to describe what are, for now and by legal definition, volunteer FFs that recieve stipends. Why others choose to call these responders volunteer is up to them although in the legal sense they have every right to.

From another angle and if it helps just remember that we have had an all "volunteer" military since the mid 1970's. It is known as such in the media and this has now become it's common "traditional" description even though military personnel get paid. Along with it's legal definition per FSLA, I suppose one could transpose the term volunteer to the fire service in the much same way it applies to the military in this case.

Cogs

Edited February 26, 2012 by FFPCogs

[FireMedic049 597]

per FSLA 20% of the prevailing wage for your area/region for any type of volunteer service provided...including firefighting.

Now I realize this may be "splitting hairs" or such, but.........

The area in which I grew up, like many areas in the country, has only volunteer firefighters. Therefore I would think that 20% of the prevailing firefighter wage for the area would be $0.00. Therefore any monetary compensation would be above the FLSA threshold.

Here's an example to show just how silly this "I'm still a volunteer even though I'm getting paid" argument is.........

Just down the road from us there is a large amusement park. During their operating season - basically over the summer, they employ a large number of seasonal workers to operate the rides, sell concessions, prepare food, clean, etc. Typically, these seasonal workers are paid minimum wage for their time. A person working at minimum wage, 40 hour/week, for 12 weeks would gross $3480 and would be considered and treated as an employee in every sense of the word by the public, the employer, the IRS and probably others.

The county in which I live/work currently is predominately volunteer, but I'd put the "prevailing wage" for a basic career firefighter to be in the range of $50,000. Therefore, 20% of that would be $10,000. So, according to you and the info you are referencing, a volunteer firefighter could be paid up to $10,000 for his FD service and should still be considered a "volunteer".

You can't see the blatant obsurdity of a person potentially making more than double this seasonal employee, but still claiming to be a "volunteer"?

No I think it's the same. To the best of my knowledge volunteers here in CT and most other places are considered employees for worker's compensation only when engaged in department sponsored activities related to firefighting such as responses and training.

And yes those under 18 are limited to the extent of the activities they can participate in as determined by Federal and State Labor laws as well as ConnOSHA for us in CT.

Cogs

So, if they can be considered "employees" under the law, then I suppose your statement about part-timers being employees and volunteers not being employees would be incorrect.