Lodi firefighters up in arms over plans to limit alcohol in firehouses

[FF402 133]

Lodi firefighters up in arms over plans to limit alcohol in firehouses

Thursday, August 23, 2012 Last updated: Friday August 24, 2012, 2:08 PM

BY KIM LUEDDEKE

STAFF WRITER

The Record

Firefighters will often drink a few beers after responding to an emergency call, but Yuhas did not believe drinking in the firehouses was excessive.

http://www.northjersey.com/lodi/Lodi_council_introduces_ordinance_to_limit_alcohol_in_firehouses.html?page=all

[99subi 121]

Its a place of business. The particular business is to protect and serve the people of a town and or city. Do these folks drink at their place of paid employment? I'm betting not, so why is this any different? What amazes me about volunteers, (not all of them) is the fact that they will argue to the death that they are of the same quality and held to the same professional standards as Career firemen yet they go around pulling crap like this. Its pathetic and it truly does separate the REAL firemen from the boys.

Drinking is no place for the firehouse.

[BigBusiness 0]

yes i agree get rid of it,our beer left years ago with the drinkers,but some still drink in other houses and respond to calls that is sick,

[x635 4,066]

Although there's problaly more politics to meet the eye, they really equate "appreciation" with being allowed to consume alcohol after calls?

At Tuesday’s meeting, Yuhas complained that fire officials had not been adequately notified of the proposed changes and said firefighters felt the council does not appreciate their service to the town.

In a follow-up interview, Schrieks said he took full responsibility for not bringing fire officials into the discussion earlier. He took issue, however, with the notion that the council was not grateful for firefighters’ efforts.

“We’ve always gone above and beyond to ensure they’re appreciated,” Schrieks said.

Firefighters will often drink a few beers after responding to an emergency call, but Yuhas did not believe drinking in the firehouses was excessive.

“It’s not like we’re down there every night having a party,” he said.

The FD probaly needs a better PIO....I can't believe they made the remarks they did to the press.

The FD probaly needs a better PIO....I can't believe they made the remarks they did to the press.

[38ff 250]

Alcohol needs to go. We got rid of it along time ago, and that has prevented many problems from occuring.

[gamewell45 258]

Whiile it wasn't a major issue, the consumption of alcohol was banned from my firehouse years ago due to liability concerns by the Board of Fire Commissioners. In fact under the current rules still in effect, if you consume any alcolhol at all whether at home or anywhere else, your out of service for a miminum of eight hours. Most of us gave up drinking.

[everybodygoes 331]

Great way to implement a weight reduction program lol. I am torn with this. I have to believe that many would be able to exhibit self control at getting behind the wheel while drinking, let alone operating at any operation, but then again, never underestimate the power of stupidity, it keeps us in business! Alcohol was limited where I volunteer for just this reason, and its impacts have not been drastic as many would suggest. Personally I am not a drinker, one or two here or there, but never 10 or 20! Some guys are like Frank the Tank, and once it hits your lips... This is really an issue that should be handled at the State level and not by each individual dept since the differences are so varied. I could care less if your usual members leave cause they can no longer get .25 cent beers, they wouldnt be able to help after having one anyway!

[firecapt32 282]

it seems pretty simple to me heres how ihandled it when asked in an Officers class--"if you cant do it in the library or in police headquarters what make you think you can do it in the fire house?"

in most cases the Department/company do not own the buildings--we are coustodians of the buildings--they belong to the public paid for by the public with taxes.

just my thoughts

[bigrig77 95]

I am not sure but isn't it illegal to have alcohoal in a government building? Would seem that these departments don;t have a leg stand on with this.

[10512 214]

20 years ago or so this was not an issue.

But it is not 20 years ago, it is 2012. It does not matter who owns the bldg's, rigs, or if you are volunteer or paid, if something happens, someone is being held responsible and is going to get sued.

The only issue here is liability. If something happens, and it does not matter what happens nowadays, and someone involved has been drinking, the overhead agency, municipaity or corporation will find itself in an indefensible position. Any responsible manager, public, private or volunteer, is going to try and protect themselves against an incident before it happens.

Once it happens, you then become the story.

Edited August 29, 2012 by 10512

[everybodygoes 331]

Its not a govt building. In most cases the FD owns the building themselves and operates like a business, in many places you could substitute Co with Corp!

[Bnechis 3,961]

Its not a govt building. In most cases the FD owns the building themselves and operates like a business, in many places you could substitute Co with Corp!

In "most cases"? can you site your source on this or is this just your experience in your area?

And in this case they made it clear they are municipally owned buildings

[everybodygoes 331]

And it is NJ this is NY. So what is your point?

How about you tell me since you know it all, which buildings are owned by the municipality?

[PCFD ENG58 1,085]

He knows it all because he read the paper, In the 3rd line it says that they are owned by the city. Are your eyes glassed over?

[JetPhoto 626]

Did you know, Line of Duty benefits for injuries or death MAY be denied if intoxicants are found in your system at the time of the incident.

§ 32.9 Voluntary intoxication.

The Bureau will apply the following evidentiary factors in cases in which voluntary intoxication is at issue in an officer's death or permanent and total disability.

(a) The primary factor in determining intoxication at the time the injury occurred, from which death or permanent and total disability resulted, is the blood alcohol level, including a post-mortem blood alcohol level in the case of a death.

(1) Benefits will be denied if a deceased or permanently and totally disabled public safety officer had a blood alcohol level of .20 per centum or greater; or

(2) Benefits will be denied if a deceased or permanently and totally disabled public safety officer had a blood alcohol level of at least .10 per centum but less than .20 per centum unless the Bureau receives convincing evidence that the public safety officer was not acting in an intoxicated manner immediately prior to death or the receipt of a catastrophic personal injury.

( Convincing evidence includes, but is not limited to: Affidavits or investigative reports demonstrating that the deceased or permanently and totally disabled public safety officer's speech, movement, language, emotion, and judgment were normal (for the officer) immediately prior to the injury which caused the death or the permanent and total disability.

© In determining whether an officer's intoxication was voluntary, the Bureau will consider:

(1) Whether, and to what extent, the officer had a prior history of voluntary intoxication while in the line of duty;

(2) Whether and to what degree the officer had previously used the intoxicant in question; and

(3) Whether the intoxicant was prescribed medically and was taken within the prescribed dosage.

http://law.justia.com/cfr/title28/28-1.0.1.1.33.html#28:1.0.1.1.33.1.20.9

[LTFIREPRG 154]

Also regardless of the fact that the buildings are owned by the municipality, if you are selling alcohol, regardless of how much your selling it for, you need a liquor license in NYS. The bottom line is alcohol and fighting fires don’t mix, especially driving a rig after consuming any amount.

[spin_the_wheel 460]

There are a few things as a Fire Chief you simply cannot condone, nor try to defend. Alcohol in the firehouse is one of them. The troops should also know you cannot go to "bat" for them on this one.

Let it go, and go along with whatever rules will be in effect. There are enough problems and headaches you will need to deal with without the 3 am phone call from the dispatcher looking for a Chief to call them because the Father of one of your 18 year old members wants to know why he came home from the firehouse drunk at 2:45am.

[everybodygoes 331]

Still waiting for my reply cause I can not think of one FD that is not paid that has a building that is considered a 'gov't' building.

[JM15 386]

My departments building are owned by the fire district which is a "govt" body... In regards to this case it says in the article the buildings are owned by the municipalitiy

[Bnechis 3,961]

Its not a govt building. In most cases the FD owns the building themselves and operates like a business, in many places you could substitute Co with Corp!

In "most cases"? can you site your source on this or is this just your experience in your area?

How about you tell me since you know it all, which buildings are owned by the municipality?

Still waiting for my reply cause I can not think of one FD that is not paid that has a building that is considered a 'gov't' building.

1) I did not claim they were owned or not owned by the municipality....YOU did...and I asked you to site your source...So I am still waiting for you to prove your theory is valid.

2) You nor I said anything about career vs. volunteer...but what about combination depts.? I now many combo's that the station is owned by the municipality and it was owned and built before they hired career and career depts. that the stations were always municipal even back when they were 100% volunteer.. They include Eastchester, Fairview, Harrison, Hartsdale, Greenville, Larchmont, Mamaroneck (town), Mt.Vernon, Mohegan, New Rochelle, Peekskill, Pelham, Pelham Manor, Portchester, Rye, Rye Brook, Scarsdale, White Plains, Yonkers.

Some of the 100% volunteer depts. i believe have municipal owned buildings: Ardsley, Armonk, Briarcliff, Croton, Irvington, Mamaroneck (Village), Millwood, Ossining, Purchase, Somers, Tarrytown and Yorktown.

Now in Westchester that alone is more than 50% of the depts.

In studying 6 depts in Dutchess (1 career, 2 combo and 3 volunteer) all were municipally owned.

3) If it is a fire district that owns the building then it is government owned. If owned by a fire company then in most cases it is not.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Bnechis