Duration a FAST Unit Should Remain On Scene?

[TimesUp 148]

Bottom line is this current strategy isn't working. This is proven. Time for a different approach. Unless going on mutual aid to supplement somebody's short comings is the ultimate goal.

[everybodygoes 331]

If your union is against a job action that the members are for it is time for new leadership. The only thing that is red or red/white and has three people in it should be an ambulance. As long as guys keep doing what they 'think' is the right thing they will continue to be treated like garbage.

[FirNaTine 370]

1) yes we call back, but we also get 2E, 2L mutual aid regardless and since we do not own that many spares we keep them until units free up at the scene.

2) 35 years ago and that worked in Yonkers, which is a very different community politically than any other in Westchester. A few years ago a few of our members held an unofficial sick-out. The union was against it and they were warned not to do it. It took the city less than 1 shift to get an injunction against the union and for every shift that members missed, every member (even those not scheduled to work or on vacation) were docked 2 days pay under the Taylor law. So I lost 2 days pay for the 1 day sickout. They also had other penilties like the city would no longer deduct union fees from our pay. I think you will find any dept today that does that will jive up almost as fast as it starts. Want to break your union, hold a job action.

Yes you are correct and like I said I would never condone it or a sickout. Many Communities however, like Yonkers are very different politically. What one Community will put up with another won't. I can tell you though for a fact Ive heard City/Town Officials say out of their own mouths "Why hire more men when we have a M/A Policy. They're only a phone call away." "Besides, how many fires a year do we have anyway." With that rationale we'll never win.

[FirNaTine 370]

It's my understanding that a certain department does have the money. In fact its budgeted, just not spent. Money is then taken from and spent in other areas. Such as non civil service jobs created for political pay back. Mutual aid to a point enables this to happen. Why spend money on the nesessities if it will be given to you in the long run.

100% correct. They cry they don't have the Finances but then create Jobs for their Cronies that for the most part are "No Show" positions anyway and were never in the Budget. I love though ltrob how guys from other FDs seem to know a lot about another Municipalites Finances/Budgets and what they can and can't afford!

[TimesUp 148]

100% correct. They cry they don't have the Finances but then create Jobs for their Cronies that for the most part are "No Show" positions anyway and were never in the Budget. I love though ltrob how guys from other FDs seem to know a lot about another Municipalites Finances/Budgets and what they can and can't afford!

Very Knowledgable indeed, Thank god! Where would we be without them

[everybodygoes 331]

And if your City thinks guys using contractual sick time is a job action perhaps you should have a policy in place that people don't come to work sick, unless of course you are a spineless officer who can't make that determination when you see a guy on the couch for 22 hours cause he is a bit 'under the weather'.

[Bnechis 3,961]

If your union is against a job action that the members are for it is time for new leadership. The only thing that is red or red/white and has three people in it should be an ambulance. As long as guys keep doing what they 'think' is the right thing they will continue to be treated like garbage.

The union leadership had the majority of the membership backing them. The job action was done by a very small group (less than 7% of the membership).

[Bnechis 3,961]

Yes you are correct and like I said I would never condone it or a sickout. Many Communities however, like Yonkers are very different politically. What one Community will put up with another won't. I can tell you though for a fact Ive heard City/Town Officials say out of their own mouths "Why hire more men when we have a M/A Policy. They're only a phone call away." "Besides, how many fires a year do we have anyway." With that rationale we'll never win.

Yes, we've heard it, but based on the 2nd quote, do you think they will hire if mutual aid no longer comes to help?

[everybodygoes 331]

So you had 15 guys go sick, and you lost 2 days pay? Someone needs to get punched in the face, cause they sold you out.

[Bnechis 3,961]

So you had 15 guys go sick, and you lost 2 days pay? Someone needs to get punched in the face, cause they sold you out.

I do not remember exactly how many guys went out. but based on 15, the city hired 15 and paid 22.5 days (OT) plus their cost to go to court and we paid 300 days. So the city saved 177.5 days pay.

Since the union was not involved, the court said it was a wildcat action and the union gets to pay it. Based on this I'm not sure this tactic will work anywhere anymore, even in Yonkers

[FirNaTine 370]

Yes, we've heard it, but based on the 2nd quote, do you think they will hire if mutual aid no longer comes to help?

Ya know what Bnechis they might but I guess we're never going to know so long as things stay status qou and nothing else is implemented.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Ya know what Bnechis they might but I guess we're never going to know so long as things stay status qou and nothing else is implemented.

True. And since as long as the mayor, manager, council commissioners, etc. have signed on to the mutual aid plan, firefighters will be going mutual aid regardless of weather they think it helps or hurts.

So what should the next move be to change the system?

[FirNaTine 370]

So what should the next move be to change the system?

Internal Investigations by the Feds and take'em All out in cuffs?

[huzzie59 75]

was this thread just hijacked ?

[huzzie59 75]

Most treads are high jacked!

We can't just answer the question asked.

It's not about what to do the right way ---- It's always about what we are doing the wrong way!

[antiquefirelt 994]

Now why I would never condone a Dept going on strike look what YFD did I believe in 1979 or 1980 and look where they are now. They took a drastic measure jeopardizing the lives of millions ...

Wouldn't refusing to use M/A knowing the City would not call in or properly staff apparatus in the same period of time as a strike jeopardize the people and property a department was sworn to protect? Not to mention putting the lives of the on duty personnel at greater risk? There has to be a better way to pressure a city into proper staffing without directly increasing the danger to all involved. Media, legal grounds, IAFF assistance?

[robert benz 344]

Most treads are high jacked!

We can't just answer the question asked.

It's not about what to do the right way ---- It's always about what we are doing the wrong way!

The question was answered. If you are looking for an "always or never" answer, aint goona happen. When the IC feels he doesn't need them anymore, he makes the call. He just has to justify that call if something goes wrong.

[FirNaTine 370]

Wouldn't refusing to use M/A knowing the City would not call in or properly staff apparatus in the same period of time as a strike jeopardize the people and property a department was sworn to protect? Not to mention putting the lives of the on duty personnel at greater risk?

Didn't members of these Depts.responding on M/A take an oath to protect and serve those taxpayers who pay their Salaries and are not only putting their lives in danger but their Brother FFs. It's not a neighboring Depts. responsibility to worry about F/P for another Community because of neglect on the abusive Municipalities City Officials and Administration. Id love to see how everyone felt if a civilian was seriously injured or killed because the Apparatus that was suppose to be there to protect them was once again, for the umpteenth time, in another Community providing F/P because the Powers To Be in this neighboring town refuse to provide adequate F/P on a continuous basis. JMO.

[x635 4,066]

You keep arguing for no mutual aid, but then you also admit that the community will not spend any more $$$$. So failing to help each other only hurts us.

The irony is, the same departments that always go to the same jobs together, and couldn't function without each other, can't merge with each other and share operation and reduce costs. Mount Vernon isn't the only department that uses mutual aid continuously as a crutch. And maybe creating a joint fire district will take the power away from the Mount Vernon politicians, which may be the only way to save them and the members of MVFD.

And how can MVFD have enough manpower to have a FAST team, especially now that they are down 2 firefighters who are facing felony charges yet still holding spots in the department? But they are probably good at forcible entry and dragging victims. It's funny because it's true.

(I apologize to the MVFD members I offended)

[FirNaTine 370]

The irony is, the same departments that always go to the same jobs together, and couldn't function without each other, can't merge with each other and share operation and reduce costs. Mount Vernon isn't the only department that uses mutual aid continuously as a crutch. And maybe creating a joint fire district will take the power away from the Mount Vernon politicians, which may be the only way to save them and the members of MVFD.

And how can MVFD have enough manpower to have a FAST team, especially now that they are down 2 firefighters who are facing felony charges yet still holding spots in the department? But they are probably good at forcible entry and dragging victims. It's funny because it's true.

(I apologize to the MVFD members I offended)

LMAO!!!

[huzzie59 75]

The question was answered. If you are looking for an "always or never" answer, aint goona happen. When the IC feels he doesn't need them anymore, he makes the call. He just has to justify that call if something goes wrong.

[huzzie59 75]

No, no, no. Maybe I wasn't clear. Every tread ends up being a rant and complaint about politics and how we need to regionalize, mis-abuse of mutual aid, yada, yada, yada.
The main question is how long FAST should stay on scene. I don't expect a simple answer at all. People with a lot more knowledge than me can answer the question and give all the pros and cons.
I don't live in a bubble. I know there are issues.
Please answer the questions and strike up intelligent conversation.
See that, hijacked again.

Edited March 24, 2014 by huzzie59

[TimesUp 148]

Barry,we might never agree. But you're a good guy in all seriousness.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Didn't members of these Depts.responding on M/A take an oath to protect and serve those taxpayers who pay their Salaries and are not only putting their lives in danger but their Brother FFs. It's not a neighboring Depts. responsibility to worry about F/P for another Community because of neglect on the abusive Municipalities City Officials and Administration. Id love to see how everyone felt if a civilian was seriously injured or killed because the Apparatus that was suppose to be there to protect them was once again, for the umpteenth time, in another Community providing F/P because the Powers To Be in this neighboring town refuse to provide adequate F/P on a continuous basis. JMO.

I'm not saying abuse of the M/A system should be allowed, but I'll bet few places nationwide had the forethought to write in enforcement actions or ways to sanction those FD's that failed to live up to their end of the bargain. I know we had the same issue on EMS coverage and now charge for it. It would seem plainly obvious that to be in a "mutual aid agreement" you have to reciprocate. Maybe the other FD's should request the abusive FD more routinely and then be denied assistance routinely, showing the obvious one sided nature of the issue?

In the end, the taxpayers far and wide will only see a refusal to assist as a bad thing for any FD who won't answer a call for help. We all know what stripping another towns resources could do, but we answer try and stop the loss that is happening currently, not the one that might happen in the future. Taxpayers at large will sympathize with the financial issue every day of the week as they understand that compared to what it takes to safely mitigate a fire.

[FirNaTine 370]

I'm not saying abuse of the M/A system should be allowed, but I'll bet few places nationwide had the forethought to write in enforcement actions or ways to sanction those FD's that failed to live up to their end of the bargain. I know we had the same issue on EMS coverage and now charge for it. It would seem plainly obvious that to be in a "mutual aid agreement" you have to reciprocate. Maybe the other FD's should request the abusive FD more routinely and then be denied assistance routinely, showing the obvious one sided nature of the issue?

In the end, the taxpayers far and wide will only see a refusal to assist as a bad thing for any FD who won't answer a call for help. We all know what stripping another towns resources could do, but we answer try and stop the loss that is happening currently, not the one that might happen in the future. Taxpayers at large will sympathize with the financial issue every day of the week as they understand that compared to what it takes to safely mitigate a fire.

Don't agree necessarily with your assumption of what taxpayers may think and their possible sympathy. I for one would not care if my FD refused m/a to a Dept. who constantly abuses it. Im paying high taxes for their Services(Salaries) and want them there if I, my neighbor, friend, family member needs them, not in a neighboring town cause their City Officials don't want to provide adequate F/P. That's not my or any of my fellow taxpayers problem. Do you feel it's right for a Dept. who abuses the M/A Policy and is working shorthanded, to also send Apparatus out of town to reciprocate, leaving it's taxpayers and fellow Brother FFs even in more harms way, increasing the risks? Ive seen Depts. on more then one ocassion call their Apps. back from m/a to their own town because now they had an Incident and were now shorthanded. Some of these times they were dispatched right to the scene of a Job while enroute back to their Community. Everybody has their own opinions on this touchy Subject, so I guess will agree to disagree and that's ok.

Edited March 24, 2014 by FirNaTine

[antiquefirelt 994]

Don't agree necessarily with your assumption of what taxpayers may think and their possible sympathy.

I understand and can't discount that many taxpayers would (rightfully) be angered that they subsidize fire protection for their neighbors. but there is also a large segment of the public that thinks that people must come first. It's not just a local issue, we seem to have enough people that care about helping others to fight on foreign soils regardless of the costs. Most may not agree the starting or stopping point, but they tend to want to help those in need.

I do agree that abuse of the system cannot be tolerated and must be stopped, lest the whole system be destroyed. There appears to be no easy answer to the issue you're fighting right now. I'm fine disagreeing, but I think we're not as far apart as one might think.

[TimesUp 148]

I agree. People must come first. So when a Mayor Decides he's going to brown out companies for the day or 24 hours he or she is not putting their own citizens safety first.

[Bnechis 3,961]

While 1 dept. is often the "abuser" of mutual aid that many have sited here, how many depts. are we really talking about?

How many depts. can put 15 plus firefighters on scene? How many can also provide proper command, safety, FAST, etc.?

If you respond with 1 or 2 FF's per rig so you call for MA for every fire, are you not an abuser?

If you respond with only 1 or 2 rigs so you call for MA for every fire, are you not an abuser?

The one dept. is called an "abuser" because of the volume of fires, but the other depts. technically are also abusing since they cant put a team on the field either.

[wraftery 1,275]

I agree. People must come first. So when a Mayor Decides he's going to brown out companies for the day or 24 hours he or she is not putting their own citizens safety first.

When a governing body browns out a firehouse, they are making an assumpton that either nothing will hapen in the company district, or other companies can handle it just for that night. I don't understand their logic but it makse sense to them.

How about reversing the logic. What would happen if a Fire Chief recalled the entire department for one day a month because he assumed that there would be a major fire that day? He would probably be fired innediately for come up with such a preposterous theory.

But isn't it the same logic as the brownout?

[Dinosaur 844]

When a governing body browns out a firehouse, they are making an assumpton that either nothing will hapen in the company district, or other companies can handle it just for that night. I don't understand their logic but it makse sense to them.

How about reversing the logic. What would happen if a Fire Chief recalled the entire department for one day a month because he assumed that there would be a major fire that day? He would probably be fired innediately for come up with such a preposterous theory.

But isn't it the same logic as the brownout?

They never see it that way. They just use the cold hard numbers from runs to determine the slowest times for a station and then brown it out. Let's face it, if there were any statistics to show when a big fire was going to happen we'd all be like the wildfire teams and contracted when there was going to be a big fire.

Sadly, the numbers haven't bitten anyone in the ass yet so they keep doing it.