Jybehofd

It is still out there Professional vs Volunteer...and in Westchester

100 posts in this topic



A few things jump out from this to me, I am pretty sure that not everyone here will agree with my priorities here, time for a rant.

 

1) Brotherhood or lack there of - Who made this recording? Who on earth records their brother firefighters in a moment of what can only bee seen off the cuff and obviously intended as comedic banter? This alone would make me not want to join a department where you have to worry about your fellow members recording what you say. It is bad enough we have to worry about the public filming public safety but now you have to set rat traps in your own parlor. For a thread dedicated to bad relations to depend so much on a video obtained in what can only be bad faith is startling.

 

2) Timing - This is apparently a year old. So someone knew of supposed misconduct but decided to wait and see when it would be the most opportune time to use it. This makes whoever sat on this video nothing more than a co conspirator at best. Had the windows been broken at this firefighter's house how would the holder of the video that could have prevented a crime be thought of? I for one would not call them a hero for coming up with evidence, I would think them a fool for not alerting the authorities. This is nothing more than an opportunistic person who for whatever reason has decided to kiss up to one side in an unrelated debate. I see the sudden unveiling of this recording as highly questionable.

 

3) Characterization - I know that nobody here has ever told or hear an off color or even mean spirited joke in a fire house. I know that every station in the world other than PCFD is apparently a monastic home for innocent choir boys that have never uttered an unkind word against another member. However for a lawyer to characterize this as encouraging vandalism is playing on the public's ignorance. What I heard was someone saying that he hoped to respond to a certain house that night (far more troubling to me) and that if they did to break every window in the place (which I took as a remark on the ongoing fire service debate on ventilation) To break windows or not break windows is something that gets discussed over and over, even among the choirboys. However even when one firefighter/department/chief sees what they think as too much glass breaking I don't think it rises to the level of vandalism. Plus the qualification of tying this to an anticipated response tells me this is not a call to go out and commit a crime as the shady ambulance chaser thinks it is.

 

I am far more troubled by the idea that someone hopes to respond to another members home. This tells me that he wishes for a fire or other emergency to effect this member AND THEIR FAMILY. This is far worse than breaking a window or even all of them. As much as emergency services can sometimes be see as morbid in hoping for good calls, I don't think we should even entertain the concept of hoping for calls at other members homes. This is disgusting, but requires the baisc concept of brotherhood to be fully understood. This means that my opinion probably would not inflame the public enough to push an agenda.

 

4) Agendas - In the other thread about Port Chester it was asked why the volunteers were not standing up for their paid brothers. This lawyer is why! He says that this is why you can't have a volunteer chief. I don't get the connection. I have met idiots and [expletives] on both sides of the pay check. We are constantly told to see beyond the payroll and take each brother as an individual, so why is this not a case of investigating one person and finding out if they did something wrong? Why is this seen as an example of why no volunteer can ever possibly be chief? Because there is an agenda that comes from some (but not all) career staff that is guided by the overriding principle of getting rid of volunteers. I don't think there are conferences or pamphlets, I don't think any person or organization would be stupid enough to leave such a paper trail. Then again, it is apparently OK to secretly record your brothers, so maybe there is some grainy cellphone footage out there of a second gunman on the grassy knoll. This lawyer is certainly of the mind that PCFD not only needs career firefighters (which I don't think is up for debate) but apparently also needs a paid chief (which I think is absolutely debatable). This seems like a case of never letting a good scandal go to waste.

 

It seems to me that actions by all of those involved here, The person who wishes ill on another member and their family, the person who secretly records the goings on in a firehouse and then sits on the recording for a year, and the lawyer who is willing to make broad statements to push an agenda are all the reason we have the acronym BMA!

 

Westfield12, fdce54, bfd1144 and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that we have all these side dramas= a Rye Brook suit, trustees not signing paperwork and now a seemingly damning tape , where do. we stand with getting the PC8 their jobs back????

AFS1970, Westfield12 and BIGRED1 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a starting point.....Change the name of the thread to VOLUNTEER VS. CAREER. 

 

This entire issue was manufactured by a small group of completely incompetent volunteer fools wearing Fire Chief costumes from the Port Chester FD.

 

Sorry if the truth may hurt for some of the pro-volunteer carrot snappers on this board, but this story is going to sting for awhile (as it should).

 

Contrary to the claim of one "dinosaur" here......This has everything to do with career and volunteer relationships and the absolute jealousy that a few complete losers from PCFD attempted to enact upon 8 unionized firefighters who did not conform to their failing regime. 

 

Speaking out earned them being thrown out.

 

Except, the labor world is a bit harder to con than the archaic volunteer fiefdoms that these pieces of trash have matriculated through.

 

Open check book PCFD.

 

Elections have consequences. 

 

 

Edited by x152

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan, good points.

 

And, as my late father once told one of his ass-kissing subordinates; "Nobody likes a rat." I also don't like that it took so long for this incident to be brought to the forefront. However, it shows a true lack of professionalism and decency on the part of the chief. Unfortunately, times have changed (not always for the better) and standards of conduct are always open to (intense at times) scrutiny. 

 

As Warner Wolf used to say, "Lets go to the videotape." By today's standards, he's guilty of conduct unbecoming a (fill in the blanks). His credibility, questionable from the outset, is at an all time low. Not someone I'd want, or trust, having my back at an emergency, or in the company rooms. 

BIGRED1, Westfield12 and 16fire5 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has seen a more chaotic volunteer vs career situation than the two responding members of the Stamford Fire Dept. I am referring to the two above posters calling themselves "AFS1970" and "X152". Personally I have no idea who they are. Except that I have a few long time personnel friends in that department. I assume those that posted are career firefighters.

 

For anyone, to make a statement such as the one reported by Channel 12 News is totally unacceptable. Somebody said it and somebody is to blame for it.

 

Very often facts are withheld until the right time presents itself. We see that every day in a court of law. Apparently the person recording this felt the timing was now right to present it. I have to agree with that as I think this builds a better case for those eight Port Chester firefighters of getting their jobs back. Somebody, clearly is recorded as advising people to damage another firefighters home. Should the entire volunteer system in Port Chester be blamed for this ? Of course not. But I would expect those other members to fully support these firefighters.

 

 What if that statement were made by a CAREER FIREFIGHTER ? Does that change it ? Well, clearly there would be some type of discipline taken against that firefighter by a superior officer or chief. No doubt a price would have to be paid. Maybe a suspension and loss of pay, or termination. It is just not allowed or accepted for a career firefighter - ANYPLACE - to get away with that. Most career firefighters can be held responsible for anything they say or do under the rules of a semi military type organization.

 

  There is clearly another indirect lesson to be learned here by both career AND volunteer firefighters. Regardless of what you think, each and every one of you are held to a much higher standard by the general public. Let the office worker be arrested for a causing a fatal DUI accident and nobody really knows where he works or if he gives his co-workers a bad name. Let that same thing happen where a firefighter is the cause of that fatal DUI accident and the headlines clearly show; "FIREFIGHTER the cause of fatal DUI accident". The entire Fire Dept must carry that negative reputation around with it - Volunteer or City Paid.

 

 People expect you to be of higher character than their neighbor down the street. "I know I do". People will hand their sick child over to a total stranger in a firefighters uniform. They expect you to be of good character.

Edited by nfd2004
Westfield12, fire2141 and fdalumnus like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nfd2004 said:

What if that statement were made by a CAREER FIREFIGHTER ? Does that change it ? Well, clearly there would be some type of discipline taken against that firefighter by a superior officer or chief. No doubt a price would have to be paid. Maybe a suspension and loss of pay, or termination. It is just not allowed or accepted for a career firefighter - ANYPLACE - to get away with that. Most career firefighters can be held responsible for anything they say or do under the rules of a semi military type organization.

 

There is clearly another indirect lesson to be learned here by both career AND volunteer firefighters. Regardless of what you think, each and every one of you are held to a much higher standard by the general public. Let the office worker be arrested for a causing a fatal DUI accident and nobody really knows where he works or if he gives his co-workers a bad name. Let that same thing happen where a firefighter is the cause of that fatal DUI accident and the headlines clearly show; "FIREFIGHTER the cause of fatal DUI accident". The entire Fire Dept must carry that negative reputation around with it - Volunteer or City Paid.

 

If the same statements were made by (and recorded) a career firefighter, there would be some discipline, after an investigation. Since this was made by a volunteer one news story and the words of a paid attorney spokesman are apparently enough. Look if someone does something wrong, let's get the facts out and let the chips fall where they may. Whatever the punishment may be, be it demotion, suspension, or even termination. However had this statement been made by a career firefighter or chief, and had a lawyer come out and said that this is why cities should not have career firefighters, he would have been laughed out of the room. I can only imagine what the thre3ad here on EMTBravo would have been like. Lets handle this the right way, but the same or a similar process as unions have fought hard to ensure that their members are subject to. Because if anyone suggested terminating a career firefighter over a similarly audio heard over a similarly shaking hand held video, there would be an outcry about maintaining his rights to a due process. A right we all possess and should all protect and defend.

 

Yes we are held to a higher standard. Yes there are those that want a double standard. I have never been one of them, and towards the end of my time as a volunteer firefighter sought to carry over some new bylaw ideas that came from civil service rules. Largely because they had addressed situations that our bylaws had never dealt with, and why reinvent the wheel. However to take the DUI accident example, there is one difference. If it is a career firefighter involved the news just says firefighter. When it is a volunteer firefighter involved the news never forgets to add the word volunteer in front of that, thus giving the opinion that all volunteer firefighters are irresponsible drunks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right the topic headline should be changed to career not profesional.  Both career and volunteer claim to be professionals. 

 

That being said, it doesn't matter if a career chief or voluteer chief made the statements.   The statement is strait up wrong.  You represent not only the fire department but the town too. Which intails more responsibility then actually known.   and in todays world even someone at an entry level has to becareful  on what they say and where they say it.  cell phones are recording everything. 

 

If this is true that this statement is over a year old... this department has some big issues and this act by the mayor is going to pull it all out.  I hope that they can get infront of this and take control. 

 

Westfield12 and AFS1970 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with career volunteer or public safety. Its a case of someone in life with an ax th o grind. But on that note if was was a career officer who got caught on tape you would not have a line of volunteers calling for his firing. FACT. Not everythibg in the fire service has to do with career vs. volunteer. For all the keyboard firefighters and pot stirrers out there go get a job get a life or get a hobby. Its a big world out there.

AFS1970, Westfield12 and bfd1144 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I beg to differ regarding if a career person made these statements whether there would be a line of volunteers calling for his (her) head. 

 

Did you ever work (or serve) in a combo dept. ? If you did, then you know the correct answer. 

 

Lets not beat this thing to death. Hopefully everything will come out in the wash.

 

Westfield12 and FD7807 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jybehofd said:

Your right the topic headline should be changed to career not profesional.  Both career and volunteer claim to be professionals.  

 

I don't think the headline necessarily needs to be changed.  Whether or not this is actually a career vs volunteer issue, the term "professional" was used correctly in the headline.  A professional firefighter is a person who is paid to be a firefighter just like a professional athlete is a person that is paid to play a sport.  

 

Acting in a professional manner and displaying professionalism is a different animal.

16fire5 and Jybehofd like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a little story about another department. But this story gives a perfect example of how a group of career firefighters were dealt with vs a group of volunteer firefighters. I know because I was directly involved and a member working that night.

 

Apparently somebody had taken photos of a few topless woman on the apparatus floor. They then proceeded to post these photos on a web site. There was no doubt exactly where these photos were taken. They clearly showed various areas of that firehouse with the name of the department, indicating exactly where these photos were taken within those walls. There would be NO DOUBT in anyone's mind about that.

 

Of course within a few days, city hall gets to see these photos as well. The mayor of course contacts the Chief for an immediate discussion on this subject. The mayor insist that the responsible firefighter (or firefighters) be terminated. I remember it well as I was a newly appointed captain in charge of that shift at that firehouse. The chief wanted me to find out who did this and he told me that city hall wants some action taken.

 

 So I got the guys together and I told them what was going on. I made it my business to contact the union president as well, so that he would also be aware of what was going on. I explained to those eight firefighters that whoever did this needs to come clean. I also told them that if they did that, I would do my very best to "lighten the blow". I couldn't make any promises but I did tell them, "if city hall or the chief has to find out, I'm sure you'll be looking for a new job, or fighting pretty hard to get it back".

 

 During the shift, every one of those firefighters came up individually to say "they did not do this and had no idea of anybody involved". I believed these guys. Each one seemed sincere when they denied doing it. The next day, I would go to the chief and let him know. He told me somehow there was good evidence of just when these pictures were taken and it was our shift on duty that night. I repeated that to the guys. Still nobody admitted doing it.

 

  Some how after several days, the exact date came out. As it turned out it was New Years Eve and those same guys were operating at a fire. It was a volunteer fire department that was relocated into that firehouse, that proved those career firefighters totally innocent. Those career guys were out most of the night fighting a fire. Eventually the true story came out.

 

  Each one of those career firefighters, including myself, were in line for some serious discipline to take place.  

 

So what happened to those volunteer firefighters who admitted their wrong doings ? Actually NOTHING. But a group of career firefighters, who were busy fighting a fire about three blocks away, took the heat not only at the fire, but about an incident that they had nothing to do with.

 

 Proves again, should Chief Quinn be accused of making these remarks ? Until the facts are in, I must assume him innocent. But if that's his voice on the audio, might be pretty tough to prove otherwise. There is no doubt that somebody did say that. and I'm sure the culprit will be identified soon enough. Right now, if I were Chief Quinn being accused unjustly of this, "I would firmly deny it, just as those innocent firefighters did in the story I told"

Edited by nfd2004
AFS1970 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FD7807 said:

It has nothing to do with career volunteer or public safety. Its a case of someone in life with an ax th o grind. But on that note if was was a career officer who got caught on tape you would not have a line of volunteers calling for his firing. FACT. Not everythibg in the fire service has to do with career vs. volunteer. For all the keyboard firefighters and pot stirrers out there go get a job get a life or get a hobby. Its a big world out there.

I also disagree.  I've seen a number of examples in which a career firefighter was caught doing/saying something inappropriate and plenty have called for their termination, even if the infraction didn't really warrant termination.  Several have resigned as a result of these situations and the reaction to them.

nfd2004 and fdalumnus like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how some here will continue to try and sugar-coat what this story is about (very predictable).

 

It is also cute how one clown had such a "strong" defense of his fellow volunteers that he blurted out the "get a life, get a job" rebuttal (that kind of response could get you on the fast track for a Chief's position in Port Chester). 

 

Sorry folks...."it is what it is"..... and that is a poorly orchestrated plan to retaliate against Union firefighters for blowing the whistle about actual problems within someone's little kingdom. 

 

I know that many volunteers have traditionally cherished the "victim role" in the endless career vs. volunteer saga, but this piece of history should not be looked upon for anything more that exactly what it is = textbook anti-union animus . 

 

This story will not have a happy ending for those who had a hand in the release of these firefighters.

 

 

Edited by x152

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to think that this thread has been an education without opening a book.

 

Add in two other threads in which a serious discussion has taken place. The threads of:

  "Paid Firefighter lay offs contested by residents, FDNY/Garden City News"

  "Village of Port Chester Disbands Career Fire Dept".

 

There should be no doubt in any firefighters mind just what side of the fence they need to be on. You have been presented with a well written group of statements, many backed up with facts. I commend those who took the time to speak here to explain the rights and wrongs of volunteer and career firefighter relationships.

 

 This story is not only played out in Port Chester or Garden City, NY, but many other places across the country as well. People are following these stories whether on this site or other fire dept sites. I know many members in Connecticut, both career and volunteer certainly are.

 

  Perhaps this was a "wake up call" to some who felt we could just write those career firefighters off. We now see that way of thinking kind of back fired for a group of chiefs who now may have to explain their position. They now may be required to give facts on why they felt the need to cut those eight career firefighters. When I would think, most chiefs would totally disagree with that decision. As someone mentioned, how would eliminating these firefighters make it safer for those citizens and the firefighters as well. I hope they have a good answer for that.

 

 As a retired firefighter and a citizen of a small city about 100 miles from Port Chester, I have been directly involved in trying to make small, but significant changes within that city involving career and volunteer firefighters. After meeting with the then city manager about some serious issues that I saw going on within the departments last year. These issues also greatly involved the publics and firefighter safety as well.

 

 One example was an occupied house fire in which a fire house with eight career firefighters were ONLY 1.8 miles away. They were NEVER called by the volunteer commanding officer. Instead two other volunteer fire depts. were requested, one from as far away as eight miles. Those career firefighters each spent 16 weeks at a firefighter recruit school to learn their trade. Yet they were NEVER called. In fact, those career firefighters are actually closer than the first due volunteer company. All part of the same city.

 

  There was another very serious haz mat incident in a warehouse and those career firefighters, including 4 Haz Mat Techs, were never requested until another Haz Mat Team responding some 15 miles away actually requested them to respond. There has been other incidents as well.

 

  With no positive results from the city manager, OR those Volunteer Chiefs, I decided to go to a local newspaper about these issues. I have provided to that reporter dates, times and facts. Within the last two months, one volunteer dept has called that career dept twice. Including one call to where that building fire was less than a year earlier. "I guess they know somebody is watching".

 

  As I understand it, that newspaper reporter is still in the process of conducting interviews. In 2008, a civilian died less than two miles from that career firehouse. All while the commanding officer felt the need only for volunteer firefighters much farther away.

 

  So as we see, its not only Port Chester or Garden City where some volunteer chiefs are very willing to put the citizens as well as his own volunteer firefighters at risk. I hope things DO change without getting into the newspaper. It just won't look good if that story comes out. So stay tuned as these events happen as well.

fdalumnus, PHIL78, BIGRED1 and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Friday, May 27, 2016 at 4:54 PM, x152 said:

I like how some here will continue to try and sugar-coat what this story is about (very predictable).

 

It is also cute how one clown had such a "strong" defense of his fellow volunteers that he blurted out the "get a life, get a job" rebuttal (that kind of response could get you on the fast track for a Chief's position in Port Chester). 

 

Sorry folks...."it is what it is"..... and that is a poorly orchestrated plan to retaliate against Union firefighters for blowing the whistle about actual problems within someone's little kingdom. 

 

I know that many volunteers have traditionally cherished the "victim role" in the endless career vs. volunteer saga, but this piece of history should not be looked upon for anything more that exactly what it is = textbook anti-union animus . 

 

This story will not have a happy ending for those who had a hand in the release of these firefighters.

 

 

You can claim the anti union card and that is your right. However unions were not formed so that Union leaders can stand on soap boxes country wide and cry. Employers have rights too. Taxpayers have rights too and before one more USFA study is quoted and before anymore union rhetoric is spread telling residents how their lives are at risk, tell them the whole story anx show them their tax savings and the amount of trained respondong vollies they have on the books.. 

AFS1970 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, FD7807 said:

You can claim the anti union card and that is your right. However unions were not formed so that Union leaders can stand on soap boxes country wide and cry. Employers have rights too. Taxpayers have rights too and before one more USFA study is quoted and before anymore union rhetoric is spread telling residents how their lives are at risk, tell them the whole story anx show them their tax savings and the amount of trained respondong vollies they have on the books.. 

 

I had to read this a few times. Thought it may be an April Fool's joke, but I realized that was what, eight weeks ago ?

 

Regarding soap boxes, you see an adversary, I see an individual exercising the right to free speech.

 

Taxpayers do have rights, most importantly the right to hear the truth about any manner. Tax savings ? A double edged sword. When was the last time (especially) in Westchester you saw a piece of fire apparatus that wasn't considered a "parade wagon," with all the bells and whistles, often duplicating what already exists in their own dept.

 

Back to the facts. Depts with career staff on duty 24/7/365 have a faster response time than those that don't.  In no way is this the fault of an all volunteer dept., Its just the way it is.

 

I got a job (now retired) and had and still have a life, one beyond my wildest drams, all because of my career as a firefighter. A career I attained by taking a written test with 4,000 to 5,000 other people, then scoring high enough to be in the roughly top 125 who were actually hired. The career academy. which wasn't a "show up and you pass" type of deal. Then 22 years putting up with, for the most part, know it all chiefs, AKA better known as the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. 

 

The situation in Port Chester has nothing to do with tax savings. Nothing. The facts truly spell that out. It's all about jealousy, ego, and, pure lunacy, all on the part of the chiefs of that dept. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FD7807 - I don't have to claim anything......your hero (I mean zero) Fire Chief was the stooge that stood before his personnel and went on a tirade encouraging vandalism and other types of obscene conduct against a Union member. 

 

Care to comment on why a Fire Chief would behave so irrationally or irresponsibly?

 

Is his behavior acceptable to you? Do you find this normal? 

 

Rather than rant about Unions and demonstrate your personal animus or jealousy for career that you could next have, try and build a case to defend the actions of this Chief and his cohorts.

 

This discussion will work far better if you actually stay on the issues that are tangible.

 

Save the Ben Franklin and taxpayer mantra for your next XXXL T-shirt printing or belly-bumping amongst your pals in the beer garden. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FD7807 said:

You can claim the anti union card and that is your right. However unions were not formed so that Union leaders can stand on soap boxes country wide and cry. Employers have rights too. Taxpayers have rights too and before one more USFA study is quoted and before anymore union rhetoric is spread telling residents how their lives are at risk, tell them the whole story anx show them their tax savings and the amount of trained respondong vollies they have on the books.. 

You know who else has rights too?  Employees, even non-union ones.

 

I agree that the whole story needs to be told.  I read an article that stated the department had 150 interior and 150 non-interior members, but it failed to mention what the average volunteer turnout is for calls.  That number is more important than the first two.

 

You don't have to like the "union rhetoric", but the reality is the public does have a higher risk now.  When you eliminate on-duty, in-station staffing, the dispatch to arrival on scene time increases by at least a few minutes on average.  Minutes matter when your house is on fire. 

lemonice, bfd1144, nfd2004 and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fdalumnus said:

 

 

I had to read this a few times. Thought it may be an April Fool's joke, but I realized that was what, eight weeks ago ?

 

Regarding soap boxes, you see an adversary, I see an individual exercising the right to free speech.

 

Taxpayers do have rights, most importantly the right to hear the truth about any manner. Tax savings ? A double edged sword. When was the last time (especially) in Westchester you saw a piece of fire apparatus that wasn't considered a "parade wagon," with all the bells and whistles, often duplicating what already exists in their own dept.

 

Back to the facts. Depts with career staff on duty 24/7/365 have a faster response time than those that don't.  In no way is this the fault of an all volunteer dept., Its just the way it is.

 

I got a job (now retired) and had and still have a life, one beyond my wildest drams, all because of my career as a firefighter. A career I attained by taking a written test with 4,000 to 5,000 other people, then scoring high enough to be in the roughly top 125 who were actually hired. The career academy. which wasn't a "show up and you pass" type of deal. Then 22 years putting up with, for the most part, know it all chiefs, AKA better known as the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. 

 

The situation in Port Chester has nothing to do with tax savings. Nothing. The facts truly spell that out. It's all about jealousy, ego, and, fdpure lunacy, all on the part of the chiefs of that dept. 

 

"fdalumnus", as a Retired Firefighter from a small Ct city combo dept I can totally relate to your story. Every word that is.

 

What is sad about the whole deal is that sometimes good, dedicated volunteer firefighters get a bad rap. I certainly don't mean to offend ALL volunteer firefighters. I have many friends who volunteer their services. There is also a mutual respect for each other. 

 

But when discussing the topic of those firefighter unions, it has always been a give and take. Of course the city represented what the taxpayers can afford and the firefighter union making its case for the firefighters. Just as the unions representing the police officers, public works, teachers etc. 

 

Another myth is that those firefighter unions are all about taking. The firefighters union often takes a stand on what is best in the publics interest as well. 

 

Several years ago it was the members of my firefighters union for several members to attend EMT school. Three out of four classes were attended by these union firefighters on their own time. It was later decided that each member on a piece of apparatus be an EMT in order to help the public in their time of need. Yes, it was the firefighters union that established that policy to benefit it's citizens. 

 

The next step was to get the much needed medical equipment to do that job, and that's just what that union did. 

 

The union pushed and was finally successful to get all newly hired firefighters to attend the extensive 16 week Probie School, where they were trained by the best and most experienced instructors in the state. 

 

It was the union that pushed for the funding of Public Education in order to teach the public just what to do in case of fire. 

 

It was NOT city hall that pushed for these things but those Union Firefighters who did. 

 

I would like "FD7807" to explain how eliminating career firefighters would NOT have an effect on the publics safety. How a group of union firefighters are making it sound so risky. How it is just union rhetoric telling the people their lives are at risk. "FD7807", you certainly have your right to speak and I'm willing to listen. My guess a few others are willing to listen as here as well.

 

Just as a point of interest as well. It took me six test before I got the job. And I got it in a place I had never even been to before, let alone know the right people. 

 

If it was meant to be that I remain as a volunteer firefighter, I would have accepted that. But I would NEVER in any way try to put down somebody who got that career firefighter job instead of myself. I'd probably actually respect them for the job they do. 

fdalumnus and AFS1970 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fdalumnus said:

 

 

I had to read this a few times. Thought it may be an April Fool's joke, but I realized that was what, eight weeks ago ?

 

Regarding soap boxes, you see an adversary, I see an individual exercising the right to free speech.

 

Taxpayers do have rights, most importantly the right to hear the truth about any manner. Tax savings ? A double edged sword. When was the last time (especially) in Westchester you saw a piece of fire apparatus that wasn't considered a "parade wagon," with all the bells and whistles, often duplicating what already exists in their own dept.

 

Back to the facts. Depts with career staff on duty 24/7/365 have a faster response time than those that don't.  In no way is this the fault of an all volunteer dept., Its just the way it is.

 

I got a job (now retired) and had and still have a life, one beyond my wildest drams, all because of my career as a firefighter. A career I attained by taking a written test with 4,000 to 5,000 other people, then scoring high enough to be in the roughly top 125 who were actually hired. The career academy. which wasn't a "show up and you pass" type of deal. Then 22 years putting up with, for the most part, know it all chiefs, AKA better known as the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. 

 

The situation in Port Chester has nothing to do with tax savings. Nothing. The facts truly spell that out. It's all about jealousy, ego, and, pure lunacy, all on the part of the chiefs of that dept. 

I do not know where to begin. I dont wear XXXL shirts but i might use that C note towards some new false teeth or a fresh new blue light. I dont drink but maybe you and I can belly bump at the FDIC when I go as a groupie. Seriously though do not ask me about my hero the PCFD chief. I dont know him nor do i care to. Its funny though how i never defended yet you assumed I did because we are both vollies. As much as i love to cruise on the parade wagon though i do have a 60 hour a week job and still make 100+ FD calls and  100+ training hours (not truck waxing or poker playing) and yet you and your brand of keyboard firefighters have problemsaccepting meand guys like me because im not in the union. And thank you to EMT Bravo for constantly reminding us volunteers we will never neasure up. That said I have to finish watching Chicago Fire on demand. Maybe someday I can be Kelly Severide right FDalumnus?  Belly bumps all around my brother

fire2141 and bfd1144 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, FD7807 said:

I do not know where to begin. I dont wear XXXL shirts but i might use that C note towards some new false teeth or a fresh new blue light. I dont drink but maybe you and I can belly bump at the FDIC when I go as a groupie. Seriously though do not ask me about my hero the PCFD chief. I dont know him nor do i care to. Its funny though how i never defended yet you assumed I did because we are both vollies. As much as i love to cruise on the parade wagon though i do have a 60 hour a week job and still make 100+ FD calls and  100+ training hours (not truck waxing or poker playing) and yet you and your brand of keyboard firefighters have problemsaccepting meand guys like me because im not in the union. And thank you to EMT Bravo for constantly reminding us volunteers we will never neasure up. That said I have to finish watching Chicago Fire on demand. Maybe someday I can be Kelly Severide right FDalumnus?  Belly bumps all around my brother

 

"FD7807", I think you missed some of the questions.

 

  1) How would eliminating career firefighters NOT have an affect on public safety ?

 

  2) How does a group of union firefighters make this sound so risky and I assume you feel it shouldn't be ?

 

 Your latest response however is exactly the kind of response I would expect. A little self gratification by telling us you work 60 hours a week. Do you get paid for that time ? I would just guess that 20 of those hours are rated at time and a half.  I would hope you have enough to buy yourself that fresh new blue light. Yet you still make 100 FD calls and 100 training hours. I'm guessing again, that is in one year. Did you ever wonder how many FD calls the average career firefighter makes in one year ? Or did you ever think of the number of training hours those career firefighters spend in one year ? The same kind of career firefighters that you believe has no impact on the publics safety if taken away.

 

  "FD7807", I'm not talking about watching Chicago Fire on demand or Belly Bumps. What I am talking about is the reality of todays fire service. The one that so many of us tend to depend on.

 

 One more question from one of those "Keyboard Firefighters" if I may. Is it safe for us to assume that you NEVER took any exam for a career firefighter ? You never had any interest in doing that job at all. You are very happy as it is, working your 60 hours a week and doing your 100 FD calls and 100 training hours. Only you would know the real answer to that.

 

  But I bet you didn't know this. That as a little hobby of mine I spent time helping young volunteer firefighters that wanted to become career firefighters. And I wasn't the only career firefighter doing it. There was an entire group of us all from career departments in Connecticut. We helped them with the written, the oral etc. and because those young guys really pushed themselves and worked hard, most got on a career fire dept somewhere. Today they thank us. But "THEY" were the ones that really did it. And I must say that I think those career depts. got the best of the best.

 

Sorry for getting off track here, but I just thought it was a pretty good story to tell. And by the way, they were ALL UNION FIREFIGHTERS and they did it all for FREE. No charge at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nfd2004 said:

 

"FD7807", I think you missed some of the questions.

 

  1) How would eliminating career firefighters NOT have an affect on public safety ?

 

  2) How does a group of union firefighters make this sound so risky and I assume you feel it shouldn't be ?

 

 Your latest response however is exactly the kind of response I would expect. A little self gratification by telling us you work 60 hours a week. Do you get paid for that time ? I would just guess that 20 of those hours are rated at time and a half.  I would hope you have enough to buy yourself that fresh new blue light. Yet you still make 100 FD calls and 100 training hours. I'm guessing again, that is in one year. Did you ever wonder how many FD calls the average career firefighter makes in one year ? Or did you ever think of the number of training hours those career firefighters spend in one year ? The same kind of career firefighters that you believe has no impact on the publics safety if taken away.

 

  "FD7807", I'm not talking about watching Chicago Fire on demand or Belly Bumps. What I am talking about is the reality of todays fire service. The one that so many of us tend to depend on.

 

 One more question from one of those "Keyboard Firefighters" if I may. Is it safe for us to assume that you NEVER took any exam for a career firefighter ? You never had any interest in doing that job at all. You are very happy as it is, working your 60 hours a week and doing your 100 FD calls and 100 training hours. Only you would know the real answer to that.

 

  But I bet you didn't know this. That as a little hobby of mine I spent time helping young volunteer firefighters that wanted to become career firefighters. And I wasn't the only career firefighter doing it. There was an entire group of us all from career departments in Connecticut. We helped them with the written, the oral etc. and because those young guys really pushed themselves and worked hard, most got on a career fire dept somewhere. Today they thank us. But "THEY" were the ones that really did it. And I must say that I think those career depts. got the best of the best.

 

Sorry for getting off track here, but I just thought it was a pretty good story to tell. And by the way, they were ALL UNION FIREFIGHTERS and they did it all for FREE. No charge at all.

First off you know nothing about me. 1. My blue light reference was sarcasm. 2. You know nothing about my work ethic in life. 3. I personally have nothing career firefighters. What i do have a problem with is union grand standing. 4. If you think that the City of Port Chester is standing today because of 8 career firefighters then you are delusional. 5 Obviously you have an issue with the notion that people would do this job for nothing and when you say that we depend on the career fire service check your stats. The country as a whole is still volunteer as a majority because people have a love for their community which is something your hate spewing self cannot grasp. 

fire2141 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been pretty silent on this issue for awhile, but this is getting pretty out of hand.  Just a a disclaimer, I am a Firefighter at a 100% volunteer house. Since our company made the decision to go 100% volunteer 2 1/2 years ago, we have been staffed with volunteers only 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, averaging about 6 men on duty at a time. So nobody can claim that I drink any IAFF Kool-Aid... I'm simply going to make my point on the basis of public safety only.

 

Port Chester's decision to lay off the eight career Firefighters was just plain stupid. By PC's own admission, Port Chester has only 150 active, interior-qualified volunteers (though I've heard the actual number may be half that, but I'll take them at face value) to staff 7 companies. Dividing those evenly, we're looking at around 21 volunteers per company. I'd assume most of these people have day jobs, and to my knowledge PC volunteers do not have live-in members who provide daytime staffing, so realistically, how many guys get on the road during the day for a call? How can anyone argue that response times will NOT go up?  It's just simple math, folks. In most places, the volunteer model will not provide the same level of protection that a combination model will.

 

If the accusation that the Chief ordered his men to damage the house is true, the Chief (and any volunteers who followed that obviously illegal order) should be removed, and criminal charges should be considered. "Firefighters" who pull that kind of crap have no business wearing the uniform. People like that are the reason volunteers are treated like second-rate Firefighters in so much of the country.

 

The PCFD Volunteers need to make a decision regarding their leadership. I really hope they have some Line Officers who are considering running against the Chiefs and fixing this mess. It's not about career or volunteer, it's about the service you provide to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, FD7807 said:

First off you know nothing about me. 1. My blue light reference was sarcasm. 2. You know nothing about my work ethic in life. 3. I personally have nothing career firefighters. What i do have a problem with is union grand standing. 4. If you think that the City of Port Chester is standing today because of 8 career firefighters then you are delusional. 5 Obviously you have an issue with the notion that people would do this job for nothing and when you say that we depend on the career fire service check your stats. The country as a whole is still volunteer as a majority because people have a love for their community which is something your hate spewing self cannot grasp. 

 

Thank you "FD7807" for taking the time to explain your thoughts here of which you are certainly entitled to. I still however, do not see the answer to a couple of questions that were posed. Its okay, we are not in a court of law. Purely discussing an issue in which we both seem to feel much different about. I have to agree with you on one thing. The stats show that the majority of people depend on the volunteer fire service. Those places are very fortunate to have such individuals. If I was to guess, I'm sure most of those volunteer firefighters would agree there is a place and a need for career firefighters as well. The same as most career  firefighters would agree there is a place and a need for volunteer firefighters. In either case, conditions dictate that need. Not a bunch of haters within the fire service.

 

 The previous poster "SageVigiles" I know happen to know personally (right Alex). I once made a trip of about 60 miles to meet him, as he was interested in becoming a career firefighter. After some of the testing process of a very busy career fire dept., he decided to make a life time change in his life. He took a position to serve the public in a different way, rather than become a career firefighter in his home town area. He also decided to remain involved in the fire service as a volunteer firefighter. That didn't change the way I feel about him because he chose to be a volunteer firefighter. I think that kind of puts your "hate spewing self" statement somewhat off track.

 

 Also let me quote you regarding your number 3 statement above. "I personally have nothing career firefighters". Would that mean you have nothing AGAINST career firefighters ?  

 

  I would suggest that as an individual, you don't know me as well.  I asked you to please explain some of your statements and if you have ever taken any test for a career firefighters position before. (As you know I readily admit that I took six test - so I think that is a reasonable question). That only means I may disagree with you, but I am willing to listen to your side.  You also still have not seemed to explain if the City of Port Chester is safer with or without those eight career firefighters. That is really the answer I am looking for. In your opinion, "did those Three Port Chester Fire Chiefs make the right decision by getting rid of those eight career firefighters and if so, why" ?

 

 So lets just try it one more time okay. What do you think there "FD7807" ?

fdalumnus likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes to clarify i have nothing against career members as a whole and a career. To clarify furthrr i do have a problem with the hate mongers who flood this site with anti volunteer rhetoric. You do seem  to be missing my point however. I previously stated that if you think PC  is standing today because of 8 career guys then you are delusional. Sure having guys in house every day would help but are the residents unsafe who knows. I personally believe that PC officials felt the need to cut them then whk am I to question. As to your other question.yes i have taken tests. ff tests and dispatcher tests . I do not honestly know why that is relevant. If you think deep down i have a resentment bc i am not a career guy then you have been watching too much Dr. Phil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listen, personal attacks on each other on this thread need to stop now.  They're not a catalyst for a good discussion. Although what people say to each other is beyond my control, further type comments will be deleted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FD7807 said:

First off you know nothing about me. 1. My blue light reference was sarcasm. 2. You know nothing about my work ethic in life. 3. I personally have nothing career firefighters. What i do have a problem with is union grand standing. 4. If you think that the City of Port Chester is standing today because of 8 career firefighters then you are delusional. 5 Obviously you have an issue with the notion that people would do this job for nothing and when you say that we depend on the career fire service check your stats. The country as a whole is still volunteer as a majority because people have a love for their community which is something your hate spewing self cannot grasp. 

Actually, the majority of the population is served by career or mostly career departments.   The majority of the country (land wise) is served by volunteer or mostly volunteer departments.  Volunteerism is declining and many all volunteer departments are now combination and many more probably should be.  

 

Love for the community is not exclusive to the volunteers, which for some reason is something people like you are unable to grasp.

 

What's your stance on volunteer grandstanding? 

Newburgher, FDNY 10-75 and 16fire5 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.