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

[S1720G 62]

If your going to seriously compare numbers, most of the American population lives in urban areas and larger towns served by career or combo departments. Also, I would be willing to bet my next 5 pay checks on it that there are significantly more career firefighters than volunteer. Let me explain that one. You cannot say that a volunteer department in a small town that has 200 members in it, has 200 fire fighters. Stop the interior/exterior nonsense. No career department has an "exterior" FF. If you take the number of volunteer interior FFs and compare it to career, I think you'd be surprised. These towns should come out with the real number of people in their department who can pull you out of your house when it's on fire instead of saying they have hundreds of members "serving" their community . 

I have been an active volunteer FF for a couple of hours now, and a career firefighter for a few minutes. The biggest thing I have noticed is the hate of the volunteer FFs (who work somewhere else like say, FDNY) by Volunteer FFs. That's more of an issue than Union staff VS volunteers. Most likely, sorry but gonna say it, fuled by some level of jealousy . They can be their own worst enemy. 

 

Enjoy your day.

TYFYS

[SageVigiles 1,194]

8 hours ago, S1720G said:

The biggest thing I have noticed is the hate of the volunteer FFs (who work somewhere else like say, FDNY) by Volunteer FFs. That's more of an issue than Union staff VS volunteers. Most likely, sorry but gonna say it, fuled by some level of jealousy . They can be their own worst enemy. 

 

I think that may be a cultural thing in the NY and New England area.  Down here there are a ton of two-hatters, and most stations welcome them in with open arms, because they value the different ideas and different experiences. More than 50% of our officers are career firefighters elsewhere.

[nfd2004 750]

A lot of the issue is that here in the northeast, there are so many separate fire districts each with individual leaders. Sometimes each trying to out due the other.

 

A much different case in other areas where everyone works together for one dept and under one boss. A much larger dept under the same rules for all. 

 

My home town of 40,000 people has six totally different Fire Depts  with six indepentially run operations (one career and five volunteer chiefs).  Different rules, different standards, different budgets, different equipment etc. 

 

Just spent $800,000 on buying 100 air packs. I don't think Yonkers has that many. And that was only for four of the six depts.

 

Absolutely no comparison between the operations of a large county dept verses these old school fire districts. 

[SECTMB 612]

23 minutes ago, nfd2004 said:

A lot of the issue is that here in the northeast, there are so many separate fire districts each with individual leaders. Sometimes each trying to out due the other.

 

A much different case in other areas where everyone works together for one dept and under one boss. A much larger dept under the same rules for all. 

 

My home town of 40,000 people has six totally different Fire Depts  with six indepentially run operations (one career and five volunteer chiefs).  Different rules, different standards, different budgets, different equipment etc. 

 

Just spent $800,000 on buying 100 air packs. I don't think Yonkers has that many. And that was only for four of the six depts.

 

Absolutely no comparison between the operations of a large county dept verses these old school fire districts. 

 

Since I left Westchester I first lived in Palm Beach County, FL. then Marion County, FL. Both these County wide department effectively provided Fire and Paramedic/EMS with standardized equipment and strategically placed stations.

 

Then I moved to a small town outside Savannah with a volunteer department with a paid Chief.  They had an automatic mutual aid agreement with the paid dept in the neighboring city. I saw the neighboring city come into our town on numerous occasions when no local apparatus left the firehouse.  At one working structure fire, a fully engulfed quonset hut storage building about 30x40, only one local engine responded, supported by one engine and a tower ladder from the next city and one engine from the next county which operates a paid countywide department.

 

I was recently informed by one of my neighbors who is on the town council that the AMA agreement has been discontinued due to small town politics, some sort of issue between members of the respective town/city councils that have a personal beef unrelated to their governmental duties. Small town BS politics.

 

They will come MA if called, but not AMA on the local dispatch. He told me they are considering increasing the fire tax, we currently pay $12.00 per month for fire protection (its $21.00 for trash collection), so they can hire a full time paid firefighter to man the station during the day.  The thought process is a paid man can get the truck to the scene and be met by the Maintenance Dept. guys who are members of the FD and can respond from, wherever, as well as other volunteers responding to the scene of the station for additional apparatus.  The department has three engines, no trucks.

 

Will the needs of the public ever be put before the egos of the politicians?

 

 

 

 

 

[nfd2004 750]

I am currently involved in working with a local newspaper reporter in my hometown. I have been a taxpaying resident here for some 40 plus years. I also spent 30 years as a career firefighter, serving both as a firefighter and officer. When I got the job, after being a volunteer firefighter in a combination department for five years from another town, I had found out that I had apparently entered "A War Zone". Volunteer firefighters would hate me (as well as my Brother Career Firefighters) for the job I had. People that I didn't even know where I came from the other side of the state. A totally different environment from the progressive thinking Combination Fire Department I had just come from.

 

 In general, the volunteer firefighters clearly made their case for those career firefighters as being the blame to all of the city's problems. Whenever the opportunity came they would try to cutback or eliminate those career firefighter jobs.

 

  Today as a retired firefighter, I continue to support those career firefighters. Yet things did NOT improve at all. Actually I think over the last few years things have gotten worse. So I started to take notes. I had started to notice over the last year and a half or so, of a reluctance for the volunteer chiefs to call for these career firefighters. Despite the fact that there were some very serious incidents and those career firefighters, staffed 24/7, were not being called. Despite the fact that they were much closer and ready to respond. This city I am talking about is made up of One Career Department, staffed 24/7 with 12-13 firefighters, plus a Battalion Chief. They are in the middle of Five totally independent Volunteer Departments, each with their own chiefs, etc. All within the same town carrying a population of about 40,000 people. 

 

 Over that last 1 1/2 year period, I have documented at least, FOUR Serious Incidents in which this career fire department was either the closest or second closest fire department, yet were never called. All within the same city.

 

 One incident involved a very serious Haz Mat leak within a warehouse. While that career fire department, with four specially trained Haz Mat Techs were located about 4 miles away, two UNSTAFFED volunteer departments were called from a farther distance away. In addition a Haz Mat Team responded from some 15 miles away, instead of the local Haz Mat Tech Team. As that farther out of town Haz Mat Officer responded he asked if the closer department had been on scene. No they were NOT. At that point, that responding officer from the 15 mile away Haz Mat team requested they respond.

 

  In another incident, a fire comes in for an occupied house. On arrival this is a working house fire. It is home to many with mental or drug issues as a "Halfway House". I work a part time job at this campus. This location is only 1.8 miles away from that career fire department. However as the city decided years ago, this area would be served by a totally volunteer fire department, actually farther away. When this fire broke out, the responding volunteer fire department requested assistance from two other volunteer fire departments, farther away instead. One of those volunteer fire departments (about 5 miles away) drove right by this career firehouse as those guys were outside with hands on training. The other volunteer fire department came from a distance of 8 miles, and actually from an entirely different town.

 

 There were other incidents as well, during this time frame in which I fully documented and have forwarded information to that newspaper reporter. In addition in 2008 the same thing happened, except a civilian died in a house fire. All while those career firefighters in the same city did NOT respond, from two miles away. All because of some Fire District policies where each chief gets to do things as they wish. All while those career firefighters, the same firefighters that the taxpayers paid to go to a fulltime 16 week Recruit School, never responded. 

 

  It should also be known that prior to going to the newspaper, I had met "one on one" with the then City Manager to request a policy change requiring the closest fire departments respond. He told me he would meet with the chiefs to discuss this. Within one week I get his answer. The answer is "No Changes will be made". I didn't know it at the time, but I later find out that he is also a Volunteer firefighter.

 

  I have several emails that I have documented and sent to that reporter. I have also met several times with her. She has put a lot of effort into this since I first reported this story to her. Also, since this is now well known throughout the area of the fact that "Somebody is Watching", there have been two incidents involving one of the volunteer fire departments. In the just the last two months, that volunteer fire department has requested the services of that career department TWICE. One of those times were to the "same location" as that working house fire about one year ago. That hasn't happened in about 30 years.

 

 In addition to this newspaper reporter, I have been working directly with one city councilman to keep him updated as well. He forwards that updated information to the fire service leaders and other city politicians as well. With these well documented cases, should this news get published in a local newspaper, the city will be forced to make changes. Or I'm sure the city could be held liable for any damage, injures, or even deaths in the future. My biggest mistake is that I wish I had done this before an innocent victim died in a house fire in her home in 2008. Maybe she would be alive today otherwise.

 

  This story is entirely true and I am the guy who is fighting for the citizens of this city. Despite the fact that I was WRONGLY ACCUSED of being "coached" by some. In fact in the beginning, my brother firefighters as well as the chief of that career dept  tried to discourage me from doing this. But as a Retired Firefighter who knew the system, is a 40 year taxpaying resident, I had every right to pursue this.

 

  So I thank you for taking the time to read my story. My goal is to change things in this city before another civilian dies because of these silly games. To prevent more injures or property damage than may be necessary by calling in those career firefighters. For ALL the citizens to be able to use those highly trained and skilled group of career firefighters. Finally, to advise anyone who suffers as a result of this city NOT taking some positive of a past history. Let them hold the city liable if No Changes are made.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2016 by nfd2004

[nfd2004 750]

In a follow up to my above story, I ask the following questions. Maybe someone could answer these.

 

1) What would be the reason for any chief or incident commander NOT to call for a closer, fully staffed fire dept. But instead a much farther away Unstaffed department ?

 

2) How could the members of these Volunteer depts. allow and often condone, this type of behavior, putting themselves at much greater risk ?

 

3) How can the family members and loved ones of the volunteer members allow this as well ?

 

4) Are these chiefs and/or commanding officers fully aware of the position they are getting themselves into if somebody gets hurt or worse ?

 

5) Was this a plot used by these volunteer chiefs to show the city, those career firefighters are NOT necessary and perhaps they all can be eliminated ? If that is the case, their own plans just may have completely backfired on them.

 

  I am quite sure there are other departments out there that may happen to feel the same way. When people outside of the fire service read a story in the newspaper such as this, "how is that going to reflect on those departments" ? What about people outside of this place, who have family members and friends within those city limits.

 

  I would hope that before any article like this appears in the paper, those city leaders and chiefs will put the public's safety first and make a positive change. This has divided an entire city in two. Just as in 1989 a famous wall was torn down, this wall should also be torn down. That famous wall was the Berlin Wall which separated the City of Berlin Germany by east and west, A FREE society and a Dictator society. The late President Reagans words were then, "Tear down this Wall". And that wall was torn down as the entire world watch on our TV screens.

 

Does the Fire Service have strong enough leaders to stand up for what is right ? Or are they just sheep being followed by their flock.

 

 

[FireMedic049 597]

9 hours ago, nfd2004 said:

In a follow up to my above story, I ask the following questions. Maybe someone could answer these.

 

1) What would be the reason for any chief or incident commander NOT to call for a closer, fully staffed fire dept. But instead a much farther away Unstaffed department ?

 

2) How could the members of these Volunteer depts. allow and often condone, this type of behavior, putting themselves at much greater risk ?

 

3) How can the family members and loved ones of the volunteer members allow this as well ?

 

4) Are these chiefs and/or commanding officers fully aware of the position they are getting themselves into if somebody gets hurt or worse ?

 

5) Was this a plot used by these volunteer chiefs to show the city, those career firefighters are NOT necessary and perhaps they all can be eliminated ? If that is the case, their own plans just may have completely backfired on them.

 

  I am quite sure there are other departments out there that may happen to feel the same way. When people outside of the fire service read a story in the newspaper such as this, "how is that going to reflect on those departments" ? What about people outside of this place, who have family members and friends within those city limits.

 

  I would hope that before any article like this appears in the paper, those city leaders and chiefs will put the public's safety first and make a positive change. This has divided an entire city in two. Just as in 1989 a famous wall was torn down, this wall should also be torn down. That famous wall was the Berlin Wall which separated the City of Berlin Germany by east and west, A FREE society and a Dictator society. The late President Reagans words were then, "Tear down this Wall". And that wall was torn down as the entire world watch on our TV screens.

 

Does the Fire Service have strong enough leaders to stand up for what is right ? Or are they just sheep being followed by their flock.

 

 

We have a similar situation where I'm at.  We're the only game in our (small) city, but we are completely surrounded by VFDs.  Upwards of a dozen or so independent stations in the various municipalities we share a border with in some fashion.  We utilize a few of them somewhat routinely for working fires (primarily as RIT initially) and then for additional alarms.  Occasionally we work together on border calls. 

 

For the most part, we're not on their initial alarms and they rarely call us for incidents.  We're physically closer than most of the other companies that do get called.  Their apparatus responds thru our city at times, sometimes past one of our staffed stations.  We frequently listen to incidents where they're slow to respond or have working incidents were we could potentially make a difference (despite our limited staffing) because we could get there quick with experienced guys, but aren't called.

 

Some of the reasons I've heard thrown around were stuff like our city would bill them for the response (not true), the union would file a grievance over the response (also not true as the union was 200% in favor of responding to the calls, never mind that it wouldn't be grievable anyway) and some other odd reasons despite the fact that on two occasions we've gone to a full recall of off-duty personnel in order to send an on-duty unit and supplemental personnel to a mutual aid fire and cover our stations.

 

Now some of our previous chiefs have done things that have helped contribute to them not calling us, but ultimately I think that it comes down to two things, 1) we'll beat most of them to their calls and 2) we'll make them "look bad" because on average, we're more trained, more experienced and not too shabby at putting out fires.

 

We're slowly seeing some progress though.  So, we'll see where that goes.

 

 

 

 

[nfd2004 750]

In the city I have been referring to in my earlier post, there had been serious talks of eliminating 16 firefighter positions from a 60 man dept. This was sparked by one or two city council members who were endorsed by some members of the five local volunteer fire departments. All within the same town of that one career department. Also strongly endorsing this cutback was a full time career union firefighter from another nearby city.

 

The final budget meeting was held last Monday evening June 6th. During the meeting the Mayor spoke ; "this is ONE City, not two and should not be divided". Apparently referring to the One Career Fire Department, separated by the Five Volunteer Depts within the same town.

 

A council member agreed that the city is "horribly divided over this fire tax issue". She said; "If we continue down this road we are going to destroy ourselves". You may remember I had mentioned earlier how the local Volunteer Fire Departments refused to call for that career dept and instead called other volunteer departments farther away and even outside this city's limits.

 

 In addition, many of the residents who reside in this area protected by those career firefighters, spoke clearly against a divided city when it comes to its fire protection.

 

The plan to eliminate those 16 career firefighter positions by some council members was to eliminate one battalion chiefs position, a fourth firefighters position for an engine company in a more congested area, and the closing of an additional engine company. The 16 positions broke down as follows. Four positions that needed to be filled, plus the closing of a three man engine company. I must give credit to the Chief of that career department. He sure did a GREAT Job presenting his facts at that earlier budget hearing. Thankfully, he was very well prepared with details to present his case and defend his budget. He was recruited from outside the state to become Chief of Department about 10 years ago. Over the last ten years he has worked very hard to try and improve the relations between the career and volunteer departments. After seeing little improvements made, I met with this career chief as a retired firefighter and resident regarding the very serious incidents that had occurred. I told him it was time to do something about it and I was going to the newspaper with my documented stories. Stories that put civilians, as well as firefighters, (both career and volunteer) at risk. In addition, in some of these cases perhaps more damage resulted as well due to much longer response times.

 

Today I am happy to report that NO career firefighters will loose their jobs. Thankfully to a Chief of Department who prepared himself very well. But no thanks to a few city politicians looking to advance their own political future and a group of frustrated volunteer firefighters who would rather see these guys loose their jobs. Thankfully, these volunteer firefighters do NOT represent ALL volunteer firefighters.

 

 The one outside career firefighter who was pushing for the elimination of those firefighters, is also a volunteer firefighter in one of those local five volunteer departments. The only person he really hurt was himself by putting himself in the middle. Now he has lost the trust of TWO departments. The one where he works and the one he tried to push for the elimination of those 16 firefighters. No doubt, his behavior will live with him for a very long time.

[AFS1970 504]

On 6/5/2016 at 10:25 AM, S1720G said:

Stop the interior/exterior nonsense. No career department has an "exterior" FF.

 

I have never understood this interior/exterior designation. but I will dispute the fact that the roles do not exist in career departments. I remember hearing about one big city department in my state that had a "firefighter" who was never assigned any duty other than to take the hydrant. This was an individual who was hired during one of those waves when qualifications were not as important as genetics and this individual was known to not be able to do much else.

 

On a more positive note there are the seniority based driver jobs, where a firefighter essentially never has to go inside again. While not technically an exterior member, the interior history can be measured in years not months with some. I realize these are often senior men who have in many ways paid their dues, but the same argument could be said about some of the veteran Volunteers.

 

As for volunteer departments not calling on neighboring career departments, this works both ways. I know of and have heard of many other career departments that will call for a career department more than a town away bypassing multiple volunteer stations. There are usually many excuses given, like they don't know the capabilities, manpower or response time, but even when given the information there always seems to be a reason to use a career resource. My old department was canceled once when dispatched into a career district because the duty chief said he did not want just our 3 career guys he wanted a fully staffed truck. When he was told the truck was rolling with a crew of 5 he still canceled it, despite that being 1 more than all the trucks in that district.

Edited June 8, 2016 by AFS1970

[nfd2004 750]

2 hours ago, AFS1970 said:

 

I have never understood this interior/exterior designation. but I will dispute the fact that the roles do not exist in career departments. I remember hearing about one big city department in my state that had a "firefighter" who was never assigned any duty other than to take the hydrant. This was an individual who was hired during one of those waves when qualifications were not as important as genetics and this individual was known to not be able to do much else.

 

On a more positive note there are the seniority based driver jobs, where a firefighter essentially never has to go inside again. While not technically an exterior member, the interior history can be measured in years not months with some. I realize these are often senior men who have in many ways paid their dues, but the same argument could be said about some of the veteran Volunteers.

 

As for volunteer departments not calling on neighboring career departments, this works both ways. I know of and have heard of many other career departments that will call for a career department more than a town away bypassing multiple volunteer stations. There are usually many excuses given, like they don't know the capabilities, manpower or response time, but even when given the information there always seems to be a reason to use a career resource. My old department was canceled once when dispatched into a career district because the duty chief said he did not want just our 3 career guys he wanted a fully staffed truck. When he was told the truck was rolling with a crew of 5 he still canceled it, despite that being 1 more than all the trucks in that district.

 

 "AFS1970", I assume you are a career firefighter in one of Connecticuts largest cities by your location. I was also a career firefighter and it really doesn't take too long to figure out where I am talking about in my stories. My involvement with the newspaper and these stories are no secret in my area.

 

 In the statement you make about career departments not calling volunteer departments closer, you are correct. As you know, most career firefighters are required to attend that fulltime 16 week recruit school. They will not graduate if they have not proven they are capable of doing all the jobs. When those mutual aid career firefighters pull up, without any doubt, they are expected to do the job. Whether it be open a roof, do a search, bring in an additional line etc. There is no such thing as interior/exterior firefighters. When a commanding officer calls for any career firefighters he/she knows what to expect of them. If that is not accomplished, somebody will have to answer for that type of behavior. "AFS1970", I assume you also attended some type of recruit school. If not, you are the exception. Do you feel that during that time you gained a greater knowledge and confidence in performing your duties as a career firefighter today. If you were the commanding officer in charge of an incident, which department would you prefer.

 

 It was a Volunteer chief who called for a volunteer department almost four times farther away than that career dept (1.8 miles away vs 8.0 miles away). I have tried to explain why it makes sense to call a career fire dept sometimes farther away. But now I'd like someone to explain to me the reasoning for calling a volunteer fire dept farther away instead. As was the case in my true story

 

  As to the issue of the senior man becoming a pump operator or ladder operator. Generally speaking each and everyone of us, even those in the best physical condition, age takes it's toll. Chances are that senior pump operator doesn't function as well, working at peak capacity in comparison to a younger member of the department. In addition, if given the choice, most younger members would rather be inside doing the physical work rather than outside running the pump. And none of us should expect it any other way.

 

 Professional athletes are not in their peak once they hit their early or mid forty's. Just name some professional football playrers, basketball players, etc that play professional sports at that age. It just doesn't happen. Just as those sports heros are beyond their peak, so too it is with firefighters. Someone has to operate that pump and aerial ladder. Why not offer that job to the senior man where he is no longer required to hustle up flights of stairs wearing heavy gear and carrying heavy equipment even before he starts to work.,

 

  As a young firefighter, I loved doing the inside work. If I was outside pumping the rig or on the turntable of the aerial, I just felt useless. I remember my father telling me that a firefighters job is a young mans job. He was a career firefighter too. I told him, "I love this job and I'm never going to retire". He told me; "Someday you'll feel different". Not me right !!! Well after about 20-25 years I found out he was right. It was getting harder to run up those stairs. As the officer, I didn't have the option of being the pump operator at the time. This once gung ho firefighter guy who wanted to be in there doing it, was starting to feel it.

 

 If the option was there, I would have wanted to do that pump operators thing too. It is still a very necessary job and nobody can put a fire out until they get that water. That job needs to be done and generally speaking it is the perfect position for the senior member. (Including Volunteer firefighters).

 

  I hope this was of some help in trying to explain things. Just why it might be a good policy to have the senior man as pump operator and also perhaps why a career dept might call on another career dept, even if farther away than a volunteer dept. And why these might be good policies to do when all of the options are considered. 

Edited June 8, 2016 by nfd2004

[AFS1970 504]

I am not a career firefighter. I am a former Volunteer Firefighter. I do work full time in another public safety sector. I never attended recruit school, although I had the advantage of a work schedule that allowed me to take a number of classes, which allowed me to train along side dedicated career and volunteer firefighters from all over our state. I have dealt with the good and the bad in both career and volunteer departments.

 

While a great many career departments in CT use the CFA for recruit school, still many do not. As a matter of fact the next closest career department to the city I live in (after our own) started using them relatively recently. Before that they required FF1 to get hired. They are a good department and I know many of their firefighters, some of whom I volunteered along side of. So attending a recruit class was not the issue. I just spoke to a coworker who's son took a leave of absence from work to attend recruit school as a volunteer.  I think he was one of two who did this but I am not sure, does this make him more of a volunteer than others?

 

A few years ago I read an article that quoted a study on firefighter training. I have long since lost the article and the name of the study. It said that career firefighters had greater initial training but volunteers had more ongoing training. I would personally say that volunteers may have more opportunity for ongoing training but not everyone avails themselves of those opportunities. I would also say that from what I have seen most career departments are working to change any deficiencies in ongoing training and improve training overall.

 

However calling a department over a closer department based on nothing more than payroll status is simply not the best option. There are times when a unit is special called due to a specific resource. like a tanker, a tower ladder, a Haz Mat team, ect. I can remember when the only Haz Mat team in my city was from a combination department. To be fair, I had an argument with a volunteer assistant chief who told me once that a RIT had to be a career engine company, he really couldn't give much of an answer why a volunteer company could not be a RIT. To this day I am not sure we agree on this.

 

 

[Bnechis 3,961]

6 hours ago, AFS1970 said:

 

I have never understood this interior/exterior designation. but I will dispute the fact that the roles do not exist in career departments..........

 

On a more positive note there are the seniority based driver jobs, where a firefighter essentially never has to go inside again. While not technically an exterior member, the interior history can be measured in years not months with some. I realize these are often senior men who have in many ways paid their dues, but the same argument could be said about some of the veteran Volunteers.

 

Yes our senior men often get the job of driver, but that does not mean they are exterior. They still must pass their annual physical as an interior firefighter, the must pass mask fit testing. If on the truck, they are the OV or Roof, if on the engine, they are expected to operate in high rise fires depending on arrival order. And the 4th due engine including the driver is always assigned as FAST on working fires. If they can't do this, it's time for retirement.

[nfd2004 750]

"AFS1970", I am wrong right at the beginning. I just assumed you were a career firefighter in Stamford. I have a good friend there who is assigned to one of the busiest companies in the city. He is also a volunteer firefighter in another place. The guy knows his stuff no doubt about that. There is no question when he shows up on a rig if he is fully qualified. Not just interior or exterior.

 

Let me also commend you on your service to your community as a former volunteer firefighter. Let me also commend you on your public safety job. It is quite possible that many could not do that job. Thank you for serving the citizens who depend on you. I have many friends who are also volunteer firefighters who I have a high degree of respect for what they do. I don't put them into the category of some of my local volunteers. In other words, I don't blame a whole group of people for the action of a few".

 

 As for the senior man getting the drivers job, I think "Bnechis" explained that perfectly well in his above statement.

 

As to the request for mutual aid, the issue I mentioned never had anything to do with calling for a special piece of apparatus. If that were the case, there would be no issue.

 

As for the fact that many departments do not send their career firefighters to Recruit School, I disagree with that. Except for maybe Hartford or New Haven, which might have the same intense training program. Most today including Bridgeport do send new firefighters to that 16 week fulltime course. During every graduation ceremony there are guys graduating from just about every career department around. Do I question the training that you have had as a volunteer firefighter. Not at all, Your training can be far above that of most firefighters. Do I believe that those who attend recruit school can safely and efficiently operate on the fireground or the incident scene, "there is no doubt in my mind" on that. I have seen those results myself.

 

 I would also like to commend your co workers son on taking that Recruit Class. It is a very difficult project to accomplish. Anyone who has been through it would tell you that. He will certainly know his stuff as a volunteer firefighter when he is finished. I was always amazed at the things these guys knew when they graduated. I know some places today are requiring recruit school before applying for the firefighters job. In those cases, recruit school generally must be completed within a five year period of date of the exam.

 

 In mentioning the training and qualifications, just randomly ask a firefighter to start up the saw. Can he/she do it without any problems. Ask them what blade they would use to cut a case hardened lock. Ask them to explain the method of cutting open a roof. If possible get a few wooden pallets, cover them with plywood and have them make a few cuts. Have him make these cuts in full gear and air pack use. Would you trust this guy on a smoky roof ? Could you do this ? Now how many qualified firefighters do you have ?

 

  The question I really have to ask ASF1970 is this. How did you end up clicking on the "Like this" button in my above statement, when there is really nothing in it at all that you agree on ?

 

 

[antiquefirelt 994]

8 hours ago, AFS1970 said:

 

A few years ago I read an article that quoted a study on firefighter training. I have long since lost the article and the name of the study. It said that career firefighters had greater initial training but volunteers had more ongoing training.

 

 

I doubt that case can really be made. Up here other than Portland FD, most firefighters do not have a recruit academy, so there are a large number of volunteers who have the same FF I&II as entry level career staff. Often the VFD's give more opportunities for outside training, as their budgets can support that having little/no payroll. But that would discount the daily training regimen that most career firefighters have. My FD is a combo Fire & EMS department, our career personnel train every day, and the call personnel get the same topics (condenses) every two weeks. While we have some very capable call firefighters, the working knowledge is far different, born directly on the time spent with hands, eyes and discussion about the work. Not a slight, just a reality. Pretty difficult for a part timer of any profession to have the same overall knowledge and skills of a fulltime person of the "same" position.

[nfd2004 750]

2 hours ago, antiquefirelt said:

I doubt that case can really be made. Up here other than Portland FD, most firefighters do not have a recruit academy, so there are a large number of volunteers who have the same FF I&II as entry level career staff. Often the VFD's give more opportunities for outside training, as their budgets can support that having little/no payroll. But that would discount the daily training regimen that most career firefighters have. My FD is a combo Fire & EMS department, our career personnel train every day, and the call personnel get the same topics (condenses) every two weeks. While we have some very capable call firefighters, the working knowledge is far different, born directly on the time spent with hands, eyes and discussion about the work. Not a slight, just a reality. Pretty difficult for a part timer of any profession to have the same overall knowledge and skills of a fulltime person of the "same" position.

 

Just by the shear nature of a career firefighter being a fulltime job, how can anyone dispute that. In no way is that to put down any volunteer firefighters who are out there saving lives and protecting the public. As I travel across the country or across the state, I come across many areas where the general public, including myself, depend on these volunteer firefighters. Who do we all depend on to get us out of a car should we get in an accident and are pinned in the car. Yes, it's those volunteer firefighters.

 

 But to try and compare the training level of a fulltime career firefighter to most volunteer firefighters is like trying to compare the training level of a paramedic to a doctor. Both save lives but can the amount of training and education be equally compared.

 

Interesting, but just as a side note here, I have a friend who fit into all of those categories. He was once a volunteer firefighter here in Connecticut, as well as a paramedic for a commercial ambulance company, responding to medical emergencies in one of Connecticut's largest city's. He later became a career firefighter in a mid sized city in Connecticut, including attending the rigorous 14-16 week recruit school.

 

  After about 3 years as a fulltime career firefighter he left the job to begin his new career. That of becoming a doctor in one of Philadelphia's largest hospital emergency rooms.

 

  "Well Dr Timmy D., where are you when we need you". "I'm sure you can help us all out with this discussion".

Edited June 9, 2016 by nfd2004

[FireMedic049 597]

2 hours ago, nfd2004 said:

 

Just by the shear nature of a career firefighter being a fulltime job, how can anyone dispute that. In no way is that to put down any volunteer firefighters who are out there saving lives and protecting the public. 

 

 But to try and compare the training level of a fulltime career firefighter to most volunteer firefighters is like trying to compare the training level of a paramedic to a doctor. Both save lives but can the amount of training and education be equally compared.

 

 

You've hit on what I feel is an important aspect of the career/volunteer dynamic, but is often overlooked and is a significant factor in the "conflict".

 

There seems to be an inability among many volunteers to recognize and understand that being different doesn't necessarily mean one side is inadequate.  Anytime the notion of career firefighters being "better" (by virtue of doing the job FT and the training/experience that comes with it) comes up, you typically see a defensive reaction from volunteers with claims of doing the same job and having the same training.

 

While in some cases, individually & departmentally, this may be true, in general it isn't the case.  What seems to escape these people is the understanding that I (career) can be "better" than you without you (volunteer) being inadequate.

 

For example, say we both take a test, I score a 97 and you score a 91.  Well, I clearly did "better" than you on the test, but it's also clear that you didn't do too bad either.

 

I've come to refer to this as the "volunteer inferiority complex".  I think if we could get passed this "misunderstanding", we could make real progress in reducing the animosity. 

[nfd2004 750]

7 hours ago, FireMedic049 said:

You've hit on what I feel is an important aspect of the career/volunteer dynamic, but is often overlooked and is a significant factor in the "conflict".

 

There seems to be an inability among many volunteers to recognize and understand that being different doesn't necessarily mean one side is inadequate.  Anytime the notion of career firefighters being "better" (by virtue of doing the job FT and the training/experience that comes with it) comes up, you typically see a defensive reaction from volunteers with claims of doing the same job and having the same training.

 

While in some cases, individually & departmentally, this may be true, in general it isn't the case.  What seems to escape these people is the understanding that I (career) can be "better" than you without you (volunteer) being inadequate.

 

For example, say we both take a test, I score a 97 and you score a 91.  Well, I clearly did "better" than you on the test, but it's also clear that you didn't do too bad either.

 

I've come to refer to this as the "volunteer inferiority complex".  I think if we could get passed this "misunderstanding", we could make real progress in reducing the animosity. 

 

 "FireMedic049", I think you explain a very simple case very well.

 

 As I mentioned earlier, I have many friends who are volunteer firefighters. We don't compete with each other, we are just buddies and most of us are all into the fire service. In some cases, I don't try to compete because I really can't. One volunteer friend is a retired US Army Colonial. Another was a Banking Manager at a very large bank. Another was a Con Edison supervisor responsible for about 600 square miles of natural gas mains from some of NYs larger cities to mansions of the rich and famous. Another was an executive accountant in a large firm. Some are/were even fulltime firefighters in major cities, who saw much more action than I did but volunteer firefighters in their small hometowns.

 

  And me, I was a firefighter in some small city that most people never knew existed. "I" didn't even know it existed until a career firefighter, where I was a volunteer, told me about it.

 

 And then there's my doctor friend working in Philadelphia. He was a volunteer firefighter too, as well as a career firefighter. He's been on both sides of the fence. Yet he hasn't forgotten where he came from. He respects firefighters who are both on the payroll and those who are not.

 

 As a volunteer in a combination department, we supplemented the career firefighters. We were not out to hurt them, but help them. Most of us were all wanna bes and those career guys really helped put many of us on the right track. Because most of us young volunteers all became career firefighters somewhere. We had a "volunteer" chief who was our boss and basically the middle man between the career guys and us. He would tell us; "those guys do this thing fulltime, you do what they say". (RIP Chief Les Hartman)

 

The retired US Army Colonial I talk about is a volunteer firefighter in a large county department. One night a week is his assigned duty night. When he goes into that firehouse he reports to the Career Fire Capt who gives him his assignment on where to ride. There is one volunteer allowed to ride each piece and there are four pieces in that firehouse. It's known as one of the busiest firehouses in the country. He does what he is told by those members, no questions asked. He told me that himself. and this guy was a US Army Colonial. Oh yes, I forgot to mention, "he was in charge of the entire U.S. Army Operation during 9/11 in NYC". Now he rides a fire truck doing what he is told by his Brother Career Firefighters.

 

 The Volunteers there do have one request however. When they have their fund raisers they usually donate that money to buy equipment for the county. The only thing they ask is that they are able to have the word "Volunteer" on the side of the vehicles they buy. Just to let the people know that the volunteer members bought and paid for this truck through their fund raisers saving the taxpayers money.

 

  What a difference only a few hours away. After a visit there, I come back home to reality. To a place where people have hated me for what I did as a job. There is no love between those career guys and the volunteers even today. In fact it might be worse now than when I started back in 1975. I guess about the best way to put it is called "A Tale of Two City's". I think they wrote a book or made a movie about that. Only it wasn't about it's fire department.

 

  Things could change for the best if we allow it to happen. In my own case, a city could be forced into change or leave themselves wide open for a legal lawsuit should things go sour. What's worse is innocent people or even firefighters, along with their families, could pay a much higher price than that, if this city isn't willing to change.

[nfd2004 750]

Since this topic was started back on May 25th (2016), I feel this has been one of the most important topics facing the Fire Service of today. It has given each one of us an opportunity to tell our side of the story. In my own case, I tried to explain of a War Zone some 100 miles or so from Westchester County. Apparently where similar places seem to be having these problems as well. And in the middle of this War Zone is a Combination Fire Department that functions as well today as they did back when I became a member back in 1970. Although as I understand today, the number of those volunteers has been on the steady decline as it is on a Nationwide basis.

 

We also know of other places where the combination system works as well, such as that County Fire Department where that Retired Army Colonial is.

 

 The problems do not seem to exist where it is either ALL Volunteer or ALL Career. The problem basically seems to exist where there is a Combination of Career and Volunteers, all serving under a specific geographical area. So it seems that we can narrow this problem down and focus mainly on how to solve it.

 

  Just as a suggestion, if you are a volunteer firefighter or a career firefighter within one of these combination departments having these issues, maybe you can come up with some facts on how to help solve this. Many of you are the future leaders of the Fire Service. This type of behavior can not exist much longer. It's not really about who is right or who is wrong. Its about the people who depend on it. It's also about a group of individuals who are sometimes willing to risk their life for others. Brotherhood or not, "United we Stand - Divided we Fall".

 

 The one thing that was in common with the success stories of the two combination departments I mentioned was that they put the career fire department in charge. One career chief and career officers that were held accountable for the training and safe operations of its fire department. In the case of where I was a volunteer firefighter, it was a career captain that trained the volunteers one evening per week. The same career captain that trained those career guys. It was one volunteer chief who represented the volunteer firefighters assigned to that particular firehouse. He worked directly with that training captain. Of the Five career stations, three had a group of volunteer firefighters assigned to them and each of the three had its own volunteer chief. There were no other volunteer officers. By the way, the population of this town is about 61,000 people.

 

 So that's a system that works. So now we travel about 75 miles away to my hometown location where I describe it as nothing short of an "Active War Zone". There are Six totally separate, fully independent fire districts, all with their own budgets, volunteer officers, and individual policies. There are Five totally volunteer districts with their individual volunteer chiefs and one totally career department led by one career chief. There are more pieces of fire apparatus than Connecticut's largest city - Bridgeport. This past January an order was placed for 100 airpacks at a cost of $800,000. And that was for only Four of the departments, not counting the other two. Again, Connecticut's largest city doesn't have 100 plus airpacks. All right here in our town of 40,000 people. All right here in our town of about 107,000 people LESS than the largest Connecticut city.

 

  We all have our chance to speak on here. What's your thoughts ? Would you make any changes or recommendations in any of the above cases ? Here you have your chance to go with or against what you feel is right or wrong.

Edited June 10, 2016 by nfd2004

[FFPCogs 863]

Willy my solution is the same as it always has been. Same standards across the board and with that, no more of the career can only be led by career nonsense. The same length of service requirement for all members seeking promotion followed by EARNING that promotion by successfully passing the SAME promotional exams regardless of pay status.  A FF is a FF paid or not, a Lieut a Lieut paid or not, a Capt a Capt paid or not, a Battalion Chief a Battalion Chief paid or not and so on. What members put in (i.e. EARN), is what they'll get out. No jobs lost, no egos bruised and a population better served by an FD more concerned with serving them competently than their petty internal career vs volly rivalries.

 

 

Bottom line: a combination systems can only work when both "sides" have a vested interest in it's success and far more often than not that vested interest requires a level of EARNED equality seldom seen in our neck of the woods. For a variety of deep seated (and at times fully justified) reasons on both the career and volunteer sides of the divide there is little desire to make the kind of concessions necessary to build a truly successful combination system. Sadly this being the case, I hold little hope of a truly successful combination system taking root in the region any time soon.

Edited June 10, 2016 by FFPCogs

[nfd2004 750]

Pete does that system you mention involve a Career Firefighter being given orders to by a Volunteer Lt ? If so, just by the nature of the accountability issue, there might be a problem trying to implement that. For that career firefighter, he comes under a semi military form of discipline, with plenty to loose if he disobeys an order.

 

Now lets reverse it. A career Capt gives that Volunteer Lt an order. That Vol Lt doesn't follow the order. "What type of disciplinary action can be applied to him ?

 

Yes, that volunteer Lt took and passed the same test as those career Lts., but it will never really be equal.

 

Just as I mentioned the story earlier of the topless lady photos taken in a firehouse. There were two totally different standards applied. Those career firefighters faced some serious charges if they had done it. While the volunteer firefighters, who actually committed the incident, had no action taken against them. The reality is, "nothing could be done against them".

 

Just by virtue of passing the same test, does not make things equal.

 

Here's an example. As a new officer, I was once called into the chiefs office for a personal issue. One of the firefighters got in a little trouble. I wasn't even there when it happened. As I headed to the office both the Union President and Vice President met me in the hallway. I was surprised to see them, so I asked what was going on ? The union president then said to me; "Willy do you want us to go in there with you" ? I asked "for what". They then told me the charges of what I was accused of and said, "he wants you suspended for 30 days". I couldn't believe that. Of course as it turned out, I was completely innocent and after serving four days of my 30 day suspension, I got my job back and also the four days back pay I lost.

 

 First of all, sometimes it's no fun being an officer. In the career dept you are held accountable for everything that goes on. But my real point here is the kind of standards that career officers are held too.

 

  Here's another example which happened within the last year or two. A career Lt is inside a building fighting a fire on the line with his members. Outside, the pump operator was NOT wearing his helmet. I believe he had been told to do so earlier on. The pump operator got suspended and the Lt was written up for not disciplining his men. He had no idea this guy wasn't wearing his helmet.  

 

 Both true stories. Now can a Volunteer Lt be held to such standards ?

 

 

Edited June 11, 2016 by nfd2004

[FFPCogs 863]

11 hours ago, nfd2004 said:

Pete does that system you mention involve a Career Firefighter being given orders to by a Volunteer Lt ? If so, just by the nature of the accountability issue, there might be a problem trying to implement that. For that career firefighter, he comes under a semi military form of discipline, with plenty to loose if he disobeys an order.

 

Now lets reverse it. A career Capt gives that Volunteer Lt an order. That Vol Lt doesn't follow the order. "What type of disciplinary action can be applied to him ?

 

Yes, that volunteer Lt took and passed the same test as those career Lts., but it will never really be equal.

 

Just as I mentioned the story earlier of the topless lady photos taken in a firehouse. There were two totally different standards applied. Those career firefighters faced some serious charges if they had done it. While the volunteer firefighters, who actually committed the incident, had no action taken against them. The reality is, "nothing could be done against them".

 

Just by virtue of passing the same test, does not make things equal.

 

Here's an example. As a new officer, I was once called into the chiefs office for a personal issue. One of the firefighters got in a little trouble. I wasn't even there when it happened. As I headed to the office both the Union President and Vice President met me in the hallway. I was surprised to see them, so I asked what was going on ? The union president then said to me; "Willy do you want us to go in there with you" ? I asked "for what". They then told me the charges of what I was accused of and said, "he wants you suspended for 30 days". I couldn't believe that. Of course as it turned out, I was completely innocent and after serving four days of my 30 day suspension, I got my job back and also the four days back pay I lost.

 

 First of all, sometimes it's no fun being an officer. In the career dept you are held accountable for everything that goes on. But my real point here is the kind of standards that career officers are held too.

 

  Here's another example which happened within the last year or two. A career Lt is inside a building fighting a fire on the line with his members. Outside, the pump operator was NOT wearing his helmet. I believe he had been told to do so earlier on. The pump operator got suspended and the Lt was written up for not disciplining his men. He had no idea this guy wasn't wearing his helmet.  

 

 Both true stories. Now can a Volunteer Lt be held to such standards ?

 

 

Willy it is true that career members tend to have a greater base of knowledge in most cases, by the very nature of that fact that it is their job. But that doesn't mean that all career members are equal either. There are good and bad among them as well. The LT of career E-1 is the best damn LT to every wear the bars, while the LT of career E-2 is far less knowledgeable, experienced and competent. Both passed the same exam and both got promoted and both now command a crew. The promotional exam they both took and passed says they are equal, when in fact they are far from it, yet both hold the rank. In many ways the same applies to career/volunteer. Some volunteer officers shine brighter than any career officer, some don't. The length of service and testing requirements would give a baseline from which to work and would ensure that at least some kind of minimum equal standard exists to warrant someone being promoted.

 

As far as discipline goes there is absolutely no doubt that how that discipline is meted out would be different. Simply put career members are paid while volunteers are not in any meaningful sense so that leverage would be greater over the career staff. And while maintaining discipline and structure are of great importance, no FD worth it's salt is run solely by the threat of disciplinary action. Successful and well run departments are that way because the membership (paid or volunteer) want it to be that way. They take pride in their departments and the job they do, they don't need to coerced into doing the right thing...it comes naturally as a part of the culture of the organization.

 

Of course there will always be infractions to be dealt with and in these cases the leverage of pay will potentially make a difference. Yes a career member can be suspended without pay while a volunteer cannot. But the volunteer has much to lose as well. Both career and volunteer officers gain a sense of accomplishment and pride when promoted. Both gain new responsibilities, authority and shiny new epaulets for their uniforms. Both don't want to lose these things. But the career members also sees a rise in his pay while the volunteer does not and this added leverage does put the career member at a disadvantage in a sense. So what then can the volunteer lose? Well whatever it was that motivated that person to seek promotion and drives him can be taken away. He didn't look to be promoted for money, so money cannot be used to leverage "proper" behavior, only those things which the volunteer values in his position can be. Now that might seem a poor comparison, but it isn't in most cases. Volunteer officers "do the right thing" not because they have to for their pay but because they have to to maintain their responsibilities, status, and the other perks of officership they enjoy.  Hard as it may be to believe for many volunteer officers these factors are just a potent a motivator as pay in keeping them flying straight.

 

So to come back full circle as I said earlier, a successful combination department can only be achieved when both sides have a vested interest in that success. When ALL of the members want a good , well run, aggressive, competent department. And pay or not that desire can only come from within each and every member to make it so. 

[nfd2004 750]

Pete of course you make some very good points. Of course I know of career officers that hoped to advance for the extra change in their pockets. For others it was a form of some kind of prestige making them feel "MORE IMPORTANT".  At this part we are ONLY referring to the selection of Fire Officers, not at all covering the issue of the entire volunteer vs career system.

 

You're absolutely correct, the discipline factor is NOT really the sole purpose of how firefighters are held accountable. That is used only as the final result. Generally speaking ALL firefighters get a sense of pride and accomplishment in performing their duties to help others. But once again, let me point out unequal discipline results. As you say, "What does a Volunteer loose" ? You say: "Whatever it was that motivated that person to seek that promotion and drives him can be taken away". Well, as a career fire officer that can also be taken away. BUT HERE's THE MORE IMPORTANT FACTOR. It's a loss of income. In my own example, mine would have been 30 days. That is a huge price to pay over the fact of some kind of motivational thing.

 

 Pete, it just really can not be compared. I wish the standards could be equal, but it just can't happen. And add this, the fact that career firefighters enjoy a decent career of steady income and benefits they should definitely be held to higher standards. People pay them to do a job. They are expected to be honest and trustworthy. More so than anyone else. Why shouldn't they be held to higher standards.

[AFS1970 504]

Common standards are a laudable goal, but I am not sure they will ever be possible. Here is why, no matter what standard you make it will by the very nature be the minimum standard. I know of one nearby combination department where volunteer officers must have Fire Officer 1 to serve. Career Officers have a year from the date of promotion to obtain Fire Officer 1. The reason for this initially apparent inequality is that the volunteers elect their officers for 1 year terms and making the same allowance would effectively allow uncertified officers on the volunteer side. That being said, I heard from several career officers I met in that department that they all went and got the certification before promotion in order to give themselves a leg up in the interview. The end result is that department at the time had never actually promoted anyone who did not hold Fire Officer 1 on either side.

 

Then there will always be those that got promoted for the wrong reason, regardless of test score. This can be due to politics, race, gender, nepotism, ect. This is something that no department is immune from, and while many firefighters will speak up against it, not all will and this will lead to officers that never should have been officers.  We all know them, many of us work with them. Some of them not only get paychecks, but really hefty ones.

 

Another reason that common standards will be hard to implement is because there will always be two factions making the standards. One faction will want them to be so hard no volunteer (or other part timer) could ever meet them. The other will want them so weak that thy become meaningless. Then there is the factor of never revisiting a standard until it is too late. It also becomes the departments responsibility to make sure the opportunity to meet the standard is present and remains present. I have seen two nearby volunteer departments set pretty good standards for officers that combined certifications and time in grade, but then end up with few members that meet the requirements. In one case the department rarely hosted the required class in another the department never did. Newer members were never shown how to get the certification. That started the inevitable waiving of requirements or grandfathering of senior members and thus the certifications became meaningless.

 

On the police side, a large number of departments used to have special police officers, which were basically part time but fully certified officers (after 1981).  The state used to run an academy rotating among towns at night so those with other jobs could attend. Now they require attendance at a full time academy. End result nobody with another job can attend, leading to almost zero growth of part timers, now need more full timers. Standards set by (you guessed it) full timers.

 

To my mind the goal of training and education should be to help get people to whatever that next level they seek is, but with the understanding that not everyone will reach their goals. If that goal is to achieve a standard or a promotion then so be it. This is why you see so many ads for test prep courses. So no standard should be set at an unreasonable or unreachable level.

 

 

[AFS1970 504]

Separating this into two posts.

 

As for discipline, this is very possible in the volunteer service, but the penalty is going to be different. Suppose you get a 30 day suspension from a career department. You stay away for a month. The actual number of tours in that 30 days is going to be less than 30 because of shift length. There will be a loss of income, which will effect your family. Thus the goal is generally to not get suspended. Now in a volunteer department that same 30 day suspension, includes 30 days of not being on call, and while it may include more days it will likely include less hours of potential working time. There is no loss of money and little effect on one's family. So the penalty is perceived differently. However there is still the general goal not to be suspended because of loss of face.

 

The real reason that discipline standards are not applied evenly is because few if any volunteer chiefs have the stomach to apply discipline. Fewer still have the skills to adequately investigate incidents that might lead to discipline.

 

Look at the topless pictures that nfd2004 has written about. From the way I understand it, the investigation was not as comprehensive as it should have been. Had this not been the case there would have been no charges agaisnt the career firefighters that were clearly out of the station when it happened. However the lack of any charges or discipline in the volunteer department is just as bad if not worse.

 

Maybe discipline in a volunteer department has to include other forms of penalties. I doubt a fine would work, but perhaps not only a suspension from duty but a suspension from the social aspects of the department. Many join for the brotherhood, so not being able to attend the softball game or Christmas party might just be worse than not having to get up for a call in the middle of the night. Maybe not counting suspension time towards LOSAP or seniority might work. especially if time in grade is a requirement for promotion. Penalties have to be meaningful and consistently applied but this is possible.

 

[nfd2004 750]

In the case of my suspension (NFD2004), it was designed for me to loose 4 weeks pay regardless of how many days I was scheduled to work. A total of 42 hours pay taken away for four weeks. No matter how we toss around and play with the numbers, the loss was designed to be there.

 

 I agree, the investigation of the topless photos was not done correctly. As soon as city hall saw those pictures, the blame went to the guys that work there. As I remember correctly, a few days had passed and the ball was about to drop. I believe it was actually one of the off duty career firefighters who buffed the fire that night. It was him that first brought up the point that just perhaps, these pictures were taken by a relocated group of firefighters.

 

 Again, I wish to point out the success of the two combination departments I had mentioned before. One a town of about 60,000 people. The other a very well known, progressive county department, covering a very large population.

[gamewell45 258]

On 5/26/2016 at 5:34 PM, FireMedic049 said:

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.

I'm surprised because normally most labor contracts have language regarding termination for just cause, in which the burden of proof lays on the employer, who must make their case before an impartial umpire or neutral third party.  If clearly the infraction didn't really warrant termination, they the employee would not lose his/her job or at least it stands to reason.

[FireMedic049 597]

2 hours ago, gamewell45 said:

I'm surprised because normally most labor contracts have language regarding termination for just cause, in which the burden of proof lays on the employer, who must make their case before an impartial umpire or neutral third party.  If clearly the infraction didn't really warrant termination, they the employee would not lose his/her job or at least it stands to reason.

I think you misunderstood my comment.  I wasn't speaking about employer initiated discipline, I was referring more to comments from the online peanut gallery.  I've seen numerous comments that call for career firefighters to be fired for an inappropriate action or comment that oftentimes really isn't worthy of termination.

 

As for your comment, typically the employee has the ability to challenge the termination via the grievance process.  If the matter cannot be resolved via discussion/negotiation between the employer and the union on behalf of the employee, then the matter would go to arbitration.  If the employer can't show just cause for the termination, then more than likely the employee would be reinstated by the arbitrator.

[gamewell45 258]

2 hours ago, FireMedic049 said:

I think you misunderstood my comment.  I wasn't speaking about employer initiated discipline, I was referring more to comments from the online peanut gallery.  I've seen numerous comments that call for career firefighters to be fired for an inappropriate action or comment that oftentimes really isn't worthy of termination.

 

As for your comment, typically the employee has the ability to challenge the termination via the grievance process.  If the matter cannot be resolved via discussion/negotiation between the employer and the union on behalf of the employee, then the matter would go to arbitration.  If the employer can't show just cause for the termination, then more than likely the employee would be reinstated by the arbitrator.

You are 100% correct; that was a mis-read on my part.  My apologies.

[nfd2004 750]

10 hours ago, FireMedic049 said:

I think you misunderstood my comment.  I wasn't speaking about employer initiated discipline, I was referring more to comments from the online peanut gallery.  I've seen numerous comments that call for career firefighters to be fired for an inappropriate action or comment that oftentimes really isn't worthy of termination.

 

As for your comment, typically the employee has the ability to challenge the termination via the grievance process.  If the matter cannot be resolved via discussion/negotiation between the employer and the union on behalf of the employee, then the matter would go to arbitration.  If the employer can't show just cause for the termination, then more than likely the employee would be reinstated by the arbitrator.

 

What you say above "FireMedic049" is EXACTLY how it happened in my 30 days suspension case. The union officials did go into the chiefs office with me. When "they" told me of the pending 30 days suspension I was facing, of course I wanted them in that chiefs office with me. They acted as my defense attorney. When the chief, acting as the judge, told me in that office that "based on his decision, I would be suspended". The union officials then told the chief, "chief we intend to file a grievance on this", He still went through with the suspension. The next week we had a scheduled appearance in city hall with the Department of Personnel to hear my case. At that point, that is when all charges were dropped and my case was won. I got back all my back pay I had already lost. (For those anti union sign carriers - if not for that union grievance policy, I would have been guilty as charged, unless I hired my own lawyer).

 

 The union felt that because I was a new officer, and the chief was also new, the chief tried to use me as an example to show his authority. The chief and I spent the next 5-6 years together before the chief retired. I had won my case and the chief had lost. But we maintained full respect for each other after that happened. Today he lives in Florida and we still keep in touch.  As a new Probie, he was my first captain and I sure respected him. Everybody did. He taught me a lot and he sure paid his dues as a firefighter and officer. He certainly impressed me. But sometimes we all make mistakes. Even chiefs do. I certainly made my share of them.

 

  Now in keeping with the thought of this thread, "how many volunteer fire officers have gone through something like that" ? Not too many I would guess. Otherwise, there probably wouldn't be any left and nobody  would raise their hand to want to become one.

 

 

[FireMedic049 597]

21 hours ago, gamewell45 said:

You are 100% correct; that was a mis-read on my part.  My apologies.

No problem.