Paid firefighter layoffs contested by residents, FDNY | Garden City News

[trauma74 111]

http://m.gcnews.com/news/2016-05-27/Front_Page/Paid_firefighter_layoffs_contested_by_residents_FD.html#.V0fAz_krKUm

[FD7807 59]

This gets old quick. Stop making others look bad to make yourself look good. I teach that to my 7 year old and she gets it. If you have a problem with layoffs and budget cuts take it up with City Hall. Your problem is with City Hall and not caused by the presence of Volunteers. The studies and scare tactics get old. GRKW UP.

[nfd2004 750]

10 hours ago, trauma74 said:

http://m.gcnews.com/news/2016-05-27/Front_Page/Paid_firefighter_layoffs_contested_by_residents_FD.html#.V0fAz_krKUm

 

Trama - I thank you for posting this article. 

 

As I see it "volunteer firefighters can NOT replace career firefighters". There are just too many requirements put on today firefighters to get physically fit individuals, some with family obligations, to offer their services today. The training requirements alone take up a large percentage of time. This we see the nationwide DECLINE in the numbers of those joining the volunteer firefighter ranks. And many of those who do join, are often goal oriented to become career firefighters. 

 

The volunteer firefighters of America are a dying breed. Sad but very true. Long gone are the days of the local mill workers or the farmers leaving their jobs to help their neighbor in time if need. 

 

For a place like Garden City to loose the services of FDNY members as volunteer firefighters because they fully back their other career brothers is a double edge blade for this city. Yet, just about any career firefighter who also volunteers their services would be expected to do the same. 

Just recently, one career firefighter who is also a volunteer firefighter in his hometown, protected by a combination dept, including approximately 60 career firefighters, helped to propose the elimination of 16 career firefighters. As it stands that has not happened but clearly that was part of his plan. All while he collects a paycheck and benefits as a career firefighter from another department very similar in size, just 15-20 miles away. 

 

Needless to say, he has earned his own reputation among BOTH departments these days. 

 

I have hundreds of stories I could tell. Spending five years as a volunteer firefighter in one place, where everybody got a long great. Then becoming a career firefighter just about 75 miles away, where I soon found out I had entered a "War Zone". I couldn't believe it. That was in 1975 and it's still the same if not worse today. As for the other combo dept, they still run that career engine and the volunteer rescue truck manned by volunteers. All working together out of the same firehouse.

 

I find it also interesting how my many friends, who are volunteer firefighters, respect career firefighters for what they do. "We'll, we certainly respect those VOLUNTER firefighters for what they do as well". Quite honestly, I could not do it. 

 

There should be absolutely NO REASON at all, why a group of volunteer firefighters would be willing to stand by and watch as career firefighters loose the jobs they worked so hard to get. If you are one of those volunteer firefighters who would rather see those guys in the unemployment line, "I suggest you think that over". As volunteer firefighters you are the guys who are supposed to be caring and compassionate of others. You should probably keep that in mind.

[16fire5 693]

It's my experience that even Volunteer Chiefs take an oath of office as they assume the job.  While some may see this as a formality many of of don't.  You're swearing to do the job to the best of your ability and protect the citizens and your firefighters.  You're not swearing to settle a score with the paid guys or use you power to carry out a vendetta routed in jealousy.   It's a well established fact that volunteer fire departments everywhere are suffering from a shortage of qualified volunteers and the average age of volunteers is steadily increasing.  I for the life of me can't see how any fire chief paid or volunteer could be doing their job to protect the safety of their members or the public if they support decreasing staff.  Having some fully qualified staff guaranteeing apparatus response and fully capable firefighters on scene for every response is something many communities and chiefs can only dream of and recently we're seeing two cases of these communities where the sworn leaders have gone on the record that cutting staff will not effect their department's ability.  I'd love to hear the argument of how having less members on scene or waiting for a volunteer arrive and drive a fire apparatus will be a benefit to anyone.   

[FireMedic049 597]

2 hours ago, FD7807 said:

This gets old quick. Stop making others look bad to make yourself look good. I teach that to my 7 year old and she gets it. If you have a problem with layoffs and budget cuts take it up with City Hall. Your problem is with City Hall and not caused by the presence of Volunteers. The studies and scare tactics get old. GRKW UP.

Actually, the presence of the volunteers is a significant factor in situations like this.  Their presence "on paper" can lead to the perception that a small staff of career personnel are expendable and not really needed.  Particularly in tough financial times.

 

The volunteers themselves may not be directly responsible for the decision, but they essentially become accomplices by allowing themselves to be used as pawns in the process by not speaking out against the cuts.

 

For the most part, the career staff in a primarily volunteer department are there for a reason.  They serve to suppliment an inherent deficiency in the volunteer staffing model, inconsisent availability to respond in a timely fashion 24/7.

 

If you eliminate the career staff without resolving the reason they existed, then there will be negative consequences on the response end of things.  That's not a scare tactic, that's reality.

[AFS1970 504]

The lack of volunteers who are paid in any given department (in this case FDNY) is not a good argument. Even if we assume that they are staying away from Garden City in droves because of solidarity, they would certainly not beat down the doors to volunteer there after layoffs. So like it or not the presence of the career staff has set its own course for the future.

 

The lack of volunteers in a given department is often due to how we approach mundane things like recruiting but also training. Years ago people joined because they had roots in the community and were friends or relatives of memebrs. Now we have lots of people moving from place to place and not really setting down those roots. Plus while generally good, we have done a lot to make volunteers invisible. How many of our apparatus say volunteer on them? How many uniforms or even turnout gear say it? We have done so much to prove that volunteers are no different from career but that has been a double edged sword.

 

Why do we train the way we do? is it the best option for the current department or is it because we planned drill around the local pinochle games that hasn't been held sine the 1930's? I know of one career department that has shift change scheduled around a trolley schedule from the early 1900's. Headquarters has moved since then and the trolley stopped years ago, but now it is a tradition. So when a new resident wants to join but works on your drill night do we ever consider alternatives to get them trained?

 

As for being a pawn in the game, I wholeheartedly agree. I have been one of those pawns. I was one of a core group that chose to fill in to cover layoffs thinking it was a temporary fix while we tried to get the jobs restored. We didn;t want to see anyone roll out alone. Then the judge said we had actually proven that we did not need the staffing. Because on paper the situation was not as dire as those that lived it knew it to be. Statistics and other numbers are good to a point but can risk becoming dangerous, when relied on too much.