Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 139

Thread: SAFER is out.

  1. #61
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    On behalf of the career firefighting community, we concur that you are not part of our community.
    No no, you can keep him. We don't want him either!

    I really don't understand this rift between volunteer vs career. Must be more of a regional thing as it doesn't seem to be much of an issue where I am.


  2. #62
    Forum Member FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FuturePrimitive View Post
    No no, you can keep him. We don't want him either!

    I really don't understand this rift between volunteer vs career. Must be more of a regional thing as it doesn't seem to be much of an issue where I am.
    I bet it would torque his nuts to know that in our combination house, the Career Staff are not treated like "Paid Maids." The volunteers are expected to empty trash cans, mop floors, clean windows, dust bookshelves, vacuum the carpets and maintain the apparatus along side the career staff. In addition, when all of the above does not get done due to training or a busy run day, guess who does it all after the career staff leaves for the day?????
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  3. #63
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FWDbuff View Post
    I bet it would torque his nuts to know that in our combination house, the Career Staff are not treated like "Paid Maids." The volunteers are expected to empty trash cans, mop floors, clean windows, dust bookshelves, vacuum the carpets and maintain the apparatus along side the career staff. In addition, when all of the above does not get done due to training or a busy run day, guess who does it all after the career staff leaves for the day?????
    One has to have nuts in order to torque them!
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  4. #64
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    How is civil service for the career side causing a divide between the career staff and volunteers?

    Civil service is nothing more than a bull**** way of career firefighters who have screwed up and should be fired keeping their jobs.

    I know 2 career firefighters who should have been fired but kept thier jobs on procedural errors due to civil service. it's nothing but a load of c**p.

    So let me sum this up for you... It isn't that career firefighters, including Union career firefighters, can't be fired, it is that whoever wanted them fired was either too stupid, too lazy, or too incompetent to follow the proper procedure. Yep that's civil service's, or the Union's, fault. How about you place the blame where it belongs? Leadership failing to do their damn job.

    As a former supervisor in another career field, it's nothing but worker's rights run amuck. And you know how I feel about worker's rights.

    Nope, it is clearly that most managers are either too stupid, too lazy, or too incompetent to actually be in that position of management. ANYONE in management, in any career field, that says their employees can't be fired should themselves be fired for incompetence. IF you take the time to document what the employee is doing that you have decided deserves his firing anyone can be fired. But outright firing someone with no documentation is a loser in many cases.

    That being said ...

    First problem is that civil service sets up 2 classes of firefighters in our department. You have the one class, the career staff, that now has a board that can override the Chief's decision regarding discipline and dismissal. And you have a second class, the volunteers, that have no board that can override the Chief's decision regarding discipline and dismissal. It's simply not right, but it's required by the law.

    IF the chief supplies documentation and supporting evidence most firings will be upheld. The exceptions are usually in obvious retaliation cases where the employee is fired because in some way he ****ed off the chief over some issue.

    In my area there are some POC FD's that have Unionized using the teamsters. (Side editorial, nice job IAFF in missing the boat on that one, Teamster firefighters, BRILLIANT!) If a Volunteer firefighter feels he has been disciplined or fired wrongly there is recourse. Go to the local governing body and file an appeal. Or get a lawyer and pursue legal action. It isn't like that volly is sent to the gulag.


    Second issue is that civil service requires one captain per shift, which closes off 3 captains spots to the volunteer staff. That only leaves 5 captains spots open to the volunteers, instead of the 8 spots that were available per civil service. Again, not right.

    Geezus, why is this so simple for me to see and such a sphincter pucker problem for you? Create 3 more volly captain positions. Problem solved. Hell they can create a Pub Ed position out of mid air why not 3 additional captains slots?

    Those are the 2 immediate issues caused by the (forced) adoption of civil service. I see a couple of other monsters in the closet that may cause some issues further down the line as well.

    The only monster you need to worry about is when the feds finally catch up to your endentured servant operation you have going there. The overtime costs and fines will more than likely severely injure your community's financial status and cause heads to roll in the chain of command of the FD.
    Dude you are so seriously Bipolar as to be scary. You hate paid guys and civil service and yet you are it yourself. What is the word I am looking for? I wonder what it might be? Hmmmmm.....Oh Yeah! HYPOCRITE.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  5. #65
    Forum Member FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainGonzo View Post
    One has to have nuts in order to torque them!
    Oh, Yeah!!!! (slaps forehead) Stupid me!!!!
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  6. #66
    Forum Member paetsHFD6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Katy, TX
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Well, I guess I, as well as the other paid staff, simply have a different attitude on this.

    I guess we just have different view of the world which says that even off duty, you are still living in the community and have an obligation to respond when your community needs you. Yes, I am a professional, but to me that does not mean I alwways have to be paid for my services.

    I belong to a neighboring VFD and respond with them. Because I am a paid firefighter elsewhere, does that mean I am a "professional" and should not respond with them because I should be paid for my qualifications. How about the professional firefighters at other departments that volunteer with us?

    Does that mean the builder shouldn't donate his labor to building free homes or Little league dugouts because he is a professional? How about doctors or nurses at free clinics?

    Sure we could push the issue but nobody ever has. And if we did, we would all get a little fatter paycheck. But the cost would be less money on the table for PPE, training, equipment and travel. In fact, we as a department start out about 5K lower than just about any other area fire department or fire district, but nobody has ever pushed the issue for an increase in the base because we know it will hurt other areas of the operation. The admin sees that and is starting to address that with an increased incentive package, but we never have a shortage of folks, even from other higher paid neighboring fire districts, applying when there is an opening. The money is just not an issue with our members.

    Someone asked Why respond off-duty? Because it's the right thing to do, and reduces the need for hiring additional personnel, which is always a good thing. Responding off-duty has always been the norm and anyone hired understands that. And nobody has an issue with it. Some respond more and one or two respond less, but it's something we all do.

    Please tell exactly who we are hurting and who is profiting from our response, besides the citizens of course. You remember them ..... They are the ones that everyone likes to say we have sworn to protect.

    This is interesting to me...you volunteer in your own department off duty because it's the "right thing to do". You volunteer with another department in whose territory you don't reside. Yet you stated previously that if you were driving down the street and came upon a wrecked car on fire with a three year old child trapped inside you would make absolutely no effort to help because it's "not your problem".

  7. #67
    Forum Member FWDbuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Pee-Ayy!
    Posts
    7,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paetsHFD6 View Post
    This is interesting to me...you volunteer in your own department off duty because it's the "right thing to do". You volunteer with another department in whose territory you don't reside. Yet you stated previously that if you were driving down the street and came upon a wrecked car on fire with a three year old child trapped inside you would make absolutely no effort to help because it's "not your problem".
    This is where he will vomit some pathetic story about a certain jurisdiction that has specifically told his department "Not to bother assisting us or taking action in our territory."

    This is his cover story for the coward in him.

    I for one find it very, very hard to believe that a certain AHJ would tell another AHJ "not to act in our territory." How huge would the lawsuit be if that ever got out if someone got hurt in that territory and the coward or one of his cowards did not help out????

    But then again.....If Coward was next door to my territory.....I might be inclined to ask him not to act for fear he would just eff up the situation even worse.
    "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

  8. #68
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FuturePrimitive View Post
    No no, you can keep him. We don't want him either!

    I really don't understand this rift between volunteer vs career. Must be more of a regional thing as it doesn't seem to be much of an issue where I am.

    It really depends on individuals. All it takes is a few people or one department that has tension between the vollys and paid guys for it to proliferate through the area. Example, take 1 combo dept. where the volunteers and paid guys don't get along. All the paid guys talk to other paid guys in the area, so now they all are suspicious of the volunteers. Then all the vollys talk to all the other vollys in the area, so they are all suspicious of the paid guys now.

    Once it starts it just keeps going. The rookie vollys and paid guys are ingrained by their senior guys to distrust the other side and it perpetuates.

  9. #69
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Difference is if our members were not acting as volunteers when responding off-duty, and attempted to make a rescue, and were injured, they would not be covered under workman's comp. Worse yet, if killed, their families would not be eligible for LODD benefits.
    I'm not so sure that would be the case. Maybe LA laws are different, but we had 3 police officers LODDs up here last year (tomorrow is the 1 year anniversary of the incident). One of them was technically "off-duty" on his way home and stopped to "back up" the other two officers on a domestic call in his neighborhood. Even though, not technically "on-duty", his death was treated as a LODD and I believe his family received all benefits due to them.

    Now, if he had done this outside that community, the result may have been different.

    Since they are responding as volunteers, they are eligable for both.

    Under civil service, which we have now been forced to work under, they are eligible for paid leave up to 364 days under both situations. In the past, they would not have been eligible for paid sick leave while operating as a volunteer though they are career personnel while operating as a volunteer, as LA workman's comp does not provide paid sick leave for volunteer members injured at an incident.
    You have paid employees volunteering back to the department even though federal labor law says they can't. If they get hurt while "volunteering", you're going to give them paid time off because they are paid civil service employees, yet LA worker's comp says volunteers aren't covered for this.

    So, in filing a claim, it would seem that your department would have to LIE and say that the injured FF was working and "on the clock" in order to receive a benefit he's not eligible for as a volunteer.

    Wow, you guys have an FLSA/Comp time bomb on your hands.

  10. #70
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,527

    Default

    Dude you are so seriously Bipolar as to be scary. You hate paid guys and civil service and yet you are it yourself

    Because I beleive that volunteers and call pewrsonnel are a far more effictive way to staff many fire departments that curremtly are all career or mainly career I hate paid fireman? Because I beleive that it's not the job of government to create firefighting jobs just because he community has the resources to do so if the community has the demographics to support an all or primarily-volunteer department, I hate must career firefighters?
    Because I am critical of career firefighters that resist laying off career staff and replacing them with call or volunteer staff when the community can clearly no longer afford that current paid staff, and there are clearly very few other options, I must hate career firefighters.

    Because I beleive that career firefighters have the responsibility to the community that they live in to volunteer there (if they have a VFD) and I am openly critical of them if they don't, I must hate career firefighters.

    I have very little in common with most career firefighters. I have much more in common with volunteers as that is what I have been and what honestly, I still consider myself to be, and I choose to socialize with them. I know volunteers I don't like because of thier attitudes. I know career members i don't like because of thier attitude, especially those that a very pro-union, primarily because my feelings toward the union (or any union) is much different than mine. I have many career firefighters that are friends, though we disagree on several topics.

    And yes I hate civil service. And I wish there was someway to get out from under them, but the liberal appeals court have deemed that we must go civil service after the court up here said we did not.

  11. #71
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,527

    Default

    I bet it would torque his nuts to know that in our combination house, the Career Staff are not treated like "Paid Maids." The volunteers are expected to empty trash cans, mop floors, clean windows, dust bookshelves, vacuum the carpets and maintain the apparatus along side the career staff. In addition, when all of the above does not get done due to training or a busy run day, guess who does it all after the career staff leaves for the day?????

    I'll repeat this for those who need to have it repeated.

    Both the career firefighter, the part-time firefighter and amy volunteers who rode out that night or are riding out that day are responsible for all the morning cleaning chores.

    If a truck gets dirty during the day, the volunteers riding out cleans the truck with the paid staff.

    All volunteers respopnding to an incident are responsible is assiting putting apparatus in service.

    However, the career firefighter is responsible for apparatus and tool maintainence that day, as well as coordianting, and as necessary based on experience, conducting and documenting the assigned rating-related test or duty for the day. He is also responsible for volunteer station and apparatus inspections and making sure all daily projects are done.

    I guess to me that makes him a mechanic and an administrator, not a maid. But I could be wrong.

  12. #72
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,844

    Default

    [QUOTE=LaFireEducator;1164594]Dude you are so seriously Bipolar as to be scary. You hate paid guys and civil service and yet you are it yourself

    Because I beleive that volunteers and call pewrsonnel are a far more effictive way to staff many fire departments that curremtly are all career or mainly career I hate paid fireman? Because I beleive that it's not the job of government to create firefighting jobs just because he community has the resources to do so if the community has the demographics to support an all or primarily-volunteer department, I hate must career firefighters?
    Because I am critical of career firefighters that resist laying off career staff and replacing them with call or volunteer staff when the community can clearly no longer afford that current paid staff, and there are clearly very few other options, I must hate career firefighters.

    Face the facts that MOST career fire departments came about because of the inability to handle the call volume with volunteers, or that the number of volunteers was simply inadequate to handle emergencies. Are there career firefighters who believe it is proper to look for ways to add more career firefighters to the staff? Of course. Are there obstructionist volunteers who refuse to face up to the reality that in their particular circumstance career firefighters are needed to augment the number of volunteers? Of course. Each situation must be looked at individually. Take the city I work for as a career firefighter for example. The call volume, especially EMS is far too great to be handled by volunteers. But if you look at the small rural village I live in the call volume there is far too small to require paid firefighters.

    Obviously your community can support more career staff because you have said it yourself. So money is not the issue in your case. It is pure obstructionism on your part. You want to pretend you are still a volunteer while getting the benefits of being a paid member. Delusional is all that is. You can't have it both ways.

    I hate people who preach one thing while they live another. If you have time to volunteer to another FD in another community you had more than enough time to fulfill your Pub Ed job as a volunteer. Yet while you rant on and on about the skill level of your volunteers none of them was capable OR MORE IMPORTANTLY WILLING to assist with the pub ed duties. So much for filling every position with volunteers.


    Because I beleive that career firefighters have the responsibility to the community that they live in to volunteer there (if they have a VFD) and I am openly critical of them if they don't, I must hate career firefighters.

    I do volunteer where I live and so do many other firefighters on my career FD. Your point here is not at all related to your turning your paid guys into endentured slaves and coercing them to volunteer back, in violation of federal law, to the FD they get paid to work for.

    I have very little in common with most career firefighters. I have much more in common with volunteers as that is what I have been and what honestly, I still consider myself to be, and I choose to socialize with them. I know volunteers I don't like because of thier attitudes. I know career members i don't like because of thier attitude, especially those that a very pro-union, primarily because my feelings toward the union (or any union) is much different than mine. I have many career firefighters that are friends, though we disagree on several topics.

    You can delude yourself into pretending you are still some uber volunteer when the truth, no matter how distasteful it is to you, is that you are a PAID member of the Bossier Parish Fire Department. PAID FULL TIME, not volunteer getting a pay check, not some delusional wannabe, but a PAID FIREFIGHTER. Pretend all you want, the only one that believes your drivel is you.

    And yes I hate civil service. And I wish there was someway to get out from under them, but the liberal appeals court have deemed that we must go civil service after the court up here said we did not.

    Aw, too bad. A shame the court said you actually had to follow the LAW. Funny how that works.

    Seriously, you need to stop playing games and just face the facts. The law is the law. Slavery was abolished by the civil war. You, no matter how distasteful it is to you, are a paid firefighter.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  13. #73
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,527

    Default

    You have paid employees volunteering back to the department even though federal labor law says they can't. If they get hurt while "volunteering", you're going to give them paid time off because they are paid civil service employees, yet LA worker's comp says volunteers aren't covered for this.

    So, in filing a claim, it would seem that your department would have to LIE and say that the injured FF was working and "on the clock" in order to receive a benefit he's not eligible for as a volunteer.


    I'll explain this again, because it is complicated.

    Under LA workman's comopensation, volunteer firefighters are only entitled to the payment of medical bills if hurt while training or at an incident. They are not eligable for income-related compensation.

    In the past, if a career member was hurt (and there has only been one case and the injury was minor) while volunteering his injury was filed with workman's comp as a volunteer as he was off-duty and functioning as a volunteer member. The member had to use his department sick time to cover his paycheck. If we had a situation where that ran out, he would have no longer received a paycheck.

    Now that we are civil service, one of the benefits under the law is unlimited sick time for any illness or injury on or off duty up to 364 days for career personnel. If the member can return to even light duty for day 365, he I beleive, can then get another 364. If he cannot, he must be discharged. The only exceptions for this are acts that are "reckless and dangerous" such as skydiving and the like. To the best of our knowledge, there has never been a case in our area where an injury has been disallowed.

    The medical bills are still covered by workman's comp so his status as on-duty or volunteer at the time of the injury is irrelvant. Volunteers working part-time shifts are treated as volunteers by workman's comp.

    No, we do not have to forge paperwork as the member in the past had to use his own sick time to cover his time away from work. That is no longer the case.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 04-03-2010 at 09:29 PM.

  14. #74
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,527

    Default

    This back and forth is getting old, however i want to address just a couple of things.

    I hate people who preach one thing while they live another. If you have time to volunteer to another FD in another community you had more than enough time to fulfill your Pub Ed job as a volunteer


    I do very little responding with the other FD. I was asked to join so that I could assist the young firefighter handling training. I respond to maybe 3 or 4 runs a month, primarily as a safety officer, and to observe the operation to note training needs.

    I was able to accomplish most of my pub ed goals volunteering as I worked a shift schedule at the Ambo Service, but it meant very little time at home. The department decided they wanted to accomplish even more and relaized that the program was at it's limit with volunteer staff.

    The department also identified the need for someone to take much of the training load, as well as 3 or 4 administrative responsibilities off the Deputy Chief.

    The department also identified myself as the one for that roles as well, and realized that I could simply not assume those additional roles and tasks as a volunteer or even as a part-time member.

    The department decided that additional admin staff was needed. they made a choice. I'll let them know you disagree.

    Obviously your community can support more career staff because you have said it yourself. So money is not the issue in your case. It is pure obstructionism on your part

    Yes, we have the money. In fact, we probably have the funding to hire 1 or 2 more beyond the 3 we plan on hiring.

    The thing that irratates me the the attiude of your post which basically says, that hiring paid staff is progress and not hiring paid staff if the money is available and keeping a primarily department is somehow not marching forward, or even regression.

    That statement assumes that hiring additional personnel will improve the delivery of services. And that is the only way gto improve the delivery of services. The fact is adding staff is not improvement if that money can be directed at recruiting and retention of a much larger pool of volunteer members, which is the case here.

    The fact is we plan on spending about 160K a year for saleries and benefits. For that money, we will be adding 1 paid member around the clock. 1 member at a time.

    Think of how many volunteers we could recruit and retain with that 160K.

    There is no doubt in my mind that if that 160K was directed towards the volunteer base rather than 1 paid member at a time, we could easily increase the number of volunteers responding, given our demographics, by 4-6 per call, at a minimum.

    Instead, we are spending it one 1 paid member per shift. To me, hiring 3 additional personnel is simply wasteful and extremly cost ineffective.

    That being said, would I oppose 1 member being hired for a daytime only shift to help with mainataince and testing projects? No, because there is a demonstrated need in that area, as long as ther remaining 120K was directed towards recruiting and retention. That would also releive some of volunteer responsibility with hose, pump and hydrant testing.

    I could even be convinced that hiring 2 daytime firefighters might be a wise choice, espeically given that fact that we now provide coverage to the National Guard facilty and have recently absorbed a neighboring dysfunctional fire district, however that would seriously hamper a serious recruitment and rentention program and may cause more harm than good in the long run.

    Sorry bro but you have been drinking way too much union kool-aid if you beleive that hiring paid staff in our situation is the answer, because it is not. And it's not an effective in many other places where the demographics can still support significant or all-volunteer involvement. We are a community that falls into that catagory.

    If that makes me an obstructionist, so be it. I want to see the department get the most bang for it's buck, which isn't by hiring. And yes, I also want to keep the department as much a volunteer organization as possible, as that is the best and most cost-effective way to deliver services in our district, as well as the fact that it is keeping the tradition of volunteering alive.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 04-03-2010 at 09:38 PM.

  15. #75
    Forum Member DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,575

    Default

    If that makes me an obstructionist, so be it
    To quote Yul Brynner as the Pharoah in "The Ten Commandments"...
    So let it be written... so let it be done.
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  16. #76
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    You have paid employees volunteering back to the department even though federal labor law says they can't. If they get hurt while "volunteering", you're going to give them paid time off because they are paid civil service employees, yet LA worker's comp says volunteers aren't covered for this.

    So, in filing a claim, it would seem that your department would have to LIE and say that the injured FF was working and "on the clock" in order to receive a benefit he's not eligible for as a volunteer.


    I'll explain this again, because it is complicated.

    Under LA workman's comopensation, volunteer firefighters are only entitled to the payment of medical bills if hurt while training or at an incident. They are not eligable for income-related compensation.

    In the past, if a career member was hurt (and there has only been one case and the injury was minor) while volunteering his injury was filed with workman's comp as a volunteer. The member had to use his department sick time to cover his paycheck. If we had a situation where that ran out, he would no longer receive a paycheck.

    Now that we are civil service, one of the benefits under the law is unlimited sick time for any illness or injury on or off duty up to 364 days. If the member can return to even light duty for day 365, he I beleive, can then get another 364. If he cannot, he must be discharged. The only exceptions for this are acts that are "reckless and dangerous" such as skydiving and the like. To the best of our knowledge, there has never been a case in our area where an injury has been disallowed.

    The medical bills are still covered by workman's comp so his status as on-duty or volunteer at the time of the injury is irrelvant.

    No, we do not have to forge paperwork as the member in the past had to use his own sick time to cover his time away from work. That is no longer the case.
    I really don't think it's all that complicated.

    You have paid career firefighters in your department volunteering for that department while off-duty in violation of federal labor law. Not complicated.

    Said firefighter gets hurt while volunteering. You file a claim for him "as a volunteer", which is actually a LIE since his true employment status with the department is PAID and you can't be both paid and volunteer for the same organization. Not complicated.

    Since you filed the claim for him "as a volunteer", your department has admitted on a legal document that he wasn't being paid for his participation when he was injured. This shows that the department willfully violated federal labor law. Not complicated.

    Per your statement, a career firefighter can get 364 days of paid sick leave for an off duty illness or injury. Not complicated, but I find that extremely hard to believe.


    On a related note, if the information you presented here is true, your career firefighters have been MORONS for volunteering a single minute to the department off-duty.

    I say this not because they weren't getting paid for their time, but rather because if they got hurt while performing work for their employer "as a volunteer" they had to use their own sick time if unable to work and risked losing their job if they ran out of time before being able to return to work.

  17. #77
    Forum Member L-Webb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    517

    Default

    Ok, I keep reading this talk about letting a child burn up in a car and so on and not helping because you are off duty...

    When or where was this said??? Maybe I'm off base here but in my mind anyone would want to help firefighter or not. Is this what the world has come to?

    Just wondering

  18. #78
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,527

    Default

    Per your statement, a career firefighter can get 364 days of paid sick leave for an off duty illness or injury. Not complicated, but I find that extremely hard to believe.

    That is one of the perks of civil service in LA.

    If the department has, and can utilize him on light-duty assignments, I beleive he is required to return to work in that capicity until being medically cleared for full duty.

    I beleive they receive full salery, including rank and incentive pay, less the 6K a year state pay.

    In some cases, he/she may be transferred to the workman's comp system, where they will only recieve 60% of thier base, exclusive of the 6K state pay.

    Again, much of this is new to us and we are still learning the new rules of the game.

  19. #79
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    This back and forth is getting old, however i want to address just a couple of things.

    I hate people who preach one thing while they live another. If you have time to volunteer to another FD in another community you had more than enough time to fulfill your Pub Ed job as a volunteer


    I do very little responding with the other FD. I was asked to join so that I could assist the young firefighter handling training. I respond to maybe 3 or 4 runs a month, primarily as a safety officer, and to observe the operation to note training needs.

    I was able to accomplish most of my pub ed goals volunteering as I worked a shift schedule at the Ambo Service, but it meant very little time at home. The department decided they wanted to accomplish even more and relaized that the program was at it's limit with volunteer staff.

    The department also identified the need for someone to take much of the training load, as well as 3 or 4 administrative responsibilities off the Deputy Chief.

    The department also identified myself as the one for that roles as well, and realized that I could simply not assume those additional roles and tasks as a volunteer or even as a part-time member.

    The department decided that additional admin staff was needed. they made a choice. I'll let them know you disagree.

    I don't care what you tell your adminstrative staff. Your story has changed so many times it is amazing.

    So you had to stop being a volunteer in your department because your full time ems job and being a volly kept you away from home too much. But now you have a full time fire gig and you STILL CHOSE TO VOLUNTEER ELSEWHERE. Did the days suddenly grow more hours since you became a paid firefighter?


    Obviously your community can support more career staff because you have said it yourself. So money is not the issue in your case. It is pure obstructionism on your part

    Yes, we have the money. In fact, we probably have the funding to hire 1 or 2 more beyond the 3 we plan on hiring.

    The thing that irratates me the the attiude of your post which basically says, that hiring paid staff is progress and not hiring paid staff if the money is available and keeping a primarily department is somehow not marching forward, or even regression.

    Knowing how you feel, and what you have said repeatedly here, if I were a paid guy on your FD I wouldn't have a single damn thing to say to you that wasn't directly job related. I would view you as hostile to my livlihood. If there is animosity about having a mix of paid and volunteers you are deep in the mix of it...

    I know of several departments in my area that have paid staff on duty, some days, some 24's, and they manage to maintain strong volly or POC contingents. Paid staff was brought on to get the first rigs out faster and to eliviate pressure on the volunteers for lesser responses. A shame adding paid staff can't have the same success in Bossier Parish Louisiana.


    That statement assumes that hiring additional personnel will improve the delivery of services. And that is the only way gto improve the delivery of services. The fact is adding staff is not improvement if that money can be directed at recruiting and retention of a much larger pool of volunteer members, which is the case here.

    I never said it was the only way, you said that. The facts are in many places there is no more base for volunteers. What would you have those places do? Respond to working structure fires with 2 or 3 volunteers because that is all they have at 10 am on a Monday? You have to have the people available AND willing to join the FD. No amount of money will manufacture volunteers or make those join that have zero interest.

    The fact is we plan on spending about 160K a year for saleries and benefits. For that money, we will be adding 1 paid member around the clock. 1 member at a time.

    Compared to here $160K for three 24 hour firefighters is a bargain.

    Think of how many volunteers we could recruit and retain with that 160K.

    What are you going to do with the $160K? Start paying these volunteers? If you do they aren't volunteers anymore and infact become POC or part-time paid firefighters.

    There is no doubt in my mind that if that 160K was directed towards the volunteer base rather than 1 paid member at a time, we could easily increase the number of volunteers responding, given our demographics, by 4-6 per call, at a minimum.

    Why haven't those people already stepped forward? Come on spin that...

    Instead, we are spending it one 1 paid member per shift. To me, hiring 3 additional personnel is simply wasteful and extremly cost ineffective.

    So who cares what you think? Are you the Chief? NO YOU ARE NOT. He ahs decided he wants more paid people. Maybe he is more in tune thatn you are to the needs of the departnment and community. Or are you going to say he is worng?

    That being said, would I oppose 1 member being hired for a daytime only shift to help with mainataince and testing projects? No, because there is a demonstrated need in that area, as long as ther remaining 120K was directed towards recruiting and retenion. That would also releive some of volunteer responsibility with hose, pump and hydrant testing.

    Then hire maintenance people and not firefighters. Since apparently all your vollies want to do is the glory part of being a firefighter and go on calls. Funny how on my volly FD we all test hose, and we all maintain the station, and we ll do repairs, and we all work together. The picture you are painting of your vollies is not very flattering at all.

    I could even be convinced that hiring 2 might be a wise choice, however that would seriously hamper a serious recruitment and rentention program.

    Blah, blah, blah...prove it.

    Sorry bro but you have been drinking way too much union kool-aid if you beleive that hiring paid staff in our situation is the answer, because it is not. And it's not an effective in many other places where the demographics can still support significant or all-volunteer involvement. We are a community that falls into that catagory.

    First of all, I am not your Bro. I am a firefighter and I have earned every damn bit of that title on both sides of the page as both a volunteer and a paid firefighter.

    Secondly, I am not your chief. If I was you would not be on here spouting off and making my fire department look like god damned hooterville. Nope, can't stop you from posting but I could affect your employment status.

    Thirdly, of course you have a right to express your opinion if the chief asks. But once the decision is made you either get on board with it or man uop and shut up about it. Questioning your chief's decisions here on FH.com shows a complete lack or class, respect and understanding of the chain of command.

    Fourthly, I have told you I don't care what your FD does. What I do care about is your constant attacks on paid firefighters and how they destroy volunteer fire deaprtments.


    If that makes me an obstructionist, so be it. I want to see the department get the most bang for it's buck, which isn't by hiring. And yes, I also want to keep the department as much a volunteer organization as possible, as that is the best and most cost-effective way to deliver services in our district, as well as the fact that it is keeping the tradition of volunteering alive.

    As if there is any doubt about you being an obstructionist. Funny how it isn't by hiring in any position but yours. Hypocrite.

    Golly funny how you defend tradition here as an excuse tio maintain your volunteers but rip it to shreds any time anybody else mentions it as a reason for doing something.
    Your turn...spin it some more.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  20. #80
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Itshotinhere View Post
    Ok, I keep reading this talk about letting a child burn up in a car and so on and not helping because you are off duty...

    When or where was this said???
    If I recall correctly, one incident of this was in a thread discussing an off-duty grab by two firefighters in Milwaukee(?) a year or so ago. There was an MVA, car on its side with occupants still inside when it started to catch fire. The two rescued the occupants and sustained some relatively "minor" injuries in doing so.

    Maybe I'm off base here but in my mind anyone would want to help firefighter or not. Is this what the world has come to?

    Just wondering
    No, it's just that way in LA's world.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Question On Safer Grant Stipulations On Adding Manpower
    By crankshaft in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-06-2010, 01:34 PM
  2. SAFER open 7-30-07
    By AsstChief11 in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-27-2007, 04:14 PM
  3. SAFER Funding Up/AFG Down
    By onebugle in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-07-2005, 06:20 PM
  4. SAFER, who is actually going to use it?
    By neiowa in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-28-2004, 02:26 PM
  5. SAFER ACT a reality?
    By DaSharkie in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 11-13-2003, 10:45 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts