Your hatred for paying firefighters is obvious, just as obvious is your hypocrisy.Quote:
You suggested that a volunteer department pay folks from adjoining areas that have never displayed an interest in volunteering for them. Yup, mercinaries. Now, if they agree to respond as a volunteer as part of that VOLUNTEER fire department when not on the clock, as a condition of employment, fine. No problem. But IMO, if they wish to work part-time for a volunteer department I damn well fully expect them to volunteer with that agency.
If your FD doedsn't have adequate staffing and your are HIRING people to work to cover shifts they are employees and under absolutely NO OBLIGATION to volunteer back. In fact it is illegal. It is going to bite you in the butt some day.
You can expect ice tea in hell, doesn't mean you will get it.
You may not like that, but that is how I feel.
And you can feel all you want, it doesn't make you right, or your actions legal.
As far as "I have mine, screw them" you couldn't be any farther off-base.
I am EXACTLY, 100%, right on target. You hate the idea of paying anyone, but you have no problem with taking pay for a job you have said repeatedly could be handled by volunteers. So tell me Bobby, how do you justify your position other than "I have mine, screw them."
Yes, I do believe that the best delivery model for firefighting in non-urban areas is volunteer. Not career. Not POC, but non-compensated volunteer. It allows for true community-based and communit- delivered fire protection at the absolute lowest possible cost for the taxpayer. It's services being delivered by folks living in the community for the community. In most small towns this model is utilized successfully every single day.
Nonsense, the best model for fire protection for rural areas is the one that supplies enough staffing to actually have a functional fire department. IF there are enough volunteers/POC FFs to provide fire protection 24/7/365 then vollies are fine. If not then a combo FD with full-time or part-time paid firefighters may be necessary to ensure adequate staffing. Let me be clear here, enough volunteers isn't 2 or 3 to get the truck out the door while calling every other volly department in the county to get enough guys to actually deliever an effective fire attack, water supply, forcible entry, ventilation, and search and rescue.
Your definition of success is far different from mine, and frankly from much of the fire service. You define success in those rural areas in getting a truck out the door, having exterior firefighters, and claiming the community knows that there isn't really much you can do except water down the remains. That isn't success in my area, that is called a lost structure.
I realize there are times that POC departments must be used, especially in busier small-community departments, and yes, there are advantages such as higher level of accountability in reagrds to training, appearence and run requirements. The obvious disadvantage is the cost and the draining of resources that could be spent on other areas of the operations. While not the ideal model, it certainly is a far superior model to career personnel from a budgetary standpoint. I have served on two POC departments during my career.
I can see where paid fire suppression personnel, that do inspections, and pub ed (like my career FD does), as well as fire suppression and EMS, would be far more beneficial than paying a pub ed person while having inadequate line fire personnel.
The final model is the partially or fully career FDs. I fully realize that there are a need in some communities for career staff, however, that being said, I fully support making every possible effort to retain a 100% volunteer department in a situation where a volunteer organization is having response issues and is contemplating adding career staff.
How do you maintain your position on this topic and keep your job? You have said repeatedly your job could be done, and in fact was done by volunteers prior to your being hired.
This isn't about preventing others from being hired as firefighters, but that being said, it is not the job of the fire service to emply folks. It is the job of the fire service to deliver services at the lowest possible cost. if a VFD can increase response through far lower cost incentives to retain or recruit volunteers, as compared to going the much higher cost route of hiring staff, they have a responsibility to the taxpayers to choose the lower cost option.In addition, there are significant changes to the dynamics of a volunteer department when some career staff are added that can have significant impacts on the level of volunteer membership and involvement that can lead to the need to hire additional career staff, where it may not have otherwise needed, significantly increasing the cost of fire protection to the taxpayer. I have seen those organizational and cultural changes and seen the impacts, and it's not cheap to the taxpayers.
You keep posting this nonsense about impact like it is gospel everywhere. I know of several combo departments that have STRONG, FULL rosters of either volunteers or POC FFs. By your statements that would not be possible.
I am not opposed to vollies or paid on calls. What I am opposed to is your incessant rantings about the evil of paid firefighters while you supposedly are one yourself.
And yes, AMA and recriprical response agreements can redue the need for hiring staff, which in theened, is better for the community, in many cases, than assuming payroll expenses.
By continually stripping other communities with the same staffing problems of their few active firefighters. Brilliant plan.
There is no battle within me. The department feels that they needed somebody in my position to deliver public eduation as well as handle pre-planning, training and admin roles that the Deputy Chief was handling. I have no issues with our career staff orther than i feel that the addition of asecond shift firefighter was not warrented, but instead 1 or two of the three positions hired could have been assigned to day shift, rather than 24-hour shifts, and the remainder of the funding identified for those positions could have been used to support the volunteers. The simple fact is we have plenty of volunteers and the community did not need all three hired positions. if you consider that "I have mine" fine, however, I see it as simply not spending money on payroll that truly was not needed, due to our volunteer base and response. Again, it's not the role of the fire department to generate jobs if there are other alternatives to providing services.
You are exactly what I said. if you are so opposed to paying people resign and go back to doing it for free. You have said repeatedly you made more working for the scabulance service anyways.
By the way, we have seen the impacts of adding asecond shift member. there has been a significant decrease in volunteer response to overnight EMS calls as in the majority of the cases, that manpower is no longer needed. That, in a volunteer department where activity is critical to keeping the membership involved, is a very, very bad thing and may end up having some long-term concequences.
Hell man, have you polled the vollies to see if they have a problem with that? There is an easy solution to this "Problem" anyway. Set a time frame, say 5 minutes for vollies to respond, if they have a crew then they take the ambo and the paid crew remains in quarters, if no crew shows up the paid guys take the call. WOW!! That took me a whole 30 seconds to come up with. The box, think outside of it once in your life Bobby.