View Poll Results: Is it worth agressive interior attack on known vacant buildings?

Voters
36. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, it is worth the risk

    20 55.56%
  • No, it is not worth the risk

    16 44.44%
Like Tree136Likes

Thread: Risk/Reward Interior attack vacant buildings presentation

  1. #376
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I have no idea.

    They fully understand how I feel about aggressive, unwarranted operations that the fire service so often performs.
    The problem with your statement is you have plainly stated that any fire beyond a one room fire, and sometimes even that one room if the building construction type doesn't meet your approval, would preclude you doing any interior operations even if there were viable victims inside the structure. You stated, in this very topic, that building construction types would prevent you from entering if the building was on fire, no comment on how much fire involvement, just if it was built in a method you don't like. You have said OVER and OVER in a cold callous manner that people die and you have not one problem at all sleeping at night after having written off possibly savable victims because of your unending list of excuses for not entering. You have even said you would write off your own family and try to prevent real firefighters from saving them.

    The issue is you deem the MAJORITY of interior ops as too aggressive and unwarranted in your black and white world, while the rest of us use training, knowledge, real world experience and skills honed from actual use to determine whether it is a go/no go situation. We look at structural stability and fire extent to determine whether interior ops are possible. YOU look at reasons NOT to enter as correct, we look at possibilities to save lives and property as our sworn duty and when we can do them, we will. You love to call us reckless and dangerous no matter how many times we have told you we are not suicidal lunatics unthinkingly running into buildings. Frankly I don't like thinking of you as a coward, but if you look for more reasons not to do the job than to do it, then stay in your office and play pub ed and car seat installation man and leave the rest to people who actually want to fight fire and save lives.
    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

  2. #377
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    The problem with your statement is you have plainly stated that any fire beyond a one room fire, and sometimes even that one room if the building construction type doesn't meet your approval, would preclude you doing any interior operations even if there were viable victims inside the structure.

    Not true, but hey, at this point type what you like.

    You stated, in this very topic, that building construction types would prevent you from entering if the building was on fire, no comment on how much fire involvement, just if it was built in a method you don't like.

    Yes. if it's a building construction that is built to burn or built to collapse the concept of putting our people into it, just because "we're firefighters" or "it's part of the job" makes no flippin' sense. If I have any reason to believe that the structure is in a position to kill or even injure my personnel, there is simply no reason to make entry, unless lives are at stake, and even then, yes, entry may not be made because ... Wait for it ... Here it comes ..... We are the priority.
    You have said OVER and OVER in a cold callous manner that people die and you have not one problem at all sleeping at night after having written off possibly savable victims because of your unending list of excuses for not entering. You have even said you would write off your own family and try to prevent real firefighters from saving them.

    The issue is you deem the MAJORITY of interior ops as too aggressive and unwarranted in your black and white world, while the rest of us use training, knowledge, real world experience and skills honed from actual use to determine whether it is a go/no go situation.

    Depends on the department, and I have stated that many times.

    Combo department .. We can make entry safely based on our manpower, resources, training and experience probably 70% of the time. 10% of the time it's marginal, which means, I likely would not as it's too aggressive for my taste. Same percentage would have applied to my previous VFD, who had a fair amount of training and experience, as well as excellent resources when coupled with automatic mutual aid.

    Volunteer department .. probably 50% with that 10% marginal that likely most of the officers would operate interior but I would operate exterior only. Limited manpower, training and experience. Resources improving.

    And yes, I know of several departments where the percentage may only be 20-30% ... or less ... and that's perfectly acceptable. Very limited manpower, training, experience and resources. Bottom line is that operate in a manner to keep their guys unhurt, even if the burn most of the buildings they respond to.


    We look at structural stability and fire extent to determine whether interior ops are possible.

    And so do I .. except in situations where there is nothing viable or of value to save, such as abandoned structures. Simply no reason to risk our lives or risk getting hurt in a building that the owner has walked away from. No, that is not, and never should be "part of the job".


    YOU look at reasons NOT to enter as correct, we look at possibilities to save lives and property as our sworn duty and when we can do them, we will.

    I look at a situation and see ways to get our members hurt, then decide if the reward is worth the risk. if you call that reasons not to act, have at it. I call that protecting the members to fight another day ..... When there is someone or something of value to save.

    You love to call us reckless and dangerous no matter how many times we have told you we are not suicidal lunatics unthinkingly running into buildings.

    Never called anyone reckless on these forums. have I talked about actions that I consider to be dangerous or inappropriate risk given the reward? Sure. have I talked about the culture that says that we must extinguish every fire rather than in some situations, just letting nature take it's course? Yup. But I have never called anyone reckless.

    Do I think that some folks in here, and in the fire service in general are just plain wrong when it comes to fire attack operations? Sure do. But I have never called them reckless.


    Frankly I don't like thinking of you as a coward, but if you look for more reasons not to do the job than to do it, then stay in your office and play pub ed and car seat installation man and leave the rest to people who actually want to fight fire and save lives.
    And frankly I don't care what you think. My job as an officer or senior man first and foremost is simple ... Keep the guys alive and yes, unhurt by making decisions that protect them, as they have jobs to report to in the morning. If that means not entering structures, not searching structures, not making rescues and generally preventing them from not performing as you think firefighters should, so be it.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  3. #378
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,629

    Default

    Since at least one of your Chiefs still allows the firefighters to do aggressive interior attacks, he thinks your point of view is skewed and irrelevant, just like 99.99% of those here do.

    Both of my departments, and Chiefs, "allow" us to do aggressive interior attacks.

    Trick is, resources, manpower, training, experience and water supply is far more limited on my VFD than my combo department, so the opportunity to perform safe interior operations is far more limited.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  4. #379
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp
    You stated, in this very topic, that building construction types would prevent you from entering if the building was on fire, no comment on how much fire involvement, just if it was built in a method you don't like.

    Yes. if it's a building construction that is built to burn or built to collapse the concept of putting our people into it, just because "we're firefighters" or "it's part of the job" makes no flippin' sense. If I have any reason to believe that the structure is in a position to kill or even injure my personnel, there is simply no reason to make entry, unless lives are at stake, and even then, yes, entry may not be made because ... Wait for it ... Here it comes ..... We are the priority.
    Hate to break the news to you, but....wait for it...........here it comes.......ALL STRUCTURES THAT ARE ON FIRE ARE CAPABLE OF KILLING OR INJURING FIREFIGHTERS!!


    The issue is you deem the MAJORITY of interior ops as too aggressive and unwarranted in your black and white world, while the rest of us use training, knowledge, real world experience and skills honed from actual use to determine whether it is a go/no go situation.

    Depends on the department, and I have stated that many times.
    I'm willing to concede that there may be places in which it may be prudent to take a more conservative approach to handling an incident if the available personnel are undertrained, underexperienced or simply just not capable of performing interior fire attack and/or search and having them do so presents an extraordinary risk to them. However, if that is the case, then I would submit that the use of the terms "firefighter" and "fire department" is inappropriate to describe those personnel individually and collectively. Real Fire Departments with real Firefighters are prepared to operate interior EVERY time the apparatus leaves the station, regardless of whether or not fire and building conditions will allow them to do so upon arrival.


    And yes, I know of several departments where the percentage may only be 20-30% ... or less ... and that's perfectly acceptable. Very limited manpower, training, experience and resources. Bottom line is that operate in a manner to keep their guys unhurt, even if the burn most of the buildings they respond to.
    "Perfectly acceptable" to who? You?


    You love to call us reckless and dangerous no matter how many times we have told you we are not suicidal lunatics unthinkingly running into buildings.

    Never called anyone reckless on these forums. have I talked about actions that I consider to be dangerous or inappropriate risk given the reward? Sure. have I talked about the culture that says that we must extinguish every fire rather than in some situations, just letting nature take it's course? Yup. But I have never called anyone reckless.

    Do I think that some folks in here, and in the fire service in general are just plain wrong when it comes to fire attack operations? Sure do. But I have never called them reckless.
    You may not have used the actual term "reckless", however you have repeatedly presented your argument in a fashion that insinuates such.

  5. #380
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Yes. if it's a building construction that is built to burn or built to collapse the concept of putting our people into it, just because "we're firefighters" or "it's part of the job" makes no flippin' sense. If I have any reason to believe that the structure is in a position to kill or even injure my personnel, there is simply no reason to make entry, unless lives are at stake, and even then, yes, entry may not be made because ... Wait for it ... Here it comes ..... We are the priority.
    I know of no buildings that were built to burn or collapse. This rationalization is one of your more priceless comments.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And frankly I don't care what you think. My job as an officer or senior man first and foremost is simple ... Keep the guys alive and yes, unhurt by making decisions that protect them, as they have jobs to report to in the morning. If that means not entering structures, not searching structures, not making rescues and generally preventing them from not performing as you think firefighters should, so be it.
    My job as a captain was to keep guys alive and unhurt as well. Which I did (with the exception of some minor scrapes) during my career. My guys all went home alive and well after doing interior attack numerous times. We didn't look for ways to avoid doing our jobs.

    These statements alone make you being sent to the ARFF class all the more laughable. Given your statements I am assured you will never engage in a suppression or rescue effort for any aircraft larger than a RANS S-9. Even then I have my doubts you will engage because you might get an oowwee.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  6. #381
    Forum Member
    RyanK63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fleetville, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    240

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Yes. if it's a building construction that is built to burn or built to collapse the concept of putting our people into it, just because "we're firefighters" or "it's part of the job" makes no flippin' sense. If I have any reason to believe that the structure is in a position to kill or even injure my personnel, there is simply no reason to make entry, unless lives are at stake, and even then, yes, entry may not be made because ... Wait for it ... Here it comes ..... We are the priority.


    I don't know how anyone else feels about this, but I don't consider myself the priority and my crew feels the same. We took an oath to protect life and property, not put ourselves before those in need. I love my life and my crew and I'd do anything I can for them, but a real firefighter understands the oath we took.
    "If it was easy, someone else would of done it already." - Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    - Firefighter 1 / HAZMAT Ops / EMT-B

  7. #382
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    SW Missouri
    Posts
    1,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Then you have been misreading.
    In your world I guess I have. I’m not going to take the time nor waste the effort to go back and quote some of your thoughts and ideas. We all pretty much know them.

    I took an oath to save lives and protect property and I take that oath to mean to do the best job that I can do every time we go out the door. Who am I to judge the worth of a person’s property? As many have stated we are not going to run into a building that has issues (falling in, fire blowing out every orifice, ECT ECT). My job on a fire is to extinguish the fire as quickly and safely as possible. If the owner chooses to bull doze what is left after the fire then that is his choice, but we are going to do what we can to leave as much standing as possible.

    I guess some of my mentality comes from being a kid and watching my dad and several of our neighbors use vacant/abandoned houses to store seed and chemicals for the upcoming spring planting season. That comes back to my statement of whom am I to judge the worth of a property. Sure if the known owner says let it burn then let it burn.

    To me it is pretty simple. If it is burning, put the fire out and go home.

    I wonder what would happen if when confronted with a vacant/abandoned you made the same effort as you would for the 500,000 dollar house. If nothing else you give the young guys more experience in the ART of fighting fire. Time and time again I hear that the next generation has no experience, well use every chance to get them experience (and a burn box is not experience).
    Last edited by rm1524; 04-13-2013 at 01:49 PM.

  8. #383
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And frankly I don't care what you think. My job as an officer or senior man first and foremost is simple ... Keep the guys alive and yes, unhurt by making decisions that protect them, as they have jobs to report to in the morning. If that means not entering structures, not searching structures, not making rescues and generally preventing them from not performing as you think firefighters should, so be it.
    Again, if you are unwilling to enter structures with viable victims because you are afraid of getting hurt then find another hobby to keep you entertained. This is firefighting, it is dangerous, even under the best conditions, and no one has said run into unsafe buildings fully involved in fire where there is nothing to gain. You however, have said repeatedly that building construction alone would prevent you from entering, not extent of the fire, but building construction. Seriously, how can you see leaving viable victims to die because you are unwilling to enter a structurally sound building on fire because the construction technique frightens you? If you want me to I can find where you said construction type ALONE may prevent you entering, I can find where you said you would prevent firefighters from trying to save your family if you deemed it unsafe, how you would leave kids to burn to death in a car because it wasn't your area.

    I only give a partial damn about you at all because I don't want the bovine scatological nonsense you pass off as firefighting knowledge to infect any young firefighters that read the posts on this site. Otherwise I really could not possibly pretend to care less what you do in Bossier Parrish or your little volly FD, or who in Louisiana believes you are a firefighting messiah.

    Real experience, real world training, and keeping up with the latest information allows firefighters to make wise choices on when to enter and when not to enter. The truth is simple though, and this seems to escape you, our job is to save lives and protect property. A solid fact based risk versus hazard analysis is done as a part of a skilled size-up on every fire. That doesn't mean writing anything off before you arrive, or determining you will enter before you arrive. It means taking it all in and making the right decision. Frankly, I don't want to be on a fire department, or work with firefighters, that aren't willing to risk anything in an effort to do their job.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 04-13-2013 at 04:05 PM.
    SPFDRum, scfire86 and RyanK63 like this.
    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

  9. #384
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Again, if you are unwilling to enter structures with viable victims because you are afraid of getting hurt then find another hobby to keep you entertained. This is firefighting, it is dangerous, even under the best conditions, and no one has said run into unsafe buildings fully involved in fire where there is nothing to gain. You however, have said repeatedly that building construction alone would prevent you from entering, not extent of the fire, but building construction. Seriously, how can you see leaving viable victims to die because you are unwilling to enter a structurally sound building on fire because the construction technique frightens you? If you want me to I can find where you said construction type ALONE may prevent you entering, I can find where you said you would prevent firefighters from trying to save your family if you deemed it unsafe, how you would leave kids to burn to death in a car because it wasn't your area.

    I only give a partial damn about you at all because I don't want the bovine scatological nonsense you pass off as firefighting knowledge to infect any young firefighters that read the posts on this site. Otherwise I really could not possibly pretend to care less what you do in Bossier Parrish or your little volly FD, or who in Louisiana believes you are a firefighting messiah.

    Real experience, real world training, and keeping up with the latest information allows firefighters to make wise choices on when to enter and when not to enter. The truth is simple though, and this seems to escape you, our job is tosave lives and protect property. A solid fact based risk versus hazard analysis is done as a part of a skilled size-up on every fire. That doesn't mean writing anything off before you arrive, or determining you will enter before you arrive. It means taking it all in and making the right decision. Frankly, I don't want to be on a fire department, or work with firefighters, that aren't willing to risk anything in an effort to do their job.
    Bing-freaking o!
    ‎"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

  10. #385
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    Bing-freaking o!
    Thanks Chief.
    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

  11. #386
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Real experience, real world training, and keeping up with the latest information allows firefighters to make wise choices on when to enter and when not to enter. The truth is simple though, and this seems to escape you, our job is to save lives and protect property. A solid fact based risk versus hazard analysis is done as a part of a skilled size-up on every fire. That doesn't mean writing anything off before you arrive, or determining you will enter before you arrive. It means taking it all in and making the right decision. Frankly, I don't want to be on a fire department, or work with firefighters, that aren't willing to risk anything in an effort to do their job.
    Well said. Though I doubt our leeedle friend from Bossier has the sense God gave a lemon to understand.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  12. #387
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RyanK63 View Post
    I don't know how anyone else feels about this, but I don't consider myself the priority and my crew feels the same. We took an oath to protect life and property, not put ourselves before those in need. I love my life and my crew and I'd do anything I can for them, but a real firefighter understands the oath we took.
    Guess I'm not a real firefighter then.

    Of course in my world, most of the folks that I work with are volunteers, who in LA, don;t have the luxury of wage protection if they are injured while volunteering. Nope ... LA Workman's Comp does not cover that, so in the end it comes down the officer making decisions for his men (and women) that will not get them hurt so they can continue to provide for their families. Maybe that's why keeping them unhurt is my priority.

    Most of the career members here are Civil service, that covers 100% of their wages while they are out, and for the few departments that fall under or over the population requirements and are not civil service, Workman's Comp will cover the vast majority of their missed wages if they are out injured.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  13. #388
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Guess I'm not a real firefighter then.

    Of course in my world, most of the folks that I work with are volunteers, who in LA, don;t have the luxury of wage protection if they are injured while volunteering. Nope ... LA Workman's Comp does not cover that, so in the end it comes down the officer making decisions for his men (and women) that will not get them hurt so they can continue to provide for their families. Maybe that's why keeping them unhurt is my priority.

    Most of the career members here are Civil service, that covers 100% of their wages while they are out, and for the few departments that fall under or over the population requirements and are not civil service, Workman's Comp will cover the vast majority of their missed wages if they are out injured.
    And if all the volunteers in the state said in a mass show of support that they are done, they will walk away, unless they are covered by "Worker's Comp" what do you think would happen LA? If a mass walk out happened, other than the guys like you that are only out for themselves, how long do you think it would take for the politicians to wake up? But then again, you are about excuses and explaining not doing anything because it is easier than actually working to affect change.

    Frankly, and I have said this to you before, if I walked in to join your volly or combo FD and was told I had no "Worker's Comp" if hurt at an FD emergency, I would politely say no thank you and be gone. You see the fact that your pitiful state has no respect for volunteer firefighters is pathetic. If you really cared about protecting your vollies you would work to change this ridiculous and backward situation, not just whine about it.
    RyanK63 likes this.
    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

  14. #389
    Truckie
    SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,516

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Guess I'm not a real firefighter then.
    This is the most accurate statement on this thread you have made to date. Don't be ashamed, embrace it. It's ok to admit that. There are plenty of very relevant jobs in the fire service that don't require any risk, personal sacrifice, or danger. Your core discipline, PubEd is one of them, stick with it and be good at it.
    Of course in my world, most of the folks that I work with are volunteers, who in LA, don;t have the luxury of wage protection if they are injured while volunteering. Nope ... LA Workman's Comp does not cover that, so in the end it comes down the officer making decisions for his men (and women) that will not get them hurt so they can continue to provide for their families. Maybe that's why keeping them unhurt is my priority.

    Most of the career members here are Civil service, that covers 100% of their wages while they are out, and for the few departments that fall under or over the population requirements and are not civil service, Workman's Comp will cover the vast majority of their missed wages if they are out injured.
    As far as your workmens' comp, how about using your key-board intelligence and get this changed? If this is such a concern, make a difference. Educate the public!
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  15. #390
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Guess I'm not a real firefighter then.

    Of course in my world, most of the folks that I work with are volunteers, who in LA, don;t have the luxury of wage protection if they are injured while volunteering. Nope ... LA Workman's Comp does not cover that, so in the end it comes down the officer making decisions for his men (and women) that will not get them hurt so they can continue to provide for their families. Maybe that's why keeping them unhurt is my priority.

    Most of the career members here are Civil service, that covers 100% of their wages while they are out, and for the few departments that fall under or over the population requirements and are not civil service, Workman's Comp will cover the vast majority of their missed wages if they are out injured.
    We're supposedly talking about firefighters and regardless of what you think, there is an inherent amount of risk involved in actually performing the duties of a Firefighter. The public knows this and expects that we will not actively seek to avoid all risk in order to protect them and their property.

    I can understand the desire to avoid potential financial struggles stemming from a line of duty injury for your personnel however, what is the public to think of their supposed fire department when there is more concern for the possibility of lost wages due to an injury that hasn't happened (and the shortcomings of WC in LA) than there is concern for citizens in actual need of the services expected from their fire department?

    Additionally, what is the public to think if said department fails to inform the public that this lack of WC coverage will negatively effect the fire department's ability to properly serve them in their time of need while also failing to ask the public to help them with lobbying the legislative body that has the ability to remove this obstacle?

  16. #391
    Forum Member
    conrad427's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Just south of Canada
    Posts
    561

    Default

    Not to get too far off of topic but, we are currently working on work comp for the dept. We went to the state and the legislature killed the vol. work comp bill in committee. So we went to the commissioners and told them we needed it. They agreed and we went to the people to ask if they would support the tax hike to pay for workers comp. To our surprise, the citizens are overwhelmingly in favor of the tax increase for work comp. We had assumed they would be against it, so we had never asked.

  17. #392
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by conrad427 View Post
    Not to get too far off of topic but, we are currently working on work comp for the dept. We went to the state and the legislature killed the vol. work comp bill in committee. So we went to the commissioners and told them we needed it. They agreed and we went to the people to ask if they would support the tax hike to pay for workers comp. To our surprise, the citizens are overwhelmingly in favor of the tax increase for work comp. We had assumed they would be against it, so we had never asked.
    Cheaper than a paid department.
    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

  18. #393
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Guess I'm not a real firefighter then.
    So far so good.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Of course in my world, most of the folks that I work with are volunteers, who in LA, don;t have the luxury of wage protection if they are injured while volunteering. Nope ... LA Workman's Comp does not cover that, so in the end it comes down the officer making decisions for his men (and women) that will not get them hurt so they can continue to provide for their families. Maybe that's why keeping them unhurt is my priority.
    Which is why those protected by VFD's like yours have a false sense of security.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Most of the career members here are Civil service, that covers 100% of their wages while they are out, and for the few departments that fall under or over the population requirements and are not civil service, Workman's Comp will cover the vast majority of their missed wages if they are out injured.
    See above response.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  19. #394
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    As far as your workmens' comp, how about using your key-board intelligence and get this changed? If this is such a concern, make a difference. Educate the public!

    The fact is that there have been significant efforts in the past to change this, and it has not.

    Without the political power of the career fire service, who does not have a dog in this fight, as their members are covered by civil service, as well as in many cases, their municipalities insurance, their has been little progress. The fact is that LA WC is a very powerful entity, with many friends in state government, and getting it to budge, on this issue, as I understand it, has been almost impossible.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  20. #395
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    We're supposedly talking about firefighters and regardless of what you think, there is an inherent amount of risk involved in actually performing the duties of a Firefighter. The public knows this and expects that we will not actively seek to avoid all risk in order to protect them and their property.

    And never did i say that we can, or should avoid ALL risk. Every response has a level of risk. That being said, we can minimize risk by responding hot only to calls that require a hot response. We can minimize risk by training effectively. And we can minimize risk by acting aggressively only when there are both adequate resources to support aggressive operations and when there are viable victims to rescue and savable property. We do control the amount of risk by effective size-ups and being realistic about the capabilities of both the department overall and the resources we have on that scene vs. the conditions that have been presented, and understanding that we, in many cases, cannot change the outcome.


    I can understand the desire to avoid potential financial struggles stemming from a line of duty injury for your personnel however, what is the public to think of their supposed fire department when there is more concern for the possibility of lost wages due to an injury that hasn't happened (and the shortcomings of WC in LA) than there is concern for citizens in actual need of the services expected from their fire department?

    Again ... Act and assume risk when taking risk is warranted.


    Additionally, what is the public to think if said department fails to inform the public that this lack of WC coverage will negatively effect the fire department's ability to properly serve them in their time of need while also failing to ask the public to help them with lobbying the legislative body that has the ability to remove this obstacle?
    And to the best of my knowledge this type of campaign has not been undertaken by the State Fireman's Association. I don't know the exact history of this as it has been a long standing issue as I am not involved at the state level with the association. That being said, taking it to the streets may not be a bad idea. However, the downside is that, based on past history, if we do get it changed I foresee some VERY significant rate changes by WC which would likely have some very, very significant effects on the hundreds of very small rural VFDs in the state.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  21. #396
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    And if all the volunteers in the state said in a mass show of support that they are done, they will walk away, unless they are covered by "Worker's Comp" what do you think would happen LA? If a mass walk out happened, other than the guys like you that are only out for themselves, how long do you think it would take for the politicians to wake up? But then again, you are about excuses and explaining not doing anything because it is easier than actually working to affect change.

    Again, given the friends that WC seems to have based on their ability to seemingly do what they wish in the past, I honestly don't know what effect that would have. I am no expert on this issues, but from what I understand there has been political pressure brought on LA WC in the past regarding this and they simply have refused to budge.


    Frankly, and I have said this to you before, if I walked in to join your volly or combo FD and was told I had no "Worker's Comp" if hurt at an FD emergency, I would politely say no thank you and be gone. You see the fact that your pitiful state has no respect for volunteer firefighters is pathetic. If you really cared about protecting your vollies you would work to change this ridiculous and backward situation, not just whine about it.
    There is workman's comp for volunteers, but it is just for the medical bills, not lost wages.

    And there have been folks in the past that I know of that have applied, and left when they found out that lost wages are not covered. It is a potential recruiting issue, especially with potential members with famalies.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  22. #397
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default

    Originally Posted by SPFDRum
    As far as your workmens' comp, how about using your key-board intelligence and get this changed? If this is such a concern, make a difference. Educate the public!
    LA responses...
    The fact is that there have been significant efforts in the past to change this, and it has not.
    And to the best of my knowledge this type of campaign has not been undertaken by the State Fireman's Association. I don't know the exact history of this as it has been a long standing issue as I am not involved at the state level with the association. That being said, taking it to the streets may not be a bad idea.
    So, what is it?
    You've tried and failed or haven't tried?
    ‎"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

  23. #398
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    LA responses...



    So, what is it?
    You've tried and failed or haven't tried?
    To the best of my knowledge there have been significant efforts by the State Firefighters Association, which represents primarily volunteer personnel on the state level, to change the situation. As I understand it, this included discussions with WC and even included the introduction of legislation requiring a change in WC's policy, but it which failed to garner enough support to even get out of committee.

    On the combo side, our Deputy Chief handles most issues at the state level, so that is all that I can tell you.

    As I stated above, even if the policy did change, the rate change to provide this protection would likely offer a significant issue for many of the rural VFDs in the state.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 04-14-2013 at 08:11 AM.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  24. #399
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    2,048

    Default

    Seriously -your neighbor to the North has had workmans comp in place since the early 80s. i guess dirt poor Arkansas is more "progressive" than LA - -
    ?

  25. #400
    Forum Member
    scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    The fact is that there have been significant efforts in the past to change this, and it has not.

    Without the political power of the career fire service, who does not have a dog in this fight, as their members are covered by civil service, as well as in many cases, their municipalities insurance, their has been little progress. The fact is that LA WC is a very powerful entity, with many friends in state government, and getting it to budge, on this issue, as I understand it, has been almost impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And to the best of my knowledge this type of campaign has not been undertaken by the State Fireman's Association. I don't know the exact history of this as it has been a long standing issue as I am not involved at the state level with the association. That being said, taking it to the streets may not be a bad idea. However, the downside is that, based on past history, if we do get it changed I foresee some VERY significant rate changes by WC which would likely have some very, very significant effects on the hundreds of very small rural VFDs in the state.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    There is workman's comp for volunteers, but it is just for the medical bills, not lost wages.

    And there have been folks in the past that I know of that have applied, and left when they found out that lost wages are not covered. It is a potential recruiting issue, especially with potential members with famalies.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    To the best of my knowledge there have been significant efforts by the State Firefighters Association, which represents primarily volunteer personnel on the state level, to change the situation. As I understand it, this included discussions with WC and even included the introduction of legislation requiring a change in WC's policy, but it which failed to garner enough support to even get out of committee.

    On the combo side, our Deputy Chief handles most issues at the state level, so that is all that I can tell you.

    As I stated above, even if the policy did change, the rate change to provide this protection would likely offer a significant issue for many of the rural VFDs in the state.
    The WC system that we have certainly has it drawbacks, but it is better than yours. It was acquired after years political action by our state firefighter association.

    But you don't see the need for unions, yet I'm sure you also see no connection between a disastrous WC policy and your attempts to believe your VFD is effective at anything more than yard breathing or washing off foundations.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. interior attack
    By whitefishfire in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 07-28-2009, 01:55 PM
  2. Is the risk worth the reward??
    By Rivwarrior in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-30-2005, 05:59 AM
  3. first interior attack
    By smfd232 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-29-2002, 02:43 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-13-2002, 01:09 PM
  5. interior attack communications
    By mtperry in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-02-2002, 03:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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

Log in

Click here to log in or register