Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 417 of 552 FirstFirst ... 317367407414415416417418419420427467517 ... LastLast
Results 8,321 to 8,340 of 11026
Like Tree282Likes

Thread: Chicago Fire Exam, March 2006

  1. #8321
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Chiraq
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalsh321 View Post
    I'm not saying they aren't getting screwed, but what grounds do they have to sue?
    Ok, simple. They are already on the job, in the pension, and bust their balls for 24 hours. Which part of that says that they are not qualified to do the job? They certainly can't claim that they can't cross for medical reasons, because as I said, for 24 hours, the medics are humping, sure, they get assist companies, but not on everything. Especially if you have a dispatcher that's a fire fan. If the city does state that the medics, over the age of 38 can't do the job for physical reasons, then I can see a mass lay up of medics, because let's face it, you are not running 20 structure fires in a 24 hour shift, you still get some down time. I've done both, Fire and Ambulance and even though you are busting your hump at a fire, it's still nothing like having your *** handed to you running non stop on that box.

    Another reason, by telling these guys that they can not cross, the FS&R is telling them that they are holding them back from a promotional opportunity, which is discrimination. A smart Attorney would use the FDNY as an example. Their cut off age is 29. However, if you are a single roll medic, on FDNY, you can take the promotional exam to FS&R.


  2. #8322
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Chiraq
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MIDWESTRECRUIT View Post
    Well now everyone who got notification they are not to continue with this process because they couldn't follow directions will stomp the feet and cry fowl!
    As long as the city can provide proof on why they could not continue, they can stomp and cry all they want. But that's been the problem to begin with, the city has been shooting themselves in the feet all along because of a lack of quality control.

  3. #8323
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    77

    Default

    so the city decided recently against letting medics that are over the age of 38 cross to the fire side?

  4. #8324
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    507

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jrog View Post
    LOLin!!!!!.

    Here is the guy who wore tennis shoes:

    http://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articl...othes/13601744

    Terrible!!!!!!.
    Guy in my group had tennis shoes on and didn't get sent home, the consistency is amazing!

  5. #8325
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Chiraq
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by goldie2002 View Post
    so the city decided recently against letting medics that are over the age of 38 cross to the fire side?
    That's correct. That decision was handed down last week, after passing through the city's legal department and meeting the approval of the Aldermen. Hell, the Aldermen couldn't figure out why it wasn't done to begin with, but somewhere, someone made a phone call and boom, shoved it in the medics asses. So, the list is being built for a Class Action Lawsuit to correct this issue. That I can promise is not speculation. The reason why it was turned down should be released at the union meeting this week.

  6. #8326
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    507

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fireparamedic View Post
    Ok, simple. They are already on the job, in the pension, and bust their balls for 24 hours. Which part of that says that they are not qualified to do the job? They certainly can't claim that they can't cross for medical reasons, because as I said, for 24 hours, the medics are humping, sure, they get assist companies, but not on everything. Especially if you have a dispatcher that's a fire fan. If the city does state that the medics, over the age of 38 can't do the job for physical reasons, then I can see a mass lay up of medics, because let's face it, you are not running 20 structure fires in a 24 hour shift, you still get some down time. I've done both, Fire and Ambulance and even though you are busting your hump at a fire, it's still nothing like having your *** handed to you running non stop on that box.
    Well I don't really know the background, but I don't think it's that simple. If there are policies in place and contracts with the union you can't just sue b/c you don't like it. If policy has always said you can't become a FF at or after 38 regardless of crossover status, then that's what it is, qualified or not, doesn't mean you can just sue over a policy. Isn't it the union's job to fight for these benefits/policies, not just a group of them suing for them? If I'm the city, I say, we have an agreement with your union, which you're a part of, if you want to disband from that union and sue us....good luck sirs. Again, just thinking out loud here though, b/c I really don't know the background as to when this policy was put in place and if it has been altered.

  7. #8327
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    507

    Default

    Additionally the last two suits were by minorities due to the disparate impact caused by the department. I don't really think people over 38 is a minority protected group....just thinking it might be a lot tougher to cry discrimination when the average guy on the dept is over 38.

  8. #8328
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Racine,WI
    Posts
    52

    Default

    I'm just guessing here but the grounds for the union to go after the city would be that this test was given in 2006. Most of the at age (38) and or older would have been processed had the process not slowed down.

    Much like this process has now required everyone do the CPAT, the city can re-think the process and age req once the union digs into them and go ahead and make the medics who are 38 and over take the cpat and begin the process again like everyone else. IMHO

  9. #8329
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    507

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MIDWESTRECRUIT View Post
    I'm just guessing here but the grounds for the union to go after the city would be that this test was given in 2006. Most of the at age (38) and or older would have been processed had the process not slowed down.

    Much like this process has now required everyone do the CPAT, the city can re-think the process and age req once the union digs into them and go ahead and make the medics who are 38 and over take the cpat and begin the process again like everyone else. IMHO
    I mean, nothing would surprise me anymore. So is the 38 policy new to our list, b/c that would make a little more sense to me then, though I still think it's a tough battle.

  10. #8330
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Racine,WI
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalsh321 View Post
    I mean, nothing would surprise me anymore. So is the 38 policy new to our list, b/c that would make a little more sense to me then, though I still think it's a tough battle.
    I believe the age 38 is for the cross over people. the age cut off for our test was 35 accourding to the exam notice.

  11. #8331
    Forum Member Shadez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    364

    Default

    The age cutoff for civilians has always been 38. I've been praying for years that they call me and a class for me would start prior to my 38th birthday. They told us that on day 1 of the written exam we all took in 2005.

  12. #8332
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    507

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadez View Post
    The age cutoff for civilians has always been 38. I've been praying for years that they call me and a class for me would start prior to my 38th birthday. They told us that on day 1 of the written exam we all took in 2005.
    That's what I thought, but trying to figure out what changed for the crossovers that is stickin them in the rear as fireparamedic put it. If the policy has always been 38, then it is what it is, not really sure how they are getting screwed or have any grounds for suit. If they were promised one thing and now the city is trying to enforce the civilian cutoff on them, then that's a different story.

    Would I have beef with a paramedic working for the department having priority or having a different cutoff age, hell no, just trying to find out what the policy is.

  13. #8333
    Forum Member Shadez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    364

    Default

    Same here. I always thought it was the age for anyone regardless if you were a paramedic or civilian. A paramedic would know more than me though. Ah we'll, just another thing we can't control. We just new to focus on the stuff we can control and get it done.

  14. #8334
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    193

    Default

    iuhkhkhkljhklhkljhkljhkh
    Last edited by chigo23; 07-31-2013 at 08:19 PM.
    ffdino88 likes this.

  15. #8335
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Sorry to chime in here and call me a hoarder but I looked in my files and the original notice for the exams says anyone older than 35.

    NOTE: Pursuant to municipal Code of Chicago 2-152-410, an applicant above age 35 may not be appointed.

    Unless You got something different. If so good for all of us.
    Last edited by jrog; 05-13-2013 at 06:26 PM.

  16. #8336
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    507

    Default

    Thanks for the post Chigo and I heard the exact same thing from my source today as he met with a union steward. Union said they are counting on 300 new hires coming up, but not sure of the class dates, but first one will be this year. When he told me 300 my thoughts were, just get through the process. My rough #s in my head were: 1400 packets, probably about 50% return on that, so 700 and then 50% of people getting through the whole process, so about 350 guys.

    Everyone just needs to be worried about getting through the process.

  17. #8337
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Chiraq
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Ok, after speaking with my people on the job. The 38 year old cross over thresh hold, was a decision made during the last contract negotiations. No one is really sure of the reason, but it has been brought to the attention of Labor attorney's in the past, but since no one had been affected by it, no one ran with it. Now that a little more research has been done to show how discriminatory it is to the medics, and the 38 year old cross over thresh hold has been denied by someone in administration, they are going after what's only right. A fair shake to take the CPAT. No one is filing this law suit to get right on the job, they want the same shake that everyone else has received. Prior to the 2006 contract expiration, there was no age restriction for cross over, for the reasons I explained in a prior post.

    As I said, besides having no impact with the pension since they are already in it, the city is holding these medic back from promotional opportunities, which is an unfair labor practice. The union did have their backs, but now that's it's been turned down by the admin, as of now they are washing their hands of it, but that's pretty typical to wash their hands of anything EMS involved. The union actually suggested EMS take it into their own hands and file a class action lawsuit. But, as I said, more information for this will come out this week during the union meeting.

  18. #8338
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    507

    Default

    I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, just sharing my thoughts. I don't see how it could have never come up before. The FF list typically lasts around 10 years, so how could nobody have ever been impacted by the 38 cutoff previously? If civilians have to be 35 to be a FF and they give cross overs the courtesy of 38, agreed to and established in their union contract, personally not seeing how this could be a successful suit, but again, who the heck knows. I mean, you can win a suit for spilling coffee on your crotch!

    I'm just being objective here, I'm not trying to say the paramedics would be stealing a job or anything.

  19. #8339
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Chiraq
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dalsh321 View Post
    I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong, just sharing my thoughts. I don't see how it could have never come up before. The FF list typically lasts around 10 years, so how could nobody have ever been impacted by the 38 cutoff previously? If civilians have to be 35 to be a FF and they give cross overs the courtesy of 38, agreed to and established in their union contract, personally not seeing how this could be a successful suit, but again, who the heck knows. I mean, you can win a suit for spilling coffee on your crotch!

    I'm just being objective here, I'm not trying to say the paramedics would be stealing a job or anything.
    Because this is the first group that this age restriction has affected. Prior to this contract, there was no age cut off for cross overs. Now it is affecting medics that really want to be firefighter/medics, so they are following through on the recommendation of some union reps.

  20. #8340
    Forum Member Shadez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    364

    Default

    Civilians age limit is 38. Someone in my group asked Ms. Hammond's that very question and she said you must be 37 and 364 years old on the first day of the acadamy or you're out. One guy in our group did everything he was asked the entire day and when we got into Room A he asked his question and then went on to say he just turned 38. They said that some of the people who turned 38 fell through the cracks and would be denied once try dug deeper into each person's background packet. So pretty much he was SOL. They said they tried to eliminate those people from getting packets but some may have received them.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. World Of Fire Report: 03-19-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-21-2005, 11:02 PM
  2. World Of Fire Report: 03-15-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-18-2005, 08:15 AM
  3. World Of Fire Report: 03-09-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-10-2005, 07:41 PM
  4. World Of Fire Report: 03-29-04
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-30-2004, 10:52 PM
  5. World Of Fire Report: 03-28-04
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-29-2004, 09:25 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