FD828

You can say want you want about the legalities,the AHJ's, the training requirements, who doesn't like who, who can't use what fire station, what plan is better, but the bottom line is still about who wants to be in charge.

If they WANTED to make it work, they would. Obviously they have no intention of doing this so they won't.

Not to mention every single contract has been agreed upon by both the union and the ELECTED officials of the municipalities!! Elected by whom??? The tax payers that live there perhaps? So every single item that a union has was fairly negotiated by both sides and voted upon by both sides. You act like the unions are not willing to bend in these hard times. This is the farthest from what is happening.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion so I will chime in with mine on this statement, but before I do let me just preface this post with this:

I have known Chief Brown for many years, and I have the utmost respect for him and for his service to the City. That said IMO the plan put forth, while in keeping with the "cost neutral" mandate has some major flaws. Chief (no pun intended) among them is the fact that the redistribution of personnel and equipment will lead to less not more fire protection overall.

Implementation of this plan will see the Woodside (Scalzi) area lose it's Engine Company as that unit would be moved north into the current TOR district, leaving only the busy and often out of quarters Rescue Company to cover that area in a timely fashion as a first due Company. What is the expected delay in getting Engines 2, 3 or 1 and their all important water to alarms in that area? What happens when these units are out on other calls, which as we know is a very real possibilty based on Stamford's call volume?

Next comes the disbandment of Truck 2 thus leaving the South End devoid of a Truck Company and SFRD with one less Truck Company overall. SFRD's current distribution of apparatus is the way it is for a reason is it not? What is the justification for decreasing it's efficiency to the residents and businesses of the South End and in reality downtown as a whole? I for one would not want to be the officer that has to tell Mrs. Jones to hang on in that window with her baby for just a few more minutes as we wait for another more distant or already committed one of the two remaining Truck Companies to arrive on scene...would you?

Let's return to that call volume. As we know Stamford is a relatively busy department. Once units have been shuffled and the run cards updated to reflect these changes how often will these redistributed units be available to respond in their first due areas? A quick look at Engine 6 gives us an indication. Engine 6 responds to calls downtown far more than it does in Glenbrook or even the current volunteer districts. With this redisribution of SFRD units Citywide and the loss of an Engine and Truck Company downtown those units will have to come from somewhere to make up the shortfall especially downtown, and where would that be from? From their new first due areas in Vollywood that's where. Once these units are pulled out of "up North" to respond downtown what is left to cover those areas? The volunteers who's districts according to this plan will be reduced to nothing more than their property lines?

On to the volunteers. As stated this plan calls for reducing the VF districts to their property lines. OK fair enough, but what impact will this have on those FDs. Again the "model" VFD Glenbrook provides us with a probable answer. While I do not have the exact figures at hand it is my understanding the this "model" FD has responded to approximately 6 - 12% of their calls...thats SIX to TWELVE percent...since Engine 6 has made it's home in that district.. From another perspective we can safely assume that this redistribution would also have a negative effect on the number of volunteers in the system. Why? Because who would want to be part of an organization that serves no real purpose. Although it has been said that there would be volunteer particpation the fact is in most areas where this type of plan has been implemented the volunteers have withered and died, or worse been relegated to support functions. Coupled with that is the demotion of volunteer officers. According to the plan volunteer Chiefs would be ranked equal to career Captains, while the junion ranks of volunteer officers would serve only to "manage" any volunteer FFs that may arrive at a scene and that only if the VFDs are even dispatched to it. .

There is one more point to all this and that is the is the "cost neutrality" of this plan. To be cost neutral would require that the VFDs willingly turn over their facilities to SFRD. This is highly unlikely at best. So if the redistributed SFRD units don't have homes, ones have to be built for them do they not? What is the cost of two or three more trailer parks? Better yet what is the cost of building 5 (1 in Springdale, 2 in TOR and 2 in LR) more permanent stations? I don't see how that is even remotely "cost neutral". And before anyone gets on their high horse decrying the VFDs intransigence remember that as private organizations they are not bound to agree to a plan that does not and will not take their interests into consideration. Nor should we. There is more on "cost neutral" as well. Even if the VFDs agree to house SFRD, the cost neutrality is only temporary at best. As the South End continues in it's redevelopment the fire load and occupancy will increase dramatically. This will need to be addressed in the very near future in terms of coverage. In short order additional units will have to be placed back into service to cover that area and the rest of the City as well as the shortfalls of this redistribution become apparent. With this comes tax increases to pay for it and in the end it is not cost neutral at all, it is simply costly.

There are other alternatives that deserve scrutiny and there may yet be an alternative that truly "solves" our problems, unfortunately IMO this is not it.

Cogs

And hiring 50+ FF's to work for the volunteer department is a better more cost efficient solution? Why does it matter so much to the volunteers where the paid personnel come from? Control plain and simple. End of discussion. They VFD's could choose to work with SFRD, let them use their stations and possible some of their equipment, but they don't want to give up control. Hell it would still be cheaper if they formed 2 new engine companies then hire the 50+ new ff's.(Already have Engines 6,7,8,9 only need 2 for Long Ridge district) This is about control and nothing more.

WOW! Nice posting everyone. I was going to reply back but you all hit the nail on the head. So thank you for that. And just for added clarity on my end... I have been on the job since 2004 and I pay for medical, I contribute 6% into my pension (which is on my base pay when I retire), I work hard for the money I earn including taking extra classes like the SCUBA dive class, rope rescue, and elevator rescue classes with no compensation for them, I do get college reimbursement if #1 i pass the class and #2 it has to be in a related field. Oh and far as I know, every job requires that you have to pass a promotional test and go through a interview of some kind before you can be promoted. People spend years studying and buying books trying to get promoted and some never do. So please as everyone has asked, post your "facts" about how unions work because from I am sitting you are wrong, plain and simple.

Unions are irrational and solely support the leftist Democratic platform, even though their union members tend to be people that consider themselves "center-right."

I support all governments that have objectives to make sure unions are kept in line and do what is best for the union members and not the union itself or the Democratic agenda

well done Oklahoma

Dude, wake up. They are taking away rights that these unions fought for. It is anti-American what those states have done. It is not the unions that have put the municipalities in the spot they are in. The republicans are pitting the working class against each other. (It's not fair that the unions have this and the rest of the workers don't. Vote republican and we will get rid of the big bad unions) Do you really think that the non-union citizens will see any difference in their taxes? You are kidding yourself if you think the residents will get a tax break if they strip the unions of their collective bargaining rights. The unions are not to blame. Nor are they unwilling to make concessions. But don't sit there and say that we have to cut this and that and watch those cutting get raises and if you think it hasn't happened you are insane. They are destroying what so many have worked for. It is not right.

Your comment of making sure unions are kept in line... what exactly do you mean? The unions have to negotiate every single thing in their contracts with... yup the municipality! So don't sit there and say it is the unions fault, the contracts have to be agreed to by both sides. The unions have not strong armed anyone. They have fairly negotiated their contracts. So you are saying well done to Oklahoma because you think this will be what is best for the union members themselves but not the union itself? So basically the cities can now say you will get this for pay and this for vacation and this for medical and if you don't like it you can go work elsewhere. So how is this better for the union member???

He was too much of a COWARD to include that he is a "chief" of one of the volunteer departments supposedly ready to work side by side with the career staff. There are volunteers who act as professional firefighters, he however is a disgrace to the fire service as a whole. His own department should have him removed from his position of "power" for these antagonistic actions. A horse's a**.

In my humble opinion, this right here is why EMS will always be a job not a career like the FD/PD.

or move a town that requires you pay a subscription fee for fire service, just don't pay it and they will let your house burn down!

The Republicans and the top % money makers in this country are pitting the working middle class against each other. ie: "Hey look at this public worker, he has a job, great pay, benefits and a retirement. You being a private sector worker don't have any of that, and it is not right. We need to get rid of these big bad unions! They are the cause of this whole financial mess! Vote republican!"

I know everyone has to vote their conscious and there is a lot more issues to consider then the union/working issues, but this is America and from where I am sitting, the Republicans are destroying a big part of it. Public safety careers will never be the same again when they are done. They are taking everything away that made these jobs what they were. I at one time hoped that my children would follow in my footsteps and join the fire service, now I hope they aspire for something else.

Should ER nurses be required to attend call audits?

EMS providers interface with ER nurses everyday. We bring them our patients, and they see the results of our care, both good and bad.

I think it would lead to better working relationships between EMS providers and ER nurses if we discussed calls from both viewpoints.

I'm not a nurse, so I won't comment from that viewpoint. However, as an EMS provider, I believe that our care is an extension of the ER, and if we work together, we can really make in impact on patient care. Better transitions and coordination between our care and their can also result in better patient comfort and speedier care.

But, we rarely get or want to discuss this with nurses on a professional level while on duty, as both sides are busy. Call audits would be a great way to discuss calls in a focused enviroment.

How about nurses having to do some ride time with the EMS units that serve the ER? Call audits would be a good start, but I would love to have them come ride a shift or two as well.

It's official.....

Bobby V

I love it. Now when the guy is on TV doing his other full time job, he will have the head of legal affairs take over as the public safety director. Brilliant! How can they tell the residents of Stamford that their safety is priority #1 with a straight face?!

Not to mention that it looks like fairly new construction..... what are the odds that it isn't truss construction? With that much fire showing with a strong wind, defensive seems like a good call.

About the same time the union's contract is up.... coincidence????

What really matters here is that they fix the areas that they were deficient in so that they don't have a repeat of this tradgedy, not the amount of the fines. Hope that they see the big picture.

Finally they are talking sense! Take off the rose colored glasses and see what is really happening!

And so it continues.....

Advocate Article

My thoughts as well. Injuries on off time occur when off no matter what the cause. If union members are to be prohibited from actively engaging in volunteer firefighting because they might get a boo boo than that policy should apply across the board and carry over to prohibit career FFs from engaging in ANY off duty activity especially side jobs that have the potential to cause injury while off duty.

Cogs

Injuries can occur any time any way. I think the bigger picture would be if God forbid, a firefighter contracts a communicable disease or comes down with cancer. You know damn well the city that the firefighter works for will argue that the firefighter contacted this illness due to volunteer activities. Now the member will have to fight tooth and nail to get the coverage that he/she deserves.

Is Bobby officially the public safety director? Thought he had to be approved by the BOR or something first? If not, why does he already have a city vehicle???

Also take note that right or wrong the level of volunteer participation decreases not increases once SFRD is in the house (ala Glenbrook)

So who's fault is that? There isn't any paid personnel in TOR's fire station yet they don't have what I would call adequate participation in the public safety of their residents. I don't think you can even count Springdale as a department. And this decrease in participation is only because of SFRD guys are in their house? Really? Are we in 3rd grade or are we professionals? Professionals responsible for saving lives and property. If the volunteers don't want to come out because they don't "like" who the career staff is and if they are willing to let public safety and doing the "right" thing take a back seat to hurt feelings, then they should hang up the gear and find a new hobby. Glenbrook included.

I just have to know, giving the proven fact that other then BFD, the calls are going unanswered multiple times a day in the volunteer departments, what makes you believe that if the mayor enacts this plan that there will be a change and the volunteers are going to show up? Or do you believe that Belltown will just answer every call for every district?

Now now T, I'm not really THAT stupid. Anytime a rig is dispatched and becomes committed there is a shortfall and units must then backfill or cover more area where necessary. The difference here is that Stamford already has an abundance of apparatus at it's disposal which cross staffing can effectively make use of. Why buy more when we have firehouses full of rigs just waiting for crews to man them. And let's get to another point here, the major complaint with the Mayor's plan is not cross staffing but the number of staff assigned and this we know because we have been repeatedly assailed with how dangerous the plan is by providing substandard staffing. I don't think 2 cuts it either but 4 per rig offers double the bang for the same buck so long as volunteers pick up and guarantee the same level of coverage at night. No matter how you slice it, SFRD Engines in VFD houses, Quints, cross staffing, whatever...anytime a rig is dispatched with a crew that rig and crew will be committed therefore there will always be times when areas are not "covered". And just to remind everyone because it has been thrown at me constantly..this is NOT New York , Chicago or even East Bumblefrok for that matter, so what they do doesn't matter and won't work here.

Cogs

It isn't MD or VA either

It seems to me that what you're suggesting is not really much different than what I'm suggesting by cross staffing. Putting Quints in every VFD house and then dispatching them based on the type of call is the same as cross staffing the existing rigs based on the type of call, except we have to buy a few more quints. The crews will still be gone with their rig as either an Engine or Truck thus leaving that area devoid of that piece in the matrix and the volunteers would still have to respond with what's left to the scene or staff the remaining rigs to answer addtional calls.

Cogs

But if you go by your logic, if the career staff switches machines based on the type of call, you are still leaving that area void of that machine if there is another call. IE: If there is a water leak call and the career guys take the truck, there is no truck covering that area and the next closest one would have to respond. So it is the same thing. If the career guys staff 1 machine no matter what it is, when they go out (and they will) that area will then have to rely on the next closest unit (or the volunteers) for the next call. So no matter what or how you try to sell "cross staffing" the results will be the same. That's why if it is 1 department, it would work like every other big city or town with multiple stations. If 1 station is out on a run, the next closest one gets the call. Do you think FDNY, Boston, Chicago etc... would cross train guys to take either the truck or the engine depending on the call? Why do you think they don't?

But all this aside, the quint idea is not my favorite at all. But I thought it would be a good place to start or compromise if you will, with the the volunteers and their insistence to have the career staff flip back and forth between rigs.

FD828-

In Geppetto's original post about Quints, he had said to have everything Engine based ie Quints, Rescue engines, engine/tankers, etc. In this situation, the rescue pumper would operate similar to a squad, tankers could be an engine/nurse tanker, etc. This could be done through apparatus attrition, over the lifetime use of the current apparatus(HAH!!).

No no, I get what Geppetto is saying. What I don't get is why Cogs feels the entire fleet (paid and volunteer) would have to be changed over to quints if that is the direction the city went. If they wanted to go with multi-purpose equipment, I agree that through attrition is could be more feasible.

G,

The idea of quint based operations is not a bad one even though I personally despise the concept of quints to begin with...(for me an engine is an engine and a truck is a truck ect., mixing them just reduces the capabilities of both). The one major problem I see with the concept here and now though is the cost. For a St. Louis or Richmond, VA type system to work here would require the entire fleet of apparatus (paid and vollie alike) be converted to quints (or multi use rigs) which would cost a fortune and I don't see that as feasible at the moment. There is also the potential effects an all quint system would have on staffing and manpower which may negatively impact SFRD more so than the VFDs so I don't know how well the concept would sit with the union...(not a dig guys just a well documented concern of career FFs everywhere this concept has been explored). In all fairness though in looking towards the future (say 5 - 10 yrs) I would grudgingly have to admit the idea has merit and could conceiveably work if we began heading in that direction now. To that end I believe that strategic planning of this type would be invaluable in helping to achieve much of what needs to be done and also quite frankly in avoiding the circumstances that created the current mess, but at present I think it would be almost impossible to accomplish on a citywide basis. BFD has a strategic planning committee and we do explore and recommend many different approaches to the meet the needs of our FD now and in the future. On that note does anyone else do something similar?

Cogs

Why would the volunteer fleet have to be converted to all quints? Why can't just the paid staff have quints and the volunteers keep the equipment they have? If you are so concerned about the right rig rolling out the door, doesn't this solve that issue with the exception of a tanker and heavy rescue of course? Couldn't the able volunteers then respond on either the engine, truck or tanker? Whatever they are responding on, the career quint will assume the other roll. Kinda like engine 5 right? It is an engine except when responding up north then it becomes a truck company.

FD828,

First, are you refering to the Mayor when you say boss? I think you are. I have no doubt in my mind that repercussions would ensue. That being said, although the local has spoken out against this lunacy in many ways, most of us, as a union, have contributed to the factual information being presented. I just learned this evening, that an informational mailing that I personally contributed to has been distributed. I have not seen it as yet, but I also understand that I am qouted which I was aware would be the case. I gladly contributed. So in answer to your question, I am not afraid to speak up where it counts, when I beleive what I am saying is truthful, logical, and based on factual educated points and opinions. I was just having this conversation with one of the other guys this evening. At the beginning of my career back in the early eighties, I stood up on another issue that was controversial then as well, related to the understaffed fire prevention bureau. The Mayor at that time was infuriated at three of us who were in the office at the time. Our pictures were on the front page of the Advocate. We were eventually vindicated, but during that time I though my promotional prospects were gone before I was even able to get going. Thought I would never do it again. I am a captain now and as I look back, and like I just said, when it is called for and I believe in what I am saying based on sound principles and facts, I would do it again. This time I have more experience, training and qualifications to say what I have said.

Sorry for the long answer to your short question.

Thanks Capt! I greatly appreciate your input.