gamewell45

I stand by my resistance to shifting the costs of providing a local service to the state as a whole. If my fire district wants to provide compensation to its members, fine, let them put it into their budget and I'll pay that nominal increase to my taxes. I should not, however, have to subsidize the activities of another department that chooses not to address the issue itself. This also has nothing to do with the fire service - I'd be just as resistant if this was any other purpose and I was subsidizing another part of the state.

Chris, i have no problem shifting the costs to the fire district, however if we do that, then by all rights other programs the state provides to local communities, such as state aid for public schools, social programs and other "pork projects" that benefit a town or region should likewise be absorbed by the towns and cities.

If this is what it takes to get someone to volunteer.....I don't want them working on me or my family.

Hopefully it never happens, but somehow I think that if you or I are lying on the street in full cardiac arrest, we are not going to have much say in who works on us.

WOW!!!

It appears the Volunteer Fire Service has a very effective lobbying mechanism in place.

Yes, we do have a very effective lobbying mechanism in place and I also believe that the spirit of volunteerism is alive and well.

Fortunately for us irrelevant dozen or so people we are able to have respectful disagreement with others, apparently unlike yourself.

We are also able to maintain a sense of humor about these matters, and qtip.

If you would like, one of us "dozen or so" would be glad to spellcheck any petitions or letters of support you might be drafting.

I'll be happy to take you up on that.

to bad that there are gonna be people on this board that dont think volunteer services deserve this.. because they should do it for "free".

Thats very true; fortunatley there are only maybe a dozen or so people in here that have that mentality and for the most part they are irrelevent.

It sounds like a breach of the 2004 union contract / medical benefits package. Just because the insurer is slow to pay claims, they can't unilaterally decline to provide coverage while under the terms of the contract.

I think, if during negotiations, the company had knowledge of the issues they now claim were responsible for no longer accepting coverage and didn't make the union aware of their concerns and possible ramifications thereof, then at worst case scenario, there is a violation of the spirit of the labor agreement and quite possible a violation of failing to bargain in good faith. Should make an interesting case for the labor attorney's if the union decides to ajudicate it.

Because officers of law should be honest citizens who follow the law and are expected to follow the laws that they enforce?

Using that anaolgy, that would disqualify the current sitting President of the United States who was arrested and convicted at least twice of crimes. Once for drunken driving and the second time for disorderly conduct. And he is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which in essence is the highest laws in the land.

Im surprised they dont have a rep for bargaining. Nassau County is part of the CSEA and the Nassau County Fire Rescue Services which is made up of 2 divisions the Fire Marshals office and the Fire Communications office, both have a rep that sits down when contracts are being done. I believe Suffolk county is the same. I have no idea what it would take but there are more then enough dispatchers in NY state to form a pretty strong (numbers wise) separate dispatchers union.

Good luck finding another major labor union to join if you leave CSEA. As part of AFSCME they are a member of the AFL-CIO, and as such the "three year rule" applies before you can either join or affiliate with another labor union thats part of the AFL-CIO, unless you form your own independent union or association.

If you form an independent union the start up costs fall soley on the shoulders of the members and once you find out what the start costs will run you, you'll have second thoughts unless the membership is around 2,000 or more.

I'm not familiar with the CSEA union nor how they operate, however if your shop prepares a list of issues that they find troublesome and approach the local Executive Board to discuss it, many of the issues might be rectified to the satisfaction of the membership; eitherway its best to try to work for change from within if its at all possible.

I'm all for understanding justifying the need for a boat. But half a million for a new boat? And there are those that say that having career staff is too expensive. Gonna get a lot more for a half million's worth of staff then the half dozen times a year you'll need a boat.

Horrible comparsion tick, the boat's a one time expenditure of a half-million, not including maintenance, etc; half million for staff means half million yearly, not including annual pay raises, etc.

It may have been more than 45 minutes that the patient was face down. The windows went from dark to real sunny before anyone got help. And that thing that was sitting in the bottom left seems to be upset that the activity was disturbing her nap.

The media was interviewing an attorney on television; expect a major lawsuit to be launched against the hospital at the least.

Another urban myth and smoke and mirrors. So to "save" hiring firefighters you pay a company to sit on money you can't get until your in your 60's and they make money on the interest. Never mind investing taxpayer dollars into having staff that will generally improve their ISO rating saving them on insurance costs and keeping the money invested in the municipality instead of private companies and making a better and consistent response supplemented by the volunteer personnel. But its ok...for many of you you'll have more garbage men on the road during the day then you will get at an alarm at the same time.

How does age matter? I'm all for giving to the community, but I can also side with him in experience that LOSAP hasn't been the big recruiting and retention tool in the areas I serve. Most kids don't think about retirement or they would be putting money into IRA's and not trying to earn a whopping $20 a year and the influx has been more middle aged persons joining and this is not disrespect intended because they do help with a vital function that is important on many calls, but more fire police isn't the problem, most departments need interior members. In addition to not only luring in younger members, many members aren't even making their 50 points to begin with.

I understand why the state is trying to assist with recruitment/retention...good lobbying gets it there. But when is the state going to really look at the fact that there is a problem and sticking your finger in only 1 hole in the dike while the water is lapping over the top isn't going to help.

The state recognizes the important contributions the volunteers make to the public; furthermore i believe that if the state felt that if the volunteer fire service was obsolete or completely ineffective, there is no way you'd have seen LOSAP passed years ago. Thats common sense. The state has a vested interest in keeping taxes as low as they reasonably can. This is one way they can earn voter confidence next time at the polls.

Furthermore, I think the program has worked. I know of plenty of firefighters who contemplated leaving the fire service but decided to stay due to not only LOSAP, but other perks associated with being part of the fire service. LOSAP certainly played an important part of their decision to remain as active members.

The passage of the Emergency Volunteer Services Act will likewise play an important role the retainment and recruitment of volunteer firemen. For those volunteers who have no medical benefits whatsoever, this will be an added incentive which will give them the ability to purchase affordable medical insurance. This combined with the LOSAP (which btw is not a pension, its an annuity based on years of credited service) program, local perks and the so-called "bunk-in program" which many volunteer departments throughout the state are seriously starting to look at, will change the whole face of the volunteer fire service.

While i realize that every department is different with the success of the LOSAP program, I know that the departments that i've belonged to over the years have done well since the inception of the program.

While most "kids", as you call them, may not think of retirement or putting money into an IRA at this stage of their lives, it never hurts to teach them of the importance of long term planning. For many of them, aside from Social Security, this will be the only guarantee of income to supplement what SS gives them.

Many in this forum toss around the "ISO rating" term quite a bit when it comes to volunteers. From what i've seen or heard, the public could care less. I've yet to hear or see someone either buy a house based on ISO or complain to the district that they need to improve the ISO rating. They accept it for what it is.

Finally, i do agree, good lobbying does get it there.

Cogs,

It is the IAFF that prohibits its members from volunteering. WHen you are sworn in, you swear to abide by the International's rules and regs. I know that there are many that don't, but if I agree to abide by the rules, that's what I will do. PERIOD. If you can't abide by the rules, don't get a job that is in the IAFF. Stick to volunteering

Your absolutely correct that they are required to follow the internationals rules and regs; however the union should be very careful. If those members of IAFF decide to resign their membership and become agency fee payer members (non-members but they still pay a fee equal to their dues), they won't be bound by the International's rules and regs. I've seen it happen before in other unions and in the end it ends up hurting the internationals. Telling someone what they can do outside of their job can be very risky and have negative results towards the union.

Exactyl!

Are there any buildings in Rye over 3 stories tall? I'm not familiar with the area.

As a firefighter, you can't just show up and refuse to work one day, that'd could be seen as a violation of Taylor law. You have to give the municipality a chance to provide a workplace for you at another location. If the municipality is dragging it's feet, that's when things get ugly.

Your not refusing to work, just refusing to go into an area which is potentially unsafe for humans. I believe your covered under PESH unless i'm mistaken, the Taylor Law pertains to Labor disputes. This would clearly be a safety issue and not labor dispute. No arbitrator in their right mind would sustain a discharge nor a charge against a group of people over a safety issue of that magnitude that was described in this thread. Of course it would help if the union got their act together and got their safety and health rep involved. Thats one of the reasons you pay dues and if they are sitting there doing nothing i think its a disgrace.

The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have a right to own guns, and bans on handgun ownership are unconstitutional. How do people feel about this? Discuss! I'd be particularly interested to hear the views of our LE colleagues.

(For the record, as someone who will shortly be celebrating the first anniversary of his becoming an American citizen, I have a strong attachment to the constitution, and I'm very pleased with the decision. I'm no gun nut, but the meaning of the 2nd amendment is as plain as the proverbial pikestaff and any other decision would have been a weasel-worded disgrace.)

Mike

I don't have a problem with an individual packing a weapon as long as the person has the proper training to use it. Too many times i've seen surveilance tapes where a robber will waltz into a store and pull out a pistol or revolver; the owner pulls out his licensed weapon and starts firing away towards the robber irreguardless of who's in the store or in the line of fire. I've even seen some blindly firing out the doors of the store as the robber flees in a panic even though innocent civilians might be walking in front of the store or driving by in a car or bus. This is why law enforcement personnel receive proper training in the use of firearms before being allowed to carry, so they don't walk around making innocent civilans look like swiss cheese.

Proper training also includes securing it in a safe place when your not carrying it including trigger locks. As long as its used responsibly and if the person has the proper training, then i have no problem with it.

If memory serves me wasn't that Al Anderson in the santa suit?

No, it was Neil McCabe.

That's easy to say when firefighting and EMS aren't your main sources of income. In today's downturned economy, "fighting for safety" shouldn't exclude financial safety for one's family. Would I like to see an extra guy on my rig? Sure. Should I have to choose between him being there and feeding my kids?

You make a valid point, tho' i've never heard of jobs being cut due to a lack of exclusitivity. And yes, you shouldn't have to choose between safety and feeding your family. If the district won't staff properly, then i'd go with 4 on a truck, if nothing else for safety. The workers shouldn't necessarily jepordize their safety because of the inability/unwillingness to staff properly.

This morning I read an article on the terribible conditions of the firehouses that the Dallas firefighters have to put up with. From raw sewage to mold etc. It reminds me of the conditions that we at FDMV have to put up with. Sta #1infested with mold/mildew or should I Quote "UNACCEPATABLE AMOUNTS OF MOLD AND BACTERIA", Station #4- The question remains-is the apparatus floor going to collapse into the basement? Possibly the 2nd firehouse to be shut down because of the hazards. Station #3- infested with mice who continue to patrol the kitchen and S*** all over the place. As employees we do not have to tolerate this and if you have a problem you need to be vocal and help correct the situation. firehouses are supposed to be our 2nd home,well I know how my home is and I know I wouldn't let conditions get out of hand the way some depts let their homes get-just a thought!

The amazing thing is, why are the employees (firefighters) even going into the building in the first place? They should refuse to enter the building until the conditions are abated. Another question is; where is the unions safety and health representative? They should be right on this with PESH or the appropriate agency that handles safety & health for workers.

The unfortunate truth behind not putting them all on a single engine is probably that they'd have to give up exclusivity when it comes to operating the rigs. It's a business decision, not a safety issue. It's sad, but you can't blame it on the union. In many combo departments, the moment exclusivity is given up, some idiot politician or anti-career volunteer will advocate cutting staffing levels to save money. Remember, we take pride in our job and love helping the community, but this is how we put food on the table and we can't jeopardize that. We all want to be safe, but we shouldn't have to risk our jobs to make a point. Not to mention that you'd still have the same amount of men showing up to an alarm as before the consolidation, not exactly what I'd call an increase in safety.

I would take safety over job security in a flash; the hell with exclusivity, no job is worth your life.

I agree! Do away with all the so called "courtesy lights" and then lights will only be on authorized and emergency vehicles.

I also agree. The blue light is only a "courtesy" light and I found out years ago that people aren't very courteous in NY. All they do is confuse people, in particular, at traffic intersections where people stop in all directions and hence, no traffic flows. I have one, which i rarely , if ever use.

I have a friend who is a volunteer fireman in the state of Georgia, where volunteers have their personal vehicles listed as "emergency" response vehicles and as such are authorized the use of red lights (including wig wags) and sirens. If anything thats what the state should authorize volunteers in both the fire and EMS to use. Anything else is most likely useless.

Article

well deserved or blown out of proportion?

Definitely blown way of proportion.

It doesnt take money from other programs, it saves money by not having to hire firefighters.

You are correct.

Who believes this?

1) A New York State Legislative Commission on State-Local Relations report (New York's Fire Protection System: Services in Transition, 1988) noted that a study commissioned by the National Volunteer Fire Council concluded that "enhanced benefits did not seem to be a major criteria for retention in many volunteer departments."

2) Ten years later and that conclusion has not changed. In another study this time by the USFA and the NVFC (Recruitment and Retention in the Volunteer Fire Service: Problems and Solutions, USFA & NVFC, 1998) concluded that while direct monetary incentives can help with retention, "… they are not the best method to retain members. Departments that use direct monetary incentives often find themselves having to deal with squabbles by members over money…"

3) An Erie County study ("Recruitment and Retention of Volunteer Firefighters in Erie County, New York" 11/98) reported that Length of Service award programs, aside from having high startup costs, appear to retain members for a couple of years and do not interest the younger members who are decades away from collecting benefits. It appears that these programs award long term members who are already committed to the department.

4) The New York State Comptroller's Office in July 2001 (A Report on Volunteer Firefighter Length of Service Award Programs, NYS Comptroller, July 2001.), released a study that assessed the success that LOSAP had in recruiting and retaining volunteer firefighters. The study concluded that aside from an initial spike in membership following establishment of a LOSAP, the programs might not be effective in recruiting and retaining volunteers.

Can anyone show any study that shows that LOSAP works to recruit or retain volunteers?

Those who say its a reward is fine, but thats not what this is beingsold as.

Can you please post links to these reports so we may read them?

First off, I'm well aware of how LOSAP is supposed to work. However, in my experience, there is a large difference between how it's supposed to work and how it actually pans out. Like most things in the fire service, there isn't much oversight, if any. So your department elects someone to watch over LOSAP points, that's great, but who watches the watchman? I've seen some departments talk about implementing barcode scanners to ensure people are actually at calls and geared up before they give out a point. Unless your department has something along these lines, you can't say there's any true oversight to the LOSAP system. That also means there's no way for the state to investigate fraud, so there's no fear of repercussion for fraudulent practices.

My department has something along those lines.

As for rational people having no argument so long as those eligible to receive LOSAP "meet the requirements set down by the state", we've had many threads discussing how there are barely any requirements set down by the state to be a "firefighter." I'm not beating that horse again.

I agree with you. Don't try to beat a dead horse, it is what it is whether you or I like it or not.

Age does matter, I'm sorry. I have to retire at age 62, it's a law. Apparently the state feels that the level of service I'll provide at 62 is inferior to what I'll provide at 32, and I'm inclined to agree with them. Yet I know a guy that gets a monthly LOSAP check that's equal to about a fifth of what I make at my job. Almost all of his accredited years come from service rendered after age 62. Not only is he collecting, he's out there adding more points while he does it. It's ridiculous.

Perhaps in the career service, but as the volunteer service is a different concept and staffing requirements are much different thats not something you or I are likely to agree on.

I also find it funny that you keep mentioning "the desire to serve one's community" before going on to discuss this benefit or that benefit given to volunteers. Last time I checked, volunteer meant you did it for free, and that the service you provided was reward enough. I'm sorry, which is it?

Both; I don't know of any volunteer firefighters who receive a paycheck or get paid overtime for running out at all hours of the day and night on fire calls or for attending training classes. The volunteer fire service is evolving whether or not you want to admit it; due to increased training requirements (which will no doubt over time increase) and other time rquirements (fires, drills, details & the like), the few benefits that a volunteer firefighter receives is certainly reasonable. Tell me, do you think the volunteers should be covered by the VFBL?? or is that part of giving your labor for free?

The program is here to stay, so we should just move on and not question it? So are training standards, but you questioned them in all the other threads I've seen you in. You have your hot issues, I have mine.

You can certainly question it and render your opinion as i mentioned in an earlier reply, but the long and short of it is that nothing is likely to change the direction that you'd like it to go in, honestly I figured you would work more on training and standards then opine on this.

You being the LOSAP Admin for your F.D. only qualifies you to speak about in on behalf of your F.D. I'll trust that you may have a scrupulous view on handing out LOSAP points, but the sad truth is that many people don't. In many departments, LOSAP is exactly what bil14ga said it is, a giveaway. Furthermore, it does absolutely nothing when it comes to recruiting young firefighters. I've never met a volunteer under the age of 35 that joined up because of the LOSAP program. I have, however, met many 60 years and older (including a bunch of wives of members, who are now "active" themselves) who make sure to make company meetings and events, all to get their precious points.

LOSAP is a travesty, a good idea gone horribly wrong. I'd like to see more programs like this phase it out.

I'm not sure what fire department your a member of, but in my department, i can think of approx. a dozen firefighters (under the age of 35) who joined for a combination of reasons; LOSAP, the desire to serve the community and the other perks associated with the volunteer fire service. LOSAP is not a giveaway if properly monitored and admininstered which i would think is more the rule then exception. I'm sure the last thing any fire district wants is the state investigating potential fraud.

The points that one must have in order to qualify are predicated on receiving minimum amount of fire calls, thus preventing only those who attend say, only meetings or drills from qualifying for LOSAP credit. While you say you haven't "met a volunteer under the age of 35 that joined up because of the LOSAP program", i find that age shouldn't matter in any case. Its the desire to help your community; who cares how old someone is or if its wives who want to help out? As long as they meet the requirements set down by the state, there should be no argument from rational people.

Finally, while you are certainly entitled to your opinion, I cannot agree with your thoughts that LOSAP is a travesty; rather its an excellent program for volunteers who make the committment for training, Fire Calls, meetings and other legally sanctioned details. Volunteers in NY make an incredible contribution to the fire service and the LOSAP program is a small way of saying thanks to those who dedicate themselves to helping the public in their time of need. All the new young recruits are informed about this program when they join and its explained of the benefits of being in it as 40 years down the road, they'll have supplemental income to live off of in addition to social security (or whatever the program is in effect at that time). The only thing the volunteer fire service ought to do is to publicize it more in the high schools and other public venues. The program is most likely here to stay long term so those nay-sayers ought to accept that fact and move on to other worthy causes.