FireMedic049

8 minutes ago, nfd2004 said:

Telling both sides of the story gives the people the entire picture. Had it not been reported as it was, the full story would not have been known. On here we learned:

 

1) We learned how apparently three fire chiefs were the real reason these eight firefighters were eliminated and lost their jobs, as some here reported they knew nothing about it.

 

2) We learned how another village was paying one million dollars to Port Chester, basically covering the entire cost of those Port Chester firefighters.

 

3) We learned how one individual encouraged a group of firefighters to damage another firefighters home.

 

4) We learned how that group of 8 Port Chester firefighters may seek legal action through an attorney seeking damages on their behalf, which may actually cost the taxpayers more now.

 

 This went beyond the fact of a city that couldn't afford to pay for its firefighters. If and when this issue is finally resolved, the City of Port Chester will be known throughout the fire service as a city that allowed three of its fire chiefs to make some very poor decisions. It could be used for future training as "A Lesson to be Learned".

Yeah, but our municipal leaders and in some cases, fire chiefs, are not very good at heeding those lessons learned.

This type of stuff keeps happening over and over and for the most part, nobody pays a price for it expect the employee and the taxpayer.

5 hours ago, Dinosaur said:

 

Bad analogy.  The best analogy would be the volunteer EMT compared to the "career" "paid" EMT.  Both receive the same training and hold the same certification.  All security guards in NYS receive the same training and certification from NYS as do police officers but they are not the same.  That's unfortunately not the case with firefighter training in NYS!

 

 

I disagree that the best analogy would be volunteer compared to career EMT.  In fact, I don't think it's even a correct one for the point I think he was trying to make.  All EMTs receive the same minimum training, have the same scope of practice and hold the same certification regardless of being paid or volunteer.  A better comparison for the point would have been EMT vs Paramedic.  Both may work side by side on an ambulance and save lives, but one has a larger volume of training and larger skill set prior to stepping into that ambulance.  Both are important and contribute to the success of the team, but there is a distinct difference between the two and what they are able to contribute.

By comparison, the person who attends a full-time fire academy for initial training is going to possess a larger volume of training than the person who just attends a basic FF1 class.  Typically a career recruit academy includes more than just basic FF training and usually more hands on training.

Recruits for the large metro department in my area obtain certifications for FF1, FF2, BVR, Hazmat, Rope Rescue, EMT and a number of others before graduating and responding to their first call.  By contrast, a new member in many of the VFDs in the area can get on the truck without any formal training or certification.  Many require their members to attend the entry level training course (about 166 hours), which prepares one for the FF1 test, but doesn't not include testing for the certification.  They may not be required to achieve additional certification other than the federally mandated, minimal Hazmat training.

Both are considered "firefighters" and both are valuable to their departments.  Both may even work side by side routinely or on occasion.  Over time, the "gap" in training, certification, experience, ability, etc. between the two may disappear, but there is clearly a difference between the two at the start and I think that was at the heart of the point being made.

24 minutes ago, FD7807 said:

County as a wbole has a majority of volunrerr departments. Dont believe me but the facts are the facts. 58 fire departments in WC

So are we discussing the country or a specific county?  Your message seems inconsistent. 

5 hours ago, FD7807 said:

Listen first off there is no room for grandstanding period. And my loathing of union grandstanding runs deeper then the fire service. That said you statement is off base simply because you are quoting a population based study. Of course when you factor in NYC Yonkers Buffalo etc of course. I am referring to towns villages etc especially in this area run volunteer only for fire. I cannot comment on EMS agencies as I do not belong to one.

Please forgive me for being "off base".  I didn't realize that you were only referring to small communities when you stated the "country as a whole".

2 hours ago, FD7807 said:

First off you know nothing about me. 1. My blue light reference was sarcasm. 2. You know nothing about my work ethic in life. 3. I personally have nothing career firefighters. What i do have a problem with is union grand standing. 4. If you think that the City of Port Chester is standing today because of 8 career firefighters then you are delusional. 5 Obviously you have an issue with the notion that people would do this job for nothing and when you say that we depend on the career fire service check your stats. The country as a whole is still volunteer as a majority because people have a love for their community which is something your hate spewing self cannot grasp. 

Actually, the majority of the population is served by career or mostly career departments.   The majority of the country (land wise) is served by volunteer or mostly volunteer departments.  Volunteerism is declining and many all volunteer departments are now combination and many more probably should be.  

Love for the community is not exclusive to the volunteers, which for some reason is something people like you are unable to grasp.

What's your stance on volunteer grandstanding? 

3 hours ago, FD7807 said:

You can claim the anti union card and that is your right. However unions were not formed so that Union leaders can stand on soap boxes country wide and cry. Employers have rights too. Taxpayers have rights too and before one more USFA study is quoted and before anymore union rhetoric is spread telling residents how their lives are at risk, tell them the whole story anx show them their tax savings and the amount of trained respondong vollies they have on the books.. 

You know who else has rights too?  Employees, even non-union ones.

I agree that the whole story needs to be told.  I read an article that stated the department had 150 interior and 150 non-interior members, but it failed to mention what the average volunteer turnout is for calls.  That number is more important than the first two.

You don't have to like the "union rhetoric", but the reality is the public does have a higher risk now.  When you eliminate on-duty, in-station staffing, the dispatch to arrival on scene time increases by at least a few minutes on average.  Minutes matter when your house is on fire. 

2 hours ago, FD7807 said:

This gets old quick. Stop making others look bad to make yourself look good. I teach that to my 7 year old and she gets it. If you have a problem with layoffs and budget cuts take it up with City Hall. Your problem is with City Hall and not caused by the presence of Volunteers. The studies and scare tactics get old. GRKW UP.

Actually, the presence of the volunteers is a significant factor in situations like this.  Their presence "on paper" can lead to the perception that a small staff of career personnel are expendable and not really needed.  Particularly in tough financial times.

The volunteers themselves may not be directly responsible for the decision, but they essentially become accomplices by allowing themselves to be used as pawns in the process by not speaking out against the cuts.

For the most part, the career staff in a primarily volunteer department are there for a reason.  They serve to suppliment an inherent deficiency in the volunteer staffing model, inconsisent availability to respond in a timely fashion 24/7.

If you eliminate the career staff without resolving the reason they existed, then there will be negative consequences on the response end of things.  That's not a scare tactic, that's reality.

1 hour ago, FD7807 said:

It has nothing to do with career volunteer or public safety. Its a case of someone in life with an ax th o grind. But on that note if was was a career officer who got caught on tape you would not have a line of volunteers calling for his firing. FACT. Not everythibg in the fire service has to do with career vs. volunteer. For all the keyboard firefighters and pot stirrers out there go get a job get a life or get a hobby. Its a big world out there.

I also disagree.  I've seen a number of examples in which a career firefighter was caught doing/saying something inappropriate and plenty have called for their termination, even if the infraction didn't really warrant termination.  Several have resigned as a result of these situations and the reaction to them.

1 hour ago, Jybehofd said:

Your right the topic headline should be changed to career not profesional.  Both career and volunteer claim to be professionals.  

 

I don't think the headline necessarily needs to be changed.  Whether or not this is actually a career vs volunteer issue, the term "professional" was used correctly in the headline.  A professional firefighter is a person who is paid to be a firefighter just like a professional athlete is a person that is paid to play a sport.  

Acting in a professional manner and displaying professionalism is a different animal.

19 hours ago, dwcfireman said:

This is not always  the case.  I know of many counties in New York State where the battalion chiefs or fire coordinators (names differ throughout the state) are also the fire investigators.  Their initial response is an emergency operation (which would require lights and sirens) to assist with fireground operational tactics and strategy/planning, and give aide to the incident commander.  They will then take note of things happening while the fire is still burning, hence beginning their investigations well before the fire is out.  After suppression is complete, they will then turn to the interior to complete the investigation.  Essentially, in counties where budgets are smaller and manpower is less, fewer people have to do more jobs (do more with less, just like everything else).  I completely admit that this contradicts my statement above about having a second, OUTSIDE opinion for investigating a fire, but in reality you have to do what you have to do to get the job done.

My comments were specific to my area and in response to a question asked.  

With very few exceptions, fire investigation is handled at the County level, not department or municipality level.  The Fire Marshall's responsibility is the investigation.  They aren't used for suppression in this county and departments know that they need to hold the scene until the Fire Marshall arrives.

Therefore, from our perspective, they really don't need to respond emergency to incidents.  If they feel the need to do otherwise, that's their call.

But let's be clear, there's a distinct difference between a dedicated fire investigator (what I was talking about) and a person who responds to mitigate incidents, but is also responsible for the investigation of that incident (what you described).  As such, the criteria to determine the rate of response for each is not the same.

30 minutes ago, EmsFirePolice said:

Most causes of fires (well here in the area) are usually found out by the chief.  How do they do that since it sounds like they aren't certified/trained fire investigators?  

 

If they don't know, or need help, this is when the C&O team comes into play.  How often do they need help? 

 

I can't speak for the whole state, but I know, down in Westchester, certified/trained Fire Investigators aren't routinely dispatched on each fire. However, I don't know why. 

21 minutes ago, SageVigiles said:

I typically don't like to get into lights/siren discussions, but this one catches my attention. As I mentioned in my previous post, according to the Supreme Court, in order to avoid needed a warrant to make entry, the investigator needs to be on scene before the FD leaves.  Why wouldn't a Fire Investigator need to respond with lights and siren?

Well, they aren't needed for suppression purposes and we always maintain control of the scene until they arrive, so that pretty much eliminates the need for the emergent response.  So other than probably arriving sooner to start the investigation, there's not much to be gained from the emergent response.

My thought is that you should consult with your investigators and see when THEY want to be notified.  Our investigations are performed by the County's Fire Marshall office.  Their investigators have told us to call for them as soon as we think they may be needed.

I can't see much need for them to respond in any manner other than non-emergency.

10 hours ago, lh123 said:

Not really understanding the logic of 1200 calls, but only 20 serious in nature.  How many of the smaller calls would have turned into something more serious if the career engine had not responded with water quickly?

Actually, the political logic is pretty easy to understand.  

The community has a "small" number of incidents and few "serious" calls, so they see the money spent on career personnel as unnecessary since they supposedly have so many volunteers in the department. 

Therefore, eliminating the paid firefighters doesn't really hurt anything and spending that money elsewhere helps whatever agenda they have.

Since most politicians have little clue about public safety, they tend to be oblivious to the reality of the impact of something like this, like no longer keeping some incidents small since the immediate response is no longer there.  

Penny wise, pound foolish.

On 3/7/2016 at 3:33 PM, x635 said:

 

Just out of curiosity, are the local VAC's OK with this? I think it's a great arrangement, and should be done here in Westchester, but I can see some anti-progress people around here not liking this or viewing it as competition, along with some billing issues. (Although I think WEMS may have a 40-A-1 that can do this?)

 

Also, is it staffed double medic, or medic/EMT?

It absolutely can be viewed as "competition", but the thing is (based on comments in this thread) the VACs created this situation.  If they had consistently and reliably gotten their BLS units on the street in a timely manner, then the hospital probably wouldn't have looked at making this change.  A SUV is a lot cheaper to operate as a fly car than an ambulance.

23 hours ago, Dinosaur said:

Problem is they're saying that the eight victims of this "supplemented" the volunteer force.  So they're claiming that there's no substantial change in coverage by eliminating the eight career guys. 

 

 

Obviously there was a reason they "supplimented" their volunteer force with career positions.  I doubt that that reason no longer exists.

Unless the volunteers are going to staff (in station) every single minute each career guy worked, then any claim that this isn't a substantial change in coverage is blatantly false.

9 minutes ago, spec said:

 

I guess You've never heard of Auxiliary police officers? Most departments have them including Port Chester, they are pretty much volunteer cops.

That's a false comparison.  Many police departments don't have auxiliary officers, unlike many many fire departments that do have volunteers or only volunteers in many cases.  Although they may be volunteer, auxiliary police officers are not typically used for front-line policing.  They tend to be used in more of a "security" role for events rather than responding to 911 calls.

8 hours ago, FirNaTine said:

FF1/FF2: National Certification etc etc doesn't mean a dam thing! That's not exactly true. 

 

I know a shitload of Career guys who have Certificates up the yingyang and are dumber then a box of rocks actually putting their lives along with their fellow Career FFs lives and the Public who they swore an Oath to protect in further danger.  And I know a shitload of volunteers with (and without) certificates up the ying yang that possess those same qualities.  So what's your point?

 

This can be directly attributed to, Nepotism,  lowering the Standards, turning a blind eye etc..etc...  Sounds like some of the volunteer departments I'm familiar with.

 

Just because you sat in a class and passed a test doesn't mean your automatically a Professional FF!  Correct, sitting in a class and passing a test doesn't make you a Professional FF.  Getting a paycheck to fight fires makes one a Professional FF (just like getting a paycheck to play a sport makes one a professional athlete).

 

If the Public only knew how many knuckleheads were out there so called protecting them!  Yup and a lot of them don't collect a paycheck to do so.

 

The Fire Service in many places is no longer a "Calling" its just a paycheck now unfortunately! Gimme gimme gimme!!!! Another handout Profession!  I doubt it's as prevalent as you think it is, but the change has more to do with the dynamics of the new generation than the paycheck itself.

4 minutes ago, SECTMB said:

The Times article made it seem that the City was unprepared as it had to 'scramble' and was burdening their existing EMS workers with extra shifts out of their normal districts.

 

It might have been more assuring to the public if they had mentioned that a class of 180 FD EMS personnel was getting ready to hit the streets with another to follow shortly.

Of course that would be predicated on whether the article was intended to alarm the public rather than allay any concerns. 

I didn't get the vibe that the city was unprepared from the article.  It struck me more as they are having difficulty managing the situation without "enough" resources mixed with a touch of the fear mongering that seems to be standard for the media these days.

It also had a healthy dose of the typical misguided belief that declining working fires and increasing EMS calls means that fire resources should be redirected towards EMS responses.  Sure, on the surface it seems reasonable that the area that makes up 70-80% of your department's responses should get the lion's share of funding, but it ignores some very important factors and usually one undeniable truth:

1) While fires are "down", incident responses aren't.  FDNY (as do all FDs) responds to much more than just working fires.

2) Fires do still occur (quite frequently in NYC) and when they do, they still require the same number of personnel arriving quickly.  In fact, recent scientific studies suggest that today's fire may require more personnel arriving even more quickly.

3) There are fundamental differences in necesssary staffing and apparatus/equipment costs between fire and EMS that impact how the funding pie is divided.  A single EMS unit in FDNY is significantly cheaper to acquire, equip and staff 24/7/365 than a single fire unit.

4) The problem may not be that too many resources are directed towards fire response.  Maybe the problem is just that too few resources are directed towards EMS response?

22 hours ago, SECTMB said:

According to the story, the bankruptcy of Transcare left the City short by 81 tours made up of 200 EMS professionals.  There was money from somewhere paying those 200 EMS professionals.

 

So, why didn't the City just hire those former Transcare workers and have the money that was funding them redirected to City coffers? There must be some way to waive or sidestep, legally, civil service hiring rules for a declared public health emergency.  If there was a compensation disparity between Transcare and City compensation, the City would have to make up the difference, but given that we are only talking about 200 workers, the difference can't be more than a ripple in a budget the size of NYC's.

 

I wouldn't exactly call this situation a "public health emergency" in the terms that you seem to be insinuating.  No doubt this caused some pain, but in the grand scheme of things, 81 tours is a small portion of the daily staffing in NYC.

The civil service system is there for a reason and you simply don't just ignore it because you need to hire a bunch of people all of a sudden.  In a city the size of NYC, I would imagine that they pretty much always have an active civil service eligibility list and routinely run new recruit academies.  So, I would expect that they would be well positioned to immediately hire and train the personnel they need in a timely manner while utilizing overtime coverage in the short-term.

Quote

It would seem to be a win/win, the workers keep their jobs, the City gets State certified, trained and seasoned EMS professionals and the Public gets to keep the EMS workers familiar with their neighborhoods.

 

I don't know how many buses are involved with those 81 tours, the Transcare physical assets aren't as readily obtainable as released employees, but I imagine the City must have spares or if they must, buy some stock/demo units from whomever has them to get by.

 

Where was the crisis management plan? Weren't there rumors of issues about Transcare's long term viability? Was it necessary to overwork existing crews? I have no doubt I am oversimplifying a possible remedy, but I also don't think this needed to be more than a speed bump for an EMS response.

Not sure why you seem to be insinuating that there was no plan in place to deal with this situation.  I've read from more than one source that FDNY did have a contingency plan in case this situation happened.  As I understand it, the short-term plan included immediately putting additional FDNY units on the streets with existing personnel working overtime and that's exactly what they did.  So, yes, it was necessary for existing crews to work extra hours, but what constitutes actually being "overworked" is a subjective thing.  Working an extra tour or two per week isn't the same thing as having to work a double every day. 

They also made an emergency acquisition of several "in-stock" ambulances to help ensure they had enough units available for use while awaiting delivery of the numerous units already under construction and any add-ons necessary due to this.

Yes, the uncertainty of Transcare's viability was known, but you can't start hiring additional people in that quantity because something might happen.  Additionally, I would imagine that the hospitals have some sort of contract with FDNY to provide units for the 911 system that prevents FDNY from removing their units from the system based on rumor.  Why would the hospitals commits the financial resources to running their own EMS units if FDNY could just decide one day to immediately eliminate them?

So, I'm fairly sure that FDNY didn't have the legal ability to conduct a mass hiring, put additional units on the road and eliminate Transcare's units.

1 hour ago, AFS1970 said:

If I remember correctly, there are a few small towns that are completely surrounded by Pittsburgh. This has been the result of annexing the surrounding towns over the years.

Mt. Oliver is the only one small town that is completely surrounded by Pittsburgh.  Pittsburgh provides their EMS, but they have their own VFD and I think police too.

I'm not sure of the exact reasons, but Pittsburgh Fire is not on any of their responses and vice versa.  They utilize a few other VFDs on their 1st alarm.  I think it's more their choice than the city not being willing to do so.  I believe they didn't like the city's terms for providing them the aid.

Due to our geography and odd border configurations, several other smaller towns border the city similar to Ingram, but aren't completely surrounded like Mt. Oliver. 

To the best of my knowledge, Pittsburgh hasn't annexed any areas in at least 2 decades.

4 hours ago, nfd2004 said:

 

 

  Okay, I wasn't aware of that. Next question I have related to this then "If Ingram DID have a serious incident, who did they rely on for mutual aid" ?

They utilized the other VFDs in that area and as far as I know, their 1st alarm included mutual aid units.  I've seen Crafton mentioned several times.

I'm not up on all of their details since they are on the opposite side of the county and in a different dispatch/radio zone.

5 hours ago, nfd2004 said:

Based on what I read here, "annexing", is probably the way to go as "x635" says in his above post. Even with 28 members on the rolls, as "bigrig77" says, how many could actually respond to a serious incident if needed. I'm sure Pittsburgh must respond anyway as a mutual aid company. Is it fair to say that the mutual aid goes the other way as well. My guess is it probably doesn't.

 

 

Pittsburgh did not respond into their district prior to this and Ingram didn't respond into Pittsburgh. 

With the exception of border calls where there is confusion, misidentification of the location for the call, etc., Pittsburgh Fire generally doesn't respond into other communities (that they don't cover) and they don't respond into the city. 

3 hours ago, SOUSGT said:

 

It seems like raising taxes is the universal answer to everything.  Throw more money at the problem and it will go away. That appears to be the motto of the school boards in Westchester. The cost of taxes in NY is one of the largest reason for people moving to another state.  The people of Westchester are paying the highest property taxes in the country. Its causing many to have to work two jobs or move farther away. I would like to see you to suck up 20k a year in property taxes and then cheerfully agree to more.   

Well, the reality is that underfunding is at the heart of some problems.  So, there's not much you can do to fix those problems if you don't put up the money.

In this case, the "problem" appears to be that the all volunteer ambulance services are having a hard time maintaining adequate membership to reliably respond to their calls.  This isn't a new or unique situation.  Many other places have faced this exact problem and have pretty much solved it.

Their solution wasn't to lobby for lower training standards.  Instead they started hiring people to staff the units on a consistent basis allowing them to maintain or improve the level of service they provide.

I can certainly understand the reluctance to increased taxes if one is already paying $20K in property taxes.  However, it's kind of ridiculous to already be paying that much, yet not have adequate public safety services.

6 hours ago, amr6334 said:

So what separates a fly car from a full blown ambulance doing a meet and assist.  Alamo used to run sometimes from Poughkeepsie to Beacon all the time

An actual fly car is a non-transport capable vehicle, typically an SUV or pick up based vehicle and may be staffed with only one Paramedic.

The ambulance obviously would be transport capable and be staffed by at least an EMT and Paramedic.

There may be some minor differences in the quantities of some equipment carried.

Other than that, there's not much of a functional difference when intercepting a BLS ambulance.  However, if the BLS unit fails to respond, you would be able to transport the patient if using an ambulance.