FireMedic049

No doubt and as gamewell45 correctly pointed out, those personalities are on both sides.
However, like many things in life, how you conduct yourself can often have a big influence on how others view and treat you. If you are squared away as a volunteer firefighter and/or fire department, then the vast majority of career firefighters will not have an issue. Now, if you act like a clown, don't know how to do the job or won't do the job, act more like a social club than a fire department, then they're will likely be some animosity - especially if you start playing the "we're all the same" card.
I work in a small career department in a small urban city surrounded by a good dozen volunteer fire departments who's districts directly border the city and few more close by. We pretty much have no choice but to use the volunteers if we need assistance with a fire. One is pretty squared away and we tend to call them first. A few more are ok and we use them when needed. A few more are pretty much posers and we've had issues with them when we've worked with them.
We maintain a pretty good relationship with most of the departments around us, but when you show up at our fire and your engine company gives us the "you want us to go.....in there and do....what?" look, we aren't going to view you favorably and you won't be invited back.
We don't get invited to many out of town calls for whatever reason, but when the neighbors do extend the invitation, we expect to work along side of you and not in place of you. We also expect that your IC (the fire chief) will not be drunk and require our duty chief and another mutual aid chief to assume control of the incident before somebody gets needlessly hurt or killed! When this is the case, we aren't going to view you favorably.
And for the record, I spent 9 years as a volunteer before getting hired 11 years ago.

No doubt and as gamewell45 correctly pointed out, those personalities are on both sides.
However, like many things in life, how you conduct yourself can often have a big influence on how others view and treat you. If you are squared away as a volunteer firefighter and/or fire department, then the vast majority of career firefighters will not have an issue. Now, if you act like a clown, don't know how to do the job or won't do the job, act more like a social club than a fire department, then they're will likely be some animosity - especially if you start playing the "we're all the same" card.
I work in a small career department in a small urban city surrounded by a good dozen volunteer fire departments who's districts directly border the city and few more close by. We pretty much have no choice but to use the volunteers if we need assistance with a fire. One is pretty squared away and we tend to call them first. A few more are ok and we use them when needed. A few more are pretty much posers and we've had issues with them when we've worked with them.
We maintain a pretty good relationship with most of the departments around us, but when you show up at our fire and your engine company gives us the "you want us to go.....in there and do....what?" look, we aren't going to view you favorably and you won't be invited back.
We don't get invited to many out of town calls for whatever reason, but when the neighbors do extend the invitation, we expect to work along side of you and not in place of you. We also expect that your IC (the fire chief) will not be drunk and require our duty chief and another mutual aid chief to assume control of the incident before somebody gets needlessly hurt or killed! When this is the case, we aren't going to view you favorably.
And for the record, I spent 9 years as a volunteer before getting hired 11 years ago.

No doubt and as gamewell45 correctly pointed out, those personalities are on both sides.
However, like many things in life, how you conduct yourself can often have a big influence on how others view and treat you. If you are squared away as a volunteer firefighter and/or fire department, then the vast majority of career firefighters will not have an issue. Now, if you act like a clown, don't know how to do the job or won't do the job, act more like a social club than a fire department, then they're will likely be some animosity - especially if you start playing the "we're all the same" card.
I work in a small career department in a small urban city surrounded by a good dozen volunteer fire departments who's districts directly border the city and few more close by. We pretty much have no choice but to use the volunteers if we need assistance with a fire. One is pretty squared away and we tend to call them first. A few more are ok and we use them when needed. A few more are pretty much posers and we've had issues with them when we've worked with them.
We maintain a pretty good relationship with most of the departments around us, but when you show up at our fire and your engine company gives us the "you want us to go.....in there and do....what?" look, we aren't going to view you favorably and you won't be invited back.
We don't get invited to many out of town calls for whatever reason, but when the neighbors do extend the invitation, we expect to work along side of you and not in place of you. We also expect that your IC (the fire chief) will not be drunk and require our duty chief and another mutual aid chief to assume control of the incident before somebody gets needlessly hurt or killed! When this is the case, we aren't going to view you favorably.
And for the record, I spent 9 years as a volunteer before getting hired 11 years ago.

No doubt and as gamewell45 correctly pointed out, those personalities are on both sides.
However, like many things in life, how you conduct yourself can often have a big influence on how others view and treat you. If you are squared away as a volunteer firefighter and/or fire department, then the vast majority of career firefighters will not have an issue. Now, if you act like a clown, don't know how to do the job or won't do the job, act more like a social club than a fire department, then they're will likely be some animosity - especially if you start playing the "we're all the same" card.
I work in a small career department in a small urban city surrounded by a good dozen volunteer fire departments who's districts directly border the city and few more close by. We pretty much have no choice but to use the volunteers if we need assistance with a fire. One is pretty squared away and we tend to call them first. A few more are ok and we use them when needed. A few more are pretty much posers and we've had issues with them when we've worked with them.
We maintain a pretty good relationship with most of the departments around us, but when you show up at our fire and your engine company gives us the "you want us to go.....in there and do....what?" look, we aren't going to view you favorably and you won't be invited back.
We don't get invited to many out of town calls for whatever reason, but when the neighbors do extend the invitation, we expect to work along side of you and not in place of you. We also expect that your IC (the fire chief) will not be drunk and require our duty chief and another mutual aid chief to assume control of the incident before somebody gets needlessly hurt or killed! When this is the case, we aren't going to view you favorably.
And for the record, I spent 9 years as a volunteer before getting hired 11 years ago.

No doubt and as gamewell45 correctly pointed out, those personalities are on both sides.
However, like many things in life, how you conduct yourself can often have a big influence on how others view and treat you. If you are squared away as a volunteer firefighter and/or fire department, then the vast majority of career firefighters will not have an issue. Now, if you act like a clown, don't know how to do the job or won't do the job, act more like a social club than a fire department, then they're will likely be some animosity - especially if you start playing the "we're all the same" card.
I work in a small career department in a small urban city surrounded by a good dozen volunteer fire departments who's districts directly border the city and few more close by. We pretty much have no choice but to use the volunteers if we need assistance with a fire. One is pretty squared away and we tend to call them first. A few more are ok and we use them when needed. A few more are pretty much posers and we've had issues with them when we've worked with them.
We maintain a pretty good relationship with most of the departments around us, but when you show up at our fire and your engine company gives us the "you want us to go.....in there and do....what?" look, we aren't going to view you favorably and you won't be invited back.
We don't get invited to many out of town calls for whatever reason, but when the neighbors do extend the invitation, we expect to work along side of you and not in place of you. We also expect that your IC (the fire chief) will not be drunk and require our duty chief and another mutual aid chief to assume control of the incident before somebody gets needlessly hurt or killed! When this is the case, we aren't going to view you favorably.
And for the record, I spent 9 years as a volunteer before getting hired 11 years ago.

No doubt and as gamewell45 correctly pointed out, those personalities are on both sides.
However, like many things in life, how you conduct yourself can often have a big influence on how others view and treat you. If you are squared away as a volunteer firefighter and/or fire department, then the vast majority of career firefighters will not have an issue. Now, if you act like a clown, don't know how to do the job or won't do the job, act more like a social club than a fire department, then they're will likely be some animosity - especially if you start playing the "we're all the same" card.
I work in a small career department in a small urban city surrounded by a good dozen volunteer fire departments who's districts directly border the city and few more close by. We pretty much have no choice but to use the volunteers if we need assistance with a fire. One is pretty squared away and we tend to call them first. A few more are ok and we use them when needed. A few more are pretty much posers and we've had issues with them when we've worked with them.
We maintain a pretty good relationship with most of the departments around us, but when you show up at our fire and your engine company gives us the "you want us to go.....in there and do....what?" look, we aren't going to view you favorably and you won't be invited back.
We don't get invited to many out of town calls for whatever reason, but when the neighbors do extend the invitation, we expect to work along side of you and not in place of you. We also expect that your IC (the fire chief) will not be drunk and require our duty chief and another mutual aid chief to assume control of the incident before somebody gets needlessly hurt or killed! When this is the case, we aren't going to view you favorably.
And for the record, I spent 9 years as a volunteer before getting hired 11 years ago.

That's not an F-350 chassis. It's probably an F-450 chassis. The easiest way to tell the difference visually if you can't read the actual F-tags is to look at the tire/rims. The F-350 has the same sized rim as the E-series chassis while the F-450/F-550 chassis has the larger rims shown in these pictures.

NYC laws wouldn't apply outside of NYC. The unit is probably "covered up" already because it would likely make more sense to do it at the factory or dealer (assuming it's outside NYC limits) than to try and do it road side right before crossing into the city.

I saw it at the Fire Expo in Harrisburg back in May. I thought it was pretty nice for what it was. It would work great in my city, if we had the staffing for a "dry" truck. We've been running an E-One HP75 Quint for about 11.5 years now and it's been a very good fit for us.
With the loss of staffing and stations a couple decades ago, we were no longer able to staff a dedicated truck (Aerialscope) and maintain a staffed suppression capable unit in both stations. We ran with engines in both stations until acquiring the Quint. We could use a longer aerial, but we have a lot of tight streets and most tandem ladders would be too big to get around effectively. From what I've seen of it's specs, this unit is pretty close to the same size as our quint (which also carries our extrication equipment).
If we had the ability to maintain staffing for a third unit on-duty, this unit would be another great fit for us. Longer aerial, possibly shorter jack span, additional ground ladders, plenty of space for equipment (could make it our extrication unit and expand our rescue capability) and all for about the same overall size as our current aerial.

Some of what you suggest might be more appropriate if all involved were part of the same agency. In that situation, I would agree that talking to the person directly might be the best way to start working to a resolution.
However, in the situation described, the OP and the FF in question are employed by different agencies. Typically, inter-agency problems in para-military organizations are supposed to be handled via the "chain of command". This is exactly the type of issue that should be handled that way rather than as a one on one bonding session.
As presented, this is not a situation were a provider is in need of assistance from a peer to improve their patient care. He appears to be providing NO patient care if the patient is not a specific race. That requires immediate action by his superiors, NOT peer counseling.

Some of what you suggest might be more appropriate if all involved were part of the same agency. In that situation, I would agree that talking to the person directly might be the best way to start working to a resolution.
However, in the situation described, the OP and the FF in question are employed by different agencies. Typically, inter-agency problems in para-military organizations are supposed to be handled via the "chain of command". This is exactly the type of issue that should be handled that way rather than as a one on one bonding session.
As presented, this is not a situation were a provider is in need of assistance from a peer to improve their patient care. He appears to be providing NO patient care if the patient is not a specific race. That requires immediate action by his superiors, NOT peer counseling.

Some of what you suggest might be more appropriate if all involved were part of the same agency. In that situation, I would agree that talking to the person directly might be the best way to start working to a resolution.
However, in the situation described, the OP and the FF in question are employed by different agencies. Typically, inter-agency problems in para-military organizations are supposed to be handled via the "chain of command". This is exactly the type of issue that should be handled that way rather than as a one on one bonding session.
As presented, this is not a situation were a provider is in need of assistance from a peer to improve their patient care. He appears to be providing NO patient care if the patient is not a specific race. That requires immediate action by his superiors, NOT peer counseling.

Not always. Up to a point, it is actually more cost effective to cover vacancies using overtime.
With 400 vacancies and people making more than $100K in OT, I'm pretty confident that they've past that point.
Additionally, in today's economic and political environment you can't rule out the possibility that the City Administration is intentionally not filling the vacancies and running up the OT costs. OT costs soar, the fingers start pointing at the "greedy" (union) firefighters, the public gets worked up over the perception that it's the Union's fault and then the City tries to use this as leverage to make cuts in manpower, unit staffing, fire stations, benefits, etc.

Not always. Up to a point, it is actually more cost effective to cover vacancies using overtime.
With 400 vacancies and people making more than $100K in OT, I'm pretty confident that they've past that point.
Additionally, in today's economic and political environment you can't rule out the possibility that the City Administration is intentionally not filling the vacancies and running up the OT costs. OT costs soar, the fingers start pointing at the "greedy" (union) firefighters, the public gets worked up over the perception that it's the Union's fault and then the City tries to use this as leverage to make cuts in manpower, unit staffing, fire stations, benefits, etc.

Not always. Up to a point, it is actually more cost effective to cover vacancies using overtime.
With 400 vacancies and people making more than $100K in OT, I'm pretty confident that they've past that point.
Additionally, in today's economic and political environment you can't rule out the possibility that the City Administration is intentionally not filling the vacancies and running up the OT costs. OT costs soar, the fingers start pointing at the "greedy" (union) firefighters, the public gets worked up over the perception that it's the Union's fault and then the City tries to use this as leverage to make cuts in manpower, unit staffing, fire stations, benefits, etc.

And the answer will be "no" to increased (unit) staffing.

IMO at least, the typical TeleSqurt unit is really nothing more than an enhanced engine. Although you could put some "truck" equipment on it and the personnel arriving on it could perform "truck work" at a scene, the apparatus isn't a "truck" or really even a "quint" for that matter. The typical TeleSqurt only carries a ground ladder compliment consistent with that of an engine. The aerial device is typically not designed for use in the same fashion that the typical aerial ladder is and tends to be shorter since it's pretty much intended to only be an elevated master stream and not a platform for working or rescue.
Regardless of being rural, I think it would depend a lot on how the apparatus will be used as to whether a Quint or TeleSqurt is the better option. If all you want is the elevated master stream, then the TeleSqurt would probably be a better option in terms of cost, vehicle size and weight. If you want the ability to actually climb an aerial device to reach an upper floor or roof for rescue or to perform work, then the Quint would probably be the better option.

IMO at least, the typical TeleSqurt unit is really nothing more than an enhanced engine. Although you could put some "truck" equipment on it and the personnel arriving on it could perform "truck work" at a scene, the apparatus isn't a "truck" or really even a "quint" for that matter. The typical TeleSqurt only carries a ground ladder compliment consistent with that of an engine. The aerial device is typically not designed for use in the same fashion that the typical aerial ladder is and tends to be shorter since it's pretty much intended to only be an elevated master stream and not a platform for working or rescue.
Regardless of being rural, I think it would depend a lot on how the apparatus will be used as to whether a Quint or TeleSqurt is the better option. If all you want is the elevated master stream, then the TeleSqurt would probably be a better option in terms of cost, vehicle size and weight. If you want the ability to actually climb an aerial device to reach an upper floor or roof for rescue or to perform work, then the Quint would probably be the better option.

While this may be true, it doesn't seem to address the other half of the situation - integrated citywide fire operations. Additionally, it there no true guarantee up front that it will provide the desired return on investment. However, adding those positions to SFRD would provide a guaranteed return on investment. Couple that with an integration of the VFDs and SFRD under a single command/operating structure and fire chief plus volunteer incentives and you still come in significantly less than what is being proposed currently in addition to addressing the whole situation.

Well, a lot of how you'll feel would be based on what you know to be the knowledge and abilities of the guys on those trucks. If you have a solid group capable of getting after it, you may not feel all that bad. I work in a small career department that easily sees our share of working fires. I've been to numerous fires with the staffing you mention, but arriving with one engine and one quint. Our backup is orimarily our off-duty personnel and sometimes mutual aid companies too depending on the severity of the fire. We've knocked down many a good fire before the cavalry arrives.

The key as I mentioned is everyone being experienced, well trained, knowing what their role is and executing to the best of their ability. In our case, at least on my shift, we know the play and the common audibles that might be called and can easily adjust to them on the fly. It's definitely more challenging than having the "right" amount of staffing and arguably "less safe", but at the same time I enjoy the "multi-tasking" we get to do. It isn't ideal, but you quickly learn how to prioritize the "normal" fireground tasks for the staffing you have and it sure as heck isn't "text book", but we're having good results.

Well, a lot of how you'll feel would be based on what you know to be the knowledge and abilities of the guys on those trucks. If you have a solid group capable of getting after it, you may not feel all that bad. I work in a small career department that easily sees our share of working fires. I've been to numerous fires with the staffing you mention, but arriving with one engine and one quint. Our backup is orimarily our off-duty personnel and sometimes mutual aid companies too depending on the severity of the fire. We've knocked down many a good fire before the cavalry arrives.

The key as I mentioned is everyone being experienced, well trained, knowing what their role is and executing to the best of their ability. In our case, at least on my shift, we know the play and the common audibles that might be called and can easily adjust to them on the fly. It's definitely more challenging than having the "right" amount of staffing and arguably "less safe", but at the same time I enjoy the "multi-tasking" we get to do. It isn't ideal, but you quickly learn how to prioritize the "normal" fireground tasks for the staffing you have and it sure as heck isn't "text book", but we're having good results.

Well, a lot of how you'll feel would be based on what you know to be the knowledge and abilities of the guys on those trucks. If you have a solid group capable of getting after it, you may not feel all that bad. I work in a small career department that easily sees our share of working fires. I've been to numerous fires with the staffing you mention, but arriving with one engine and one quint. Our backup is orimarily our off-duty personnel and sometimes mutual aid companies too depending on the severity of the fire. We've knocked down many a good fire before the cavalry arrives.

The key as I mentioned is everyone being experienced, well trained, knowing what their role is and executing to the best of their ability. In our case, at least on my shift, we know the play and the common audibles that might be called and can easily adjust to them on the fly. It's definitely more challenging than having the "right" amount of staffing and arguably "less safe", but at the same time I enjoy the "multi-tasking" we get to do. It isn't ideal, but you quickly learn how to prioritize the "normal" fireground tasks for the staffing you have and it sure as heck isn't "text book", but we're having good results.

I thought these three comments of opposition were some of the more noteworthy. "I think it would be workable with one fire chief with representation from career, volunteers and the public," Belltown Fire Department Chief John Didelot said. "The bottom line with this whole situation is we want people to vote `no' so the opportunity is presented to bring all the stakeholders to the table and work this out in an amicable way rather than shoving it down everybody's throat."

I see this statement as a matter of "putting the cart before the horse". From everything I've read on this situation, there seems to be support on both sides for the general concept of a single Fire Chief, single Fire Department model and the City Charter has been the primary hurdle for the creation of this "unified department". The purpose of the Charter Question as I understand it is to essentially remove that "road block" by asking the citizens if they want to maintain the status quo or "reorganize" the delivery of fire protection services into a single Fire Department with a single Fire Chief and consisting of both career and volunteer firefighters.

To me, that's the logical first step in this process. As I understand it, even if all parties were 100% on board with creating this "new" Fire Department, the matter would still have to go before the citizens to approve changes to the Charter to allow it to happen. So, if the Charter has to be changed regardless in order to get to the end point, then why would you spend time "working out the details" when there's no guarantee that you'll have the legal authority to put that plan into action?

Maounis said many volunteers would likely leave the departments if the referendum passes, forcing the city to hire more firefighters at a greater cost to taxpayers.
"They are going to be pushed aside to be second-class citizens, so to speak," he said. "I think there's a very good chance that a good portion of the volunteers will leave if this passes. If the volunteers leave, the taxes will go up."
Coppola said a system where an outside fire chief exerts control over the volunteer fire departments would never work.
"The volunteers will go away," he said. "They won't be as motivated because they'll be reporting to someone else. You think we're going to take a backseat to anyone else after all these years of fighting fires? That's not going to happen. Not in Belltown."


To me, these two statements clearly show where the volunteer side's focus is and brings into question their actual "committement" to the people that they have been serving. If they are so dedicated to protecting their districts, then why would they even entertain the notion of quiting over this Charter Question? If they are so worried about this change resulting in a tax increase, then why would they act in a fashion that would likely result in a significant tax increase in order to replace them? If they are so convinced that the union supports this only because they want to get rid of the volunteers and increase their membership numbers, then why would the volunteers quit and basically hand the union exactly what they supposedly are after? If they actually have no intention of quiting, then it's basically nothing more than fearmongering to try to influence the vote.

I thought these three comments of opposition were some of the more noteworthy. "I think it would be workable with one fire chief with representation from career, volunteers and the public," Belltown Fire Department Chief John Didelot said. "The bottom line with this whole situation is we want people to vote `no' so the opportunity is presented to bring all the stakeholders to the table and work this out in an amicable way rather than shoving it down everybody's throat."

I see this statement as a matter of "putting the cart before the horse". From everything I've read on this situation, there seems to be support on both sides for the general concept of a single Fire Chief, single Fire Department model and the City Charter has been the primary hurdle for the creation of this "unified department". The purpose of the Charter Question as I understand it is to essentially remove that "road block" by asking the citizens if they want to maintain the status quo or "reorganize" the delivery of fire protection services into a single Fire Department with a single Fire Chief and consisting of both career and volunteer firefighters.

To me, that's the logical first step in this process. As I understand it, even if all parties were 100% on board with creating this "new" Fire Department, the matter would still have to go before the citizens to approve changes to the Charter to allow it to happen. So, if the Charter has to be changed regardless in order to get to the end point, then why would you spend time "working out the details" when there's no guarantee that you'll have the legal authority to put that plan into action?

Maounis said many volunteers would likely leave the departments if the referendum passes, forcing the city to hire more firefighters at a greater cost to taxpayers.
"They are going to be pushed aside to be second-class citizens, so to speak," he said. "I think there's a very good chance that a good portion of the volunteers will leave if this passes. If the volunteers leave, the taxes will go up."
Coppola said a system where an outside fire chief exerts control over the volunteer fire departments would never work.
"The volunteers will go away," he said. "They won't be as motivated because they'll be reporting to someone else. You think we're going to take a backseat to anyone else after all these years of fighting fires? That's not going to happen. Not in Belltown."


To me, these two statements clearly show where the volunteer side's focus is and brings into question their actual "committement" to the people that they have been serving. If they are so dedicated to protecting their districts, then why would they even entertain the notion of quiting over this Charter Question? If they are so worried about this change resulting in a tax increase, then why would they act in a fashion that would likely result in a significant tax increase in order to replace them? If they are so convinced that the union supports this only because they want to get rid of the volunteers and increase their membership numbers, then why would the volunteers quit and basically hand the union exactly what they supposedly are after? If they actually have no intention of quiting, then it's basically nothing more than fearmongering to try to influence the vote.