FireMedic049

Perhaps we should since some in the fire service insist on misleading the public about their department's capabilities.

Perhaps we should since some in the fire service insist on misleading the public about their department's capabilities.

Perhaps we should since some in the fire service insist on misleading the public about their department's capabilities.

It's hard to argue against the increased age cutoff itself with age related health concerns when you have guys already on the job working who are in those same age ranges and working at what is essentially the same rank and job duties.
 
Now, the reasoning for it may be dubious, but I don't think it'll have the desired effect.  The age increase may attract more minority applicants, but it'll also attract more non-minority applicants too.  So the net effect may be a slightly older class of recruits rather than a more diverse class unless the process is manipulated to achieve the desired diversity.

It's hard to argue against the increased age cutoff itself with age related health concerns when you have guys already on the job working who are in those same age ranges and working at what is essentially the same rank and job duties.
 
Now, the reasoning for it may be dubious, but I don't think it'll have the desired effect.  The age increase may attract more minority applicants, but it'll also attract more non-minority applicants too.  So the net effect may be a slightly older class of recruits rather than a more diverse class unless the process is manipulated to achieve the desired diversity.

And in many other states too.

You've hit on what I feel is an important aspect of the career/volunteer dynamic, but is often overlooked and is a significant factor in the "conflict".
 
There seems to be an inability among many volunteers to recognize and understand that being different doesn't necessarily mean one side is inadequate.  Anytime the notion of career firefighters being "better" (by virtue of doing the job FT and the training/experience that comes with it) comes up, you typically see a defensive reaction from volunteers with claims of doing the same job and having the same training.
 
While in some cases, individually & departmentally, this may be true, in general it isn't the case.  What seems to escape these people is the understanding that I (career) can be "better" than you without you (volunteer) being inadequate.
 
For example, say we both take a test, I score a 97 and you score a 91.  Well, I clearly did "better" than you on the test, but it's also clear that you didn't do too bad either.
 
I've come to refer to this as the "volunteer inferiority complex".  I think if we could get passed this "misunderstanding", we could make real progress in reducing the animosity. 

I think you misunderstood my comment.  I wasn't speaking about employer initiated discipline, I was referring more to comments from the online peanut gallery.  I've seen numerous comments that call for career firefighters to be fired for an inappropriate action or comment that oftentimes really isn't worthy of termination.
 
As for your comment, typically the employee has the ability to challenge the termination via the grievance process.  If the matter cannot be resolved via discussion/negotiation between the employer and the union on behalf of the employee, then the matter would go to arbitration.  If the employer can't show just cause for the termination, then more than likely the employee would be reinstated by the arbitrator.

I think you misunderstood my comment.  I wasn't speaking about employer initiated discipline, I was referring more to comments from the online peanut gallery.  I've seen numerous comments that call for career firefighters to be fired for an inappropriate action or comment that oftentimes really isn't worthy of termination.
 
As for your comment, typically the employee has the ability to challenge the termination via the grievance process.  If the matter cannot be resolved via discussion/negotiation between the employer and the union on behalf of the employee, then the matter would go to arbitration.  If the employer can't show just cause for the termination, then more than likely the employee would be reinstated by the arbitrator.

That's kind of what I figured.  Thanks.

OK.  Just wondering since the chassis is clearly a Rosenbauer and the body has a design feature that for the most part I've only seen from Rosenbauer.  Plus there's the whole Spartan stopped selling chassis to Rosenbauer thing, so I doubt Rosenbauer would sell a chassis to Spartan to build a body on.

We have a similar situation where I'm at.  We're the only game in our (small) city, but we are completely surrounded by VFDs.  Upwards of a dozen or so independent stations in the various municipalities we share a border with in some fashion.  We utilize a few of them somewhat routinely for working fires (primarily as RIT initially) and then for additional alarms.  Occasionally we work together on border calls. 
 
For the most part, we're not on their initial alarms and they rarely call us for incidents.  We're physically closer than most of the other companies that do get called.  Their apparatus responds thru our city at times, sometimes past one of our staffed stations.  We frequently listen to incidents where they're slow to respond or have working incidents were we could potentially make a difference (despite our limited staffing) because we could get there quick with experienced guys, but aren't called.
 
Some of the reasons I've heard thrown around were stuff like our city would bill them for the response (not true), the union would file a grievance over the response (also not true as the union was 200% in favor of responding to the calls, never mind that it wouldn't be grievable anyway) and some other odd reasons despite the fact that on two occasions we've gone to a full recall of off-duty personnel in order to send an on-duty unit and supplemental personnel to a mutual aid fire and cover our stations.
 
Now some of our previous chiefs have done things that have helped contribute to them not calling us, but ultimately I think that it comes down to two things, 1) we'll beat most of them to their calls and 2) we'll make them "look bad" because on average, we're more trained, more experienced and not too shabby at putting out fires.
 
We're slowly seeing some progress though.  So, we'll see where that goes.
 
 
 
 

You've hit on what I feel is an important aspect of the career/volunteer dynamic, but is often overlooked and is a significant factor in the "conflict".
 
There seems to be an inability among many volunteers to recognize and understand that being different doesn't necessarily mean one side is inadequate.  Anytime the notion of career firefighters being "better" (by virtue of doing the job FT and the training/experience that comes with it) comes up, you typically see a defensive reaction from volunteers with claims of doing the same job and having the same training.
 
While in some cases, individually & departmentally, this may be true, in general it isn't the case.  What seems to escape these people is the understanding that I (career) can be "better" than you without you (volunteer) being inadequate.
 
For example, say we both take a test, I score a 97 and you score a 91.  Well, I clearly did "better" than you on the test, but it's also clear that you didn't do too bad either.
 
I've come to refer to this as the "volunteer inferiority complex".  I think if we could get passed this "misunderstanding", we could make real progress in reducing the animosity. 

I don't know what the exact charge would be, but it would be something along the lines of impersonating a public safety official since they are no longer recognized as such.

 
I think you and AFS1970 may be missing the point.  
 
I'm not questioning the value or appropriateness of having/using members in a VFD who are not interior qualified for whatever reason.
 
The description used was "fully qualified, completely trained and certified firefighters" which to me would describe members who are interior qualified and exclude members who previously were, but are not currently able to operate interior whether due to age, physical limitation, having a beard or whatever (i.e. not qualified).
 
I was commenting on the thought process that results in a (former) chief officer describing 9 members of the department who are not interior qualified as being fully qualified, completely trained and certified firefighters.
 
I would think that using "fully qualified" to describe a firefighter would imply the ability to perform a vital, core component of the position, like interior operations.
 
Like I asked, when did interior operations become a bonus skill set for firefighters rather than the standard?

 
I think you and AFS1970 may be missing the point.  
 
I'm not questioning the value or appropriateness of having/using members in a VFD who are not interior qualified for whatever reason.
 
The description used was "fully qualified, completely trained and certified firefighters" which to me would describe members who are interior qualified and exclude members who previously were, but are not currently able to operate interior whether due to age, physical limitation, having a beard or whatever (i.e. not qualified).
 
I was commenting on the thought process that results in a (former) chief officer describing 9 members of the department who are not interior qualified as being fully qualified, completely trained and certified firefighters.
 
I would think that using "fully qualified" to describe a firefighter would imply the ability to perform a vital, core component of the position, like interior operations.
 
Like I asked, when did interior operations become a bonus skill set for firefighters rather than the standard?

"We have 31 fully qualified, completely trained and certified firefighters, 22 of which are also interior qualified,” said past assistant chief and 53-year member Bob Harford. "
 
I know there's differences from state to state regarding training and certification, but how can a department claim a member to be a "fully qualified, completely trained and certified" firefighter when that person is not "interior qualified"?
 
When did being "interior qualified" as a firefighter become a bonus skill set rather than the standard? 

 
I think you and AFS1970 may be missing the point.  
 
I'm not questioning the value or appropriateness of having/using members in a VFD who are not interior qualified for whatever reason.
 
The description used was "fully qualified, completely trained and certified firefighters" which to me would describe members who are interior qualified and exclude members who previously were, but are not currently able to operate interior whether due to age, physical limitation, having a beard or whatever (i.e. not qualified).
 
I was commenting on the thought process that results in a (former) chief officer describing 9 members of the department who are not interior qualified as being fully qualified, completely trained and certified firefighters.
 
I would think that using "fully qualified" to describe a firefighter would imply the ability to perform a vital, core component of the position, like interior operations.
 
Like I asked, when did interior operations become a bonus skill set for firefighters rather than the standard?

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".

 
I think you and AFS1970 may be missing the point.  
 
I'm not questioning the value or appropriateness of having/using members in a VFD who are not interior qualified for whatever reason.
 
The description used was "fully qualified, completely trained and certified firefighters" which to me would describe members who are interior qualified and exclude members who previously were, but are not currently able to operate interior whether due to age, physical limitation, having a beard or whatever (i.e. not qualified).
 
I was commenting on the thought process that results in a (former) chief officer describing 9 members of the department who are not interior qualified as being fully qualified, completely trained and certified firefighters.
 
I would think that using "fully qualified" to describe a firefighter would imply the ability to perform a vital, core component of the position, like interior operations.
 
Like I asked, when did interior operations become a bonus skill set for firefighters rather than the standard?

 
I think you and AFS1970 may be missing the point.  
 
I'm not questioning the value or appropriateness of having/using members in a VFD who are not interior qualified for whatever reason.
 
The description used was "fully qualified, completely trained and certified firefighters" which to me would describe members who are interior qualified and exclude members who previously were, but are not currently able to operate interior whether due to age, physical limitation, having a beard or whatever (i.e. not qualified).
 
I was commenting on the thought process that results in a (former) chief officer describing 9 members of the department who are not interior qualified as being fully qualified, completely trained and certified firefighters.
 
I would think that using "fully qualified" to describe a firefighter would imply the ability to perform a vital, core component of the position, like interior operations.
 
Like I asked, when did interior operations become a bonus skill set for firefighters rather than the standard?

 
I think you and AFS1970 may be missing the point.  
 
I'm not questioning the value or appropriateness of having/using members in a VFD who are not interior qualified for whatever reason.
 
The description used was "fully qualified, completely trained and certified firefighters" which to me would describe members who are interior qualified and exclude members who previously were, but are not currently able to operate interior whether due to age, physical limitation, having a beard or whatever (i.e. not qualified).
 
I was commenting on the thought process that results in a (former) chief officer describing 9 members of the department who are not interior qualified as being fully qualified, completely trained and certified firefighters.
 
I would think that using "fully qualified" to describe a firefighter would imply the ability to perform a vital, core component of the position, like interior operations.
 
Like I asked, when did interior operations become a bonus skill set for firefighters rather than the standard?

 
I think you and AFS1970 may be missing the point.  
 
I'm not questioning the value or appropriateness of having/using members in a VFD who are not interior qualified for whatever reason.
 
The description used was "fully qualified, completely trained and certified firefighters" which to me would describe members who are interior qualified and exclude members who previously were, but are not currently able to operate interior whether due to age, physical limitation, having a beard or whatever (i.e. not qualified).
 
I was commenting on the thought process that results in a (former) chief officer describing 9 members of the department who are not interior qualified as being fully qualified, completely trained and certified firefighters.
 
I would think that using "fully qualified" to describe a firefighter would imply the ability to perform a vital, core component of the position, like interior operations.
 
Like I asked, when did interior operations become a bonus skill set for firefighters rather than the standard?

 
I think you and AFS1970 may be missing the point.  
 
I'm not questioning the value or appropriateness of having/using members in a VFD who are not interior qualified for whatever reason.
 
The description used was "fully qualified, completely trained and certified firefighters" which to me would describe members who are interior qualified and exclude members who previously were, but are not currently able to operate interior whether due to age, physical limitation, having a beard or whatever (i.e. not qualified).
 
I was commenting on the thought process that results in a (former) chief officer describing 9 members of the department who are not interior qualified as being fully qualified, completely trained and certified firefighters.
 
I would think that using "fully qualified" to describe a firefighter would imply the ability to perform a vital, core component of the position, like interior operations.
 
Like I asked, when did interior operations become a bonus skill set for firefighters rather than the standard?

"We have 31 fully qualified, completely trained and certified firefighters, 22 of which are also interior qualified,” said past assistant chief and 53-year member Bob Harford. "
 
I know there's differences from state to state regarding training and certification, but how can a department claim a member to be a "fully qualified, completely trained and certified" firefighter when that person is not "interior qualified"?
 
When did being "interior qualified" as a firefighter become a bonus skill set rather than the standard?