thebreeze

Paralyzed, if you're going to correct people's spelling, please use proper spelling. Sorry, had to break balls.

So it's ENTIRELY due to attitude? I don't think so. How about the marked difference between the physical and hazardous aspects of these professions? How about higher rates of cancer? How about the chance of dying each tour? No, that can't play any role right? I respect the difficult and demanding job that dispatchers do day in and day out, more often than not understaffed and overworked just like the rest of us, but I can't believe that the difference in retirement age is simply because of an attitude and the lack of public education. I know many dispatchers and they are extremely dedicated, intelligent, motivated people who are good at what they do. There are marked legitimate differences between the professions and their effects on your health and wellbeing and any implication otherwise just sounds like sour grapes.

Maybe it has something to do with the different physical requirements and stressors placed upon your body throughout a career. Exposures to an IDLH or physical violence. I know dispatchers have an extremely difficult job, but physically and mentally a body can only handle so much of extremely rigorous physically and mentally demanding duty, and the bodies and minds of firefighters and police officers out on the street will reach this threshold far before dispatchers will.

That the internet is not a 100% reliable source of information.

Not until after he is granted tenure after two years in the position, which as multiple people have pointed out, hasn't happened in quite some time.

I believe you're thinking about the Chief of Department rank Barry, that is a civil service position even though there is no test for it. Commissioners in New York City are all appointees and serve at the pleasure of the mayor, they have no real job protection as far as I know. As far as Cassano goes I have heard that he's out, he did ask to stay but it doesn't look like he will, several different names have been floating around out there for who DeBlasio will replace him with.

There are senior guys, and guys that are just guys with time. There's a huge difference and it doesn't take long to figure out which is which as long as you yourself have your head screwed on straight.

So what is that "use"? You see the need but what is it? You say someone for the probies to go to when the officer isn't around, well that spot is already filled,a few times over, they can talk to another probie, talk to the guy just above them in terms of time on the job because he just went through what they are going through, or talk to the senior man. Giving a guy a title doesn't mean anything, it doesn't mean he is the right guy to ask. It doesn't take long in the fire service to figure out who you should ask for advice, who is there just filling a spot or who is into the job and cares about doing it well. Most of the time the person with rank isn't who you want to ask for advice anyway, most questions and issues can and should be handled by the men before they make it to the officer.

Well you're not taking into the account that he's only a member of the Board, he doesn't have the power to do anything unilaterally, and if the public doesn't like his views then at next years election they can come out in support of someone who opposes his policies. There is no problem with a five year term, as long as there are checks and balances, in this case those being the other four commissioners. You can't just turn everything into one or two year terms, nothing would get accomplished, as it is now politicians spend too much of their time trying to get re-elected, if you shortened their terms then that's all they would focus on. You even sometimes see this with fire chiefs in a one year term, if they want to make any changes they have a few months to try and get things done before they have to start worrying about getting re-elected all over again or bounced out by the old guard who don't like change.

Yeah, I think you may in fact be the only one. If you can read that entire article and the only thing you find troubling is how the city labels the test rather than wholly unqualified candidates being pushed into the field then I question your priorities. Who cares what it's called? People take it, pass it, and they leave EMS and come to the suppression side. You could call it a demotion and the same people would still take it, call it a transfer, same. EMS in the city is a tough and sometimes thankless job and as a result the attrition rate is extremely high.

Deleted

I understand and am aware that it is being tested elsewhere, I was simply responding to and elaborating on the other posters assertion that the NYPD is using it.

This is purely a pilot program in one precinct with the NYPD. Personally I feel that they could worry about some more important things than helping out what will often just be junkies. They are barely equipped to do CPR and now you expect them to give Narcan? I don't think so, what happens if something goes south? They don't carry any equipment to perform any type of interventions. Many officers I have spoken to on the street have told me they have been told in not so many words that they are not to touch patients when they respond in to EMS runs. Maybe they should get everyone re-certified or refreshed in CPR or start giving them defibs before they start worrying about this. Mind you I am in no way bashing the overwhelming majority of officers out there who do perform CPR and do the right thing trying to save people, I am just pointing out that there have been incidents where a few officers have not (and been appropriately disciplined), they are not always kept current on CPR, and the city does not properly equip them for it.

I think it depends on an areas call volume. Total lack of fire protection in a densely populated, busy area with high call volume could be considered a true emergency.

I don't think the instructors are worrying about their reputations while teaching, they are worrying about whether the crop of recruits they were given is qualified enough and fit enough to do the job. How's it going to reflect on them when someone they passed through probie school goes and gets himself killed, or God forbid gets a whole company seriously injured or killed trying to save his ass? All because they passed him through, not truly ready or qualified, so they would look good? I don't think so, that's a dangerous mindset, as an instructor you need to be doing your job right, no matter how it may reflect on you.

You think the NYPD doesn't try to corral these guys? I have seen officers try to stop a group of these guys, they all split off and took off in different directions. It's impossible to chase them as they can weave in and out through traffic. it's not like they are going to respect authority and just pull over when signaled to do so, these guys are on the other side of the law and they know it and they are going to run every time. I have even spoken to a friend who says they have used helicopters to try and pinpoint warehouses or garages where these guys all go back to and have been unable to do so even from the air. They are animals, and the NYPD has their hands full, especially now with one hand tied behind their back thanks to politicians, judges, and a nearsighted public.

If it's so easy then tell us, I doubt anyone even cares, and whether one works for the city or not doesn't mean you are blind to what's going on in front of you. This is a classic case of judicial activism, as the judge decided she was going to rule on more than she was obligated to. Rather than simply rule on the case before her she reached further than the scope of this case and began making decisions not about the legality of a contract, but what she deemed to be proper in regards to the maintenance and lifespan of rigs that weren't frontline rigs and not specified in the contract or in the lawsuit. All she had to do was say yes the city is in violation, but she couldn't resist the urge to do what the majority of judges do, to try to expand and broaden their own power base. She had the right and duty to order a remedy to the issue brought before her, no more, no less.

Virtually? I don't even want to pay attention after that. Did you also stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night? I've virtually shot down a plane, I don't try giving fighter pilots advice, I've virtually won the Super Bowl, I'm not offering coaching tips to Tom Coughlan. I've actually spoken on the radio at large scale incidents as well as run of the mill incidents, I've been on both ends of the radio, command and front line, and the simpler and easier it is, the more second nature it is to you, the better it works out when everything is going wrong.

Yeah, not so hard, until an aircraft crashes and the sky pretty much falls on your head. Why not just keep it simple so when the world turns upside down you don't have to think about it, it's one thing, you're used to it, and you don't have to worry about messing it up.

You can't just lump every new guy into a category of a few people with really poor attitudes. Especially because if you do, you are just giving up on them. Its not hard to make a guy realize whats expected of him and whats viewed as unacceptable or sub par behavior without violating harassment rules. All you need is to know how to phrase things without flat out telling someone they are an idiot. I am not saying that every young guy is a home run, but I am saying that it's up to everyone to help shape them and show them whats expected, and maybe even sometimes to show them that this might not be for them. Brotherhood starts in the firehouse, with time spent together working. By this simple fact alone it makes it harder to build in a volunteer company because not as much time is spent together. Some departments have a good group of guys that hang out together at the firehouse as well as do things together outside of the house. This time spent together is critical in volunteer organizations if you expect there to be any type of brotherhood, otherwise you just see each other in passing at calls, and a couple times a month at a drill or meeting. That's simply not enough to build a good strong bond with your fellow members and create that brotherhood you are looking for. I know some people are very critical of some of the functions that volunteer organizations hold. I myself can't stand parades and have never shied away from sharing that opinion, fundraising, well there should be some more transparency to that, but as far as picnics, company dances, maybe a weekly card game, or Sunday coffee and breakfast together, these are important functions. These are where the guys can sit around and talk, build friendships, camaraderie, and sow the seeds of the brotherhood. As far as paid companies, there are some that have a strong bond, and there are some that just come in to collect their check. The good companies you see all spend a lot of time together, at work as well as when off duty. In the firehouse, it all starts in the kitchen, its the communal place that everyone comes to sit, talk, share meals, and BS about whats going on. Cooking, and sitting and sharing a meal together is extremely important, it provides a little structure and sets a time for when everyone will be together. Personally, and I have seen this done both ways, but I don't believe the TV has a place in the kitchen. It sucks the life out of the conversation and gives guys an excuse to come in and shut themselves off. Conversation with your brothers should be the main focus of the meal, especially when someone tried something new and the food sucks. It shouldn't end when you're done eating either, you don't just get up and walk out where you're done, you sit and talk, learn, laugh, and build strong bonds with your brothers. Companies like this are some of the best you ever see work together at a fire. Brotherhood is not dead, its alive and well and thriving in many places. Hopefully we can all learn from those of us who are still enjoying the greatness of it, but certainly no one should give up on it.

So saying that we need a standard that we can actually hold people accountable to isn't thinking forward? Because right now even with all the NFPA standards you are touting, it doesn't get done. So maybe we need something better, or should we just stick with whats not working and hope adding another bureaucrat to the mix fixes it? You don't think there are volunteer chiefs out there striving for their departments to attain the NFPA minimum? That's a harsh criticism. Paying a chief is pointless if he has no authority to do anything, a bunch of volunteers under a paid chief aren't going to respect him or listen to him just because he's paid. Giving someone money to do the job doesn't provide them with a better mechanism to do the job, and that's what I am advocating. I am all for change, I just don't see any benefit to essentially adding another entire layer of bureaucracy on top of an already top heavy fire service here in New York. Until you can strengthen the base of the pyramid, by providing one single standard of training for all firefighters, there's no point in adding more dead weight to the top. That doesn't even touch the topics of medical exams, or physical fitness.

I think the only result of this would be seeing a lot of bald fire chiefs walking around with bruises on their heads. That's after they're done tearing out all of their hair and smashing their heads against the wall trying to get guys to change their routines, attitudes, and methods. A paid chief cannot accomplish anything just by having that as his full time job, not until there is a set standard for everyone established by the state that he can point to and say, look, you HAVE to do this, you are REQUIRED to do this. Unless you think a whole department of guys is going to start listening to a guy all of a sudden because, hey, he's paid and he said so. If you think that will happen, I have a bridge to sell you too.

What about quads? I think a quad is a lot more practical for some departments that don't really have any larger structures.

While this is true, sometimes it's an impossible task. You can tell your members whatever you want, but you can't force them to come out for a call. Most of the time if a chief stands up and berates the membership about poor turnout or coverage the only people who take it to heart are the ones already breaking their asses and showing up to almost every alarm. The other crowd of do-nothing's will nod their heads and say yeah ok, I've been here ten-twenty-thirty years, not my problem anymore. Maybe you'll shame a few guys into stepping it up for a few weeks, but that's about it. Meanwhile the guys who were already shouldering all the burden are now puahing harder and burning themselves out. As far as elections go, I've rarely seen one where people were actually concerned with the issues facing the department as opposed to a popularity contest, or a shuffling around of current officers, or just a ladder that everyone climbs moving from one office to the next until they did the whole circuit and then can go rest on their laurels. I've never seen someone get up there and campaign and say once I'm chief everyone will be required to pull their weight, the dead wood will be cut, and all alarms will be answered in a timely fashion with a full crew. You'd get laughed at. It's time for departments to start looking outside of their own four walls for solutions.

Saying that we should use mutual aid for "years", while we rebuild out service isn't a fix, not even a temporary one, because the way you explain it its a cycle and will just occur again. Not to mention it would be like waiting in the ER for eight hours with a broken arm, the doctor coming in and putting a bandaid on the wrong arm and saying come back in a few months. As far as saying you'd quit once a paid guy walks through the door, I think that's a pretty defeatist attitude, like saying you're the only one who can play in the sandbox. There are multiple instances of departments that work well as a combination department. Sure there's growing pains, but at least you're GROWING, not sitting doing nothing about a problem. If you're worried about being looked down on by career staff, maybe it should just be incentive to train harder and show yourselves as an indispensable aspect of that department. Cry and whine and walk out the door, well I don't think anyone's gonna bat an eye worrying about losing those guys. If you're there to do the right thing you'd do it in whatever fashion is best for the community, not just what you want. Money spent isn't everything, you need to look at the service received side of the equation. It's like why the low bid system sucks. If I showed up to your town and said I could give you an FD for 300k a year should the town drop you and take me? Or should they decide not what's cheapest, but what's the best VALUE. Saying that we should use mutual aid for "years", while we rebuild out service isn't a fix, not even a temporary one, because the way you explain it its a cycle and will just occur again. Not to mention it would be like waiting in the ER for eight hours with a broken arm, the doctor coming in and putting a bandaid on the wrong arm and saying come back in a few months. As far as saying you'd quit once a paid guy walks through the door, I think that's a pretty defeatist attitude, like saying you're the only one who can play in the sandbox. There are multiple instances of departments that work well as a combination department. Sure there's growing pains, but at least you're GROWING, not sitting doing nothing about a problem. If you're worried about being looked down on by career staff, maybe it should just be incentive to train harder and show yourselves as an indispensable aspect of that department. Cry and whine and walk out the door, well I don't think anyone's gonna bat an eye worrying about losing those guys. If you're there to do the right thing you'd do it in whatever fashion is best for the community, not just what you want. Money spent isn't everything, you need to look at the service received side of the equation. It's like why the low bid system sucks. If I showed up to your town and said I could give you an FD for 300k a year should the town drop you and take me? Or should they decide not what's cheapest, but what's the best VALUE?