thebreeze

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.

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.

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.

Or in your case pull the whole company out while the 10-45 is just around the hallway on the couch in the living room cause you need to wait for a line that is coming down the street cause the can man didn't want to disrespect the Lt and tell you no when he should have.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I know many Career Chiefs that have gotten that position because they were the "popular guy" or the only one who "volunteered" for the Job! How about raising the 'bar" to get accepted and meet some specific standards and not worry as much about 'quotas" and offending certain groups! Let's begin moving forward in this manner by hiring the most qualified to be able to actually carry out that "Oath" we recite! Whatta ya say?

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?

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.

These articles aren't very well written because they are geared more towards a criticism of recent actions taken by judges in regards to NYC, i.e. priority hires with Garaufis, or the suspension of Stop and Frisk with Judge Scheindlin. They are in fact referring to front line FDNY rigs, engines and ladders assigned to companies, not EMS rigs and not support services vehicles. As a safety issue, the UFOA, the union representing FDNY fire officers, have included in their contract a clause that states that once a front line FDNY rig reaches 11 years of age it can no longer be used to respond to any runs other than runs for fires. This would include EMS, gas leaks, water leaks, elevators, and various other non-fire emergencies. Due to the amount of stress and wear placed on these rigs this clause was placed in to assure that the city didn't let the fleet waste away causing safety and maintenance issues. Since the city's order with Seagrave has already been fulfilled and no new contract for engines has been awarded, there are a number of rigs that are approaching, or have passed this ten year lifespan. The city was ignoring the issue so the UFOA filed suit. What I think the article is trying to focus on is the fact that even though the clause in the contract only referred to front line rigs assigned to a company, not spare rigs, the judge ruled that the city can't even use their spares that are older than ten years. Not sure if that was the judges actual ruling, or if the newspaper misinterpreted the issue, as they often do. If that is the case its a fairly significant problem, as rigs only become spares after they complete ten years of front line service, this would effectively eliminate the cities pool of spare rigs. Also, since the original agreement only affected front line rigs, the city could have circumvented the clause by providing the affected companies with spare rigs, allwoing them to continue to respond to all emergencies, not just fires. Interested to see how this is going to play out.