Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Derek R. on November 10, 2009 at 7:04pm

I'm a volly, so I don't have shifts. But what are the reasons for not wanting 48/96 shift? 2 on, 4 off,. sounds fine to me, but like I said, I'm a volly without shifts so maybe I don't understand...but would like to.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by FETC on November 10, 2009 at 7:27pm

Chief,

As you are probably aware, it is dependant upon your call volume, whether you run a fire based transporting EMS and also your specific organizational structure. Two stations with 33 personnel, I assume you run 3 shifts or platoons with 3 staff and 30 shift.

Your staffed at 10, probably have some kelly days and/or reduced minimum manning with someone on vacation, so are your personnel going to be able to handle the call volume with the current on duty staffing for 48 hours straight? Burn out? especially if you run fire based EMS transporting services, ambulance guys get hammered while the truck guys get bed sores... That will create some interesting inter-personal dynamics. Then again having the 24/48 schedule now, really what is the driving benefit of going 48/96?

In reality, it is probably so the personnel can have more time off in a row, which leads to other fulltime jobs and the fire department becomes a part-time benefits gig. Then if your organizational structure is dependant upon call back for station coverage or filling out equipment during multi alarm fires with off-duty personnel, you can assume your percent of available callback will fall sharply off. Now if you are really dependant on the off duty callback, then you are going to hurt your service capabilities with the new schedule.

Last question, if a guy bangs out and someone is forced to work OT due to contractual requirements of minimum manning, then is the non-stop working demand of 72 hours going to increase on duty injuries or potential dangerous working conditions for the person or fellow brothers?

Labor laws may have some rules on non-stop working hours without the declaration of a disaster or emergency?

Your current schedule is pretty popular.

Bill

FETC
www.fetcservices.com

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Derek R. on November 10, 2009 at 7:42pm

Thanks. I know the responses were not directed at me, but I still have my answers nontheless. Thanks, and I would stay with the 24/48 if I had a choice.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul B. Dezzi on November 10, 2009 at 8:01pm

I truly appreciate everyone's comments...keep them coming!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jay Nicholson on November 10, 2009 at 8:57pm

Don't know if this is going to work. Depts. around here work what is called 4 and 6s. Alternate 4 on/off get 4 days off in a row. Another 4 on/off get 6 days off in a row. Never heard anybody around here complain.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Rulli Jr. on November 10, 2009 at 9:00pm

EEEW that shift sounds brutal!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by blair4630 on November 11, 2009 at 1:17am

Depending on how busy your dept. is, this could be a really bad idea. Even at 2000 calls a year, I'm sure some days you can't get even a few hours of sleep in a row during the night. Do that two nights in a row, and now, on hour 38, you need to make a critical decision, operate machinery, etc....you mine as well be drunk.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by truckeewads on November 11, 2009 at 12:41pm

Do it and don't look back. I work for a similar size department that runs about 3000 calls annually out of 4 stations with about 50 personnel. We have been on the 48/96 for probably about 10 years now and everyone loves it. I think initially you will have some of your personnel that will be against it, as we did, but now I don't think there is a single person that would want to go back. It can be difficult when you have a busy first day/night but I think the benefit of being off for 4 after your shift makes up for it. Being a smaller department I think that this schedule benefits us due to our typical daily call volume, however I know other departments that are much busier than us have gone to this schedule and like it as well. Another benefit is the commute issue, if some of your personnel don't live in your city and have to commute, it reduces the amount of time they must drive into work. The only draw back I can see is the sleep deprivation and safety issues in a more active system. Every department around us is on 48/96 and I would guess they all feel the same way. For those who say it doesn't work, how many of you have to sleep for much of your day/s off between shifts? So, the way I see it you are losing almost a 48 hour period anyway and then have to go back on shift and start the cycle all over. The 48/96 gives me more time with my family and for myself, period. Plus you can take a 48 off and have a 10 day (2 days of vacation time/10 days off). Guess I am biased a little, but I have worked in different systems that ran somewhere in the range of 80,000 calls a year and I believe they are now on a 48/96 schedule. You won't regret it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff Cole on November 12, 2009 at 7:39pm

We are looking at going from a 42 hours, two tens and two fourteens followed by four off, to 24 on, and 48 off. Alot of things are sticking points, like hourly rates for overtimes, and conversion of sick, vacation, and personal time in hours. Regardless, this must be a West Coast type schedule, as I have never heard of working 48 hour shifts before.

Sounds a bit heavy. Is it based on four platoons or three?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by truckeewads on November 13, 2009 at 2:10pm

Jeff,
Yes, on the west coast this is a common schedule. Based on 3 shifts.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion