Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by FETC on October 15, 2011 at 9:40am

The taxpayer chooses his or her level of fire protection services when they vote to operate a paid, paid-on-call, or volunteer fire department. In previous discussions, you mention the majority of fire department's in the United States are volunteer. I think we all know that is correct, but the decision to operate a volunteer or paid department is primarily based off of society and economics.  I am a bit confused in this thread because you mention "How can we prove the needs to rally the funds needed?" Hasn't the community has already chosen? This seems to be your personal opinion on the "need".  What I am saying is your homeless, underpriveldged or inmate program's demographic, (the human factor) would not meet many progressive volunteer department's hiring criteria.  So is this tread suggesting, we reduce the hiring criteria to afford more paid jobs to a certain demographic? And how do you suggest we do that legally when many attractive candidates are looking for the same work?     

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on October 15, 2011 at 7:12pm

FETC,

I think you missed the relevant part here, Brian proposed the following:

"How can jobs be created at a savings to the citizens we serve."

To me this means, how can we staff a firehouse for less money that it would ordinarily cost us right now?

I'm not a psychic but I'm willing to bet Brian is thinking...........maybe inmates?

The decision on what level of fire protection isn't always a choice.  In the same way that buying a used car as opposed to a new one isn't always a choice: it's simply what one can afford.

Fire protection isn't about personal protection (thought it certainly does serve that purpose)  but about community protection.  If an isolated house in the middle of a field burns down, the only probable damage is going to be to the house and the immediate area.  In the case of a more built up, suburban or urban environment the risk is to everyone else's house around that house.

So a community that has a respond time of 30 minutes is considerably rural and the damage is limited to that one structure (and maybe adjacent outbuildings).  Clearly the goal of a fire department in this situation is to save the foundation (or slab).

Spending taxpayer dollars to support effective fire protection isn't possible or feasible.  No more so than it would be to run city water and sewer (or cable tv) into these very rural areas. It isn't cost effective.

However, what ever monies are available should be spent in areas that need effective fire protection.  There are (I'm sure) many small towns and cities that require a level of fire protection greater than that which can be served from an all volunteer fire department, but lack the necessary economics to staff and equip it that meets the needs of the community and NFPA standards.  THESE are the communities that should be considered.

Creating fire departments where community involvement is minimal or absent sends the message that they don't care enough to want to protect their community.  Look at the reasons volunteer fire departments exist (and continue to exist): a need for fire protection and a lack of financial ability to fund one; so the community pulls together, pools whatever resources they have and create their own volunteer fire department.

As I read some of the rhetoric concerning health care and other social safety-net 'entitlement programs, an overarching theme is that people should be pulling themselves up by their bootstraps (to paraphrase Herman Cain, 'If people are poor it's their own fault.']  So simply by extending the logic wherein the state penal system (taxpayer funded) is used to provide fire protection for communities that can't or won't supply their own, it becomes a form of entitlement and a burden on all of the contributing taxpayers and communities that source their own fire protection.

So really the point of this discussion isn't so much whether or not inmates should be used (although that would appear to be the logical conclusion) but rather, "How can jobs be created at a savings to the citizens we serve."  If a community can NOT afford (or provide volunteers for) a fire department then the only way to provide for them at a savings is to use inmates.

This continues to be a very, very slipper slope, given the recent and widespread animosity towards unions.  And this is an issue that I have yet to see be addressed in this or the discussion on inmates as firefighters.

So ultimately there are five real alternatives to providing fire protection:

1) Fully paid, taxpayer supported

2) Combination, paid and volly

3) Paid on call

4) All Volunteer,

5) You're on your own, baby!

There is a sixth alternative and one where I think this discussion may be heading:

Non-union paid firefighters - this reduces the cost to the taxpayer by offering a 'snazzy' job but without the 'snazzy' pay or benefits.  I suppose in small communities, getting hired as a paid firefighter at $10 an hour and crappy (if any) benefits beats the hell out of walmart.  But then, how different would that fire department be from walmart?  Keep the firefighters at 25 hours a week so benefits don't have to be paid, split their shifts to 4 hours in the morning, 2 in the afternoon, 2 late at night, bounce you around from fire house to fire house regardless of the commute and basically treat you worse than the inmates already doing this job for free.  In fact, now that I think about it, it's a damn wonder walmart hasn't already gone that route.  Fire protection at the lowest prices around.  Fire department logo could be a yellow smiley face, wouldn't that be special!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by FETC on October 15, 2011 at 7:53pm

Jack I agree with your position about how can we fill positions for less. Meaning having a bunch of part time call guys manning the station without fulltime benefits. Seeing that around our way. Whether a union issue or not, I think I didn't miss the point though. His quote: "How can jobs be created at a savings to the citizens we serve"  If he is talking about creating real paid jobs, thus that means paying somebody less money than what he says is currently too expensive (in his taxes) and too few and far between firefighter jobs. With one aspect, he is trying to provide fulltime coverage to areas with none. (noble point) but if he is looking at his inmate program transitioning to a paid firefighter positons for less money (currently not a paid job) as they are working off their time. I will repeat from the above post, if he suggesting we reduce the hiring criteria to afford more "paid jobs" at a lower rate to a certain demographic he must tread lightly. How does he suggest doing that legally when many attractive and qualified candidates are looking for the exact same position?  And yes dependant on the area and the state laws like Right to Work it may become a union busting issue. Otherwise if he is going to post a paid firefighter position for $8.00 an hour I still think he is going to find many candidates to apply who are not or have ever been incarerated.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion