The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
IAFF Condemns Tennessee House Fire Policy
TODD FAULKNER
WPSD
Reprinted with Permission
PADUCAH - A local fire department's decision to let a home burn is attracting national attention and sparking national debate.
A firefighters group is lashing out against members of their own. The International Association of Fire Fighters is condemning the South Fulton Fire Department for their actions last week.
Fire crews refused to put out a house fire in Obion County, Tennessee, because the owner did not pay the $75 coverage fee. The Association's general president released a statement Tuesday on the city's policy of subscription fire service.
The IAFF statement reads, in part, "We condemn South Fulton's ill-advised, unsafe policy. Professional, career fire fighters shouldn't be forced to check a list before running out the door to see which homeowners have paid up. They get in their trucks and go."
The statement also reads, "Because of South Fulton's pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home."
Todd Cranick, son of Gene Cranick, tells Local 6 that his parents have received several thousand dollars from the insurance company to cover immediate costs. Cranick went on to say that the insurance plans on covering all damage and property losses. Right now, there is no fund set up to help the Cranick family.
The IAFF is headquartered in Washington, D.C., representing nearly 300,000 full-time professional firefighters and paramedics.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
Paul:
Obion County has voted to go county wide with subscription.
IAFF is a non-factor.
They stated their opinion like the rest of us.
They are a union. They aren't government.
That's the reality.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Or...maybe it's a hint that the IAFF President didn't have his facts straight, since he claimed that the volunteers from SFFD were career firefighters.
-
-
You did, but you didn't question how we got to be such an "advamced" (sic) species.
-
-
Larry,
Apparently the previous chief of the SFFD couldn't, either.
He's now the "former" chief.
It could be a coincidence, or it could be related - the story doesn't say which...
-
Permalink Reply by Larry W. Lankford on
-
All very good points..... Just a crazy deal.... Wow.... This has been a HOT topic! I sure don't have all the facts.... And there are a hundred different scenarios of how it could have or should have went.... But like I said... I don't know all the facts..... It's just sad that it has had to come to this... I guess.... And yea, the IAFF is pretty big and that should say something.... But it doesn't solve the problem... But apparently, if I have read it right, Art is saying that the county has decided to go all subscription? I guess that would be a good start.... But that goes back to the "non-payers". We have them here.... And I don't like it... But we respond and try to collect.... Doesn't always work... We just try to get what we can and just go on doin our job.... And yea.... I understand about the "former" chief.... What's right and what's wrong? Everybody has a different, but not totally wrong or right opinion...
-
-
Was there a point to that?
The IAFF definately is concerned with thw $$$$$ - their primary goals are to create more firefighter jobs and to get more $$$$ and more benefits that cost more $$$$ for their members.
Or...did you imagine that fire departments can afford to fight fires in neighboring jurisdictions indefinately without being reimbursed for what it costs them.
Generalizing what you think "usually" happens has no bearing on what actually happened in the case under discussion, or why it occurred.
-
-
Russ,
You can jump up and down and claim that I'm wrong all you want, but that stance isn't congruent with the facts.
It doesn't matter if SFFD was on TV or not. It's stupid to violate your SOPs and standing orders because a video camera happens to be around.
There was nothing vindictive about refusing the homeowner's offer of money - it was just following a well-established policy.
They didn't screw up, and if you have a problem with them them, then that tells me that you either don't have all of the facts or that you are ignoring the realities that they face every day.
The firefighters did fight the fire - they extinguished the fire that was threatening their subscriber's property.
Before you start insisting that I get what you said straight, it might be a good idea for you to get what you said in the general vicinity with what actually occurred, and why.
-
-
"...there is always a life safety issue in dealing with a fire." Evidence, please?
"When you get more then (sic) 3.5 years oin the job, you will know that." I have 35 years as a firefighter, and I know for a fact that there is no life safety issue involved in fighting many fires.
-
-
Herb,
I didn't see this until now...
Rural/Metro is welcome to start private fire protection in Obion County - there's nothing stopping them...well, except that it would likely not be a profitable business model there.
Rural/Metro's model isn't set up for places that have local competition - they go for exclusive franchises where they provide fire services.
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Genelly III on
-
Ben, are you an IAFF member? Just wondering about your perspective .
-
-
My understanding on TN law is that delivery of Public Safety is regulated in a way that does not allow for a private company to compete, thus the reason for my comments. Is that not true of their laws?
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
I actually made it through about seven pages... I have a totally different take on this. Let's see if this makes sense to anyone else...
Fact: Someone within the jurisdiction, and supported by the fire chief made the call that one needs to pay the $6.25 a month to ensure fire protection. The argument by some stating that the firefighters did nothing wrong has merit because someone in charge gave an order and they simply followed it. End of story. The decision process totally sucks but more than one person made the decision, which in my opinion is not what we are about.
Thoughts: Considering that not everyone is playing with a full deck, often times having a mistrust of the government and in some cases suffering from military related PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) making their decision process as bad as the one telling people not to put out the fire.
Solution: For those folks who want to roll the dice, and where multiple attempts have been made to communicate with the home owner, it might be prudent to have social services folks involved to ensure the folks are playing with a full deck. Once this has been accomplished and you have fully informed the home owner of the consequences, my suggestion would be to also inform the person that you are not going to let the house burn to the ground but quite the contrary... You are going to not only save the house and contents, if possible, but you are also going to charge the homeowner for your departments, and if mutual aid is used, others expenses for doing the job. This includes hourly personnel costs, equipment usage, etc.
Will the insurance company pay for damages should a fire occur. Probably not if you take the proper, coordinated steps to ensure public education. In situations like this one, should the individual not pay and you handle the fire suppression, things like tax bills are going to get a lot more expensive.
There's your message... and I believe you would get folks attention without sacrificing your personal ethics. What a terrible position to put a firefighter in. This should have never been allowed to happen. And to think, all one has to do is change the rules, inform the public and move on. Simple, right? Probably not...
TCSS,
CBz
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
