Just a question to get some discussion going. The region that I live in has many volunteers that are also career firefighters/officers. The question always arises; Should a firefighter's experience as a volunteer be taken into account for promotion, hiring or otherwise with a career department?
I would also add that the veteran also brings a very clear understanding of chain of command to the table. They will do what they are told by their superior without hesitation/without question.
I have seen many examples in the discussion forums of comments made by people who THINK they know more than their commanding officer simply because they weren't happy with how they were "picked".
Just like vets should come home and pursue college on the GI Bill, they should be given points towards a career in firefighting and that is a SMALL gesture compared to what they gave to their country.
If people don't like it, then perhaps they should find an occupation where vets don't get preference.
But, good luck; because vets are going to get a first look in about everything they pursue.
As it should be.
You minimized the vets committment to service to the country to protect the freedoms we all enjoy while sacrificing their own freedoms for others.
You also basically catagorized vet points along with affirmitive action, which is no where near the case
When talking about best man for the job mentality. Used for comparison, not to minimize vets.
The problem is you are not comprehending the reasons why there are points for vets,
I just said in my last post that you've brought up some good points that I agree with.
So if you are a reservist and were deployed you may qualify for points, but I guess you will turn them down then because that seems to be what you are contending here correct?
Correct. But let me clarify something here, I wouldn't begrudge someone who used what they were offered, meaning other vets.
There is just more than having some certs, it takes the person they feel will best represent them and the reason that vet sticks out is because of those values they bring to the table
That's one of the things you brought up several post ago which I hadn't originally thought of, and said last post I see your point and agree. We are not 100% polar opposite on this issue, I do agree with many of the good points you brought up.
when I got out of the service I was entitled to a college education under the GI Bill and I had 10 years to complete my education. Other than books, the GI Bill paid for all tuition and other expenses, plus I received a monthly stipend.
That in my opinion is a pretty good deal. There are even newer things now on top of all that as well, too.
while I was in the service, my cohorts were either working or going to school, so they all had a 3- 4 year head start on me when I got out.
I can relate to that...when I was called up I was 2/3 through medic school, and when I got back had to wait for the next class to start, then start from the beginning, total time put back on paramedic, approx. 3-1/2 yrs. That really, really, really sucked...but if I apply for a postion somewhere and there's someone who proves to be a more competent paramedic than me, what's the better choice for the community and the service, despite what I've given up for the service? That's where I'm coming from.
$15,480.00 for a private with 2yrs. or less. You think that's great pay? And this is for ACTIVE ARMY. Sure, you get free housing (barracks or dormitory style), food (take all you want, eat all you take), medical (we'll tell you if you're sick), clothing (how do you look in camo?) and (at least I did) travel expense to go home on leave, but what do these add up to? Base pay for a private with more than 4 months, ~ $20,000 top.
First, within 2 yrs almost all soldiers will be up to E4 grade. Second, you're saying all that stuff covered in this paragraph adds up to $4500 in benefits? Good health insurance, ~3,500/yr...travel ~2000/yr in gas....food ~3000/yr in groceries....housing, depending where you live, I pay ~12,000 for mortgage/property tax, plus utilities...I think you're way off financially saying that the equivelent of all that is $5000. And again, how long is someone an E2?
And what are you doing to earn this "outstanding" pay? Dunno, going to Afghanistan or Iraq, humping your ass out in the boonies, letting mr. taliban use you for target practice. Shit!
Not that you can put a price on sending troops into harm's way, but that previously mentioned pay gets bumped up with haz duty pay among others, plus is then tax-free as well.
To presume that vollies deserve the same advantage as a vet is absurd!
I'm not saying anything about deserve, I'm saying which is more practical. (although John brought up some good points for vets)
Full time military personnel are LIVING the dream 24/7 and putting their ass on the line, so that vollies and reservists can still pursue their career choice, while occasionally acting in a firefighter/soldier capacity.
So, out of curiosity, are you lumping reservists with volunteers in that neither should be given preference in a civil service test?
and you know those Air Force guys, country clubbing it the whole time
I'll withhold comment, although our convoy air support was always army apaches (love those guys), some of the C-130 pilots got us through some not-so-friendly skies a couple times, so they're good in my book :) And as a side not...I'd vote for vets preference for those guys in the airline industry on a practical stance, they can fly like no other
I'm not trying to be difficult and piss off John, Art, damnthing, or anyone else. I'm debating which one is more practical to give preference points. I'm not saying anything whatsoever about what vets deserve, or debate what sacrafices or commitments vets make (I know, both from my own sacrafices [reference to medic held back almost 4 years, all the BS, family issues, dangers, and stress of deployment, etc.], and the bigger sacrafices I've watched others make [including two me and others in my unit escorted, in boxes, into a plane back to CONUS from my parent unit]). Why would I put down my own? And as far as the apples to oranges comment, I'll give you that as far as hours of training and continued reinforcements of the basics, but I'm sure you'll agree that AK-47 rounds and IED explosions haven't seemed to take it easy on the reservists....like you mentioned fire doesn't know the difference between paid and vollies, neither do the insurgent pricks.
Look, bottom line, this debate started, at least in my mind, as a debate on the pros and cons, rationale, practicality, whatever you want to call it...about the advantages to giving either vollies or vets preference, and for what reasons. It wasn't, and isn't, my intention to bring into account reasons of who deserves it or anything like that, as I know I stated very early in the thread.
I still think some of my points are valid, and John brought up some valid points that I didn't think of and do agree with, but the tone of this thread has gone from normal debating to heated, and I can tell all 3 of you are getting pissed. I'm not going to continue this thread because the points have been hashed out, and now it seems to be getting ready to get ugly, down the road of purely emotional posts. I'm not going to be part of that, nor can I really, even if I wanted to, because that fact is, no matter how you took some of my points, I'm not saying vets aren't deserving of what they have, and certainly am not bashing them or putting down their service to our country. Being a vet myself, of course I support other vets. I am all about debate on here, but again, I'm not getting into the emotion ridden posts that never go anywhere good. I'm not saying that towards any of you specifically, but that's the only place threads looking like this ever seem to go. Less opinions on the subject at hand and more personal stuff. With that said, I'll see you guys on the other threads.
I agree with damnthing when it comes to the documentation. After all that is the key, if not documented it didn't happen (at least in a lawyer's eyes). A volly could have 10 years of experience, but may not have the documentation showing that experience. Vets do have that documentation as provided in their DD-214.
Secondly volunteer experience varies greatly throughout the country, heck even neighboring depts. On one dept an officer may have worked their way up the ranks, got education and certifications, took advantage of training, learned first hand experience and so forth. On another dept a guy with 2 years on and barely has the certs for the entry level position could be elected a captain, because of his popularity.
So honestly, tell me as a volunteer, would you want to have some guy with barely enough experience on the job and holds the rank of VFD Captain to receive the points over you who may have done more and trained harder, but still holds the position of FF? That is the problem, without documentation there is no way to accurately determine that level of experience that one brings in. Typically speaking if someone holds the rank of captain, you figure they have been around awhile, have experience, have leadership qualities and so forth, but may not be the case because it could just be a popularity contest.
A veteran takes away that guessing game. The dept knows that a person who has their rank has earned that ranked, they proven they met the criteria for that rank and not voted a Sgt because he is just a "good guy". They have those leadership qualities and worked at the bottom to understand the importance of the rank. Someone voted in typically will not.
As for a heated emotional debate, I will agree that I got miffed and I do apologize. I viewed affirmite action and vet points lumped together by you. I viewed the "perks" as condescending and something which someone without a clue would post. I still disagree with some of that, but you're right this isn't about the military. The issue here was if vollies should get experience points, and it just looks like despite the reasons posted, it became if vollies don't get points, nobody should, despite the fact that prior knowledge really isn't a big requirement in most cases. Having certifications and being a volunteer doesn't mean that the person will be a good fit.
Take your paramedic comment, you said ...but if I apply for a postion somewhere and there's someone who proves to be a more competent paramedic than me, what's the better choice for the community and the service, despite what I've given up for the service?
If you are applying for the job, how is someone going to prove they are a more competant paramedic? Experience on the job does not make someone more competant and can be tough to prove. You could have a paramedic with 5 years experience who works for a suburban EMS and run 15 calls a month. Then you could have a paramedic from a large urban area running 15 calls a day, who is going to be more competant?.....It is a loaded question because you can't truly tell, can you? Call volume doesn't make someone better, sure the exposure helps, but they may have the same type of calls with a close proximity to the hospital to truly use their skills. Whereas the one running few calls, may have a larger variety of calls, longer transports and so forth......Just having experience doesn't mean one is going to be more competant than another.
Same thing here. It has been proven that experience and certs does not make one a better firefighter nor prove that have the skills and knowledge to receive points. The vet does have that documentation, they have the discipline, the mindset of authority, the leadership, the ability to work in a chain of command. That is what sticks out to employers, that mindset of the vet that only military training can give, other people who are not vets don't always possess the same idea. Others who are not vet could have the same mindset and may be better than some veteran applicants, but who typically has the documentation?