The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Philadelphia Union Criticizes Timeline and City Policies
JEFF SHIELDS and MICHAEL BROCKER
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Firefighters union leaders Monday challenged the city's timeline in the fire death of a 12-year-old boy Saturday night, and continued to assail old and new city policies that they say slowed the department's response.
Local 22 of the International Association of Fire Fighters released data from the city's National Fire Incident Response System connected to the call that came in at 6:51 p.m. Saturday.
It showed that the first responder to the fire at 137 S. 55th St. took three minutes, 42 seconds, to get there. Fire officials on Sunday had simply said the response time was "three minutes," which the union criticized as a serious understatement when seconds count.
First on the scene was a battalion chief in an SUV, who had no ability to fight the fire. Fire Commissioner Lloyd M. Ayers said the first fire company on the scene, Engine 68, arrived immediately after the chief and went to work.
Union officials, however, said members on Engine 68 said they did not arrive until at least 60 seconds after the chief, which would push the response time close to five minutes.
City data do not indicate when the first engine or ladder companies arrived. Whether such a discrepancy in time and the city's policy of "rolling brownouts" played a role in the death of the 12-year-old autistic boy is being bitterly disputed.
Ayers identified the boy as Frank Marasco. His body had not been released to his family Monday evening, as the medical examiner was still completing an autopsy. Family members could not be reached for comment Monday night.
The four-man crew of firefighters on Engine 57 normally would have responded first to a fire at that location because its station is 21/2 blocks away.
But that crew was not available when the call came in at 6:51 p.m. It was gone from 6 to 10 p.m. retrieving an ambulance and an engine at the city maintenance shop at Front Street and Hunting Park Avenue, 91/2 miles away. City policy requires a full company to travel from its station to pick up repaired apparatus.
"It's an idiotic policy, and it makes no sense," said Michael Bresnan, recording secretary for Local 22. Bresnan said light-duty officers or other personnel should be sent to retrieve equipment while the company remains in service with a backup truck.
Ayers said engine companies are sent to pick up their trucks because they have to reattach hoses and test their equipment. Fire companies also are sometimes sent to pick up repaired ambulances, to allow medic units, which receive more calls, to stay in service.
From 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday, Engine 57, at 5559 Chestnut St., was browned out as part of the city's system of rolling closures that began Aug. 2, aimed at saving $3.8 million.
Had the company been working during the day, firefighters could have been able to pick up the engine and ambulance and been in place to respond to the fire in the evening. But that still would have left a gap in coverage during the afternoon.
The effect of the brownout was to shift the time that the company was out of action, though union officials - including the national president - still blamed the brownout for the fire death.
"The members of Philadelphia Local 22 are willing to risk their lives to protect life and property in their community, but this plan compromises their ability to perform safe and effective fire and rescue services," union general president Harold A. Schaitberger wrote Monday in a letter to Mayor Nutter.
Schaitberger wrote that the 12-year-old "might still be alive if your city had not shut down the closest fire company that day."
Ayers and Everett Gillison, the city's deputy mayor for public safety, said Monday that the city's system had worked as it should, and that the department responded to the fire with an engine and two ladder companies within five minutes, in accordance with national standards. Gillison called the union's use of the boy's death to highlight their argument "abhorrent."
Gillison said the boy apparently was frightened and would not come out. "That's what caused the young man to lose his life. It had nothing to do with the way we fought the fire," Gillison said.
Union leaders said the system now lacks the backup necessary to cover for companies unavailable for any number of reasons, after closing seven companies permanently last year and three at any one time under the rolling system.
"Unfortunately, this death in West Philadelphia is just the beginning, because there's no redundancy left in the fire grid anymore, no resources to take up the slack," Local 22 president Bill Gault said in an e-mail.
Related
Boy Dies In Philadelphia Fire; Closest Engine Company Closed
Copyright 2010 Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC
All Rights Reserved
August 10, 2010
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dennis K. Llewellyn on
-
No body wants to see anyone hurt or killed. Who do you really blame? The fire department, local government, state government, feds or the citizens? Maybe all of them. How far do you take fire protection. Should they have a fire engine every block, every house, apartment and hotel? If the unions are so concerned about the citizens, why are they not coming up with solutions? Are the unions out there training the public on fire safety? Why doesn't the union pay for the extra shifts? The money has to come from somewhere.
One of the problems I see with this nation is everyone is expecting someone else to take care of them and their problems. Before the day of all the social programs, neighbors helped neighbors. Churches helped people in their communities. You didn't have a government that was giving out what wasn't theirs. The start of the fire service was neighbors with their own buckets and blanket helping to put out fires. That is what this nation was built on, the willingness of people to help each other. Not someone being paid to help.
I know things change with time. Let's not point fingers, but be part of the solution. If the Unions were not so worried about jobs for firefighters, I would be willing to bet that the firefighters in Philadelphia would be willing to volunteer some time to help out their community. Being truthful, unions don't like volunteers at all, takes away from their gravy train.
I am sure by now you know I am a volunteer. 28 years and proud of it. I have nothing against career firefighters and am glad they are willing to do that job. But they are not the save all. We are here to help people in their time of need. Sometimes we will be successful, sometimes not.
My condolences to the family that lost a child and my prayers are with the firefighters that were on this call and have to deal with a death of a child. In a perfect world, there would be no pain or death. Unfortunately we will not see that world until we go home to be with our maker.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Dennis,
As a result of the mortgage crisis, people have defaulted on their mortgages and/or walked away from their homes, so no property taxes are being paid on the properties. Likewise as a result, local businesses close up due to a lack of a customer base, so no property taxes paid by them either. And bigger businesses either move out of state or overseas, to maximize their profits (capitalism and free market, two things the teabaggerspartiers are so big on), so the city loses both payroll and yet more taxes.
Because the economic collapse was more or less instantaneous there was no real way any city could have foreseen and taken preventive actions. That only a few cities (relatively speaking) have instituted brownouts and/or layoffs is actually a testament to their managerial skills.
The only thing this has to do with unions is that they are protecting their members, which is what they are set up to do. Members pay union dues and pay into their retirement, are you suggesting that firefighters have part of their pension go towards paying other firefighters to work?
As for social programs (the bane of those patriotic tea baggers), what would you call social security, medicaid/medicare, unemployment, workman's compensation and employer provided insurance and paid vacations? Enough with the 'socialism' whining, most people will end up collecting their share of SSN and other social giveaways.
Yes the fire service started out as volunteer, it went paid for reasons everyone in the fire service is well aware of. It had nothing to do unions, or greed, unless you're talking about the part employers had in the maltreatment of their employees.
It's a bit sad that you would think that paid firefighters should give up their time and work for free. Poor municipal management is the root cause, not firefighters. And why would you not suggest that ALL paid municipal employees be then required to join a 'volunteer' department? Why only the PAID guys? Sound a bit like sour grapes to me. Blame the unions, blame social programs, blame big/excessive/blame the other party politics, look for someone else to lay the blame on. Right on. As far as volunteers taking away from the paid "gravy train", go ask the tax payers in goober notch and east overshoe if they want to/can afford to pay for a paid department. If it wasn't for unions protecting their turf, what good would they be? Can I likewise assume that you are against ALL unions, police, teacher, truck driver, production plants, etc? 'Cause it certainly doesn't come across as if you are, only that you're against paid, unionized firefighters.
You're being blatantly disingenuous when you say you have "nothing against career firefighters" as it's fairly clear (at least to me) that you in fact, do. That you would respond to an article about the death of a child in a manner clearly colored with prejudice against unions and paid firefighters serves no real purpose, other than to promote your own, skewed, "conservative" viewpoint on how YOU happen to think things should be.
Remember this, when you cash you SS check, utilize Medicaid/Medicare or take advantage of poice/fire/ems, who's paying for you at that point?
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
If the Unions were not so worried about jobs for firefighters, I would be willing to bet that the firefighters in Philadelphia would be willing to volunteer some time to help out their community.
So are you saying you are willing to work for free for your employer? Never mind, you are an owner/operator, but I'm sure you expect your employees to work for free then right? No employees? Then perhaps you don't understand how things work then.
Pretty tough to get around those federal labor laws which dictate any time worked over normal time should be OT or comp time. This has nothing to do with the union and everything to do with the city. How do you know what the unions does to volunteer their time? If Philly is like most locals, they do spend a lot of their free time helping in the community.....they just can't do their primary job for free. Perhaps you should look into things like that before criticizing how things work on the career end of things.
Being truthful, unions don't like volunteers at all, takes away from their gravy train.
I have nothing against career firefighters and am glad they are willing to do that job.
Seems pretty contradictory to me there.
-
-
Jack,
You are taking my comments a little too far. It does make for good discussion. I agree with you about about the crashing of the economy and pretty much no one knew it was going to be this bad. How could anyone plan for this.
As far as unions, some still are good, some not so. With all the labor laws and OSHA laws, employees are protected now days. Years ago, the employee had no help. Unions were needed. Today, not so much. You are correct, I don't know a whole lot about the unions in the fire service. All that I know is what is visible and what has been told to me. For them to come out and use this fire as a example for getting jobs back, I just don't think that is right. I had a chance to visit a John Deere factory a couple of years ago. Got to meet the union president and learned a little of what they do. The union with its members seek ways to make production of the equipment more efficient and profitable for Deere. The union and employees know that their jobs could be sent to a different country tomorrow. To me, that is a productive union. Union in the fire service, I don't know if it is really needed. Educate me!
I am not saying anyone should be forced to give up their time to work for free. Weather it is putting out fires or picking up trash. What I am saying is that if that is your desire, you should be able to do it. I live in what use to be a rural county and is now more of a suburb. We still have volunteers taking care of the county, but we are at a time that day time career fire fighters could happen. What I would hate to see is the union come in and tell a person that started his fire fighter career as a voly in this county and proceeded to get hired as a ff in an adjoining county be told he could no longer volunteer in the community he has lived in and served for 30 + years.
I do not have anything against career firefighters. I have family and good friends that are professional FFs. If I came across that way, I apologize. I am trying to talk my son into starting a career as a firefighter. I still think there is no better job!
I do have a conservative viewpoint. Government scares me now. Can't say that I am as extreme as some of the tea party, but close. Our local government built its first "county" station about 6 years ago. It is now time for our station to be replaced. I have been chairman of the committee since 2005 and pushing hard for it to be built. It was finally approved and will start construction in a week. 5 million dollar price tag. I told the county administrator that I felt guilty asking the government to build us a building when I think government is too big. I fell into the way of the world!!
The problem is you have X dollars and how far can the fire department make it go. No matter what, the dollars just are not there. If Philly is running 4 man engines, do you reduce that to 2 or 3 man engines. One of the first things you see on death reports of firefighter in structure fires is lack of manpower. Do we give the ambulances to private companies and concentrate on fire. Do you do brownouts. Very tough decisions that I am glad I don't have to make and I am thankful we live in a country that has the freedom to allow us to discuss things like this.
And, yes, I will be happy when that SS check comes in...if it is still around for me.
With all that said, a child lost their life to the demon we fight. Lets look for a solution, not point fingers. I was never accusing the union or anyone for being at fault. Just don't like them using it politically.
God Bless
-
-
With all the labor laws and OSHA laws, employees are protected now days. Years ago, the employee had no help. Unions were needed. Today, not so much
When you are on the outside, the picture is quite different. With such an anti-govt sentiment, that has spilled onto the public sector worker. The worker is now being blamed for such things as high taxes because of fallicies perpetuated by many so called conservatives, such things like the "cadillac health care", retirement, and so forth. It is because of many unions that firefighters and other public sector workers can hold onto such benefits worked hard to achieve throughout the years.
If it were up to the uneducated people, FF's would make a minimum wage, because to many, they only see the $$$ signs, they don't see everything else going into the job. Unlike other union type of jobs, public safety folks can't strike and are at the mercy of the employer (local govt). There are limited ways for workers to protect themselves and that is what the union helps to do.
I had a chance to visit a John Deere factory a couple of years ago. Got to meet the union president and learned a little of what they do. The union with its members seek ways to make production of the equipment more efficient and profitable for Deere
What do you think most IAFF and other fire unions do? As a volunteer, do you know many of the safety initiatives you have today were implemented and developed by fire unions? The unions do look out for the health and safety and help to be more productive in most communities. One has to take blinders off to realize that.
What I am saying is that if that is your desire, you should be able to do it.
There are still fed labor laws which must be followed. Even if you had an employee who wanted to work longer, for free, legally he can't. Same thing here, it doesn't matter if FF's wish to "volunteer" on their own dept, they can't.
What I would hate to see is the union come in and tell a person that started his fire fighter career as a voly in this county and proceeded to get hired as a ff in an adjoining county be told he could no longer volunteer in the community he has lived in and served for 30 + years.
That isn't going to happen from a union standpoint. The union can not mandate that a FF can not volunteer elsewhere and many FT FF's do volunteer elsewhere. The IAFF frowns upon the practice of FT FF's working in depts that have other IAFF members, but can not mandate a person can not volunteer.
However, a dept CAN institute such a policy where new members hired can not volunteer elsewhere. This goes beyond the union.
Lets look for a solution, not point fingers. I was never accusing the union or anyone for being at fault. Just don't like them using it politically.
It is political. The decision to reduce to brownouts was political, reducing staffing, increasing response times, etc DOES affect public safety. The politicians are there saying that the brownouts will NOT affect public safety, the union said such an event can easily happen. Guess what? It did. The solution may take years to come to and doesn't come easily, and sometimes that means a change in those voted in to make such decisions.
The problem is when politicians think that reducing such services will have no affect on public safety is wrong. If you are going to make a decision to do brownouts...fine, just pony up and tell the truth that you are gambling with people's lives. That is after all what is occurring. and that is what the union is reminding the public.
-
-
John,
seems you took a little offense to my comments. Sometime it feels like I am working for myself for free. I had 12 employees during the good time and now I am at 5. I had to do away with health insurance for my employees and myself. I have reduce my salary by more than 30% but have not reduced any employees pay. Most FFs with a few years and a little overtime make more than I do. I understand things pretty well.
Just as you stated, "PRETTY TOUGH GETTING AROUND THOSE FEDERAL LABOR LAWS" so what does the union do?
Nothing contradictory to my statement. Career fire fighters are not the union, the union is career firefighters. Fire fighter can exist without the union, the union cannot exist without fire fire fighters! I like fire fighters!!
-
-
Dennis,
For some reason (and I'm sure it has nothing to do with firefighters) but you do seem very anti-firefighter union. Not hearing anything about police unions, municipal unions, teacher unions, only that there shouldn't be firefighter unions. Kind of hard to reconcile that with your opposing view that you have nothing against paid firefighters. I'm just saying...
-
Permalink Reply by Old Timer on
-
I want to jump in on this. You can easily be "anti-union" and support paid firefighters. Too often guys become firefighters with money being the FIRST priority, helping others coming in second. Police and Fire unions are a special set and really can't be compared to any other municipal unions when factoring in time working, salary, and benefits. The idea that in a down economy (with collected revenues down) pay should remain the same (or perhaps increase is not right). When factoring benefits most firefighters easily make 25% above the median income where they live.
When one position opens you have 500 or more guys apply for the position? Why is this, and don't say the recession because this happened long before the recession? Because over the last 10-15 years the secret about the amount of pay we make has gotten out.
When I started I worked every other day in 24 hour shifts AND had a second job. Pay was much less then it is today without the glamor it is now. The unions have "scored victories" by getting us to three shifts, automatic COLA, higher pensions, and the wonderful concept of automatic overtime. We should get a fair wage, don't get me wrong and of course minimum wage isn't being suggested by anyone. Public pensions were brought about because one would work for much less than the average wage and wouldn't be able to save. Now we make much more and get 60%-80% of our salary after working 20 years for the rest of our lives and can be collecting while working after "retirement."
Unions are one of the largest political machines. The endorsement of police and fire unions can often decide the winner of an election and control has become that of a non-violent mafia by the unions.
Why is it fair that a kid who is stationed in Afghanistan potentially taking bullets 24 hours a day, makes so much less than some guys that for 95% of the time are working at the station or responding to car accidents?
I'm sure some smart ass will say that if I don't like it then I should just quit. Well, I love what I do (its fun) and I am still good at it. I save much of what I make and donate some now and will continue to save for my kids that weren't lucky enough to hit the union lottery.
I can count on my hand the amount of times my life was truly "in danger" while on the job. There are many more risky jobs out there though not as fun!
PS- If you think most of the "labor laws" that are referred to in this thread weren't brought upon BY THE UNIONS to begin with you need to do some homework. Another example of the union powerhouse at work.
-
Permalink Reply by Tom Kenney on
-
Denis & Old Timer:
Are you one and the same?
Either way you represent the worst enemies of the firefighter regarding public opinion. You state your views against firefighter unions and paid firefighters and the public sees you as experts in the field - giving your distorted views more weight than they deserve.
You are clearly holding grudges against paid FF's & unions - dress it up any way you'd like, but that is crystal clear.
Old Timer, if you can count on one hand the number of times your life was truly in danger you are clearly working a different job than I - or you're simply not doing it in the same way.
If I sound like I'm insulting you fellas, I am. I read enough of your insults to me above that I just had to respond!
-
-
Old Timer,
So we can assume:
a) you were never a part of your union.
b) you negotiated a contract for far less than your co-workers.
c) you're happy with a significantly lower pension than other retired cohorts.
or
d) you took what everybody else got, paid your dues and retired on 75%.
-
-
It is most all unions that I don't like. I was just focusing on fire for this discussion. I do think as a whole, the unions of the past made great gains for all workers. Now that "most" employers treat their employees fair, I believe the unions are a hinderence. This is what you see so much of:
The police and fire unions went to the bargaining table with Mayor Richard C. Howard after the city's state aid was cut significantly this fiscal year, launching an attempt to extract the difference from the unions with a revised health care plan. The new plan would have increased co-pays, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs for union members and their families if it had been adopted.
The three unions that represent all fire and police personnel rejected the health care plan, forcing the layoffs.
-
-
Dennis,
By only saying that the three unions rejected the health care plan only serves to bolster your argument. The question remains, what part of the offer was refused, what if any counter-offers were made, do police and fire negotiate one contract or two and were the offers tied to other asked for (or already received) benefits?
Also, where did the city stand on negotiations with other union contracts other than fire and police? Had the mayor, administrative staff, department heads and staff been required to take pay cuts or experience layoffs?
Why is the discussion on fire unions and wages preeminent when it comes to financial cutbacks while other municipal areas are left unmentioned? Road maintenance and garbage pickup come to mind.
As for your allegation that ""most" employers treat their employees fair," I have to believe that it is a result of union presence as well as state and federal laws, all of which came about as a result of employers not treating their employees fairly and many of which came about as a direct result of union intercession.
While unions may not be everywhere, their presence (and actions) serve as watchdog against unfair treatment. More so in this present economy, employers trying to maximize profit would be first looking at ways to reduce pay, increase work hours, reduce benefits and other wise attempt to steamroll their employees. I point out walmart as a classic and extant example of this type of behavior.
[A friend's wife works at walmart, the stories are sad. People's hours are cut, then their hours are broken up, half in the morning, half at night, maybe at an entirely different store. Hours are kept below the minimum that would require health care or other benefits. A person may be required to work nights at one store and then have to report to another store the next day for the morning shift. It's all done to wear them out, chew them up and spit them out and then hire new people to repeat the cycle. Yeah...unions have outlived their usefulness.]
The above is not to say that unions don't get above themselves on occasion. Auto workers had some pretty cozy contracts for many years. It wasn't until domestic car sales dropped off that that changed. Many foreign auto makers with U.S. plants are not unionized and they work, because there is a different mind set in how employees are to be treated.
But when push comes to shove, in the U.S. it's always one of two things: profits before all else or; whatever it takes to get (re)elected. In either case, it's the worker that gets it in the end (pun intended).
Typically a business can reduce staff and increase overtime, which cuts down their overhead while allowing for some increase in (perhaps limited) productivity. This model is also used in the fire service. Cut staffing and increase OT. Only problem there is, as soon as someone gets wind of the overtime costs that is then presented as fiscally outrageous and talk goes to firefighters padding their pay checks at the expense of the taxpayer. Of course the fact that OT is cheaper than new hires (or even present level staffing) is easily (or willingly) overlooked. A tab for a million dollars in overtime is impressive, it's just that no one ever points out that had overtime been cut and staffing increased, that bill might have been two or three million instead.
To presume that unions are no longer necessary one could conclude that, for example, police are not necessary. Let everyone carry a weapon, lock their doors and hope they all hit what they aim for. Managing for crime is a lot easier than that for fire. After all, if guy steals from a convenience store, he runs and hides for a while before his next attempt. If a fire breaks out in that same store, people in that store, above it and next to it will all suffer the same consequences very quickly and, unlike the robber who could be captured or even shot by civilians, not having the proper equipment and training means an entire block (or more) is going to go up in flames.
Yeah, yeah, I know, long winded but I'm just trying to prove a point. If (in this case) the fire unions didn't (or no longer) exist, then the cities would be cutting pay and hours, and firefighting would be like itinerant day labor. Unqualified, inexperienced, significantly underpaid and indifferent about their job. Hardly much better than having no fire department at all.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
