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 kara-lee allen on
-
you know what... rules are rules. pay or too bad so sad... of course they agree to pay once the house is on fire... and the fire dept has to protect the neighbours, they paid! so tired of ppl thinking they dont have to follow the rules then cry about it later. its sad they had to lose the house.... but just pay your fees.. trucks and man power need to paid for somehow... just saying
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Rural/Metro provides private fire servivces to Knox County, Tennessee, the 3rd most populated county in the state.
It is probably the lack of an adequate customer base that keeps Rural/Metro out of Obion County, not any legal restriction.
-
-
Not at present, but that doesn't prevent me from understanding their motivation or how it applies to the case under discussion.
Per the IAFF, their Labor Issues and Collective Bargaining Department is involved with the following issues:
collective bargaining - relates directly to $$$
financial analysis - $$$
wage comparables - $$$
technical assistance for negotiation and arbitration - either goes directly to $$$ or indirectly to things like work rules, which indirectly affect $$$
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Genelly III on
-
Interesting. Folks on the blog were misinformed about the law, but it was an interesting issue. Of course if a "for profit" business can't make money on the deal, it's left to the government.
In CA, we have SRA, LRA and County response Zones. The county is responsible for picking up the tab on mutual aid outside of the district boundary, and the state pays for all SRA's. LRA is covered by special district funding. Subsequently, folk's taxes all have a hand in footing the bill. Sure makes it easier!
-
-
I agree that tax-supported fire protection makes it simpler to operate fire services.
The controversy here is directly related to the fact that Obion County has no fire department at all, let alone a tax-supported one.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_16535259?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews...
But, they will respond if called.
I wonder though; should someone send Schaitberger a letter condemning it?
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
www.mercurynews" target="_blank">http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_16535259?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews...
But, they will respond if called.
I wonder though; should someone send Schaitberger a letter condemning it?
Bit of a difference than this situation. Here the people of Obion County have no fire service and thus rely on subscriptions. In turn the dept has no obligation to provide fire protection to non-paying subscribers. (sans life safety etc, which has been covered here). In turn, the article to which you refer is about a community which DOES have fire protection, albeit inadequate perhaps with said cuts, but is there. The issue with Richmond is the mutual aid aspect. One community says it is auto aid, one says mutual aid......either way there is a difference and not the same thing as here. This isn't about people of one community not paying for any fire protection and thus expect it when they need it irregardless of them not paying.
-
-
-
-
Looks like you Art....is this your workout routine?
:-)
-
-
Just tryin' to shake it up a little, John.
I am coming out with a blog later on tonight.
But it speaks to budget cuts, firefighter safety, manpower, station closures.
I mean; it's getting REAL serious.
I don't think communities are thinking this stuff through.
And the news media has played their part, despite what Statter says.
Did you see where Olbermann was suspended from MSNBC?
Then I want someone to tell me that news reporting is still unbiased.
The reason there isn't a public outcry is because they aren't getting the facts and fire departments are so busy that they don't have time to campaign on their own behalf.
Take it away Dancing Fire Banana. Wrong helmet color for me, John.
-
-
Somewhere, karma is having a field day...
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
