The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Almost entire firefighting crew quits
April 4, 2012
The Canadian Press - Charlie Lake, British Columbia, Canada
All but two volnteer firefighters in the roughly 30-member department in Charlie Lake, have quit.
Firefighters in the northesten part of the province handed in their pagers to protest the hiring of a new chief and the tansfer of department control to the Peace River Regional District from the local fire protection society.
Trouble within the Charlie Lake department has smouldered for nearly two years, but flared when former Kimberley assistant fire chief Steve Munshaw took over April 1, to replace the long-time chief, who was not considered for the post.
Firefighters in the commuunity eight kilometers north of Fort St. John say they don't know or trust their new chief, a paid full-time staff member, or the recently hired assistant fire chief, who also receives a salary.
Officials with the regional district hope the dispute can be resolved but in the meantime, fire crews from Fort St. John or Taylor, about 25 kilometers further south, will respond to major incidents in Charlie Lake.
The regional district is also launching a recruitment drive in hopes of attracting new volunteer to the fire department.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Don Catenacci on
-
The volunteer service bemoans not being considered professional, or equal to the career service, and yet many members of the volunteer service call for driver only, exterior only, and support only members. Anyone of the career firefighters here have those types of members on their FD. because mine sure doesn't.
I have spent a good chunk of my firefighting life trying to bring MY little portion of the world's VFD up to speed. Getting all of our members trained, getting them certified, getting them to have a professional mindset so they don't look like a bunch of yokels when we go on a call.
I am fully cognizant of the fact that it is easier to take the path of least resistance and not push for higher standards of training, to allow anyone walking upright that enters the FD door to be member, and create seperate categories of members to show you have 40 members, or whatever the magical number is. The problem is it is a sham, a shell game, smoke and mirrors, giving the impression you have a fire department with many members who can come and save your life and your property. When in fact that isn't the case, you have under trained, exterior only, support only, members riding out on first due apparatus unable to perform the most basic of tasks, going interior to locate, confine and extinguish the fire...OR even more importantly going interior to locate and remove victims.
Honestly folks, if we aren't saving lives and property, then shut the doors, give back the tax money you receive and be honest with those you supposedly serve.
To be brutally frank, I am tired of the broad stroke brush of painting rural FDs as a bunch of under trained good old boys that show up to put out the smoldering remains because that attitude would not fly in my area. If you want to talk that way about YOUR rural FD feel free but I take it as a personal insult to have ALL rural FDs slandered in that manner.
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Callahan on
-
The important thing here is that nobody is saying that a member that is capable of being and chooses to be an interior firefighter shouldn't be. I don't believe anyone has said discourage them from acheiving that goal.
Our point is that in many small rural communities there are a very limited number of people with the physical abilities to operate interior and/or the drive or time to go through the training to operate interior.
In the example you gave with the 4 interior firefighters and 10 exterior, you are assuming that the 10 exterior are folks that would be physically capable, or have the time to train as interior, interior qualified. The reality is in many rural VFDs that is about the ratio of members young enough and physically capable of operating interior vs. senior members no longer capable of operating interior or members incapable, or unwilling to operate interior for a variety of very legimtate physical, mental or time-related reasons.
So we throw out the 10 exterior members and we are left with 4 personnel to assume command, operate the pump, make fire attack, ventilate, drive the tanker(s), establish a water supply, etc etc. until mutual aid arrives, which in some rural enviroments can be a very long wait .... or we can send the 4 interior members interior and use the other 10 to run the pump, set up a PPV fan, throw ladders, drive the tanker, dump the tankers, fill the tankers, establish rehab, file command and saefty officer roles, etc etc...
Which plan do you like the best? The reality is that in many rural VFDs with a very limited recruiting pool, without exterior and junior personnel, the number of people needed on the fireground would not exist if you required all members to be interior qualified. In many places, they wouldn't even come close.
And honestly, a member of a fire department does have the right to tell the department if they want to operate interior or remain exterior, even if they are physically capable of being interior. If the department chooses not to honor that and let's them go, it's their loss. It's no different than a member saying they would not like to go on the ice as a ice rescue tech, be a haz-mat tech or perform confined space and technical rescue operations.
John, there is a lot more I could address in your post, but much of it has been discussed on other threads. One thing I will say is I have been on a couple of volunteer departments that do the same job, in some cases better, than the career neighbors. But I have also been on several VFDs where the command and members do recognize we don't do the same job, and they have no issues with that.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Great post. There are places in my state where the VFDs don't have enough members that can pass a NFPA 1582 Interior Firefighter physical to mount a "2 in, 2 out" attack.
Our state fire academy is in the process of creating an Exterior Firefighter certification specifically for those firefighters.
After all, the OSHA Fire Brigade standard states that firefighters must be trained "commensurate with their duties". If they can't recruit enough people that can pass the interior physical - or if their community refuses to fund those physicals - then that community has indeed decided that they are satisfied with paying for what they get.
-
-
Nonsense, my career FD has had 2 outside chiefs in the last 15 years and no one left because of that. If vollies are leaving because of a new leader that they didn't pick, without even giving them a chance, I seriously question their sense of dedication to firefighting and the community they serve.
So often in all the politics, hand wringing, crying about everything that doesn't go exactly your way, and all the other nonsensical, infighting and general petty bull shit, that goes on in many if not most volunteer fire deartments something important gets lost...THE MISSION: Save lives and protect property. If at any time that focus gets lost you are no longer a fire fighter and merely just someone taking up space.
-
-
What occurred in your department is not necessarily valid for any other department.
In the case in question, the people in question are no longer firefighters, not because they lost sight of the MISSION, but because they chose to no longer be firefighters, as is their right.
-
-
Regardless of the time or amount of lost productivity caused to the private businesses, essentially the previous chief was being castigated because he didn't ask local businesses to subsidize the fire department with manpower.
There is no evidence that anyone from the local businesses was interested in volunteering in the first place.
That entire section of the report was nothing but speculation.
-
-
No Ben, if they quit that easily, they NEVER were firefighters. They NEVER had sight of the mission. Whatever their motivation was it was not the mission of protecting lives and property.
They knew the change was coming. They chose to not even give the new Chief and Asisstant Chief a chance. I could understand if they had given them a month, better yet 6 months, or even better a year to feel them out. Give the new administration a chance to show what their plans are for the department, their vision for the future. Instead they chose to cut and run. You know like the playground crybaby who takes his ball and goes home.
If you can't see the difference between choosing to leave because you choose not to be a firefighter anymore because of family issues, work issues, health issues, age, or simply loss of interest in being a FF, versus quitting and walking away because of changes in administraion and line leadership, I don't know what to say to you. They are not even close to the same thing.
-
-
Don, respectfully, you have absolutely no basis for that claim.
They obviously WERE firefighters before they quit. Your claim that they were not simply isn't a valid assessment of the situation.
You assume that the reason they quit was that they didn't give the new chiefs a chance. When you paint the possibilities as being only one of two extreme opposites, that is a false dilemma. There are several other possibilities here, none of which are as extreme as the ones you painted...
1) It's possible that the firefighters already know the new chiefs and due to some previous experiance, they don't trust them. That could be a lack of trust in how the run the department, a lack of trust in how they approach firefighter safety on scene, or a lack of trust in their leadership, once again, based on previous experience that those firefighters may have and that you and I do not.
2) It's possible that the new chiefs are going to implement more time-consuming training standards. That would be consistent with the stated goals in the review. If that's the case, then if the new training requirements take time that the firefighters are not willing or able to give, then we're back to family challenges or loss of interest.
3) It's possible that the firefighters view this as a loss of control over a major part of their own lives. If that's the case, then they have the right - and the window of opportunity - to get their lives back.
This issue is clearly not as black-and-white as you paint it. As several others have said in this thread, we don't have all of the information. Passing judgement on the former firefighters without all of the information is premature at best. Claiming that those guys are crybabies is unsupportable, given the lack of evidence.
Claiming that they were never firefighters to begin with flies in the face of the facts - facts that we DO know.
-
-
Ben,
I have grown weary of the take my ball and go home crowd. Anytime they don't like some change they threaten to quit. When someone calls their bluff then what? You can't run an organization like that, incuding a volunteer fire department.
When I was Chief of our local volly FD I had a guy who threatened to quit every time we were going to change something he didn't like. Well, I made the mistake of letting him get away with that for about a year. I could see what it was doing to the rest of the department. People were grumbling about who is really in charge. So the next time he says "I am going to quit if you implement that." I said "We will miss you." He said "What does that mean?" I said "It means you are not going to run the FD from the back row anymore. I hate to lose you but if this is your attitude, we will miss you." He stepped back, look at me with a surprised look and quit. End of problem.
If they are truly firefighters that understand the MISSION of saving lives and protecting property, you don't walk away when things don't go your way. You stick around and continue to do the job and work to effect positive, for the organization, change. Seriously, how does anything change, get better, or get fixed if you quit and walk away?
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
The important thing here is that nobody is saying that a member that is capable of being and chooses to be an interior firefighter shouldn't be.
Why is this an "important" thing? If they are capable and choose to be interior, then that means they should also be qualified and certified to be a firefighter. I mean especially considering the vast majority of FF certs revolve around being able to go inside, it would mean that if one is capable of being interior and chooses to be would be certified and qualified. Not every fire is going to call for an interior attack, yet all the aspects to be able to go interior, SCBA, PPE, line choice, ventilation, etc, etc are reflected with the training. So yeah, if someone is capable of being interior, would (or should) mean they are certified and qualified.
Our point is that in many small rural communities there are a very limited number of people with the physical abilities to operate interior and/or the drive or time to go through the training to operate interior
So what? Why should standards be compromised to cater to those unwilling or unable to act in the capacity in which they choose to operate? I mean I can go off of any number of stereotypes of rural folks and most of the time, physically unable to do the job doesn't come to mind, so unwillingness seems to more. Age being a factor, yep sure, but wouldn't it make sense that if one can't meet the expectations to be interior, they maybe shouldn't be on the job either? Hell how many LODDs do we see of FFs dying because they operated on a scene and died later on...yet they didn't do anything physically constraining. Why shouldn't physical standards be adopted and personnel able to operate in any capacity if they are doing the job? Why double standards?
In the example you gave with the 4 interior firefighters and 10 exterior, you are assuming that the 10 exterior are folks that would be physically capable, or have the time to train as interior, interior qualified.
No I'm not. I said "f you have 10 people show up and only 4 are "interior" you are severely limiting what can be done as well as placing those people in a bad predicament." Where is the grey area? If you only have 4 personnel to go inside you are severely limiting what can be done and are placing those personnel in a bad predicament. Quite frankly if you only had 4 interior qualed people that would be minimum 2 on an attack line and 2 on a back up.......Where is your RIT? Where is your search? Hell search aside......you get a damn MAYDAY......who is going to get the FF out? the perhaps other 3 (if you're lucky)? Hell every LODD and RIT situation shows us that a 2 person minimum outside is NOT enough, no nowhere near enough personnel to perform a RIT operation........So who goes inside? All these "exterior only" folks?
The reality is in many rural VFDs that is about the ratio of members young enough and physically capable of operating interior vs. senior members no longer capable of operating interior or members incapable, or unwilling to operate interior for a variety of very legitimate physical, mental or time-related reasons.
Seems to me, those are ground in which someone should not be operating on the fireground then. If you want to be "exterior" only, fine, get yourself the qualifications and certifications to get a white helmet and be in a command role. Otherwise stay off the damn fireground.
So we throw out the 10 exterior members and we are left with 4 personnel to assume command, operate the pump, make fire attack, ventilate, drive the tanker(s), establish a water supply, etc. until mutual aid arrives, which in some rural environments can be a very long wait
Cheese and rice man, look at what I said. You are right there will be exterior roles to do, but the fact remains if you are limiting those who can operate inside, you are limiting those people and placing then in a predicament....especially considering the MAYDAY threats at any fireground. If a MAYDAY occurs and you have 4 "interior" only people operating, who goes in for them? Who pulls a third line to fire attack? Who is going in for RIT? Point being is any damn FF on the fireground should be able and capable of doing any job tasked to them.....including if the task changes.
Which plan do you like the best? The reality is that in many rural VFDs with a very limited recruiting pool, without exterior and junior personnel, the number of people needed on the fireground would not exist if you required all members to be interior qualified
Juniors should NOT be operating on the fireground at all. A juniors place is to observe, not participate. You can disagree but the fireground is no place for children and it is asinine and moronic for any true and real FF to suggest children operate on a fireground. And yes, they can definitely learn the job without being an active participant. Sure the required personnel will be limited if requiring interior qualifications, but so damn what, that is what the job entails....if you can't perform it then don't do it. Do you think an emergency room nurse will say they don't want to deal with blood? No, because the job description states otherwise. Why should any other dept asking for mutual aid help be jeopardized because of such reasoning NOT to have fully qualified FFs?..................It does no good to another FD where interior operations are taking place and a bunch of "exterior" only FFs show up and can't do the job that may be needed.
And honestly, a member of a fire department does have the right to tell the department if they want to operate interior or remain exterior, even if they are physically capable of being interior.
Yes they do, and it comes down to being able to do the job or not. Unwilling to go inside, then thanks for applying. On the fireground is not the place to make that call unless there is a bonafide safety reason. There is a reason for having an incident commander and a reason they are called orders and not some democratic vote.
It's no different than a member saying they would not like to go on the ice as a ice rescue tech, be a haz-mat tech or perform confined space and technical rescue operations.
No, it is a big difference. HAZMAT, tech rescue, and to a slight point, ice rescue are specialty skills requiring further training and certification beyond basic FF. There is a reason there is a DOT guidebook for HAZMAT giving guidance to any basic FD operation for a HAZMAT situation. A tech rescue call will still require a FD response and the difference is the dept may not be capable to perform the rescue/recovery, but should call for resources....yet it would be entirely understandable if a dept isn't qualified nor have trained personnel to perform the rescue......however, if they have the capability they are expected to perform.
One thing I will say is I have been on a couple of volunteer departments that do the same job, in some cases better, than the career neighbors
Yep, such comments are right up there with "We all do the same job"...yet if so, then why advocate double standards? Sure there are definitely some well oiled volly depts and some lessor career....but show me a single career dept that has "exterior" only people, then tell me how we all do the same job. If we really did do the same job, we would see a greater advocation of physicals, backgrounds, training and certifications..........yet, unfortunately, all we keep seeing is advocation of double standards.....yet we do the same job. Irony or hypocrisy?
-
-
John, the point is that there are places that don't have enough people that can pass the interior firefighter physical.
If they don't use exterior firefighters, they might as well not have a fire department.
Is it more risky to have only a few interior-qualified firefighters? Of course it is. However, what do you do when you don't have any other choice - close up shop?
-
-
Don, once again, you have no factual basis for that generalization.
We simply don't have enough information to support that claim.
Once again, you have no idea why the firefighters in question chose to quit. You're just assuming.
Most important, the entire concept of VOLUNTEERING means that's a choice by the individual. Making that choice is the individual's, and the individual's alone.
Frankly, it looks as if you're engaging in transferrence - projecting your personal experience from a situation at your fire department on the Canadian one in question. Once again, you don't have enough information to make an accurate comparison.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
