Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PAID vs PAID vs IAFF??? wow

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • frostymug1001
    replied
    I had a similar scenario. I worked part time as a rescue officer for a while, and was not part of the local of a neighboring dept. I was over their guys, but we never had an issue, or at least it never got back to my scab self. Did it for about 6 months until admin decided to move the unit elsewhere over low call volume. The interesting part is that I was not union at all at that time. The guys all knew this, and were trying to change by-laws to get me in, but then the truck went tits up.

    Leave a comment:


  • FireMedic049
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben3131 View Post
    What does everybody think about this scenario..... An IAFF member works part-time at a combo department that is also an IAFF represented department. (Basically, IAFF members working part-time in another IAFF shop.) Now imagine this... those IAFF members working part-time have rank over the IAFF members at the combo department. (They also earn a significantly higher wage) The IAFF members working part-time occupy many promoted positions over the full-time IAFF members at the department.


    Should this be an accepted practice?
    I agree that there's not enough information here to render an opinion. Are the PT personnel in question in this department's local also? Do the full-time personnel have the ability to hold the same ranks as the PT? What does "significantly higher wage" equate to as a difference to in hourly rate?

    Leave a comment:


  • johnsb
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben3131 View Post
    What does everybody think about this scenario..... An IAFF member works part-time at a combo department that is also an IAFF represented department. (Basically, IAFF members working part-time in another IAFF shop.) Now imagine this... those IAFF members working part-time have rank over the IAFF members at the combo department. (They also earn a significantly higher wage) The IAFF members working part-time occupy many promoted positions over the full-time IAFF members at the department.

    Should this be an accepted practice?
    There's not enough info here. Maybe the part-timers have been there longer, and have more qualifications. It's up to the local that has the fulltimers to sort it out. My local asks for a yearly letter stating there is no conflict, from other locals that have our guys working part-time there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben3131
    replied
    What does everybody think about this scenario..... An IAFF member works part-time at a combo department that is also an IAFF represented department. (Basically, IAFF members working part-time in another IAFF shop.) Now imagine this... those IAFF members working part-time have rank over the IAFF members at the combo department. (They also earn a significantly higher wage) The IAFF members working part-time occupy many promoted positions over the full-time IAFF members at the department.

    Should this be an accepted practice?

    Leave a comment:


  • FireMedic049
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    That's a good thing.
    Yes it is, but are you now a believer?

    ... And hell no on the group hug.
    Your loss.

    Leave a comment:


  • tajm611
    replied
    Only animosity I've seen are volunteers aimed towards career and it's always a few bad apples and never shared by the entire department.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Originally posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Well, Amen, Halleluiah, start believing.

    I've got a number of volunteer and non-IAFF combo departments in my region and none of them are "classified as rival organizations". In fact, with the exception of the major city department (large enough to not need it, but has provided it on occasion), the IAFF departments in the region routinely provide and/or receive automatic and/or mutual aid from volunteer and non-IAFF combo departments.



    Too soon for a group hug?
    That's a good thing.

    ... And hell no on the group hug.

    Leave a comment:


  • FireMedic049
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    As far as #1, when I see that volunteer departments with large budgets bordering areas covered by career personnel are not classified as rival organizations, which they are, I'll believe that the IAFF is not anti-volunteer.
    Well, Amen, Halleluiah, start believing.

    I've got a number of volunteer and non-IAFF combo departments in my region and none of them are "classified as rival organizations". In fact, with the exception of the major city department (large enough to not need it, but has provided it on occasion), the IAFF departments in the region routinely provide and/or receive automatic and/or mutual aid from volunteer and non-IAFF combo departments.



    Too soon for a group hug?

    Leave a comment:


  • FireMedic049
    replied
    Originally posted by johnsb View Post
    You're not an IAFF member so what you "believe" to be the truth is immaterial and moot. I AM a member of the IAFF, and my local (which is rather large) has no problem with volunteers. It does ask for letters from locals that have part-time firefighters to say that they don't have a problem with members from another local working there part-time. If it ever became a problem due to labor relations (which has rarely happened) THEN that member would be asked to resign from the part-time job. The IAFF as an organization is not so stupid that they disregard the role of VFD's. VFD's have benefitted from advancements in safety and technology championed by the IAFF, and by the membership of IAFF members. Any general disrespect towards VFD's, by IAFF members is a personal OPINION, and not the general consensus.
    Additionally, the volunteer fire service has greatly benefited by the IAFF's lobbying efforts to keep the AFG and SAFER grant programs funded year after year.

    In my state, we finally got a Cancer Presumption Law for firefighters passed last year after a 20+ year fight. Our State Association (PPFFA) was at the front of that battle the whole way. We could've gotten it passed years sooner if coverage for the volunteers was removed from the Bill. We're so anti-volunteer that we refused to remove coverage for them from the Bill even though it meant the Bill wouldn't be passed. Now we all have coverage and there's even a provision for (limited duration) retroactive coverage.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnsb
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Actually your data is incorrect.

    According to the USFA, all-career and primarily career combo departments cover 67% of the population. All-volunteer and primarily volunteer combo departments cover the remaining 33%.

    Volunteer departments represent 78% of the departments with primarily volunteer department about another 8%.

    As far as #1, when I see that volunteer departments with large budgets bordering areas covered by career personnel are not classified as rival organizations, which they are, I'll believe that the IAFF is not anti-volunteer.

    As far as brothers, I know who they are, and most of them are not career personnel.
    You're not an IAFF member so what you "believe" to be the truth is immaterial and moot. I AM a member of the IAFF, and my local (which is rather large) has no problem with volunteers. It does ask for letters from locals that have part-time firefighters to say that they don't have a problem with members from another local working there part-time. If it ever became a problem due to labor relations (which has rarely happened) THEN that member would be asked to resign from the part-time job. The IAFF as an organization is not so stupid that they disregard the role of VFD's. VFD's have benefitted from advancements in safety and technology championed by the IAFF, and by the membership of IAFF members. Any general disrespect towards VFD's, by IAFF members is a personal OPINION, and not the general consensus.

    Leave a comment:


  • LaFireEducator
    replied
    Actually your data is incorrect.

    According to the USFA, all-career and primarily career combo departments cover 67% of the population. All-volunteer and primarily volunteer combo departments cover the remaining 33%.

    Volunteer departments represent 78% of the departments with primarily volunteer department about another 8%.

    As far as #1, when I see that volunteer departments with large budgets bordering areas covered by career personnel are not classified as rival organizations, which they are, I'll believe that the IAFF is not anti-volunteer.

    As far as brothers, I know who they are, and most of them are not career personnel.

    Leave a comment:


  • MemphisE34a
    replied
    Originally posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    And people wonder why I think unions have no place in America, and why I have such hatred for the IAFF.

    I'm sorry bro as this is an example of what is wrong with the IAFF and the "career only" mentality that some of the members have in regards to fire protection in most of America.
    I apologize for drumming up an old thread, but I couldn't resist to address another situation where you are wrong.

    1. The IAFF does not have a "career only" mentality. Perhaps you should research and read their current policy on volunteering in your home community. In addition, I know of a couple of departments that have IAFF paid staff and volunteers.

    2. Volunteers do protect about 90% of the land mass in America, but paid guys protect about 90% of the population.

    3. You should be disallowed to ever type the word "bro" in anything pertaining to the fire service.

    Leave a comment:


  • FireMedic049
    replied
    Originally posted by sTages19 View Post
    as far as the carpenter (or anything for that matter) what about hidden thing such as asbestos that may not have been know was there. thinking along the lines of cancer given the response, would that affect things. because someone was saying that on a VFD they would be open to these things, why are these other jobs thought to not have harms that can relate to harms that would arise in the fire department? curious, not trying to start an argument here.
    Yes, it's definitely possible that a person could be exposed to dangerous things like asbestos doing some of these other jobs.

    In regards to cancer specifically as an occupational illness, one reason that there isn't as much "concern" about these other jobs is that workers in those other occupations aren't contracting and dying of cancer at a rate well above that of the general population, particularly with regard to certain types of cancer.

    This is occurring with firefighters. I don't have the facts and figures off the top of my head, but a firefighter is at a significantly higher risk for several specific types of cancer than other occupations and the rate of cancer among firefighters is higher than the rate of cancer among the population in general.

    The belief within the fire service (at least the career side) is that our duties as firefighters is exposing us to whatever is causing this "difference". As such, the potential exposure to whatever the cause is would be present in the volunteer setting since they would have the same occupational exposures, but the carpenter and other occupations wouldn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • sTages19
    replied
    as far as the carpenter (or anything for that matter) what about hidden thing such as asbestos that may not have been know was there. thinking along the lines of cancer given the response, would that affect things. because someone was saying that on a VFD they would be open to these things, why are these other jobs thought to not have harms that can relate to harms that would arise in the fire department? curious, not trying to start an argument here.

    Leave a comment:


  • FireMedic049
    replied
    Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
    I'll admit that we are straying into territory I don't have any informed knowledge of, so accept my question as it is...

    Has this actually happened that you (or anyone for that matter) are aware of?
    I am not able to pinpoint an actual occurrence of such off hand. However, like Jasper, I've seen fights over stuff that was clearly an OTJ injury. In fact, I have one such fight going on in my Local where the City has been refusing to recognize an injury sustained at work as an OTJ injury.

    I know that there have been "battles" over some LODDs that involved older firefighters and cardiac events and somebody trying to get out of paying LODD benefits by claiming the FF had a cardiac history and that the heart attack was the result of "life style" factors rather than firefighting stress.

    So, it's really not hard to see an employer or their insurance representative trying to exploit a volunteer affiliation in order to reduce the financial impact of an occupational illness.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X