This has undoubtedly already been discussed, shouted about, ad infinatum but with the new contact clause barring paid Ff's from volunteering...... Here it goes again...
The idea, on the face of it,to prohibit their paid fire fighters from volunteering in their communities, 'to protect them and the city in case of injury', would sound to have some reasonable basis and thought behind it but...... IT DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH- why only prohibit them from serving other fire dept's., gee, lets see here, next contract lets add lion taming, wilderness rescue teams, scoutmastering, how about volunteer ambulance squads,(gotta get the ones that aren't connected with fire depts, too), etc.. Next they can work on their hobbies and home duties, too can't have them hurt themselves there either, soon they won't allow them to have potentially injurious hobbies etc, what if they fell rock climbing, or drownded white water rafting, wait a minute, can't work on your own house either, they might fall off the roof or electricute themselves fixing the plug in the living room. Oh yeah that chief is worried about the hearts, no more barbeques in the back yard, those steaks are bad for your heart's, and if your grill catches on fire don't you dare put it out, you could be fired, wait for the volunteer company that covers your home that now has even worse manpower problems.
Is fire fighting a hazardous duty (be it paid or volunteer), of course it is, but to single it out to prevent their paid fire fighters from participating outside of their "jobs", is a disservice to the firefighters, their 'other' depts. and their communities.
I think that chief, and whoever else is in on this with him, is #1 - attacking their fire fighters freedom of association, and #2 is attacking a great piece of America, the volunteers fire service has a great history and is a large piece of America, they should be charged with treason, and that still carries the death penalty.
The idea, on the face of it,to prohibit their paid fire fighters from volunteering in their communities, 'to protect them and the city in case of injury', would sound to have some reasonable basis and thought behind it but...... IT DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH- why only prohibit them from serving other fire dept's., gee, lets see here, next contract lets add lion taming, wilderness rescue teams, scoutmastering, how about volunteer ambulance squads,(gotta get the ones that aren't connected with fire depts, too), etc.. Next they can work on their hobbies and home duties, too can't have them hurt themselves there either, soon they won't allow them to have potentially injurious hobbies etc, what if they fell rock climbing, or drownded white water rafting, wait a minute, can't work on your own house either, they might fall off the roof or electricute themselves fixing the plug in the living room. Oh yeah that chief is worried about the hearts, no more barbeques in the back yard, those steaks are bad for your heart's, and if your grill catches on fire don't you dare put it out, you could be fired, wait for the volunteer company that covers your home that now has even worse manpower problems.
Is fire fighting a hazardous duty (be it paid or volunteer), of course it is, but to single it out to prevent their paid fire fighters from participating outside of their "jobs", is a disservice to the firefighters, their 'other' depts. and their communities.
I think that chief, and whoever else is in on this with him, is #1 - attacking their fire fighters freedom of association, and #2 is attacking a great piece of America, the volunteers fire service has a great history and is a large piece of America, they should be charged with treason, and that still carries the death penalty.





Comment