Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse

Firehouse.com Forum Rules & Guidelines

Forum Rules & Guidelines

Not Permitted or Tolerated:
• Advertising and/or links of commercial, for-profit websites, products, and/or services is not permitted. If you have a need to advertise on Firehouse.com please contact sales@firehouse.com
• Fighting/arguing
• Cyber-bullying
• Swearing
• Name-calling and/or personal attacks
• Spamming
• Typing in all CAPS
• “l33t speak” - Substituting characters for letters in an effort to represent a word or phrase. (example: M*****ive)
• Distribution of another person’s personal information, regardless of whether or not said information is public knowledge and whether or not an individual has permission to post said personal information
• Piracy advocation of any kind
• Racist, sexual, hate type defamatory, religious, political, or sexual commentary.
• Multiple forum accounts

Forum Posting Guidelines:

Posts must be on-topic, non-disruptive and relevant to the firefighting community. Post only in a mature and responsible way that contributes to the discussion at hand. Posting relevant information, helpful suggestions and/or constructive criticism is a great way to contribute to the community.

Post in the correct forum and have clear titles for your threads.

Please post in English or provide a translation.

There are moderators and admins who handle these forums with care, do not resort to self-help, instead please utilize the reporting option. Be mature and responsible for yourself and your posts. If you are offended by another member utilize the reporting option. All reported posts will be addressed and dealt with as deemed appropriate by Firehouse.com staff.

Firehouse.com Moderation Process:
Effective immediately, the following moderation process will take effect. User(s) whose posts are determined by Firehouse.com staff to be in violation of any of the rules above will EARN the following reprimand(s) in the moderation process:
1. An initial warning will be issued.
2. A Final Warning will be issued if a user is found to be in violation a second time.
3. A 3-day suspension will be issued if the user continues to break the forum rules.
4. A 45-day suspension will be issued if the user is found to be a habitual rule breaker.
5. Habitual rule breakers that have exhausted all of the above will receive a permanent life-time ban that will be strictly enforced. Reinstatement will not be allowed – there is no appeal process.

Subsequent accounts created in an effort to side-step the rules and moderation process are subject to automatic removal without notice. Firehouse.com reserves the right to expedite the reprimand process for any users as it is deemed necessary. Any user in the moderation process may be required to review and agree to by email the terms and conditions listed above before their account is re-instated (except for those that are banned).

Firehouse.com reserves the right to edit and/or remove any post or member, at any time, for any reason without notice. Firehouse.com also reserves the right to warn, suspend, and/or ban, any member, at any time, for any reason.

Firehouse.com values the active participation we have in our forums. Please ensure your posts are tasteful and tactful. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
See more
See less

Two Hatters

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

  • #16
    Not just labour relations scoop, but it would have affected every single organization that reserved the right to govern their members.....including all three major political parties.

    I must say that I am extrememly disappointed with the positioin of the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs. They have taken an extremely childish response, by saying that because Runciman was not present in the legislature for the vote, they will no longer co-operate with the Solicitor General on anything that does not directly involve public safety. Smells alot like "I'm taking my ball and going home" to me.

    I can respect the stance of the IAFC, by saying that although they do not agree with the IAFF's position on two hatters, they do respect their right to make that decision.

    Bill 30 failed because of the far reaching affects it would have had. Fortunately there were enough educated MPP's who could see past the emotional issues and see the ramifications of this vote. Settlement of the two hatter issue does not belong in the legislature.
    Last edited by LadyCapn; 01-13-2003, 02:22 PM.
    IACOJ

    Comment


    • #17
      Two Hatters

      The two-hatter issue is definitely a confusing one for many of us...but for me the issue is this: I don't have a problem with "volunteers"...there are communities out there that need the dedication and skills that full-time firefighters are capable of providing and who are more than willing to "donate" their time to their community...my concern lies with "part-time" firefighters who hide behind the "volunteer" moniker while getting "paid" a good wage to perform these services and thereby preventing their community from the getting the full-time fire department that they deserve.

      Comment


      • #18
        well put horhay
        A'int No Rocket Scientist's in The Firehall

        Comment


        • #19
          Does anyone know the current situation with Mr Lee?
          A'int No Rocket Scientist's in The Firehall

          Comment


          • #20
            I feel the need to reply to horhay's comments regarding the stipend or wages that "volunteer firefighters" receive. If you equate this amount to that of what a full time fire fighter receives then I believe that you may not understand the full economic impact of the statement made. Yes there are many communities who in fact make payment to their "volunteers" and even provide benefits in the event of accidental injury or death while in the performance of their duties. But when one looks at the cost of providing one full time firefighter versus the cost of making payment to a volunteer manned Station your comments leave much to be desired. Where communities have a population base sufficent to support a full time department there may be arguement with regards to the type of service provided, but where communities that are not so well populated or have geographic boundaries that exceed the tax base available, then the economic factors are much different and as such then services are provided on what can be afforded. And if said community provides to its fire service a stipend then that is the choice of its elected officals. "Volunteers" recieve payment for responding to calls, training and ungrading courses to further enhance their skills and knowledge only,so how can this relate to the annual salary of a full time firefighter? I am not going to make comment about the number of "unpaid" volunteer hours that are put in for their community in the name of public education or recognition. In conclusion then, I don't believe that horhay's comments were well suited for the topic of "two hatters" and if relevant for further comment, maybe we should open a new thread!

            A "paid" volunteer and proud of it.

            Comment


            • #21
              mesha, you make some excellent points however you are under the same misunderstanding that most who so vehemently fought for Bill 30 were under.
              The "two-hatter" issue isn't about people volunteering in their community for a minor stipend,at least not here in Ontario. It was about people working full time at one fire department while also working actual scheduled shifts at another, so in essence a "part time" job. This is a community that has recognized the need for full time staff through the day as they ran a full time Captain along with two "volunteers". The call volume within the stations area was sufficient to warrant a staffed day Pump and the tax base was more than adequate to support them (the majority of the homes in the area are worth upwards of $300,000+ and construction and population had boomed over the last few years). This Department also included rural stations as well. Being one of the other Municipalities that amalgamated you now had firefighters working full time for the city, but volunteering in the rural part of the same community. Not only does this make it difficult for the Union to fight for good wages but it is also against the cities own Policy of working for more than one area of the Municipality.
              It's about Municipalities not spending the money for adequate training of volunteers, instead relying on other Municipalities to train their firefighters while they reap the benefits for nothing. There are hundreds of firefighters across the Province who are "twohatters" and don't have a problem. It's not those volunteering in their small town community that are the issue. That seems to be the point that no one seems to remember. Some get far more mileage out of making it seem as if the issue is against volunteering period and that isn't the case.
              Before you become defensive please take the time to talk to someone who can explain the whole situation. The information coming from the FFAO is extremely biased and inflammatory and quite frankly as far as I'm concerned does more damage to the image of Volunteers than the IAFF ever could.
              Last edited by LadyCapn; 01-24-2003, 12:05 AM.
              IACOJ

              Comment


              • #22
                mesha47, feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, but did not a study issued by the Ontario Labour Board during the kerfuffle over amalgamation in the Hamilton region reveal that some of those "volunteers" were in fact receiving as much as 21,000. I'm sorry but that is not volunteering, its just a very poorly paid (non-union) career firefighter.
                A'int No Rocket Scientist's in The Firehall

                Comment


                • #23
                  smoke, I happen to have a copy of the transcript and ruling of that if you're interested.
                  IACOJ

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    LadyCapn and Smoke20286, It is possible that my interpretation of horhay's comments are in fact incorrect, but let me assure you that I am fully aware of the two hatters issue and all of it's repercusions. Furthermore, I am supportive of the decision to ensure that such practices are discontinued, permitting of course that such practices are within the envelope of a singular municipality. My intrepretation of horhays comments were more to the fact that this person seems to have contention with the fact that "volunteers" accept payment. If in fact this "bone of contention" is dealing with a specific municipality and the politics within, then obviously I was mistaken. However it may have been enlightning to have had that made somewhat clear.
                    Smoke20286, I was not aware of the kerfuffle in the Hamilton/Wentworth amalgamation, but as you say this could be considered either a very poory paid Career Fire Fighter or a very well paid "volunteer" Since I have no "insider" information as to specific details, it would be remiss of me to stick my foot into my mouth once more. Don't you agree??

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      LadyCapn, I might take you up on that sometime, I did find a copy on the net once and spent an evening reading through it, but for the life of me I have no idea where
                      A'int No Rocket Scientist's in The Firehall

                      Comment

                      300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                      Collapse

                      Upper 300x250

                      Collapse

                      Taboola

                      Collapse

                      Leader

                      Collapse
                      Working...
                      X