Amalgamation

[jeffster]

We can do it gradually, giving the region more powers, step by step. It's time for the region to take on fire services, to start.

That might be one area that Cambridge would be happy to agree with, they have 6 fire halls, for example, vs Kitchener's 7, due to their unforgiving geography - large but not dense.

[Spokes]

We can do it gradually, giving the region more powers, step by step. It's time for the region to take on fire services, to start.

It's never made any sense that police and EMS are unified but Fire isn't.  They could save a boat load putting them all together

[ijmorlan]

We can do it gradually, giving the region more powers, step by step. It's time for the region to take on fire services, to start.

It's never made any sense that police and EMS are unified but Fire isn't.  They could save a boat load putting them all together

I’m not sure I would call it a “boat load”. Ultimately, you would need to have almost the same fire stations with almost the same staffing. Having said that, I agree it would make sense to move Fire to the Region: all the 911 services managed by one entity.

This is the right way to do amalgamation, anyway: instead of making a big deal of it and insisting on amalgamating everything all at once, which is frankly a stupid thing to do in this case which will not provide the savings expected by people who haven’t thought about the situation (and probably aren’t capable of clear thinking), amalgamate the services that would actually be improved or made less expensive, starting with the most obvious cases. This allows proper attention to be paid to each component of amalgamation.

Over time, I think the stated goals of those who want amalgamation would be met, possibly ending in complete amalgamation or on the other hand maybe the constituent municipalities would continue to exist but with radically reduced responsibilities (and cost).

[Pheidippides]

It's never made any sense that police and EMS are unified but Fire isn't.  They could save a boat load putting them all together

Doubtful. You'd probably have to bring every fire fighter up to the highest paid grade across all the cities and townships. Aren't the townships volunteer fire fighters? You'd suddenly be paying volunteers >$100k per year. I'm not saying that is a bad thing or we shouldn't do it, but that the costs would scare any evidence based politician away from doing it.

Amalgamation by stealth is more a more likely course to follow like has happened in other areas (e.g. co-location of the region's call centre and Kitchener's call centre, co-ordination of snow plowing (roads at least), etc.).

[Spokes]

Ok true maybe not a boat load, but if nothing else you'd cut down on a lot of the top end hierarchy. How many chiefs do we need?

I'm sure their unions would have something to say about this though.

Anyways, do they work the same schedules? I know Cambridge is on 24 hour shifts, but don't know about Kitchener and Waterloo

[Ace]

Ok true maybe not a boat load, but if nothing else you'd cut down on a lot of the top end hierarchy.  How many chiefs do we need?

I'm sure their unions would have something to say about this though.

Anyways, do they work the same schedules? I know Cambridge is on 24 hour shifts, but don't know about Kitchener and Waterloo

Also both on 24hr shifts.

[Spokes]

Thanks for confirming. One less hurdle

[MidTowner]

Doubtful. You'd probably have to bring every fire fighter up to the highest paid grade across all the cities and townships. Aren't the townships volunteer fire fighters? You'd suddenly be paying volunteers >$100k per year. I'm not saying that is a bad thing or we shouldn't do it, but that the costs would scare any evidence based politician away from doing it.

Amalgamation by stealth is more a more likely course to follow like has happened in other areas (e.g. co-location of the region's call centre and Kitchener's call centre, co-ordination of snow plowing (roads at least), etc.).

Good prediction. I agree in principle that one fire fighting service should be able to provide that service Region-wide at lower cost than multiple services would, but the main cost driver is labour, and unfortunately eliminating fire fighting jobs is a decision that municipalities in Ontario practically can't take. Recall the City of Windsor getting rid of a single superfluous fire engine ten years back, and ultimately being forced to pay its firefighters for "lost overtime." There's no chance a regional fire service would be able to reduce staffing levels, as common sense would dictate, and every chance of the fire fighters successfully pushing for more money, as you predict.

[tomh009]

Doubtful. You'd probably have to bring every fire fighter up to the highest paid grade across all the cities and townships. Aren't the townships volunteer fire fighters? You'd suddenly be paying volunteers >$100k per year. I'm not saying that is a bad thing or we shouldn't do it, but that the costs would scare any evidence based politician away from doing it.

There's no chance a regional fire service would be able to reduce staffing levels, as common sense would dictate, and every chance of the fire fighters successfully pushing for more money, as you predict.

Reducing staffing levels by making people redundant is surely a non-starter, even given that most of our fire services are overstaffed, and often doing the job of paramedics in order to keep busy -- there simply aren't that many fires any more. But reducing the number of firefighters through attrition should certainly be feasible.

Does anyone have any actual data on the regional pay differences for firefighters?

[nms]

I wouldn't say the "doing the jobs of paramedics just to keep busy" is a bad thing. In Waterloo, at least, the firefighters are often the first to arrive ahead of the ambulance and police if an emergency call goes out. As person in need of medical assistance, I'll take the first person to arrive.

[ijmorlan]

I wouldn't say the "doing the jobs of paramedics just to keep busy" is a bad thing.  In Waterloo, at least, the firefighters are often the first to arrive ahead of the ambulance and police if an emergency call goes out. As person in need of medical assistance, I'll take the first person to arrive.

Maybe we’re understaffed on ambulance and overstaffed on fire.

In any case, staffing levels should be determined by the owners, in this case the municipal governments, not by the employees’ unions. If our democratically-elected governments decide to reduce staffing in any department, then the employees there should not be able to veto that change any more than private-sector employees should be able to do so. They should expect fair treatment in a staffing-reduction situation (and indeed in any situation) but a veto is an unearned privilege.

In the public sector I would go further and suggest that the same should apply to wages. If the government tries to reduce wages too far, they’ll have trouble getting people to apply. Instead, my understanding is that whenever a firefighter job opens up it is swamped with qualified applications. Since there is no “keeping the business in business” motivation putting an upper limit on employee wage claims, and since firefighters have good PR, the wages go up and up. If a municipality wants to see if qualified people will work for them for less than neighbouring jurisdictions, why shouldn’t they be allowed to try?

[Spokes]

I wouldn't say the "doing the jobs of paramedics just to keep busy" is a bad thing.  In Waterloo, at least, the firefighters are often the first to arrive ahead of the ambulance and police if an emergency call goes out. As person in need of medical assistance, I'll take the first person to arrive.

Maybe we’re understaffed on ambulance and overstaffed on fire.

In any case, staffing levels should be determined by the owners, in this case the municipal governments, not by the employees’ unions. If our democratically-elected governments decide to reduce staffing in any department, then the employees there should not be able to veto that change any more than private-sector employees should be able to do so. They should expect fair treatment in a staffing-reduction situation (and indeed in any situation) but a veto is an unearned privilege.

In the public sector I would go further and suggest that the same should apply to wages. If the government tries to reduce wages too far, they’ll have trouble getting people to apply. Instead, my understanding is that whenever a firefighter job opens up it is swamped with qualified applications. Since there is no “keeping the business in business” motivation putting an upper limit on employee wage claims, and since firefighters have good PR, the wages go up and up. If a municipality wants to see if qualified people will work for them for less than neighbouring jurisdictions, why shouldn’t they be allowed to try?

My best friend is a medic and he was just saying how understaffed they are.  Because of which they're having to work insane overtime, resulting in burn out.  He said the number of people on leave right now is the highest it's ever been, which just escalates the issue.

[darts]

I wouldn't say the "doing the jobs of paramedics just to keep busy" is a bad thing.  In Waterloo, at least, the firefighters are often the first to arrive ahead of the ambulance and police if an emergency call goes out. As person in need of medical assistance, I'll take the first person to arrive.

The thing is they don''t/can't do much medically, and then they point at the medic stuff they do and say they need more raises.

Not sure about here but rank and file firefighters are paid more than rank and file police in Toronto.

[darts]

I wouldn't say the "doing the jobs of paramedics just to keep busy" is a bad thing.  In Waterloo, at least, the firefighters are often the first to arrive ahead of the ambulance and police if an emergency call goes out. As person in need of medical assistance, I'll take the first person to arrive.

Maybe we’re understaffed on ambulance and overstaffed on fire.

In any case, staffing levels should be determined by the owners, in this case the municipal governments, not by the employees’ unions. If our democratically-elected governments decide to reduce staffing in any department, then the employees there should not be able to veto that change any more than private-sector employees should be able to do so. They should expect fair treatment in a staffing-reduction situation (and indeed in any situation) but a veto is an unearned privilege.

In the public sector I would go further and suggest that the same should apply to wages. If the government tries to reduce wages too far, they’ll have trouble getting people to apply. Instead, my understanding is that whenever a firefighter job opens up it is swamped with qualified applications. Since there is no “keeping the business in business” motivation putting an upper limit on employee wage claims, and since firefighters have good PR, the wages go up and up. If a municipality wants to see if qualified people will work for them for less than neighbouring jurisdictions, why shouldn’t they be allowed to try?

We are understaffed on Ambulance but the cities are unable to reduce fire staffing levels at all.

I think part of it is the unions, part of it is I think at least some mandated service level but I am not sure if it is at the city level or province.

Either way no one wants to deal with the fire unions, the cities roll over on their demands or it goes to arbitration and they get what they want anyways and the province doesn't want the bad press on changing the arbitration process, especially since it is something the cities pay for , not them so no reason to wade into that fight.

Some fire departments have 24 hour shifts. You literally get paid while sleeping, eating and shitting. Work 7 days straight and have the next 3 weeks off.

[KevinL]

Perhaps a solution is what many other jurisdictions have done - fold EMS into the fire department. As true fire emergencies diminish, having more firefighters trained in EMS helps that side of the response improve.