Amalgamation

[Spokes]

But their educational backgrounds are VERY VERY different.

[tomh009]

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.

Exactly my point. And sending two fire truck with 10 firefighters instead of the paramedic van with two paramedics is surely not cost-efficient if all one needs is a paramedic.

[ijmorlan]

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.

I wonder what would happen if another city were to attempt to eliminate its fire department entirely and contract with one of our fire departments to provide the service.

Our firefighters can not reasonably complain about a slight change in assignment; meanwhile in theory the firefighters in the other city are no longer required so there is no labour dispute; their jobs simply don’t exist any more. And both cities are still providing sufficient fire service.

I’m sure there is some BS provision somewhere that forbids this.

[gomesjustin]

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.

"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."

They put their lives on the line. So I think thats pretty reasonable.

[MidTowner]

That kind of "point" is not helpful at all, and exactly how we've come to the situation described in the posts above. Lots of professions involve people who "put their lives on the line."

Yes, firefighting is a dangerous job (though not the most dangerous). It should be made safer whenever possible. But the point darts was making about scheduling has very little to do with safety.

[robdrimmie]

I mean, I don't clock out when I go to the bathroom either. Pretty sure all of us get paid while shitting.

[Ace]

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.

"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."

They put their lives on the line. So I think thats pretty reasonable.

I remember seeing statistics that a waste collector is multiple times more likely to be fatally injured on the job than a firefighter. Unable to dig up a data source right now so take it as you will.

Do you consider them putting their lives on the line? Should they be compensated accordingly?

[Spokes]

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.

In our region?  I think they're all on a 7 out of 28 schedule

[tomh009]

"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."

They put their lives on the line. So I think thats pretty reasonable.

I remember seeing statistics that a waste collector is multiple times more likely to be fatally injured on the job than a firefighter. Unable to dig up a data source right now so take it as you will.

Do you consider them putting their lives on the line? Should they be compensated accordingly?

These are US statistics, but I think they are still indicative. Firefighters and police don't make it into the top ten. (Ignoring volunteer firefighters, there are about 350,000 firefighters in the US, and 35 deaths in 2016, so that's a rate of about 10, far lower than the top occupations.)

   

[jamincan]

Specifically comparing fire services, EMS, and policing, I believe fire fighters are the only ones who have 24-hour shifts. All other emergency services typically do 12-hour shifts as far as I know. While fire response is important, fire-related calls are probably the least frequent of all three services. The fact that fire services are so often idle means we are often falling back on them to respond to medical calls because EMS is so over-worked. The whole situation seems backward to me; we should be spending more to improve EMS and finding ways to reduce cost for fire services.

[danbrotherston]

@Jaminican Agree entirely

@tomh009 Indeed, many jobs are much more dangerous. Some of those are surprising though, who knew being an aircraft pilot or flight engineer was so dangerous, and if that's on the list, how is flight attendant not...

[tomh009]

@Jaminican Agree entirely

@tomh009 Indeed, many jobs are much more dangerous.  Some of those are surprising though, who knew being an aircraft pilot or flight engineer was so dangerous, and if that's on the list, how is flight attendant not...

A good question! According to the stats, there were 75 deaths in the air transportation worker category -- and 70 of those were "commercial pilots". My suspicion is that the 70 includes all onboard staff at commercial airlines.

[plam]

@Jaminican Agree entirely

@tomh009 Indeed, many jobs are much more dangerous.  Some of those are surprising though, who knew being an aircraft pilot or flight engineer was so dangerous, and if that's on the list, how is flight attendant not...

A good question! According to the stats, there were 75 deaths in the air transportation worker category -- and 70 of those were "commercial pilots". My suspicion is that the 70 includes all onboard staff at commercial airlines.

Nope, I'd guess that it's bush pilots. Scheduled airline service is probably one of the most safe activities we can do. General aviation, however, is much less safe. And bush pilots don't have flight attendants.

Anyone else notice the high fatality rate for drivers? Driving is dangerous! It's pretty high consequence for errors.

[danbrotherston]

A good question! According to the stats, there were 75 deaths in the air transportation worker category -- and 70 of those were "commercial pilots". My suspicion is that the 70 includes all onboard staff at commercial airlines.

Nope, I'd guess that it's bush pilots. Scheduled airline service is probably one of the most safe activities we can do. General aviation, however, is much less safe. And bush pilots don't have flight attendants.

Anyone else notice the high fatality rate for drivers? Driving is dangerous! It's pretty high consequence for errors.

I noticed that, I was going to say I was surprised it wasn't higher, but I think professional drivers have a lower rate for a few reasons, one, they're probably better drivers, for two, many are probably less aggressive drivers, and they're also probably driving safer vehicles (at least safer for the vehicle drivers).

That's a good point about bush pilots, that's why I was surprised about airline pilots, but I didn't think there were all that many bush pilots anymore, and flying even smaller planes is still pretty safe.

[Spokes]

Specifically comparing fire services, EMS, and policing, I believe fire fighters are the only ones who have 24-hour shifts. All other emergency services typically do 12-hour shifts as far as I know. While fire response is important, fire-related calls are probably the least frequent of all three services. The fact that fire services are so often idle means we are often falling back on them to respond to medical calls because EMS is so over-worked. The whole situation seems backward to me; we should be spending more to improve EMS and finding ways to reduce cost for fire services.

THIS.

Part of the problem is that fire fighters can only do a fraction of what medics can when it comes to medical calls.  So they arrive and just hold down the fort.  I mean it's better than nothing, but definitely not ideal.