Firemonkey Madness in Las Vegas

[aussiephil]

No matter what you're shown, your mind is already made up. Anything anyone employed by the fire service must be lies. If you're told by a FF that the sun rises in the morning, you'll argue back that the moon will rise instead.

The video explains the position of an increased need for staffing and a timely response quite well.

Where is the EMS reference? All I see is dribble about fighting fires. This discussion is about the validity of your arguments to justify combined EMS/Fire services, not increasing the number of people from 3to 4 on your Fire Trucks. What relevance is knowing how to fight a fire in this discussion????? That was 9 minutes & 22 seconds of my life that I will never get back. Thanks for the waste of time, that told me nothing, other than the fact that these guys seem to be lacking in common sense. (if it aint safe, dont do it).

I posted the link in response to the claim that FD staffing should be based on call volume, not the community's need. The IAFF has been fighting for safe staffing levels for some time. People like Aussiephil like to say things like "justify their existence".

I will keep saying it until you can prove to me, not through rehashed dribble, that there is a real benefit to the community in a merged system. I have not seen 1 argument for it that I can honestly agree with. I have seen a video from you tube that recommends 4 FF's on a truck, & if thats whats needed for safety, great, I will back you. But there was not 1 reference to EMS.

If you want to be taken seriously on this issue, not just by me, but the others contributing & those who are following this thread (it has been viewed 791 times at the time of writing) then you show us how the combined systems actually benefit anyone except the fire company that runs EMS. Remember, you stated your company is 70% EMS, 30% Fire.

[46Young]

Where is the EMS reference? All I see is dribble about fighting fires. This discussion is about the validity of your arguments to justify combined EMS/Fire services, not increasing the number of people from 3to 4 on your Fire Trucks. What relevance is knowing how to fight a fire in this discussion????? That was 9 minutes & 22 seconds of my life that I will never get back. Thanks for the waste of time, that told me nothing, other than the fact that these guys seem to be lacking in common sense. (if it aint safe, dont do it).

I will keep saying it until you can prove to me, not through rehashed dribble, that there is a real benefit to the community in a merged system. I have not seen 1 argument for it that I can honestly agree with. I have seen a video from you tube that recommends 4 FF's on a truck, & if thats whats needed for safety, great, I will back you. But there was not 1 reference to EMS.

If you want to be taken seriously on this issue, not just by me, but the others contributing & those who are following this thread (it has been viewed 791 times at the time of writing) then you show us how the combined systems actually benefit anyone except the fire company that runs EMS. Remember, you stated your company is 70% EMS, 30% Fire.

Fire needs to be properly staffed, both with the number of apparatus and at the company level. That's what the video addresses. EMS runs 50-75% greater call volume than suppression units in many cases. Many EMS agencies choose to put the bare minimum of units on the road. Suppression units are largely idle. It costs less to have one FF on an engine train to ALS along with the equipment than a chase medic with vehicle, or another txp unit (which will never exist regardless since the agency staffs at the minimum). ALS first response fills the voids with already existing, relatively idle units.

From the other side, I've already shown that, should you divorce fire and EMS from an existing combo dept, it costs much more to match that level of service with seperate depts. If you can't find that post, ask and I'll dig it up for you. I can't remember which thread I addressed this, but I gave valid reasons why divorcing a fire and EMS agency will be cost prohibitive if the same level of coverage is to be maintained.

If it costs more to divorce fire from EMS and have the same coverage, then it would still be just as expensive to have that coverage from a single role EMS agency without ever having had FD involvement.

Of course, if the local gov't would actually staff it's EMS properly and adequately, and also be okay with having the proper number of well staffed suppression units in service for timely coverage, even with low call volume, then fire based EMS wouldn't be necessary. I'll admit that. The fact of the matter is that many muni and private third service agencies seek to get by with the least amount possible. System status management in it's various forms is evidence of this. If units are running all day and night on a normal day, than any insult to the system, as in an MCI, spike in call volume, or inclement weather, will cause the system to have significant coverage gaps. These agencies roll the dice every day hoping that they have enough units to not draw attention to lack of coverage. Not to mention the burnout, poor working conditions, and poor job satisfaction of it's employees. Workers get held over frequently for 12's and 24's, the dept is always hiring because of turnover. They make it easy, oh so easy, for the fire service to take over. Out of my class and the two after me, over 80% of the firemedic recruits were from single role agencies. These penny pinching agencies will keep losing their best talent, either to fire depts or different careers. You're left over with a high percentage of mutants and burnouts.

Edited February 23, 2010 by 46Young

[MS Medic]

I did not shuffle through 5 pages of posts so if this has been covered, my appologies. If a city FD covers EMS, then who handles the county? The one fire based EMS system in this state picks and chooses when they respond to rural calls out side the city limits. In order to block competition (atleast I guess that is the motive), the FD fights tooth and nail to keep out private and volly EMS in the county. (Volly fire is all there is in the county thanks to same said FD).

I had personel from that department in my paramedic class and noticed that the universal motive for fire personel to be medics was to "have one more cert" for promotion. In fact, that service requires the use of contract medics because the fire medics do the required 2 years on an ambulance to cover their obligation for a free ride through medic school then stay as far away from the ambulance as possible.

At least with a private service, you know that when you know that barring MCI/state of emergency type situations you will get an ambulance and the crew will usually have a motivation other than getting a promotion

Edited February 23, 2010 by MS Medic

[CBEMT]

No one's forced to join.

ROFLMAO.

How stupid do you think we are??

ALS first response fills the voids with already existing, relatively idle units.

Still waiting for your demonstration that ALS first response has any scientifically confirmed validity.

These agencies roll the dice every day hoping that they have enough units to not draw attention to lack of coverage.

You really don't have any idea how many Fire-EMS departments do that, do you? I could turn on a scanner right now and count out a half-dozen mutual aid units running back to back calls in a city that isn't even theirs. You'd have thought the home team would be embarrassed into change when a truck 15 minutes outside the city had to come into the Department of Health building for chest pain, but no. Still happens.

Not to mention the burnout, poor working conditions, and poor job satisfaction of it's employees.

You haven't seen burnout until you spend a day in my area FDs. Walking chest pain patients down from 3rd floor tenements carrying the portable 02 for themselves. Collaring cspine pain patients inside their cars, then walking them into the truck, laying them on the board, clicking in two stretcher straps, and transporting. No board straps or any thing securing the head.

Each transport unit making 5000 calls a year, because the fire side of the IAFF local easily outvotes the EMS side, and the fire side won't consider the mayor's offer to increase ambulances if manpower can be rearranged, and perhaps a few trucks dropped. 10% of the department is doing 90% of the work, and their "brothers" are keeping it that way. 25 or 26 runs in 24 hours (which isn't even the end of their shift) is common. What do you suppose THEIR job satisfaction is?

Workers get held over frequently for 12's and 24's, the dept is always hiring because of turnover.

Try firefighters/EMTs being held for 38, having either 10 or 14 off, then back for another 38 (with call volume as mentioned above). Happens around here daily. Meanwhile, agencies like Boston EMS will only schedule you for 8, and kick you out the door after 16, whether you stayed for OT or a swap.

So please, spare us the "My deparment is teh aw3some, FD-EMS 4EVA!!!" routine.

Edited February 23, 2010 by CBEMT

[BushyFromOz]

So please, spare us the "My deparment is teh aw3some, FD-EMS 4EVA!!!" routine.

More pwnage, clearly 46 young does not have a valid position.

[funkytomtom]

I never said that I endorse what the NLVFD is doing. What I did say is that when you're facing unemployment, self preservation kicks in. Especially with the lack of available jobs out there. Survival of the fittest. No different than a corporation trying to gain as much market share as possible, I suppose. In fact, I've said that I don't agree with FD takeovers of pre-existing EMS, except when the existing system has proven itself inept and/or inadequate. If your system is working well, there's no need to change it. Adding EMS/ALS first response to save jobs and increase productivity is one thing, but putting people on the unemployment line is a whole different matter. Again, I don't endorse a FD takeover in this case, as things are working well as it is, at no cost to the city.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't make a career in a private service, especially where 911 is concerned. As I said earlier, it's the choice of the local gov't as to who runs EMS. A private service vs an established fire organization, it's really no contest. If I were working FT for a private, I'd be sure to have a plan B. That was my thought process when I worked hospital based 911/IFT in NYC. The FDNY could take back their 911 spots, like FHMC's 46 Frank, when they were steering pts. The hospital itself could close, as did St. John's on QB, Mary Immaculate, St Joes, and probably St Vincent's in the city. That's why I went municipal third service EMS, and then fire based when I saw how much better they have it (and being slapped around by the service). If I were able to find an available third service with the same benefits, compensation, working conditions and retirement, I would have went there. It's all about the best retirement. If your company loses it's contract, you maybe have a little bit in a 401k if you can afford it. Some retirement.

Many of you want the fire service out of EMS. More of you still want fire positions cut back to reflect call volume. Being that I'm not quite two years in, that would result in me being laid off. If you all had your way there would be massive fire service layoffs. Loss of firemedic positions, and suppression positions due to call volume. Fire takes EMS jobs and it's an evil thing. But taking it in the other direction is perfectly fine.

I know you're already getting bashed from just about everyone, but your last sentence needed a response. YES it's an evil thing to take our jobs because we do have jobs and a job to do! No one is taking FD jobs, they simply don't have enough of a job to do. No work=no job. We have jobs without taking them from fire and we've been doing a damn good job for a long time. Now that there's less of a need for fire, you see us not being willing to give up our jobs for you as TAKING YOUR JOBS?!?!?!?!?

[46Young]

I know you're already getting bashed from just about everyone, but your last sentence needed a response. YES it's an evil thing to take our jobs because we do have jobs and a job to do! No one is taking FD jobs, they simply don't have enough of a job to do. No work=no job. We have jobs without taking them from fire and we've been doing a damn good job for a long time. Now that there's less of a need for fire, you see us not being willing to give up our jobs for you as TAKING YOUR JOBS?!?!?!?!?

By "taking it in the other direction" I was referring to depts that have had EMS for some time. Mine, for example, has been both fire and EMS since they first employed paid personnel. Divorcing fire and EMS from depts that have had it for a long time would be putting some out of work, yes, if the now stand alone FD was downstaffed due to call volume. That would be taking my job. Not that it's a concern here. Just on some people's wish lists. If a FD took over EMS in the not too distant past, and then had to give it up, that wouldn't be taking FF jobs, since they took those jobs in the first place. I've stated repeatedly that I don't agree with this practice taking over EMS only for funding and positions, unless the existing EMS service is legitimately run poorly (a shady private agency, not a third service in the same district), and the FD takeover is run appropriately.

[aussiephil]

By "taking it in the other direction" I was referring to depts that have had EMS for some time. Mine, for example, has been both fire and EMS since they first employed paid personnel. Divorcing fire and EMS from depts that have had it for a long time would be putting some out of work, yes, if the now stand alone FD was downstaffed due to call volume. That would be taking my job. Not that it's a concern here. Just on some people's wish lists. If a FD took over EMS in the not too distant past, and then had to give it up, that wouldn't be taking FF jobs, since they took those jobs in the first place. I've stated repeatedly that I don't agree with this practice taking over EMS only for funding and positions, unless the existing EMS service is legitimately run poorly (a shady private agency, not a third service in the same district), and the FD takeover is run appropriately.

I fail to see loss of jobs. They may be lost to fire, but, provided they were suitibly qualified, surley they would be picked up for EMS work. Put simply, those with a dual role would have to choose. Fire or EMS. If anything there would be a need for more staff in EMS to cope with the call volume. There are those who will choose to who have taken on EMS to try to increase their pay packet, but there are those who have had to take on fire because they want to undertake EMS but have no option.

[Kiwiology]

Good to see the IAFF are finally admitting they want ambo runs to save thier job

This article is quite interesting, it proves that the IAFF/Advocates for Fire Based EMS are using old data that is no longer clinically relevant and that they are not interested in patient care

http://firegeezer.com/2009/11/22/the-neon-red-elephant-of-ems/

The Fire Service is very good at consistently marketing response time, high levels of "skill" and "training" (not necessarily education) and whipping up a bit of good PR around how they respond and so heroic and what gets me is the public and legislature lap it up.

Edited February 24, 2010 by kiwimedic

[Richard B the EMT]

Again, I opine that Fire Departments that wanted to do EMS duties seem to do better than Fire Departments that are told from outside their agency, that they HAVE to take on EMS duties. No apparent "sibling rivalry", either in a paid or volunteer department, in that regard.

That is my observation, from talking with members of such departments, and articles I've read in JEMS and EMS Magazine.