How two hatting can effect a local.

[itsnotahobby]

Here's an article out of Thorold.

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1419248

The IAFF has changed its constitution to read that they will not actively pursue members that are two-hatting in strictly volunteer departments unless it is negatively impacting a local. This councilor is using a strictly volunteer department to compare with a composite department that is already understaffed to attempt to further reduce the full time firefighters in Thorold.

Now to the point of my title. So you are a full time firefighter in another municipality and think hey I'm not hurting anyone, I'm going to volunteer in my hometown. We don't have full time guys here so it's no big deal right? Well here is a prime example of where it can have a negative impact. I'm not sure if Niagara on the lake has any two-hatters now but it wouldn't surprise me if they did. I'm not saying they have any problems with day time responses but, what if they were meeting their day time responses with a couple of two-hatters on their time off?? Now, it looks as if they are having no problems running their service with their all "volunteer" compliment, right? No problems during day time, and trucks are rolling when the tones go. So now Thorold is going to be impacted by uneducated and uninformed councillors drawing conclusions that couldn't be further from the truth.

I am not saying that this is the case here but it very well could be as I know it is in other municipalities. Rick Honsberger is a fantastic union president that has enough on his plate to deal with. The last thing he needs is to have to wast time with an issue like this.

[AxeInHand]

With all due respect, I'm not sure that I completely agree with that.

Full-time firefighters are obviously a higher level of service than part-time; that is an undisputable fact. Unfortunatly, it isn't practical for every department to be a fully staffed full-time department.

I don't know this municipality in particular, but I don't think trying to force municipalities into hiring staff by removing two-hatters is really in the best interests of the people that we serve. How is meeting day-time staffing with a couple two-hatters any different than meeting it with a shift worker from GM or Toyota? If they are meeting their staffing for one day-time call a week, and wouldn't if their two-hatter quit, doesn't mean that they should hire a full-time crew! (obviously if they are meeting that level 10 daytime calls a week it is a different story - if safety [firefighter and/or citizen] is being compromised then I fully agree that it is time to throw a little weight around).

I think that the fire department should be run with the safety of citizens first, and cost effectivness second on the other arm of the scale. If they can do it safely part-time that is fine with me. I do not agree with firefighters quitting to hurt their community and forcing them to hire full-timers; that seems like empire building to me.

What is more important - adding more numbers to the full-time firefighting jobs in Ontario, or being fiscally responsible? Obviously they balance to result in the answer, but has anyone asked the community if they would be okay with paying more for a higher level of service, or do they feel comfortable with things as they are for now. I guess what I am saying is that since it is really about them, why is it only council vs. firefighters that we are hearing about?


Just as an aside, when it comes down to hiring staff, the municipality asks around, and the part-timers are included. Who do you think is going to support hiring more full-time staff - the part-timers or two-hatters? I personally think two-hatters add not just leadership to a department, but also a balanced opinion about increasing level of service.


As a disclaimer, I firmly believe that both full-time and part-time firefighters are critical to the fire services in Ontario, and I hope that I live to see the day when it isn't one vs. the other. We are all firefighters and we all serve the same people, and we all put everything we've got on the line for them. I view my part-time and full-time brothers with equal respect, and I hope they do the same for me.

Anyways, I'm not looking for a fight or debate, I do see your point and I just thought I would kick in my two cents. While I may not always fully agree, I do it with respect to your experience and leadership.

Have a good one and stay safe.

[Profire]

AxeInHand - I don't think anyone is suggesting that all comunities can afford a full time professional fire service. The IAFF simply asks its members not to volunteer as firefighters in there off time, and more specifically not to do so in areas that could potentially harm another local. I for one think that is an eminently sensible course of action.

[PNEFD]

I'm having a hard time seeing how two-hatting applies to Thorold, unless they have them in their volly ranks?

This councilor is comparing his composite Dept. to a fully "volunteer" one, trying to say that they can save the $$$, get rid of the career guy's, and revert to all volly staffing, just because it "works" somewhere else. He's ignorant and uneducated about the fire service in general, and in his town in particular.

Thankfully other members of council stood up and rejected that from future consideration completely.

I still fail to see where career guy's vollying in a place that has no hope in the foreseeable future of becoming career, or even composite, affects the IAFF, Thorold or anywhere else for that matter. I will continue to fully support that.

On the other hand, I see and completely agree with the position that career guys should NOT be Volly's with composite Depts., or Dept's that are becoming or should be career or comp. anywhere.

My .02

[itsnotahobby]

hey guys I'm not looking for a fight to argue or to have the whole career volunteer thing. I simply want to discuss the issue.

The example that I'm using is hypothetical for this situation, as I don't know if it is happening in NOTL. I do know that this situation has happened in one other municipality in Niagara for sure, in which a truck that would not roll if not for one or two two hatters that had been there for the day time call. Now the point that I'm making is that if councilors are making statements and decisions based on how they see other departments operating based on two hatters being there then that could hurt a local. How would they know that if an off duty full time guy wasn't there a truck may not move?

Use my example here, if those guys weren't there and a truck did not roll and the information was made public that the truck could not roll for a call, do you think that a councilor would try to use that department as a comparable? No. But if they see what they believe to be the same level of service, then you could see why they may ask questions.

Again not trying to start anything except discussion and to try to let people see how the hamster wheel spins in my head!:)

[AxeInHand]

It was not my intention to imply that anyone suggested that all departments should be full-time. That was preamble to my point.

And in principle I agree that full-time firefighters should not enable councils to neglect the safety of its citizens by allowing them to rely on an understaffed fire department (I don't think any firefighter should enable that). The only part that I do not agree with is the argument that this is applicable for all part-time positions.

I think at the root of it, we are all concerned with the safety of the public but differ only in our perspective, and I applaud the IAFF's recent recognician that these two-hatter concerns do not apply in all cases. In a perfect world they would have the time and resources to view each situation uniquely, as in fact they are.



Now the point that I'm making is that if councilors are making statements and decisions based on how they see other departments operating based on two hatters being there then that could hurt a local

Even more importantly, that could hurt their citizens! I couldn't agree more! That is a problem.

I think responsiblity falls on us as the fire service as well. In a situation like this, we need to make our case. First, a department that is that low is understaffed and risking the safety of its citizens. If we point out that they are in a risky position (borderline unable to deliver the service they have committed to providing), then alarms should be going off, even in politicians' minds.

If I might make a humble suggestion, is there some letter that could be distributed to firefighters in Ontario who work in departments with part-time members to submit to their local politicians? Such things could be included as;

- they wish to serve their community, but would not feel comfortable doing so if it was used to justify reduced protection to the community they care about
- they wish to serve their community, but would not feel comfortable doing so if it was used to justify actions against their brother firefighters, within or outside this department
- that they have committments outside their community, which means that they can not be relied upon to fill day-time staffing voids
- that their first priority must be the welfare of their families and their own health, and that the demands of their every-day jobs limits the time available to have to contribute to their communities

Just spitballing, but just clearly and respectfully outlining the concerns might go a long way for politicians who probably don't know much about the fire services. With any luck some non-full-time firefighters in situations such as that understaffed department might jump on board. Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but it would be nice if it could help both sides of the coin at the same time. Like I said, we all hold public safety high (even the politicians I would hope).

[mfes04]

For most volunteer depts. that do not have sufficent manpower during the day, the only answer is to hire more volunteers and play the numbers game. Their logic is the more guys they have, the more chance of getting guys to a daytime response. Would they love to hire full-time, sure they would. Can they?? Not a chance!!! If the money isn't there, the money isn't there. Let's face it, us full-time guys don't come cheap. I have nothing against guys two-hatting in such places. Now, if they are doing it where there already is an IAFF local, now that is horse of a different colour.

[dentedhead]

This is a perfect example of how two hatting works against a composite or VFD that is close to or should be a full time department.






A request by Innisfil Fire and Rescue to hire two full-time fire captains has been rejected by town council.

Hiring two fire captains on July 1, 2009 would have added $102,000 for the last six months of the year, plus an ongoing $204,000 annual expense in following years.

“This matter has been under review for some time,” said Kerry Columbus, director of community services. “We’ve reviewed it from a health and safety standpoint. It would mean all fire crews would have a qualified captain available.”

Councillors were sympathetic but are also keeping a close eye on the bottom line to make sure this year’s tax hike falls below 4 per cent.

“I know it is an emergency service, but we are in emergency times,” said Deputy Mayor Gord Wauchope. “People are being laid off. I can’t justify hiring two more full-time fire captains.”

“We’ve been operating this way for three or four years,” added Coun. Bill Pring “What dire straits would we be in if we didn’t hire these two positions?”

Fire Chief Scott Griffith replied, “There should be supervision (at fire scenes) at all times. Half of the time, the needed supervision is not there.”

“Yet, there is always a fire captain on call,” Pring retorted.

Griffith responded, “Yes, but they’re not on shift. It takes time for them to arrive on scene – up to 25 minutes.”

Wauchope asked if there were volunteer fire captains available and Griffith confirmed there were.

“I’m in full support of the fire department but we have captains who may take longer to get there, but they will get there,” Wauchope said.

Council voted to delete the $102,000 item from the budget.

Council also turned down a request for a $15,000 annual emergency management contingency fund for Innisfil Fire and Rescue.

However, the department will begin to receive $10,000 a year starting this year to be placed in a reserve fund for the replacement of the roof at Fire Station 1.

Griffith reported the existing asphalt roof is now past its expected 20-year life span.

[mfes04]

There shouldn't be any two-hatting in Innisfil since IAFF local 3804 is in place there. Besides, it doesn't even sound like they can afford to fix a firehall roof let alone hire more staff.

[dentedhead]

There shouldn't be any two-hatting in Innisfil since IAFF local 3804 is in place there. Besides, it doesn't even sound like they can afford to fix a firehall roof let alone hire more staff.

I completly agree.They spent a bunch of money fighting the two hat clause so they could bring a guy in who was with 3888.

The innisfil prez gave him the friendly speech and he complained to management about it.The prez then ends up being disciplined as an out come of a HR complaint.I believe he was also spoken to by 3888.

This guy wasnt "just helping his community" he wanted to gain a FT job out of it.

Barrie better be careful I hear innisfil is taking them over.

dentedhead

[itsnotahobby]

I completly agree.They spent a bunch of money fighting the two hat clause so they could bring a guy in who was with 3888.

The innisfil prez gave him the friendly speech and he complained to management about it.The prez then ends up being disciplined as an out come of a HR complaint.I believe he was also spoken to by 3888.

This guy wasnt "just helping his community" he wanted to gain a FT job out of it.

Barrie better be careful I hear innisfil is taking them over.

dentedhead

This isn't over as the appeal has already been filed.

[dentedhead]

This isn't over as the appeal has already been filed.

So I understand,I also heard the guy that caused all the grief ended up not staying with innisfil.

Dentedhead