two hatters

[dentedhead]

Originally Posted by Pumpone

Isn't this one of the things missing from this forum the days of debate and discussion. You brought up a point, I brought up a point we discussed and debated, other people joined in. At no point did I ever get angry or pissed off, the written word has no emotion and can easily be misinterpreted, If I ruffled some feathers with my point of view then it was a good debate.

I concur,too bad in some cases feelings get hurt and they go on the huff!


Dentedhead

[JaquesTrapp]

Having read the full thread I like to think I have a grasp on why two hatting is frowned upon. but some of the posts also seem to look down on working on the side.


From my point of view that seems a little harsh. The simple math of money in and money out dictates that I could not make all of my bills on the starting salary alone. A few years in and a few rasies down the road it wont be a problem but the first few years just wont cut it. Dont mistake me for having lots of toys or taking expensive vacations or living a expensive lifestyle either. Child suppoort and maintaining a suitable household for my children eat up a pretty big chunk of money.

Would some of you rather someone in this situation not take up the career?

I have no intent of doing anything on the side that could compromise my performance for the department, but I also would surely need to supplement my income. As I climb the pay scale I would have to work less and less on the side but I would never hold it against anyone to make enough money on the side to support a comfortable lifestyle for themselves or their children

One of the main reasons I want in in the first place is to eventually have the ideal balance of money and time available to enjoy it with my family. I understand that it may take a few years before I strike that happy medium but I would hate to be looked down upon for trying to provide everything I can for my family.

Thoughts on side work not falling underdouble hatting????

[GodSpeed]

Article in today's Hamilton Spec - http://www.thespec.com/news/local/ar...g-firefighters

[Profire]

Originally Posted by Pumpone

Well that was a well thought out and articulate response.

No its not poopypants!

[Profire]

Originally Posted by GodSpeed

Article in today's Hamilton Spec - http://www.thespec.com/news/local/ar...g-firefighters

This is part of the constitution that all IAFF swore uphold when they became members. Every member should fully understand why they should not be doing it.

[PNEFD]

What I can't believe is the Chief taking the CLAC and volly's side!

I'm a POC myself, and I gotta go with the IAFF on this one. It's not guys volunteering in their hometown FD that won't be composite or full time anytime in the near future, it's folks from one major urban department volunteering in another major urban department! To add insult to injury, they are also involved with a second union. No wonder Local 288 is pissed!

[GodSpeed]

Originally Posted by PNEFD

What I can't believe is the Chief taking the CLAC and volly's side!

I don't see where you came to that assertion...at all. His only quote pertains to the challenge of maintaining skill sets on evolving demands.

But also, he is the Chief of the entire department, career and volunteer.

[PNEFD]

The city can’t afford to lose well-trained volunteers who are committed to protecting their communities, he added.

His concerns are echoed by Hamilton Fire Chief Rob Simonds.

That was the line I was referring to, but you are correct, the actual quote from the Chief further down says nothing of the sort.

[arrow]

Save the taxpayers money-just have Volunteers

[GodSpeed]

Originally Posted by arrow

Save the taxpayers money-just have Volunteers

LOL

Should they wait in the stations full-time for quicker response times and still alarms?