Why don't some like the fire mix?

irishboxer384

Forum Captain
389
196
43
It is sometimes much easier to change job than change policy...I like the idea of fire fighter pay/schedule etc, but have zero interest in becoming a fire fighter...if someone wants to become a fire fighter and is prepared to take on another role to be one then fair play to them. If someone is sick of **** pay in non-fire EMS and gets into FD then also fair play for getting out of a situation they weren't happy with. They are just working in the realms of the system that is already in place.

Getting annoyed with the local government and how they elect to do things is one thing, being bitter at someone for earning more pay, working less hours, and doing a job they might not have wanted to do (paramedicine), is another thing entirely.

In reality, if you knowingly go into a career field with poor pay, long working hours etc then you only have yourself to blame!! Life is short, either do something about it like change career, protest, get elected to change policy...or just stop complaining! Instead of worrying 'what the other guy is getting paid' or what 'he is doing', change your own circumstances and stop *****ing about the pay. You chose not to be in a high paying profession. I feel ZERO pity or understanding for someone who spends 20 years in a job complaining about the pay.
 

gotbeerz001

Forum Deputy Chief
1,312
926
113
I've said that before during a similar debate. Yes, EMS is 70% to 80% of calls, but there are only two people on an ambulance. Every MVA gets an engine to block, and there are four people on it. Every alarm bell gets an engine and a truck. Every inside gas leak gets two engines, a specialty unit (Heavy Rescue or Truck), and an ambulance. Our box alarm is four engines, two trucks, rescue squad, BC, EMS supervisor, and an ambulance. A RIT level one (deployed when confirmed fire) sends more engines and such. Hazmat incidents get two Hazmat specialty units in addition to the standard gas leak response. Etc. etc.

EMS is 75% or so of dispatched calls, but the fire calls are typically more resource intensive. As such, that 75% figure is inaccurate - it doesn't tell the whole picture. Our ALS engines and Heavy Rescue Squads are useful when the first due medic is out on another call.

That is what I am saying. We are fighting the same point.
 

46Young

Level 25 EMS Wizard
3,063
90
48
Love it or hate it. Right, wrong or indifferent fire based ems is better for those looking for a career and not just a job in MOST cases.

I think a lot of egos are getting involved and the discussion is becoming less productive, but hearif from you fire based guys has mostly, only confirmed my desire to go fire.
Just not sure if CA is the place to do it in.

So for that, I thank you.

Apply to as many places as you can. You can pick up some tips and upcoming open periods on firehouse.com.

St
Love it or hate it. Right, wrong or indifferent fire based ems is better for those looking for a career and not just a job in MOST cases.

I think a lot of egos are getting involved and the discussion is becoming less productive, but hearif from you fire based guys has mostly, only confirmed my desire to go fire.
Just not sure if CA is the place to do it in.

So for that, I thank you.

I would recommend that you apply to as many places as you can. I would check the firehouse.com hiring and employment discussion thread for announcements and tips.


I wouldn't count out single role places - you could apply to King Co, some Texas places, maybe Lee Co. FL. Charleston County EMS might be worth looking into. I last worked there over six years ago, so things may have improved. For example, they finally got rid of their 24 hour shifts and now do 12's. I was so happy when Fairfax called me, because I was taking a pounding on the 24's, then getting held over constantly, and being on 12 hour mandatory stand by (be available for immediate recall) twice a month as well.

In general, I would stay out of the Carolinas - there's no money there. Medics generally make more than firefighters, but you're still starting at $12/hr or less. As an example, as a six year guy, I make as much as an Assistant Chief in the City of Charleston FD. Florida and Ohio are dismal for medic hiring. Phoenix is a good dept, but hard to get into. I suppose the same could be said for the CA and NV departments, but try anyway.

Outside of CA, Northern VA has the best firemedic pay, and there's a demand for medics, so hiring may be easier here.
 

sjukrabilalfur

Forum Probie
27
3
3
Apply to as many places as you can. You can pick up some tips and upcoming open periods on firehouse.com.

St


I would recommend that you apply to as many places as you can. I would check the firehouse.com hiring and employment discussion thread for announcements and tips.


I wouldn't count out single role places - you could apply to King Co, some Texas places, maybe Lee Co. FL. Charleston County EMS might be worth looking into. I last worked there over six years ago, so things may have improved. For example, they finally got rid of their 24 hour shifts and now do 12's. I was so happy when Fairfax called me, because I was taking a pounding on the 24's, then getting held over constantly, and being on 12 hour mandatory stand by (be available for immediate recall) twice a month as well.

In general, I would stay out of the Carolinas - there's no money there. Medics generally make more than firefighters, but you're still starting at $12/hr or less. As an example, as a six year guy, I make as much as an Assistant Chief in the City of Charleston FD. Florida and Ohio are dismal for medic hiring. Phoenix is a good dept, but hard to get into. I suppose the same could be said for the CA and NV departments, but try anyway.

Outside of CA, Northern VA has the best firemedic pay, and there's a demand for medics, so hiring may be easier here.

Missouri also has some excellent EMS-only districts, if you don't mind working in some of the outermost suburbs in St Louis or K.C.

This entire thread, man...

Boy-That-Escalated-Quickly-Anchorman.gif
 

gotbeerz001

Forum Deputy Chief
1,312
926
113
Love it or hate it. Right, wrong or indifferent fire based ems is better for those looking for a career and not just a job in MOST cases.

I think a lot of egos are getting involved and the discussion is becoming less productive, but hearif from you fire based guys has mostly, only confirmed my desire to go fire.
Just not sure if CA is the place to do it in.

So for that, I thank you.

Why wouldn't CA be the place to do it? You are already State licensed, I assume u are locally accredited and (if I may guess) working in the Bay Area?? As a female candidate, I can't think of a reason you wouldn't get hired if you pass the CPAT and give the application process the appropriate effort.
 

TransportJockey

Forum Chief
8,623
1,675
113
California and 'quality EMS' doesn't usually go well in the same sentence. Not to mention I was hearing about the staggering numbers of applicants to each fire job out there. It's more ridiculous than most places in the country.
 
OP
OP
J

JWalters

Forum Crew Member
63
7
8

And as a clinician, I find it hard to believe that the combined firefighter/paramedic role attracts or breeds the kind of dedicated and clinically-focused expert that we need to keep improving prehospital care.

Yes. I don't see the combined model going away though, primarily because of economics, so why not try to improve on that instead of saying the system is junk and leaving it at that?
 
OP
OP
J

JWalters

Forum Crew Member
63
7
8
Many larger departments have quotas to fill, so female hiring usually isn't a problem. The only problem is when the females choose not to do dedicated strength training, and just focus on cardio and maybe some light weights or calisthenics. Being able to run a 5:30 minute mile is fine for self rescue, but not for performing fire ground tasks or rescuing victims or other firefighters. It's a simple fix. I could take most females and get them to a level where they're physically superior to at last a third of the men with proper training.

Wow. Most females could take themselves to that point as well, they actually don't need a man to help them with that, believe it or not. I don' think that anyone-male or female-belongs in a role of EMS or fire without true physical conditioning.
 
OP
OP
J

JWalters

Forum Crew Member
63
7
8
I agree with BEN (obviously).

. Are we paid well? Sure. Do we arguably do much more than the standard single-function? Yes.

.

But not everywhere. I could make more folding sheets at the local nursing home than I would on our fire/EMS dept. HAHAHAHA Well, actually it is not funny at all. But it's true.
 

Tigger

Dodges Pucks
Community Leader
7,844
2,794
113
All of this misses of the point of thread in my eyes. As was said way back, benefits and schedules have at best an indirect effect on how prehospital care is delivered. I think it is rather disingenuous for the pro-fire based EMS crowd to bring that into the mix when someone points out that it is probably not the most efficient way to deliver excellent care. But alas, what else to expect?

There are numerous third services in my state that pay the same or better than fire districts nearby. There is a career ladder and working conditions are the same or better than fire department's. Yet then we have people that are extremely set on the idea that the only career in EMS is the fire service and that such services are anomalies. That's just not the case, not to mention that there are many non-urban fire departments with the same crappy working conditions and pay.

I'm going back to hiding in my station with new equipment while I work on a side project writing grants so I can advance. Oh wait, apparently that's not possible?
 
Last edited:

MrJones

Iconoclast
652
168
43
This thread is little more than an anecdote-based johnson measuring contest. Show me some empirical data demonstrating the superiority of one model over the other and then we can have a real discussion. Until then those of us opposed to Fire-based EMS (rather, EMS-based Fire ;)) will stick to our collective opinions and those on the other side of the issue will stick with theirs, and there's little chance of one camp swaying the other.

30257.jpg
 

MonkeyArrow

Forum Asst. Chief
828
261
63
This thread is little more than an anecdote-based johnson measuring contest. Show me some empirical data demonstrating the superiority of one model over the other and then we can have a real discussion. Until then those of us opposed to Fire-based EMS (rather, EMS-based Fire ;)) will stick to our collective opinions and those on the other side of the issue will stick with theirs, and there's little chance of one camp swaying the other.

Why don't you start by bringing some of your own data to the party? Remember, if you've seen one EMS/fire system, you've seen one EMS/fire system. Therefore, I don't see how you can bring data with any shred of validity trying to compare fire based EMS to third service EMS. It will have to be a one-to-one direct system comparison, which, well,
screen-shot-2013-01-20-at-10-26-50-pm.png
 

MrJones

Iconoclast
652
168
43
Why don't you start by bringing some of your own data to the party? Remember, if you've seen one EMS/fire system, you've seen one EMS/fire system. Therefore, I don't see how you can bring data with any shred of validity trying to compare fire based EMS to third service EMS. It will have to be a one-to-one direct system comparison, which, well....

I suppose I should have been more direct. I wrote "Show me some empirical data demonstrating the superiority of one model over the other..." because a review of the literature (and, yes, I have reviewed the literature. Extensively) reveals a dearth of research resulting in such empirical date. Which, in turn, is why I noted that each side will stick to their opinions (opinions - not facts) and that, absent said empirical data, it is virtually impossible to change those opinions.

Clearer now?
 

46Young

Level 25 EMS Wizard
3,063
90
48
Wow. Most females could take themselves to that point as well, they actually don't need a man to help them with that, believe it or not. I don' think that anyone-male or female-belongs in a role of EMS or fire without true physical conditioning.

You would think that females preparing to test for, and work for a fire department would prepare properly, but you should see the s*** show when we hold CPAT testing. The females typically die on the 160# dummy drag and the breach/pull.

In my academy, one female, who was a former college athlete, failed to do a ladder raise (not throwing a ladder, but simply extending a ladder that is affixed to a wall), while doing work performance, which is a sequence of fireground tasks in a circuit. Her grip just gave out, but that station is not something that should give anyone any trouble. P90x and running as your main form of physical prep isn't going to cut it. Some Wendler 5/3/1 and strongman conditioning work (sled work, loaded carries, etc.) would be much more appropriate.
 

MonkeyArrow

Forum Asst. Chief
828
261
63
I suppose I should have been more direct. I wrote "Show me some empirical data demonstrating the superiority of one model over the other..." because a review of the literature (and, yes, I have reviewed the literature. Extensively) reveals a dearth of research resulting in such empirical date. Which, in turn, is why I noted that each side will stick to their opinions (opinions - not facts) and that, absent said empirical data, it is virtually impossible to change those opinions.

Clearer now?

Yup. We were saying the same thing while managing to confuse one another.
 

46Young

Level 25 EMS Wizard
3,063
90
48
All of this misses the point of thread in my eyes. As was said way back, benefits and schedules have at best an indirect effect on how prehospital care is delivered. I think it is rather disingenuous for the pro-fire based EMS crowd to bring that into the mix when someone points out that it is probably not the most efficient way to deliver excellent care. But alas, what else to expect?

There are numerous third services in my state that pay the same or better than fire districts nearby. There is a career ladder and working conditions are the same or better than fire department's. Yet then we have people that are extremely set on the idea that the only career in EMS is the fire service and that such services are anomalies. That's just not the case, not to mention that there are many non-urban fire departments with the same crappy working conditions and pay.

I'm going back to hiding in my station with new equipment while I work on a side project writing grants so I can advance. Oh wait, apparently that's not possible?

In theory, a single role EMS service should be able to provide more expert patient care than fire based services, with shorter response times, if it can be supported by a decent budget. From what I've seen, the typical single role EMS employer gets by with as little staffing and deployment as possible, paying as little as possible, which wears out the crews which facilitates apathy, indifference, and attrition. The problem with the more unscrupulous fire departments is that they take over EMS, keep the funding, staffing and deployment the same as before the takeover, and use the engine companies to shorten response times and show call volume to avoid layoffs and increase hiring. EMS can be inadequately funded in both fire and stand-alone departments.

I can't definitively say that fire is better for quality care, or that single role is better for quality care. For every apathetic firemedic, there is an apathetic single role provider that is using the EMS job as a stepping stone, or is stuck there because they don't have the skills to find a different well-paying career. For every stellar fire based EMS department that "does it right," there are stellar single role services that have their act together. For every parasitic fire department absorbing EMS, there is an abomination of a third service agency. Really, the only thing that I can say in favor of single role services is that the provider can focus solely on EMS. This does not mean that the average single role provider will study and train in EMS twice as hard as a firemedic, though. I know/knew plenty of single role providers and fire based providers alike that just do their monthly CEU articles, attend the minimum of CEU training, and not much else.

Having said all that, back home in NYC I know medics that could run rings around the majority of providers in my current region. Then again, we had tough hiring standards, lots of training, and we had to do inter-facility tours once or twice a week, so we got experience from both sides. It does seem like our firemedics that were single role before getting hired here seem to be more competent than our home grown products, and every third or fourth new hire is coming on with an EMS degree in hand, so there may be some validity to the single role provider being more capable than someone who spent their entire career in the fire service. Our training and internship process has become much more stringent over the past couple of years, so that may play a role in the increased quality of medics that we've been enjoying as of late. Or perhaps the fact that we're only hiring P's rather than I's like in the past may be the reason we're seeing a more competent product emerging from ALS internship.
 

Tigger

Dodges Pucks
Community Leader
7,844
2,794
113
Non-transporting ALS doesn't have much evidence to support it, not to mention that response times in general have a minimal effect on patient outcomes. That's my issue with sending an ambulance and engine to every call, it's just not efficient. In an ideal world the fire department would not have to justify its existence by responding to medical calls. You need a staffed fire house to make a difference with structure fires, no two ways about it. Unfortunately many translate a decrease in fires into a bunch of FFs just sitting around doing nothing, so the FD must find calls to run to avoid such an (unfounded) image.

But that doesn't mean that providing ALS first response actually has any meaningful and positive impact on patient care.

We get two firefighters in a pickup on medicals in the fire districts with paid coverage. They are nice to have, but on many calls I think we can agree that two people are sufficient.

My experience with third services is obviously different than yours, which is of course a product of different areas. I will not attempt to compare my experience, but it is certainly more positive.
 

Handsome Robb

Youngin'
Premium Member
9,736
1,173
113
I'm not a fire guy but I'm going to be honest, the fire guys have presented the best put together, most professional posts in this thread whereas other have just jabbed and dodged. With that said no one on either side of the debate has presented any facts. So can we stop with the memes? It's like high school in here.

Apply to as many places as you can. You can pick up some tips and upcoming open periods on firehouse.com.

St


I would recommend that you apply to as many places as you can. I would check the firehouse.com hiring and employment discussion thread for announcements and tips.


I wouldn't count out single role places - you could apply to King Co, some Texas places, maybe Lee Co. FL. Charleston County EMS might be worth looking into. I last worked there over six years ago, so things may have improved. For example, they finally got rid of their 24 hour shifts and now do 12's. I was so happy when Fairfax called me, because I was taking a pounding on the 24's, then getting held over constantly, and being on 12 hour mandatory stand by (be available for immediate recall) twice a month as well.

In general, I would stay out of the Carolinas - there's no money there. Medics generally make more than firefighters, but you're still starting at $12/hr or less. As an example, as a six year guy, I make as much as an Assistant Chief in the City of Charleston FD. Florida and Ohio are dismal for medic hiring. Phoenix is a good dept, but hard to get into. I suppose the same could be said for the CA and NV departments, but try anyway.

Outside of CA, Northern VA has the best firemedic pay, and there's a demand for medics, so hiring may be easier here.

There are a few good NV departments but the pay, outside of Las Vegas, isn't staggering by any means. Also, we do have a great "frontier" hospital-based EMS-Rescue department that runs with a FD that does only that, fight fires. Rescue is left to the hospital based service but they're not an easy place to get on with
 

Mellowdnb

Forum Probie
25
7
3
After working on a few private based EMS services that work along with a FD, I've observed the following:
1) Some people are afraid of loosing jobs, if the city decided to say bye bye to the privates and hand over the job to the FD. Some let that lead to frustration with the FF.

2)Some privates that transport have to let FD run the call. Some people on the privates got mad because they felt like they wanted control over the entire call.

3)Some get mad at the FF that views EMS as a chore. Don't we have single role medical providers that do that too?

Should there be FF/EMS based systems? Yes. However, I feel people should have the option of wanting to be single or dual role; FF or Medics.

Let's say a department offers 70,000 before taxes to a FF/Medic. Not a bad salary at first glance. However, it's 2 jobs in one. Medical and fire. So, one could say you get 35,000 for each gig. Comes out to a not much better salary. Benefits might be better.
 
Top