Are San Diego City Paramedics Making Too Much?

Aidey said:
No, I think you misunderstood. 1/6th of 325% is roughly 55%. If the FFs are really getting paid 325% more that is insane, and even if they are getting 55% more that is a big difference for 20% of their workload.
Click to expand...

The way I see it (I come from a fire background) is that their job is also more dangerous. On top of all the dangers of EMS there is also the dangers of Fire. Here fire does not transport but they face all the challenges of EMS except transport. Most FF retire in their late 50s early 60s (from what I've seen and been told). I know an EMT who just got hired that is 72. I'm not trying to make anyone mad or start any fights lol. But for me a more dangerous job + early retire + shortened life span + more workload should equal a higher pay. I know EMS has it's own health issues and all that as well.
 
Aerin-Sol said:
What? So they should get paid ~$5/hr?

Comparing private IFT companies to city 911 services is like comparing McDonald's to a five-star restaurant. One has standards... the other one doesn't.
Click to expand...

Not+Sure+if+serious.jpg


Oh, and you're right. IFT likes to transport patients. 911 services (example, DC FEMS) likes to leave patients at home to die.

Just checking, am I playing this game correctly?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
firefite said:
The way I see it (I come from a fire background) is that their job is also more dangerous. On top of all the dangers of EMS there is also the dangers of Fire. Here fire does not transport but they face all the challenges of EMS except transport. Most FF retire in their late 50s early 60s (from what I've seen and been told). I know an EMT who just got hired that is 72. I'm not trying to make anyone mad or start any fights lol. But for me a more dangerous job + early retire + shortened life span + more workload should equal a higher pay. I know EMS has it's own health issues and all that as well.
Click to expand...


So the question is, then, would the city save money by eliminating EMS from the fire department and downsizing the fire department?

Oh, and for the danger, I support no benefits for FFs and EMTs who die in car accidents when they aren't wearing seat belts or develop lung diseases when after a history of not using SCBA. Fire and EMS is dangerous, but a lot of the danger is taken by the individuals themselves refusing to use the protective devices available, which should not be a liability placed on the tax payers. So, sure, fire fighting is dangerous, but if a fire fighter gets lung cancer after years of consciously not using SCBA on, say, car fires, then that's their own fault, and should be their own money to pay for it.
 
JPINFV said:
So the question is, then, would the city save money by eliminating EMS from the fire department and downsizing the fire department?

Oh, and for the danger, I support no benefits for FFs and EMTs who die in car accidents when they aren't wearing seat belts or develop lung diseases when after a history of not using SCBA. Fire and EMS is dangerous, but a lot of the danger is taken by the individuals themselves refusing to use the protective devices available, which should not be a liability placed on the tax payers. So, sure, fire fighting is dangerous, but if a fire fighter gets lung cancer after years of consciously not using SCBA on, say, car fires, then that's their own fault, and should be their own money to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Even with the SCBA you can still breath in smoke. We only hook up to air if we are going inside the fire, near the fire, or if there is really heavy smoke. Tanks last for 15-20 mins if your lucky (engine carries a spare bottle for every firefighter). So if we stay hooked up the whole time we only get 30-40. Give or take a couple of mins. It takes 45 mins to an hour for the breathing support to arrive so we have to conserve air. Wildland fire you don't wear a SCBA but you still breath in smoke. Fire gear prevents you from getting burned but you can still get burned. It just reduces the risk.

Downsizing would save on money. But then the community would start complaining about Fires response time (as what has and still is happening in LA county). The community would start saying "fire isn't doing their job so why are we paying them?" that turns into move downsizing, paycuts, etc. So yes it saves money but it's not worth turning a 5 min response time into a 15+ response time.
 
firefite said:
Even with the SCBA you can still breath in smoke. We only hook up to air if we are going inside the fire, near the fire, or if there is really heavy smoke. Tanks last for 15-20 mins if your lucky (engine carries a spare bottle for every firefighter). So if we stay hooked up the whole time we only get 30-40. Give or take a couple of mins. It takes 45 mins to an hour for the breathing support to arrive so we have to conserve air. Wildland fire you don't wear a SCBA but you still breath in smoke. Fire gear prevents you from getting burned but you can still get burned. It just reduces the risk.
Click to expand...

Then why is it so easy to find modern videos of fire fighters standing in the middle of a house or car fire smoke, often wearing SCBA packs, but not using them? Should I post some?

Edit: Also, comparing wild land fires to house/car fires is laughable as the amount of toxic materials being burnt is rather disproportionate as well as the ability for the area to ventilate, unless you're down wind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JPINFV said:
Then why is it so easy to find modern videos of fire fighters standing in the middle of a house or car fire smoke, often wearing SCBA packs, but not using them? Should I post some?
Click to expand...

No need to post them. I've seen alot. I was just referring to how we as in my department would wear SCBAs. I've seen videos of firefighters fighting fire in running shorts.

And wildland fires vary. In an open field with no trash it's not that bad. But in the fields that are littered with tires and plastic bottles is another story
 
Last edited by a moderator:
firefite said:
No need to post them. I've seen alot. I was just referring to how we as in my department would wear SCBAs.
Click to expand...

Hence why I specifically limited my proposal to people with a history of not using them. Yes, it's dangerous. Yes, no mask is going to seal permanently. However, the mask or connecting does nothing hanging by a fire fighters waist and the city shouldn't be liable for their individual disregard for their own health. This, obviously, isn't everyone.
 
Brown thinks it is absolutely disgusting and an outrage that your Paramedic are paid such obnoxiously low wages.

Here, Paramedics are paid a salary - Paramedic makes about NZD55,000 and Intensive Care Paramedic makes about NZD68,000 pa for a 4 day work week with no overtime.
 
Aidey said:
No, I think you misunderstood. 1/6th of 325% is roughly 55%. If the FFs are really getting paid 325% more that is insane, and even if they are getting 55% more that is a big difference for 20% of their workload.
Click to expand...

terrible one said:
SDSME (rural metro) starts medics around 9-10/hr. That was a few years ago when I applied maybe it's changed but doubt it. AMR starts medics at 11/hr
Click to expand...

Let's be generous and say that the privates start medics off at $15/hr. The complaint is that FF medics make 325% of that. Your argument, I believe, is that they should be making 55% of that... which would be just over $7.50/hr.


The $5 came from the $10 *3.25 = $32.50/6 = ~$5.


MrBrown said:
Brown thinks it is absolutely disgusting and an outrage that your Paramedic are paid such obnoxiously low wages.

Here, Paramedics are paid a salary - Paramedic makes about NZD55,000 and Intensive Care Paramedic makes about NZD68,000 pa for a 4 day work week with no overtime.
Click to expand...

That is $44,093.50 & $54,515.60 for anyone else who is going to look it up.

FF medics make around that. Private services have few hiring requirements & can pay very low wages because there are so many EMTs (B&P) that there are always people just graduating school & needing experience, getting fired from another job, or who just can't get hired anywhere else. They also offer more scheduling flexibility (sometimes), and I know plenty of parents who put up with the low pay because their other option is to work 60 hours/week at the 911 service.
 
I'm not saying they should be paid 55% of the $15. I'm saying they should not be paid more than 55% MORE. So instead of $15 +325%, $15+55%.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Firefite, fire departments/firefighters tend to drastically overstate the danger involved in firefighting. It's in their interest to do so. As it stands, firefighting no longer even cracks the top 10 on the BLS job related death list. Furthermore, the death rate could be slashed at least another 25% (maybe even 50%) if the fire service would:

Stop responding in POVs at 80+ mph with "courtesy lights"

Realize a certain level of physical fitness is needed and stop using people with serious medical conditions because they're "good hands"

Stop committing firefighters to interior attacks in marginal conditions when the contents of a structure has burned/it's a disposable structure because "that's what we're supposed to do"

Commit to interior attack only when resources allow, otherwise fight it from outside
 
More and more of these types of things are going to occur. If you think privates are immune, when it's revealed there's no scientific base for ALS care be prepared for reimbursement cuts. I suggest all of us start working on getting research in an area of interest published.
 
Here's the thing... (ignoring that the councilmoron has an agenda)

He's not comparing the firefighter/emt's to the private medics he's comparing the firefighters to the private EMTs!!

The private medics and the firefighter/emts are a bit more proportional to the salary, however many of the firefighters I know are paramedic/firefighters.

The whole "danger" thing is over played... yeah there are times, but the most part it's routine, get called out, get canceled enroute, return to station, yadda yadda

My beef is comparing their education and training to eachother to determine pay.

we know what it takes to be an EMT. Most firefighters around here (due to extreme job competition) have degrees. So they go to school, academy, etc etc.

In the corporate world you get more pay than a peer based on your education, why not in the fire service?
 
usalsfyre said:
Firefite, fire departments/firefighters tend to drastically overstate the danger involved in firefighting. It's in their interest to do so. As it stands, firefighting no longer even cracks the top 10 on the BLS job related death list. Furthermore, the death rate could be slashed at least another 25% (maybe even 50%) if the fire service would:

Stop responding in POVs at 80+ mph with "courtesy lights"

Realize a certain level of physical fitness is needed and stop using people with serious medical conditions because they're "good hands"

Stop committing firefighters to interior attacks in marginal conditions when the contents of a structure has burned/it's a disposable structure because "that's what we're supposed to do"

Commit to interior attack only when resources allow, otherwise fight it from outside
Click to expand...

Agreed on all of those parts. As for my area we are not allowed to respond to calls on our POVs with courtesy lights.

And yes they need to stay physically fit. EMS workers should stay fit also.
 
Going back to the medics making $9 an hour and others saying $16.... what kind of shift are they working?

Here, a 24 hour EMT makes $7.46 an hour starting off, and a fresh medic I think makes $13.

The 12 hour EMTs make $10.66 an hour, and the medics make around $18-20 I believe.

Lets compare.


24 hours x 7.46 = $179.04 per day
12 hours x 10.66 = $127.92 per day

I would calculate the medic wages, but I do not know them down to the cent therefore don't want to post any false information.

$9/hour still sucks, but is a huge difference on a 24 hour shift or a 12 hour shift.

also, the 24 hour crew is going to hit OT quickly. so my $7.46 turns to $11.40ish in two shifts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How can these employers paying such atrocious wages expect people to live on them?

Brown had always maintained some 100 hour course wonder wasn't worth more (and from a purely economic standpoint they probably aren't) but then you must consider Brown got paid more (even with conversion) working at McDonalds, and at one job that required about 100 hours of training which involved little responsibility sitting at a desk paid a salary of almost NZD40,000.

Is it they simply don't want to pay more so can choose not too because nobody is organised enough to demand more or is it because they can't afford to for lack of income? Brown remembers Medicaid pays about 10c on the dollar, not sure about the insurance companies.

Yuck
 
MrBrown said:
How can these employers paying such atrocious wages expect people to live on them?

...

Is it they simply don't want to pay more so can choose not too because nobody is organised enough to demand more or is it because they can't afford to for lack of income? Brown remembers Medicaid pays about 10c on the dollar, not sure about the insurance companies.

Yuck
Click to expand...

Does it honestly matter? Why is it the employer's job to make sure that the employees get a living wage? If the wage is so unbearably terrible given the requirements of the job, why do so many people do it? It's not like EMS is the only field out there.
 
MrBrown said:
How can these employers paying such atrocious wages expect people to live on them?
Click to expand...

They really don't care. Most people work multiple jobs and/or get some form of government assistance. Please don't think this is limited to healthcare -- it's true of many entry-level jobs here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top