How are vollys viewed by paid EMT's?

[rescue1]

Wow....just, wow.

No, if every city/town was forced to have paid EMS, they would not have any EMS. They would instead contract with a neighboring agency that could afford the overhead costs associated with maintaining paid staff, or go into a regional EMS model. Neither of those options would ensure adequate response times or staff availability.

This isn't always true. I know for a fact a municipality I vollyed for could have affored 24/7 BLS transport coverage (ALS chase was separate). This would have cut about five minutes from response times, dropped the number of ALS runs (which only were ALS because the volunteers could not always be trusted with a patient), and could have been done for probably under $100,000 a year.

But to be fair, there are other areas that could not afford that and could not justify it.


As for taxes, Level1pedstech, the lowest tax brackets in the USA are the poor, and the very wealthy. So while you may see 40% go to taxes, a millionaire who carefully manages manages his wealth and assets can end up paying maybe 10%. And that 30% lost tax revenue is a decent chunk of cash.

 

[STXmedic]

Volly department.

 

[Chief Complaint]

Why not hold the volunteers up to the same standards of training and testing. Earlier in the thread I used my former department as an example of how combination departments can be successful.

We also moved staff up from within which saved the city money and time when full time paid spots opened up. The path started at shift volunteer then you would test into the part time pool,all full time positions were filled from the part time pool. Another benefit was that the new full timers had alredy been on the floor for at least a couple of years so the move over to full time did not require an academy or supervised probie time.

In a perfect world, sure. But it would be impossible to find a group of people, willing to work for free and quit their day jobs, who could go through the academy.

Plus they would have to pay a full time staff (plus overtime) to train them.

Its just impossible.

 

[DrParasite]

I apologize I should have clarified my point. I wasn't insinuating that every city/town should have their own EMS system, I just making the point that if every city/town had paid EMS (be it municipal,third party, private entity etc etc.) pay and advancement would go up for EMS providers.

yeah, maybe in dreamland... or if you drink the cool aid that private employers keep using to keep wages low.

Many communities are already serviced by third party providers who offer zero dollar contracts to cities/towns in exchange to be able to bill their residences for services rendered.

by private companies, who are paying $9 an hour (if they are lucky), where turnover is high, and employers pay their employees crap, because if they leave, they will just replace them with another new grade, who will accept $9 an hour.

As long as vollie services are around, pay and advancement in EMS will continue to grow at the turtle pace it is now.

That's a lie that spreads around paid EMS circles, usually spread by managers who don't want to pay their staff much money, and then by employees who just parrot what they are told without even thinking it through. And if you think about it, instead of drinking the koolaid, you will realize it makes 0 sense.

volunteers have 0 to do with paid salaries, except in areas where paid and volunteers work for the same agency (combination agencies or paid and volunteer agencies covering the same primary areas).

I work in a city, making a decent living. if I were to volunteer 20 miles away, that wouldn't affect my salary at all. and if my boss tried to tell me that my volunteering would affect my work salary, all I would tell him is "one thing has nothing to do with the other." Lots of paid firefighters who make a lot of money, and there are still a lot of volunteer firefighter.

towns already don't want to pay for EMS. forcing them to create a well funded and well staffed system is expensive, and all too often towns choose to outsource to a :censored::censored::censored::censored:ty private company that will hire newbies at $9 an hour. and if they complain, they just fire them and replace them with another $9 an hour employee.

low wages will continue as long as people in EMS are willing to accept low wages.

 

[Aidey]

low wages will continue as long as people in EMS are willing to accept low wages.

And there is no wage lower than $0.

 

[bigbaldguy]

There is one direct way that volunteers can effect pay in an agency that has both paid and volly's. Where I work, uncovered shifts are sometimes picked up by volly's. This reduces the number of shifts available for paid folks to pick up for overtime. It doesn't seem to really make a huge difference but it is possible that paid folks are missing out on some overtime because of volly's.

Other than this there is really is no rationale for trying to say volly's effect the pay of paid employees that really makes much sense. You just don't get volly's who are willing to work the same way paid folks are. Apples and oranges.

 

[ffemt8978]

And there is no wage lower than $0.

And yet some vollies are paid per call or per shift, they just don't make their living at it.

 

[Level1pedstech]

In a perfect world, sure. But it would be impossible to find a group of people, willing to work for free and quit their day jobs, who could go through the academy.

Plus they would have to pay a full time staff (plus overtime) to train them.

Its just impossible.

We would hold a volunteer academy once a year for new recruits,classes were tuesday and thursday evenings for four hours and all day on saturdays for four months. After completion of the academy another six months to a year is spent working on task books under the supervision of a captain. During your probie year there is an expectation of 48 hours of shift time and attendance at weekly drills. After a year you complete more written and skills testing then are free to shift department wide and can also participate in part timer testing. Lateral applicants could bypass the academy if they had documentation showing training and education equal to or greater than our academy.

Everyone from the chief on down to the part time staff had a job during the academy either as instructirs or asistants. The goal was to have everyone trained and certified to the level of FF2 with either an EMT-B or IV Tech cert.

It is possible but there has to be 100% commitment from the whole dpartment to make it a reality. It not something that is implemented over night but I think in the future it may be the way to go for many departments. As far as the quality of volunteers you would notice after a very short time that guys would be coming from all over to jump into such a great oportunity. In fact I guarantee that you would have much better applicants if they new it was a true combination department where all are equal and advancement to paid full timer is only possible from the inside

 

[Aidey]

And yet some vollies are paid per call or per shift, they just don't make their living at it.

He still undermined his entire point with that statement. If people willing to accept low wages mean that wages stay low, what affect do volunteers have?

 

[bigbaldguy]

He still undermined his entire point with that statement. If people willing to accept low wages mean that wages stay low, what affect do volunteers have?

I would argue that if a volly receives pay even if it's just 5 dollars a call as I've seen some around here do then they aren't technically a volly. That said these pseudo vollys still aren't able to replace a paid employee, they simply won't in most cases be held to the same standards. Still apples and oranges.

EMS gets paid very little because they don't pull together and demand better, both of their employers, of each other and most importantly of themselves. Do vollys erode wages for EMS, I doubt it but even if they do the damage they do is so minimal in comparison to the damage we do to ourselves that I think it's a non issue.

If you are reading this then please know you most likely aren't who I'm talking about. The fact that you are on EMTLIFE makes you the type of person who should step up and be part of the solution. The whole point of this site is to facilitate exactly these kinds of conversations so that they can be brought out where we can see them.

 

[Aidey]

I don't think it is apples to oranges in a lot of places. It is pretty terifying to hear a dead serious debate about downgrading a career department to a mixed paid/volly department, because after all, if people are willing to do it for free, WTF are we paying them for? One of the city council members who supported the idea subsequently was elected mayor.

 

[firemedic0227]

I am a new Firefighter EMT-B on a Part-time (I work 14 12 hour shifts during a 28 day period) which I might add, adds up to a regular full time job. This was my first job as an EMT or a firefighter even though I am a military Firefighter as well. I know many VERY good EMT-B and EMT-P that are also on this department that started out as a Volunteer for this same now part-time fire department. I would trust any one of these people with a family member of mine or even my life. A lot of other EMT-B and EMT-P volunteer in their home areas as well. I also want to add that I have also went through Paramedic School and I have learned more in the short time I have been on this Part-time department than I ever knew even through medic school. Just because you train a lot doesn't mean you are good at things out in the field.

I have a great appreciation for volunteers as my dad was one in the small town I grew up in for many many years. My grandpa is a retired fire chief for that same volunteer department, some EMT's are pointless and do it for the lights and sirens but many very good EMT's do great things even with small call volumes. It just depends on how well you translate your training to the field! So I guess what I am trying to get at is that I am impartial to either way like many of you here on this thread.

 

[Level1pedstech]

I don't think it is apples to oranges in a lot of places. It is pretty terifying to hear a dead serious debate about downgrading a career department to a mixed paid/volly department, because after all, if people are willing to do it for free, WTF are we paying them for? One of the city council !members who supported the idea subsequently was elected mayor.

I dont think anyone is talking about downgrading anything. Its clear that many departments could benefit from a true combination department. Pooling the resources available to help move a department forward is what Im talking about.

You seem hung up on the money issue,you know for some of us it has never been about the money. Even if I had been offered a full time position I would have not been able to take it,the 50% percent cut in pay to start would have been a killer.

 

[Aidey]

I'm not hung up on the money. I commented on a statement someone made at the end of a lengthy post claiming that volly services have no impact on wages, which I think is false. The example I gave is a true story of how the public advocated for downgrading the department to a mixed department because they didn't want to pay wages for the evil union firemen. People argued that if the smaller outlying departments operated with volunteers then the city department could too. Given the current economic climate that city can not be the only one discussing downgrading their department.

 

[DrParasite]

He still undermined his entire point with that statement. If people willing to accept low wages mean that wages stay low, what affect do volunteers have?

No, I didn't, and you missed the entire point of the statement.

Let me try again: You work in town A. I volunteer in town A. Me being a volunteer will help keep your wage low, because they can replace you with me for less money (this was the only example where that argument holds some validity)

You work in town A. I volunteer in town B. we cover different towns, and do NOT interact at all, except on the very rare MCI. me being a volunteer has no impact on your salary. Its not even apples and oranges, it's apples and water buffalo.

and the statement that has you confused: You work in town A, been there for 5 years, and make $20 an hour. I just got out of school, and am looking for a job, and your boss (in town A) offers me a job paying $10 an hour to do the exact same job you are doing, which I gladly accept. So why should your boss (town A) pay you $20, when I can do the same job you are doing for half the price? I am going to still volunteer in town B, where I live, 20 miles away, but my volunteering has no impact on my accepting a paid job in town A for $10 an hour.

 

[Tigger]

You work in town A. I volunteer in town B. we cover different towns, and do NOT interact at all, except on the very rare MCI. me being a volunteer has no impact on your salary. Its not even apples and oranges, it's apples and water buffalo.

Now let's suppose that town A and B are fairly similar in terms of demographics, size, and call volume. Town A's government is facing a shortfall, and notices that Town B provides EMS service through a volunteer service while Town A pays to have two EMTs in the station 24/7. Both towns are delivering the same service yet Town B doesn't have to pay much in the way of compensation to its EMS providers. Seeing this, Town A lays off its paid EMS employees and starts a volunteer service. Service delivery remains the same, and the town's budget is closer to being balanced. The only downside are the now unemployed EMS staff.

So yes, volunteers aren't keeping salaries low, they could just be a risk to the very existence of one's salary. But that's fine right?

I don't know if this has happened yet anywhere, I can't hope to perfectly informed on the dealings of every town in the nation. But I do know that more than a few city governments have called for paid fire and EMS departments to build a volunteer contingent so as to weather drastic cutbacks. Some especially aggressive mayors have called for entire paid fire departments to be disbanded and replaced by volunteers or POC staff. Given the shape of the economy, this is to be expected, and there are many, many services that staff a single truck in an area surrounded by volunteers that are at risk of being axed.

and the statement that has you confused: You work in town A, been there for 5 years, and make $20 an hour. I just got out of school, and am looking for a job, and your boss (in town A) offers me a job paying $10 an hour to do the exact same job you are doing, which I gladly accept. So why should your boss (town A) pay you $20, when I can do the same job you are doing for half the price? I am going to still volunteer in town B, where I live, 20 miles away, but my volunteering has no impact on my accepting a paid job in town A for $10 an hour.

I don't get this argument at all. A company or government pays its longer tenured staff more so as to retain them. It's a lot cheaper to give someone a raise or pay OT than it is to hire someone brand new and train them, even if they are starting at a lower wage. This is a basic tenet of running any sort of organization, and its prevalent everywhere, and I don't see it relates at all.

 

[DrParasite]

Service delivery remains the same, and the town's budget is closer to being balanced.

key phrase being Service delivery remains the same. If the same job is done for less money, it's better for the tax payer. But the reality is that it never happens that way. I don't want anyone to lose their jobs, but the laws of business say if your job isn't needed (for whatever reason, replaced with machines, consolidated with another department or town, or it's just obsolete), than it's going to go away.

So yes, volunteers aren't keeping salaries low, they could just be a risk to the very existence of one's salary. But that's fine right?

or the town can eliminate their jobs and bring in a private service. or a cheaper private service. or the FD/PD could start up their own service. so will you be anti FD/PD/private agencies? after all, they can "be a risk to the very existence of one's salary." Its still not volunteers who are the enemy, it's the belief that the job can be done cheaper by someone else.

I don't know if this has happened yet anywhere, I can't hope to perfectly informed on the dealings of every town in the nation.

Show me 1, just one, fully staffed EMS department, that went from 100% career staffing to 100% volunteer staffing, and maintained the sae levle of service, and I will buy your argument.

The reality is, they don't. Volunteer departments go from 100% volunteer to combination, to 100% paid. They might even go from 100% paid to 100% paid with some volunteers supplementing, but rarely will a department lay off career staff and hope to replace them with volunteers. Not saying it never has happened, but it's very rare. More often than not it's a threat, much harder to actually implement it.

I don't get this argument at all. A company or government pays its longer tenured staff more so as to retain them. It's a lot cheaper to give someone a raise or pay OT than it is to hire someone brand new and train them, even if they are starting at a lower wage. This is a basic tenet of running any sort of organization, and its prevalent everywhere, and I don't see it relates at all.

it happens all the time, especially in the private EMS agency. Employees are seen as expendable, and easily replaceable, and treated as such.

 

[Tigger]

key phrase being Service delivery remains the same. If the same job is done for less money, it's better for the tax payer.
But the reality is that it never happens that way. I don't want anyone to lose their jobs, but the laws of business say if your job isn't needed (for whatever reason, replaced with machines, consolidated with another department or town, or it's just obsolete), than it's going to go away.

If the argument is purely about doing the citizen's right, then you're correct. I might also add though that many governments have no idea what successful EMS looks like. Town A might have been getting an ambulance to every call in less than five minutes while Town B took 12 but Town's A government did not bother to look deeper at the issue so they are misguided in thinking that service delivery remains unchanged.

or the town can eliminate their jobs and bring in a private service. or a cheaper private service. or the FD/PD could start up their own service. so will you be anti FD/PD/private agencies? after all, they can "be a risk to the very existence of one's salary." Its still not volunteers who are the enemy, it's the belief that the job can be done cheaper by someone else.

Yes, I would consider my self to be anti "taking over agencies just to save the town or city a buck." I guess I'm just no fan of any service that comes in looking to take jobs, but that's an emotional not economic argument. Maybe I'm just a softy, but if a private company approached the city you dispatch for and said they'd provide the same service for half the price with their own employees, you'd also be pissed, right?

Show me 1, just one, fully staffed EMS department, that went from 100% career staffing to 100% volunteer staffing, and maintained the sae levle of service, and I will buy your argument.

The reality is, they don't. Volunteer departments go from 100% volunteer to combination, to 100% paid. They might even go from 100% paid to 100% paid with some volunteers supplementing, but rarely will a department lay off career staff and hope to replace them with volunteers. Not saying it never has happened, but it's very rare. More often than not it's a threat, much harder to actually implement it.

I can't yet. My point is more that while it's only been threatened at this point, if the economy stays the way it is it may be only a matter of time before some government gets aggressive an actually does replace a properly staffed paid service with a combo or volunteer service. Only time will tell.

 

[DrParasite]

Yes, I would consider my self to be anti "taking over agencies just to save the town or city a buck." I guess I'm just no fan of any service that comes in looking to take jobs, but that's an emotional not economic argument. Maybe I'm just a softy, but if a private company approached the city you dispatch for and said they'd provide the same service for half the price with their own employees, you'd also be pissed, right?

Cencom Dispatch center closes, services moved to MONOC and CENCOM's parent company's press release and MONOC gets contract for Hudson county EMS 911 calls and JCEMS's response. It can (and does happen) all too often, even with dispatch centers. All comes down to the lowest bidder, and yes, people were laid off in the CENCOM deal, and JC lost dispatchers (but I think they weren't laid off, just relocated to other divisions). and in my person opinion, services have absolutely suffered, but the contract does go by lowest bidder. But no volunteers took those jobs, just a private company that pays it's people poorly and has a history of zero-bidding the competition, and then failing to follow through on what they promised or biting off more than they can chew (and paying their staff less than the going rate, but they are a monopoly in 2 counties).

but if MONOC's employees wouldn't accept such a low wage, MONOC would have to pay more. like I said, as long as people accept low wages, this will continue to happen. and it still has nothing to do with volunteers affecting wages.

 

[Tigger]

Cencom Dispatch center closes, services moved to MONOC and CENCOM's parent company's press release and MONOC gets contract for Hudson county EMS 911 calls and JCEMS's response. It can (and does happen) all too often, even with dispatch centers. All comes down to the lowest bidder, and yes, people were laid off in the CENCOM deal, and JC lost dispatchers (but I think they weren't laid off, just relocated to other divisions). and in my person opinion, services have absolutely suffered, but the contract does go by lowest bidder. But no volunteers took those jobs, just a private company that pays it's people poorly and has a history of zero-bidding the competition, and then failing to follow through on what they promised or biting off more than they can chew (and paying their staff less than the going rate, but they are a monopoly in 2 counties).

but if MONOC's employees wouldn't accept such a low wage, MONOC would have to pay more. like I said, as long as people accept low wages, this will continue to happen. and it still has nothing to do with volunteers affecting wages.

You asked me if I was anti FD/PD/private agencies, so I responded with that example. I think you're missing my point here though.

I'm not saying that volunteers presently pose a threat to paid EMS providers jobs. All I am saying is that many governments have threatened to lay off staff and use volunteer or POC staff instead. If the economy continues to suffer and municipalities cannot balance their budgets, it is not far-fetched to think that some hard-line mayor will actually follow through with such threats. As with the example you posted, governments are looking to cut costs, and they'll privatize public services if it costs can be brought down. Costs go way down when you don't have to pay wages so if a government can get EMS service for even cheaper by using volunteers, what's to say they won't? That will lead to layoffs and regardless if its better for the taxpayer I have hard time supporting laying off employees during a recession.

Perhaps this will only remain the talk of zealot mayors, I certainly hope so. However I could easily see it being used as pressure for paid staff to take pay cuts, "take the cuts or we'll lay you off and replace you with volunteers." I can't imagine many people want to call the city's bluff with their job on the line.