How are vollys viewed by paid EMT's?

[starbucks4511]

I really don't think volunteer=inexpierence. Where I live we have quite a few volunteer companies, mine being one of them and we are the biggest and best for a big area! We also have paid positions, though many people do volunteer. So it really depends on your location, we have many volunteers that are very smart, expierenced, and know a lot for being volunteer. So in my area volunteer fire comapnies are common. We answer about an average of 500-700 calls a month, EMS alone.

 

[rescue1]

I really don't think volunteer=inexpierence. Where I live we have quite a few volunteer companies, mine being one of them and we are the biggest and best for a big area! We also have paid positions, though many people do volunteer. So it really depends on your location, we have many volunteers that are very smart, expierenced, and know a lot for being volunteer. So in my area volunteer fire comapnies are common. We answer about an average of 500-700 calls a month, EMS alone.

Where in PA are you? Are you in the Philly area, by any chance?

 

[starbucks4511]

I live in Williamsport, i dont think thats very close to philly. Lol

 

[rescue1]

Yeah, not so much...

 

[Level1pedstech]

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.

As a seventeen year union member I can tell you that the IAFF as well as many other unions are under tremendous pressure. We have all been asked to give a little,some a little more than others. The "evil union firemen" as well as the evil union teachers and the evil union truckdrivers will in the future be giving bigger and bigger concessions. Does the devasting loss for the unions in Wisconsin (twice) ring a bell,it should because its going to spread like wildfire. The storm clouds are gathering and there are very dark days to come for all union members but this not the union/non union forum so lets not any further.

As far as downgrading to a combination department I pointed out that no one on this site mentioned downgrading anything. You have first hand knowledge of a department that has downgraded thats great but no one here has mentioned it until now.

My contribution to the discussion was to show how it is possible to have a department that has paid staff and volunteer staff working together. This is not some idea Im floating out for approval from the "we need to change the system" folks. My former department has been useing this model for well over a decade and it has been well recieved by everyone including the IAFF.

This is not the type of department where volunteers come out and hand out water at the rehab trailer then roll hose or do salvage after a large structure response. Then back at the station they head for the recliners until its time to go home. My example is a department where all staff is held to the same standards in all areas of the job.

Now there is a case to be made that in the future there could be a place for this type of department. If it meant because of budget constraints that anytown USA
might in a worst case scenario have to deep cut and eliminate 50% of its paid staff. Would it not be better to supplement with part time,reserve or volunteer staff? My thoughts are that the union would be faced with two big poblems to solve. Are the remaining staff expected to pick up the slack left by the cuts and is it safe to expect crews to provide service at pre cut levels with half the staff. It might take time but I bet the union would get on board,they may have no choice.

The bigger problem is would it be possible to find volunteers that are qualified and physically able to step up and get the job done.

 

[Veneficus]

As a seventeen year union member I can tell you that the IAFF as well as many other unions are under tremendous pressure. We have all been asked to give a little,some a little more than others. The "evil union firemen" as well as the evil union teachers and the evil union truckdrivers will in the future be giving bigger and bigger concessions. Does the devasting loss for the unions in Wisconsin (twice) ring a bell,it should because its going to spread like wildfire. The storm clouds are gathering and there are very dark days to come for all union members but this not the union/non union forum so lets not any further..

I would like to point out that I think this is an accurate statement that will directly affect every EMS provider in the country and while there is controversy between pro-union and anti-union opinion, this is an important topic for discussion because no matter what your position, if you continue to work in EMS, the outcome of these elections and public perceptions and opinions will directly affect your future.

If you recall after Sept 11th, Fire, Police, and EMS were elevated in status. Those of us who were around prior remember being "a required drain on public resources" that politicians would rather not spend money on for any number of reasons.

Providers of today and the very near future are going to see the exact same opinions and positions that we dealt with so long ago. For the post 9/11 providers, it will be a far cry from the status they are used to.

Hero or villian is really a matter of dates.

As far as downgrading to a combination department I pointed out that no one on this site mentioned downgrading anything. You have first hand knowledge of a department that has downgraded thats great but no one here has mentioned it until now..

Last year, A councilman in Columbus, Ohio put forth a position that the fire department, in order to save money, should downgrade from ALS to BLS. His position was supported by studies done showing no benefit from ALS in short transport times and data showing no improvements in ALS patients.

While not downgrading from paid to volunteer, I think this issue will be faught again in the very near future.

 

[Tigger]

I really don't think volunteer=inexpierence. Where I live we have quite a few volunteer companies, mine being one of them and we are the biggest and best for a big area! We also have paid positions, though many people do volunteer. So it really depends on your location, we have many volunteers that are very smart, expierenced, and know a lot for being volunteer. So in my area volunteer fire comapnies are common. We answer about an average of 500-700 calls a month, EMS alone.

Ya'll run over 16 EMS calls per DAY as a volunteer organization? How many stations is that out of, that works out to be 6,000 calls a year, which is about what the busiest engine companies in the country's bigger cities run total between fire and EMS runs.

 

[DrParasite]

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.

again, show me 1 city that did that. just one. I'll even settle for one that tried it, found it didn't work, and switched back. but we both know you will never find one.

it's a threat, it's a bad threat, but still that, just a threat. No mayor in the world would actually do that. In fact, if a union had any balls, they would say "do it. and while you are recruiting, formal educating, background screening, internal educating, how many of your tax payers will due because now we don't have the resources to do the job right??" You'd be surprised how quickly that idea goes out the window, especially when you spin it like that to the papers.

it's much more likely the current system will be outsource to a private agency, which already has the formal structure, education, and infrastructure in place, than laying off existing staff and replacing them with volunteers.

oh and Veneficus, are there any studies that would support that a 100% volunteer system is better than a 100% paid? Easy to make an argument when you have some scientific backing behind you, much harder when it goes against current practices.

 

[Tigger]

again, show me 1 city that did that. just one. I'll even settle for one that tried it, found it didn't work, and switched back. but we both know you will never find one.

it's a threat, it's a bad threat, but still that, just a threat. No mayor in the world would actually do that.

Yes, it is just a threat. I don't know how many times I am going to have to write that.

As I have said in all of my posts, if the economy continues to remain in a recession, how long will it it be before a city government goes and cuts its EMS staff from paid to volunteer? Heck, it doesn't even have to be all the staff, but if you're staffing three ambulances and then suddenly the city decides to staff two with volunteers and have one paid, people are going to lose their jobs. When a city is looking at shortfall bigger than its budget, drastic changes come.

A few cities in the Midwest have disbanded their entire fire departments (Allen Park and Pontiac Michigan since I know you'll ask) and entered into protection agreements with neighboring towns. A few mayors have called for similar tactics but want to use volunteers rather than mutual aid however I cannot find the town's name (possibly in Illinois) but I'd rather be more productive than wading through pages of firehouse.com crap to find the article.

For the last time, no city has replaced paid staff with volunteers, yet. I'm looking at future implications of a poor economic climate here.

In fact, if a union had any balls, they would say "do it. and while you are recruiting, formal educating, background screening, internal educating, how many of your tax payers will due because now we don't have the resources to do the job right??" You'd be surprised how quickly that idea goes out the window, especially when you spin it like that to the papers.

I'd be interested to read some of these articles, as usually its the public servants that get slammed at the expense of the government.

it's much more likely the current system will be outsource to a private agency, which already has the formal structure, education, and infrastructure in place, than laying off existing staff and replacing them with volunteers.

Certainly this is the more likely course of action, especially since it happens already. I just wonder if a government will realize that they can get services even cheaper through volunteer and POC staffing arrangements than through private companies. I look at Maryland and Virgina that have hugely active volunteer fire and EMS service that is able to cover call volumes higher than many paid cities with seemingly little difficulty and fairly minimal paid staffing augmentation when compared to the massive volunteer core. If volunteers can meet the demand there, why can't they be used in other areas, or so a seriously cash-strapped city or county may one day think.

EDIT: Carbondale VA's last mayor called for disbanding the FD and replacing them with volunteers, http://www.thecarbondalenews.com/news/x1120191111/Mayor-stands-for-paid-fire-dept-in-defending-fee

 

[Aidey]

As far as downgrading to a combination department I pointed out that no one on this site mentioned downgrading anything. You have first hand knowledge of a department that has downgraded thats great but no one here has mentioned it until now.

Someone posted "low wages will continue as long as people in EMS are willing to accept low wages." To which I replied that there is no wage lower than $0, meaning that volunteers also impact wages. When someone is willing to do a job for no or very little pay that makes it easier for other people to argue that high wages or any wages are unneeded. To back up my point, I gave an example of a case were people seriously argued that their city department should be downgraded.

A city going from a full career department to a mixed department, at a time that their run volume is increasing, is not a good idea. If the run volume/population was decreasing it could make sense. I am not against mixed departments. I think they can be an economical middle ground for some areas. I mentioned back on the first page that the best volunteers here are the ones at the mixed departments.

From the online debate over a SAFER grant.

Can we realy affort $100,000 a year rookie firemen? Why has the fire department got total control over ambulance service? Some body is getting black mailed here. Private ambulance services are all over the country why not in Gotham? Just how much would we save if the fire department was no longer in the ambulance business? There are also cities much larger than Gotham that get along fine with Volunteer fire departments, but I guess nothing is too good for the tax payers of Gotham

City population is ~35,000. Run volume of ~5000 a year, with 9 people per shift. 4 of those on the 2 ambs.

 

[rescue1]

Cities larger then 35,000 with an all volunteer fire department? I'd bet there are no more then a handful of those throughout the whole US.

Besides, mayors or councilmen always call for downgrading to a volunteer fire department, because they have no idea how a volunteer vs career department works. Have there actually been cases of radical downgrades from paid to combo or to fully volunteer? I can't think of any that did anything that drastic.

 

[DrParasite]

Yes, it is just a threat. I don't know how many times I am going to have to write that.

Heck, it doesn't even have to be all the staff, but if you're staffing three ambulances and then suddenly the city decides to staff two with volunteers and have one paid, people are going to lose their jobs. When a city is looking at shortfall bigger than its budget, drastic changes come.[/quote]omg, the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!! lets keep worrying about something that won't happen. We can worry about the sky falling all day, I'd rather worry about situations where the sky has fallen on many agencies (where they were gov't based and were outsources and/or replace with non-government agency).

But I will say, if they have enough volunteers to eliminate 2 paid crews 24/7, while maintaining the same level of service, that is impressive.

A few cities in the Midwest have disbanded their entire fire departments (Allen Park and Pontiac Michigan since I know you'll ask) and entered into protection agreements with neighboring towns.

yep, eliminating your home department and contracting with your neighbor would be just as bad. still not volunteers who are taking the paid guys jobs.

Certainly this is the more likely course of action, especially since it happens already. I just wonder if a government will realize that they can get services even cheaper through volunteer and POC staffing arrangements than through private companies. I look at Maryland and Virgina that have hugely active volunteer fire and EMS service that is able to cover call volumes higher than many paid cities with seemingly little difficulty and fairly minimal paid staffing augmentation when compared to the massive volunteer core. If volunteers can meet the demand there, why can't they be used in other areas, or so a seriously cash-strapped city or county may one day think.

all of those departments are combination departments, who used to be 100% volunteer, and when staffing levels dropped, they started putting paid staff on. With very few exemptions, once you put paid staff on, you don't take them off. and if you do, well, that's the risks of working for a combination department.

EDIT: Carbondale VA's last mayor called for disbanding the FD and replacing them with volunteers, http://www.thecarbondalenews.com/news/x1120191111/Mayor-stands-for-paid-fire-dept-in-defending-fee

that's a combination department (which I mentioned earlier), and it's the former mayor who wants to do it, not the current one. If it goes through, it's not a good thing, but its one of the risks of working in a combination department.

disclaimer: I used to work for a combination department, where I knew having many volunteers could affect how many shifts I got. I would not object to volunteering again in the future, but I would never be a volunteer in a combination department ever again, because I would never want to take money out of a coworkers pocket.

 

[Tigger]

Heck, it doesn't even have to be all the staff, but if you're staffing three ambulances and then suddenly the city decides to staff two with volunteers and have one paid, people are going to lose their jobs. When a city is looking at shortfall bigger than its budget, drastic changes come.

omg, the sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!! lets keep worrying about something that won't happen. We can worry about the sky falling all day, I'd rather worry about situations where the sky has fallen on many agencies (where they were gov't based and were outsources and/or replace with non-government agency).

But I will say, if they have enough volunteers to eliminate 2 paid crews 24/7, while maintaining the same level of service, that is impressive.
yep, eliminating your home department and contracting with your neighbor would be just as bad. still not volunteers who are taking the paid guys jobs.
all of those departments are combination departments, who used to be 100% volunteer, and when staffing levels dropped, they started putting paid staff on. With very few exemptions, once you put paid staff on, you don't take them off. and if you do, well, that's the risks of working for a combination department.
that's a combination department (which I mentioned earlier), and it's the former mayor who wants to do it, not the current one. If it goes through, it's not a good thing, but its one of the risks of working in a combination department.

disclaimer: I used to work for a combination department, where I knew having many volunteers could affect how many shifts I got. I would not object to volunteering again in the future, but I would never be a volunteer in a combination department ever again, because I would never want to take money out of a coworkers pocket.

There is no point in even having this argument if you cannot look towards the future. What's the point of having this discussion if your response is going to be "that will never happen?" I don't think anyone thought that entire paid fire departments would be disbanded, but that happened and I doubt any members were well prepared for that action. The fact of the matter is that none of us have any idea what city governments will do if they are faced with a massive shortfall. To not discuss what it is logically possible is just setting us up to be behind the eight-ball if that day ever comes.

Also, a fully paid department becoming combination is not good for the paid employees. Lay offs are likely, and OT availability is like to decrease. How is that good for the employees? My position here is to save the jobs that already exist, there is no way a municipality does not lay off staff when transitioning to a combo department as where would the savings come from? And yes, the article I posted does have the old mayor calling for it, my point was that these threats have been made before.

 

[zmedic]

I feel like the vast majority of places in the US volly v paid doesn't really matter because either the area is super busy and needs 24 hour in house coverage, or it's rural and they run 50 calls a year and there is no way to get enough money to be paid. I think it's a small (10%? 5%?) of total EMS calls that are run by places that are in that in between zone where it be covered by paid or volly.

The reason why it's so hard to go from paid to volunteer, even if it's only a few ambulances, is that it takes a huge number of volunteers to cover once ambulance if they are going to be in house, 24 hours a day. Say you have a paid ambulance, 24 hour shifts. People work probably 10-12 shifts a month. So you need 2 EMTs per shift, so 6 per month. Now if you want that covered by volunteers, in house how many do you need?

I'd say most vollys aren't going to do more than 5 or 6 twenty four hour shifts a month (assuming they are working etc). So now to cover that one ambulance you need 12 people. I'd say with people's different schedules you probably need 20-30 to really ensure you had enough. 2 ambulances, 40-60 people.

There numbers are off the top of my head, but it is very hard for a department that has a few paid EMTs to say "we're going to go out and recruit and train 40 people." It's much easier to go from having 40 volunteers and say "we are looking for 6 people to go full time."

 

[zmedic]

Also, a fully paid department becoming combination is not good for the paid employees. Lay offs are likely, and OT availability is like to decrease. How is that good for the employees? My position here is to save the jobs that already exist, there is no way a municipality does not lay off staff when transitioning to a combo department as where would the savings come from? And yes, the article I posted does have the old mayor calling for it, my point was that these threats have been made before.

You could argue that having some volunteers actually protects some of the paid jobs, because you make having a department more affordible. If the city says "we can only pay for 3 full time people," you can't have a department so then it ends up being either all volunteer or it shuts down. But if those 3 paid people are augmented with vollys they you can keep it going.

As long as the education requirement for EMT is kept low, salaries will stay low. If I was a city I'd say "why should I pay $60,000 a year to someone with 4 weeks of training." And people would demand more money if they said "I spent 3 years in school, you have to pay me for that or I won't work for you." So I don't think it's having volunteers that keeps salaries low.

 

[DrParasite]

I don't think anyone thought that entire paid fire departments would be disbanded, but that happened and I doubt any members were well prepared for that action.

actually, it happens more often than you think. the Pontiac Michigan example was a good one. but lets give more information: Pontiac was closed, and was merged with the neighboring department. The FFs were even offered jobs with the new department. So it's not like they just closed the door and said get out, nor did they replace any paid staffing with volunteers. and Allen Park FD was eliminated; but the normal staffing was 6, 2 of whom were on the ambulance. 2 guys on a ladder and 2 on a rescue (or maybe they have 4 on the engine, idk). maybe the elimination of the small department allowed a more efficient operation?

Consolidating the little kingdoms is often a good idea. that's what happened in maryland, all the small volunteer FDs were absorbed by the counties; they ceased to exist, and replaced with the county wide department.

but in both cases, no volunteers were used to replace any paid staff, so we are back to comparing apples to pineapple, and your argument, while logical, actually doesn't apply to the situation at hand.

To not discuss what it is logically possible is just setting us up to be behind the eight-ball if that day ever comes.

I'm all for planning for the future, but I would rather worry about what is realistically likely going to happens, instead of scenarios that will never happen based on past precedence. Lets worry about history repeating itself, not a one in a million never before happened situation.

Also, a fully paid department becoming combination is not good for the paid employees. Lay offs are likely, and OT availability is like to decrease. How is that good for the employees? My position here is to save the jobs that already exist, there is no way a municipality does not lay off staff when transitioning to a combo department as where would the savings come from? And yes, the article I posted does have the old mayor calling for it, my point was that these threats have been made before.

I agree with you on your general idea. What I don't agree with is your conclusion that layoffs will occur.... usually it's just open positions remain unfilled, because they are expected to be filled by volunteers.

as zmedic said, it's not 1 paid positions is replaced by 1 volunteer. it's usually 6 or 8 volunteers to cover 1 paid position, and that gets expensive.

 

[crashh]

ok i kinda lost track of this a few posts ago,,,,


BUT


what about areas where there is NO paid positions available? our company runs completely on volleys. if we don't respond, our locals don't get any help at all.

this has all been a convo as if there was a choice. we have no choice. if we don't volly, ppl die.

 

[crashh]

just sayin...

 

[Veneficus]

I feel like the vast majority of places in the US volly v paid doesn't really matter because either the area is super busy and needs 24 hour in house coverage, or it's rural and they run 50 calls a year and there is no way to get enough money to be paid. I think it's a small (10%? 5%?) of total EMS calls that are run by places that are in that in between zone where it be covered by paid or volly.

The reason why it's so hard to go from paid to volunteer, even if it's only a few ambulances, is that it takes a huge number of volunteers to cover once ambulance if they are going to be in house, 24 hours a day. Say you have a paid ambulance, 24 hour shifts. People work probably 10-12 shifts a month. So you need 2 EMTs per shift, so 6 per month. Now if you want that covered by volunteers, in house how many do you need?

I'd say most vollys aren't going to do more than 5 or 6 twenty four hour shifts a month (assuming they are working etc). So now to cover that one ambulance you need 12 people. I'd say with people's different schedules you probably need 20-30 to really ensure you had enough. 2 ambulances, 40-60 people.

There numbers are off the top of my head, but it is very hard for a department that has a few paid EMTs to say "we're going to go out and recruit and train 40 people." It's much easier to go from having 40 volunteers and say "we are looking for 6 people to go full time."

That is very interesting.

I wonder what the costs of initial and ongoing training would be. Especially the time investment of instructors and presenters.

At what point would it actually be cheaper to have a paid department?

 

[Tigger]

ok i kinda lost track of this a few posts ago,,,,


BUT


what about areas where there is NO paid positions available? our company runs completely on volleys. if we don't respond, our locals don't get any help at all.

this has all been a convo as if there was a choice. we have no choice. if we don't volly, ppl die.

No, people go back to the days before EMS and take one another to the hospital, just like a BLS ambulance does most of the time. It's not an attack on you or where you wotk, I do the same thing. But unless that AED, tourniquet, or EpiPen is arriving real quick, and it often is not in volunteer systems without the staff out of station, no survival rates are being increased. You get what you pay for, right?