Here's my take on this:
1) Part of the issue is productivity vs coverage.
If you're looking at producing something, be it burgers, cars or profits on the stock market, you're looking for employees who spend as much of their time as possible working as productively as possible. Breaks and incentives are tools to maximize productivity within that time spent at work and are dictated by psychology and physiology more than anything- if you really care to dig, that's why most schools used to have "recess" periods at set times and why shift work generally has accepted mid-morning and mid-afternoon breaks. Productivity and performance improve when people are able to 'reset', but they're not really vital if the pace of the work is reasonably intermittent. Ideally, you as a manager actually leave the timing of breaks to your field personnel (supervisor) and allow them the discretion to adjust timing to real-time needs- this is how it works in pretty much every industry, where a fairly informal process capably handles who is on-break and who is 'covering' for them. In EMS, the 'production' model really only works in environments that are consistently busy enough to reasonably assure that there will be calls within the shift and area the unit is assigned to- this is the gateway to SSM and 'dynamic posting' and all that those models entail. You're not necessarily covering an area, you're offering X amount of transports and trying to increase that number X with operational controls (like caps on time-at-hospital, no breaks, drop policies, etc) and eventually adding additional units. The provider tries to push through twin goals- service for each individual call and throughput to allow for the most calls possible to cycle through the system, not dissimilar to a clerk working their way through a queue. This might sound abusive, but in a true productivity-oriented (the EMS term is 'high-performance') organization, the staffing is usually adjusted to keep each individual unit at a busy, yet reasonable UHU, and the shift lengths are generally capped at 12 hours. This usually means 8, 10, or 12 hours in a truck, running calls, but as a paramedic who has done exactly that for years, you can pretty reasonably work, relax, eat and function on busy shifts. Adding an extra few minutes for a break at the end of a call doesn't really have any affect on the system as a whole, nor does even a supervisor- or dispatch-controlled break system. There's downsides to this approach- burnout, fatigue, the perception of being 'but a cog in the wheel', lack of opportunities for other work or pursuits due to frequent shifts, a poor work/life balance, etc), but it's also a faster pace for EMS work, and although a busy 12 can certainly tire you, I don't think it's as inherently dangerous as a 24. Obviously (and sadly) many providers of all kinds view the productivity approach as the best one and staff/deploy to make it fit a 24-hour coverage model.
In the productivity model, the overall objective is to answer as many calls for service as is efficiently possible. Questions of coverage area, staffing, response/deployment, etc are controls on that to define what and where those calls might be. The classic productivity question is anything SSM- the model itself is defined by how productive it can be in comparison to less-efficient coverage systems.
On the other hand, there's the coverage model. These aren't necessarily 24s, but in EMS/Fire, they are almost always 24s. The coverage model isn't so much concerned with productivity as it is 'covering' defined regions and/or populations with assets deemed to be reasonably necessary and accessible within a defined period of time. Whether or not those services are required in a defined period of time is a secondary concern to whether or not they are available from the perspective of management. Coverage-oriented models don't necessarily prioritize the productivity of a unit assignment;
the coverage model emphasizes the coverage of an area and productivity concerns are secondary (or even tertiary). In the coverage model, human limitations like fatigue, breaks, etc and call volume are used to determine how many resources need to be stationed in an area to fulfill the mission of coverage as defined by contract, management, the public, etc.
Obviously, no matter which philosophy we are following, both are important. EMSA/AMR would make a lot more money for its shareholders if it only ran IFTs, but part of its mission and mandate is to provide 911 coverage; Houston Fire Department's core mandate is to provide 911 EMS and Fire coverage for the city of Houston, but is aware that human and physical limitations dictate how productive a particular unit can be and thus must consider productivity in its staffing solutions.
It sounds like the company you're working for,
@KnightRider , is a coverage-oriented organization that is trying to maximize productivity. This isn't necessarily wrong, but it does bring out some issues.
2.
SAFETY
Safety is EMS, in many other fields, would be considered criminally negligent. We lack even rudimentary fatigue controls, have an industrial culture of willful, wanton disregard for fatigue and human limitations, and build entire systems around responding in degraded conditions. We do it in aging, unsafe vehicles, with subpar restraints and lift systems, and without adequate training in many cases. Worse, our leadership on all levels is often either ignorant or unconcerned about these issues to the point of inaction, to the point where you have woefully-disconnected leadership who doesn't seem to respect or care about these concerns or that only offer platitudes. Luckily, this
usually doesn't affect us directly in a significant manner, but it is a concern that you are feeling directly. I wouldn't go so far as to say that long-hour shifts are always wrong, but choosing to deploy people in long-hour shifts is introducing a lot of direct (fatigue-related) and indirect risks (increased exposure to harassment/fraternization claims, family stress, etc). In a perfect world, leadership would thoughtfully examine workload, expectations and anticipations to determine what mix of schedules is ideal, but most places aren't that thoughtful.
3.
Pay, Work-Life Balance, and Income:
As other posters have commented, you're at one of the low points of EMS right now- BLS transfer. There's a lot of demand for your service and very little of it is particularly exciting, fun or even what you want to be doing. Whether or not you are able to leave that role is entirely dependent on you, but it's not going to realistically change. You're the steward of your own career, and although you've pointed out that you're not in a position to go to 12s currently, there may be other options for you, even if you are going to school or even paramedic school. From the sound of it, your organization kind of sucks- you should look at moving somewhere better if this is something you want to do.
