Dear Nozzlehead: Thank you so much for your years of advice–there is no doubt the column has made a significant difference to so many of us. However, I’ve noticed over the last year or so that some of your comments have been really negative about the economic crisis we’re all experiencing. You seem to dwell on the actions (albeit some are just wrong) of the city, county and state related to budget cutbacks, which negatively affects the mindsets of our firefighters and EMTs. Example: the FDNY cutting back from six-firefighter engine crews to five-firefighter engine crews. What they should do is cut back to three-person crews like the rest of the country. Imagine the cost savings there!
When governments don’t understand the issues we face, we should educate them on what the cutbacks will cause us to do: fight defensively, which keeps firefighters safer but could have a more negative impact on the lives of our citizens.
The fact of the matter: Fire departments have been well taken care of in the past, and sometimes don’t do what they can to help the bottom line budget. After 9/11, the grant monies available to all departments skyrocketed, and we obtained a lot of equipment, which was nice but not necessary. To ensure that we continue to be cared for in the future, we need to spend more time teaching fire and EMS personnel how to deal with the government in a constructive way.
Layoffs and reductions in pay and/or services are a reality today. If you have a private business, you need to change the dynamics of your business or you won’t be in business next year. And now, the same tactics apply to government agencies. We need to be asking, “What can I do to help the city or county?”–not what can they do to help me?
–Wondering Out West
Dear Wondering,
Thanks for your letter. I will try to remain positive here, even as fire departments are dealing with budget cuts, station shut-downs, brownouts, declining volunteer numbers, increased response times and training no longer being funded. Yippee! Gimme five! Other side? Down low? You’re too slow! Awwwright!
As you can imagine, I don’t fully agree with your comments, but I do appreciate them and will address each one, starting with the FDNY example. The fact is that many companies have been operating at what would be considered a good level for most departments–but is really a reduced level for the FDNY. Well after reductions take place, it’s the public that ends up paying for the cuts. And I say paying because no local government is giving anyone their money BACK. So while taxes go up, services go down … and I remain positive.
Now, without question, there are some departments and firefighters who have totally taken advantage of systems for their personal benefit, and quite frankly, those people need to be gone. Example: One department has made headlines related to firefighters gaming sick leave policies to inflate their salaries. There was one firefighter who, in 2009, reportedly took 48 days of paid sick leave without ever taking four days in a row, so the chief couldn’t require a certificate of illness. He worked 63 of his 121 scheduled shifts, took 11 days of vacation, and worked 92 shifts of overtime/callback. He earned $232,187 that year.
When national media picks up a story like that, it becomes a story about firefighters as a whole–not just the losers who are taking advantage of the system in that particular county. This is the stuff that draws attention away from all the GOOD we do and refocuses it on the few bad things that some of our “brothers” do.
With the fair assumption that the above example is rare, let’s now POSITIVELY focus on “The New Public.” The new public is made up of the same citizens whom you protected years ago, when they had solid 401(k)s, when they were making money on their homes, when they were enjoying the good life. Then the bottom dropped out.
The fact of the matter is that when the public is suffering due to their fiscal losses, they’re going to look around to see who may “have it better” than they do, and sure enough, they start to blame “those checkers-playing, sleeping, eating and overpaid firefighters” whose salaries are paid by them. What happened? The public forgot about the good we do. Why? We forgot to remind them. And the public forgot that we do more than go to fires. But wait–in some communities, we’re fighting against that. And now everyone is mad at everyone. I could go on and on, but I won’t. You know how bad it is out there. How’s THAT for positive?
The issue isn’t so much that the fire service needs to change; rather, it’s that the public and the elected officials need to change. The public needs to understand that, with these changes, we’re going to be called to a fire from a fire station that’s farther away and has less staffing. And the same may go for EMS runs where those additional two or three minutes will count.
Do we have to look at our “delivery” model? Of course we do. Good times or not, we should always look at that. And the way things are going right now, many communities have some very tough decisions to make. Career with volunteer? Volunteer with career? Part-time paid? Automatic mutual-aid? Figure it out, Columbo.
From my standpoint, the biggest increased risk is the issue of firefighters still wanting to operate the way we used to–the way we were trained to– taking the low-frequency but high risks that the public expects out of us. Don’t get me wrong. In most cases, when “little Georgie” is trapped, we will do whatever it takes to save him, no matter the cutbacks in resources. But as we make these changes, chiefs will be forced to answer the difficult questions about why Georgie didn’t make it or why his house burned. And when the chief publicly tells the truth about the impact of cuts, odds are that the chief will soon be unemployed. How’s THAT for positive?
Between the cuts, the brownouts, our battles with homebuilders associations about fire sprinklers, and the dropping numbers of volunteers, there are communities that are absolutely headed for a “perfect storm.” And as much as we worry about the public, chiefs and officers better have a plan for how they expect their companies to operate under these new conditions. We need to worry about our firefighters’ abilities to function differently and, of course, the answer is training.
You mentioned unnecessary grants. Clearly, some departments that received grants didn’t need them. But MANY departments are now using modern PPE and apparatus, radios that actually work and other necessary equipment.
Congress is keeping a close eye on the SAFER and FIRE Act grants. The House has no qualms about cutting any “discretionary” programs right now, including ours. The original continuing resolution would have stripped all funding for SAFER and limited funding for FIRE Act at $300 million. Fortunately, Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) came to our aid and got an amendment approved that restored funding at FY2010 levels.
The fire service needs to wake up and realize that there needs to be greater accountability for how the grant bucks are being used. Although we have many political friends in D.C., we also have enemies. Fortunately, I think one area we can agree on is that when we receive funding, we need to show how it has improved service and safety. I’m not sure we have done a good job of that–and I’m not sure how possible it really is to do.
Like Tip O’Neill once said, “All politics is local” and, of course, this applies here. Each community needs to decide what is needed and then live/operate within those means while absolutely understanding what will happen when they experience the worst-case scenarios. With fire being the #1 insurance claim in the country, the results will be very predictable community by community … and I’m not sure how to turn that into something positive.
Got a fire service question or complaint?
Let Nozzlehead hear all about it.
He’ll answer you with 2,000 psi of free-flowing opinion.
Send your letters to:
Nozzlehead, c/o FireRescue,
525 B St. Ste. 1800
San Diego, CA 92101-4495
frm.editor@elsevier.com
