Guitar chord forum - chordie — Fire fighters do nothing while home burns

Re: Fire fighters do nothing while home burns

null@example.com (alvee33) — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:58:55 +0000

I wish there was a "like" button for that reply, bunbun.

Re: Fire fighters do nothing while home burns

null@example.com (lvchief) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:59:38 +0000

Another good answer, Bun. Tandm, it's not about unionism...this kind of incident happens occasionally in areas with subscription type emergency services. In most cases these response agencies are non-unionized. It's ok with me if you don't like the American Labor movement; if you don't like unions don't join one. But any reasonable analysis of this problem would focus on the community's policies and the homeowner's decisions that led to this crappy outcome.

Re: Fire fighters do nothing while home burns

null@example.com (Zurf) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:21:33 +0000

There was no mention in the article about whether the firefighters were unionized. There was mention in the article that the decision not to help was related to the government's decision to implement a subscribe-for-service fee for those who lived outside the tax zone of the jurisdiction where the fire department is.

I'm no fan of unions. I'm no enemy of unions. But there is absolutely no information in the article to lead anyone to believe that this was a union decision. I think it's best to stick to what we know rather than conjecture when discussing current events.

- Zurf

p.s. While I am a moderator of this forum, the above message was intended to be read as a message from me as a fellow contributor. I am not establishing a rule or enforcing a rule. The message above is not the position of Chordie, but my own personal recommendation.

Re: Fire fighters do nothing while home burns

null@example.com (bluejeep) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:18:24 +0000

Well said, bunbun.

Re: Fire fighters do nothing while home burns

null@example.com (bunbun) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 07:18:10 +0000

tandm3 wrote:

When a union defines the rules of the fire department, the public loses; every time. It's not cost effective for the fire department to expend resources and put out your fire if you haven't paid the union tribute in advance. Kinda sounds like the tax that non-muslims are forced to pay for the "privilege" of living in muslim countries... just sayin'...

Ok. I take extreme offense to this as I am a firefighter and a member of a public safety union. First: The unions DO NOT IN ANY WAY determine who they will or will not help when the bell rings. We. Do. Our. Job. Period.

I don't care if you like unions or hate unions I am there to help and I don't ask how you feel about me or my brother and sister unions members. If you asked the union members how they would have handled this situation most, if not all, would have said: "Hell yes! I am going to put the fire out and let Chiefy worry about the money!"

Second point for you and every other sheeple who has jumped on the "Unions are the reason we are so bad off!" bandwagon: Of ALL the corporations that were "TOO BIG TO FAIL!" (Remember those ominous words the Republican Party and Wall Street were ramming down our throats in '07?) how many were "union" corporations? Lets see....Bear Stearns (NOPE), Citigroup (NOPE), Goldman Sachs (NOPE), Bank of America (NOPE), Morgan Stanley(NOPE), PNC Financial Services(NOPE), AIG (NOPE), JP Morgan Chase (NOPE), Wells Fargo(NOPE) , US Bancorp (NOPE), Capitol One (NOPE), Amex (NOPE), Discover Financial(NOPE), Bank of New York Mellon corp(NOPE)., State Street corp(NOPE), GMAC Financial(NOPE), Chrysler (Yes) and General Motors (YES).

I see TWO corporations that have any large unions presence and BOTH OF THOSE CORPORATIONS HAVE CHANGED THEIR BUSINESS PLAN (WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH THE UNIONS) AND HAVE PAID THE FUNDS BACK. The rest of the recipients (many who were to use the money to help you and I out) are still doing business as they did it prior to the economic crap hit the fan. NONE are union shops. The major banks were to use the funds to help US get loans to make keeping our houses easier. You try to get a loan from them lately?

You can't if you don't have 20 to 40% down and your credit rating is in the high 700's. Hell, even then they are still denying loans!

HOW ARE THE UNIONS, ESPECIALLY THE PUBLIC SAFETY UNIONS, RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT?

You, sir, are just what the politicians and Wall Street were looking for after the TARP bailouts: People willing to look in ANY DIRECTION other than theirs for the economic woes. Their fingers pointed to the unions.

Stop utilizing FOX as your only news source. Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are sycophantic nitwits. Put down the grape Kool-Aid and open your eyes.

For everybody else I apologize.

Stepping off the soapbox now....

Re: Fire fighters do nothing while home burns

null@example.com (tandm3) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 03:04:40 +0000

When a union defines the rules of the fire department, the public loses; every time. It's not cost effective for the fire department to expend resources and put out your fire if you haven't paid the union tribute in advance. Kinda sounds like the tax that non-muslims are forced to pay for the "privilege" of living in muslim countries... just sayin'...

Re: Fire fighters do nothing while home burns

null@example.com (joeyjoeyjoey) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 17:40:31 +0000

This is going to sound awful on my part.I would have paid the fee to begin with.Think of it as a service contract.I have one on my heating system with NSTAR.It cost 269 anually.I buy it with the hope of never having to use it.I also have the comfort of knowing that when I have used it,the gas company comes right down and fixes my furnace free of charge.I have AAA on my cars and trucks with the intention of not using it.I would pay the 75 dollar fee for fire protection and hope it wont happen to me.I also have my house insured and hope to never make a claim.Here is where I come off sounding heartless.How much would a case of beer,A carton or two of cigarettes and a few scratch tickets cost each week.I am willing it is a lot more than 75 dollars per year.They knew full well they wouldn`t be protected when their trailer caught on fire.They had the chance to buy protection and they chose not to.

Re: Fire fighters do nothing while home burns

null@example.com (mekidsmom) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:29:23 +0000

Sad, all the way around. Sad that there's NOT a fire company covering this area. I live in a rural area, and from what I understand about volunteer fire companies, the choice to have one in the district IS decided by the taxpayers. Do they want to pay taxes to support a VOLUNTEER unit? Clearly the people in this area chose NOT TO. Since the majority chose NOT to pay taxes to have a company in their area, they were then each given the option to have a neighboring fire company cover their home individually, and these particular people chose NOT TO once again. Like BunBun, I am really offended (for no reason other than making proper choices in life) that this story was written in a way that makes the firemen look bad. Now don't get me wrong, I absolutely HATE paying taxes ... BUT... when I hear that siren go off you bet your buns I get out of their way on the road and am very thankful that they are there, have the proper supplies to put out fires, are so close, and that they have contracts with all the local districts in the event they need help... and all of this is covered by my taxes. Mind you, my "area" is really quite SMALL! But they're there, and that siren goes off every single day and there are other 2 other fire houses within 5 miles of my home. I'm quite positive I pay MORE than $75 in taxes each year to support my local fire company. It's really pathetic to me that someone wouldn't pay such a small fee and then spin a story around to make it look like it's someone's fault other than their own that no one put out their fire.

I do agree with lvchief too... BUT, again it was these people's choice to NOT have coverage. It's America and all, they have the right to choose to not ask for help in saving their home. I'm sure if there were known live people inside the home the firemen would have had the "right" to save them and send a bill after the fact. If THAT isn't written somewhere then there's a bigger problem than we all realize.

Amy

Re: Fire fighters do nothing while home burns

null@example.com (bswyers) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 12:02:06 +0000

I want to make it clear that I don't hold the firefighters themselves responsible for their actions(or lack of). In my area we must also pay yearly fees for ambulance service but not for fire. (Yet) However the ambulance will still be dispatched but you will receive a bill for it. I just feel that the powers that be should have done what they could too protect property loss and also potentially preventing what could have been a situation where others were also put in danger. The fire department could have taken action to recoup the cost. I don't condone the family's decision to not pay the fee, I simply think it could have been handled better

Re: Fire fighters do nothing while home burns

null@example.com (bunbun) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 05:24:17 +0000

lvchief wrote:

..you and I both know it KILLED them to park there and monitor the exposures while a home burned. There's gotta be a better way than that.

Thank you for pointing that out. The line firefighters were not part of the decision making process. The decision not to do anything was made by pay grades higher than theirs. They would have fought this fire no matter who payed or how they paid.

I guess I am trying to say this: don't blame the firefighters blame those who make decisions that lead to these problems.

Re: Fire fighters do nothing while home burns

null@example.com (bobwill) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 03:44:38 +0000

Bunbun is correct in his statement, I live about 40 miles away from where this happend. It is sad but true that these people live outside a fire district and, made a conscious decious to gamble about protection. Only they know why they choose to not pay, i feel bad for them but, again, bunbun covered it well. b

Re: Fire fighters do nothing while home burns

null@example.com (alvee33) — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 19:13:54 +0000

This story is really unbelievable to me. I live in the UK. Fire and Rescue are paid for directly from the tax we pay. As is our police service and health care. Even the thought of what amounts to a private rural fire service is completely alien. How can any property not be covered by the nearest dept. Does not compute in this small country.

Re: Fire fighters do nothing while home burns

null@example.com (topdown) — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:01:24 +0000

I keep clicking on this post thinking it's about the Foo Fighters

Re: Fire fighters do nothing while home burns

null@example.com (lvchief) — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 23:43:51 +0000

BunBun, I get it. Like you said, even firefighters disagree about this one. I think that, when you get the honor to serve your community as a firefighter, you have an obligation to protect even the stupid, negligent and contemptuous. There has to be a way to sue for costs after the fact, even if it means taking a lien against the property. But I think this policy puts the firefighters in an awful position...you and I both know it KILLED them to park there and monitor the exposures while a home burned. There's gotta be a better way than that.

Re: Fire fighters do nothing while home burns

null@example.com (bunbun) — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 22:09:27 +0000

This is an extreme example of the pitfalls of rural fire protection. I can say, without a, reasonable, shadow of a doubt, that this would not have happened in southern California. We have Auto and Mutual Aid agreements that would result in a response and action once on scene.

One of the answers to this problem is billing: If a homeowner chooses not to pay for fire protection and needs that protection then the fire department would respond, mitigate the emergency and then bill for full services. If the homeowner has insurance the insurance company, often, will pay the bill. If the homeowner does not have insurance then the homeowner would be fiscally responsible.

That could work in Southern California and does. I don't know if it would work in other states as many do not even use auto/mutual aid where apparatus from surrounding communities would respond automatically to supplement the district that needs it.

This is no different than paying a subscription fee for and ambulance/EMS service which is very common across the country. If you don't pay the yearly fee the EMS company will respond but you will be responsible for the bill which could cost a couple of thousand dollars.