New side of the wage increase.

[5.4MarkVIII]

Not letting me copy and paste the link for some reason

Basically under the new wage laws volunteer firefighters would be classified as municipal employees. Meaning municipalities would have to pay them to be on call a minimum of $30per hour 365days a year. Totaling over $30k per year per vomenteer.

The local municipality in the story is saying that would require a tax increase of 33%
Or closing fire stations


This is a shocking revelation and one that has me torn.

As someone who has family on the volunteer departments I know they have problems finding volunteers.

But I also know that being forced to pay guys $30k per year just to be on call would mean huge tax increases that a lot of people simply can not afford.
Meaning the loss of fire departments for small communities like the one I live in.

Thoughts?

[5.4MarkVIII]

Story is on the CTV news website. Just won’t let me link it for some reason.

[92redragtop]

Is this the case in Caledon? I believe the case was the union took volunteer firefighters and the municipality to court about it - basically it was the union wanting more paid members at taxpayer expense.

[Rino]

I have family and friends that are firefighters. They go into the fire, while people are coming out. I understand in the smaller cities and towns its hard to get volunteers ,but risking your life to save someone elses or their home, is dangerous. People are more mindful of the dangers now a days .If putting them on a "retainer",for their sevice is going to get the positions filled, then thats just the way it's going to have to be. You have to ask yourself, if that was you,would you do it,and if so do it for free. I wouldn't, would you?

[92redragtop]

I have family and friends that are firefighters. They go into the fire, while people are coming out. I understand in the smaller cities and towns its hard to get volunteers ,but risking your life to save someone elses or their home, is dangerous. People are more mindful of the dangers now a days .If putting them on a "retainer",for their sevice is going to get the positions filled, then thats just the way it's going to have to be. You have to ask yourself, if that was you,would you do it,and if so do it for free. I wouldn't, would you?

The volunteer members were against the union action here in Caledon and were fighting the union on it IIRC (it has played out in our local paper for several months now).

[03svt]

99% of the volunteer fire guys in my area are all full time firefighters, and the others that aren't want to be.

These guys don't do it for the money, barely making enough to cover property tax.. I think they should get more though!

[5.4MarkVIII]

I’m not against paying first responders more the risk they take.

But as much as paying them more is good it’s going to result in one of three scenarios.

1: a giant hike in municipal taxes. Which will make it less lucrative to live in small communities and force more people into the bigger cities. Which will only increase the tax burden on those left. Vicious circle.
Some may say this isn’t gonna happen but the numbers they were talking in the video were like a 33%increase. That’s huge.

2: municipalities will deem it too expensive and cut back on they volunteers they have. Resulting in not enough man power when needed and risking the lives of the first responders.

3: municipalities will deem it too expensive to run small volunteer departments in each town and instead will run larger Hub style departments that must cover a much larger area resulting in longer wait times for emergency services.

[92redragtop]

I was going to ask what the attitude of the volunteers was, this seems to answer that question. If the volunteers are willing to do the job for less WTF is the union doing?

This is what I didn't understand about the union's actions - the volunteers and municipality were each defending themselves against the action. I interpreted it as the union wanting to do away with the volunteer thing and try to force hiring additional full-time instead since volunteers don't pay union dues. The volunteers in this case were not looking for full-time gigs IIRC.

[CDNfyrfytr]

These are 2 separate issues. I think the original post refers to the new law that the liberal government is intending to pass.

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/o...ters-1.4381875

If it does indeed apply to every volunteer or composite department it will indeed cause large problems in small municipalities. The department in my town is all volunteer and the chief doesn’t seem to think it’s going to affect towns with volunteer departments like the news says it will. There are definitions in the Fire Prevention and Protection Act the denote the difference between volunteer, on call, part time and full time firefighters. The new law apparently applies to part time workers but not necessarily volunteer workers. As for the on call part, they may be able to get around that because they are not required to respond. When the pager goes off for a call, if someone is unavailable, then they do not go. On call, by definition means that one is required to attend. I think municipalities are just trying to understand what the law will comprise and of course the media has blown it out of proportion.

As for the other issue, also know as double-hatting, the union has a clause in its constitution that states “Working a secondary job part-time, paid on call, volunteer or otherwise
as a firefighter, emergency medical services worker, public safety or law
enforcement officer, or as a worker in a related service, whether in the
public or private sector, where such job is within the work jurisdiction of
any affiliate or which adversely impacts the interests of any affiliate or
the IAFF. Upon a finding of guilt of working a secondary job in violation
of this subsection, it is recommended that the penalty include
disqualification from holding office in any affiliate and/or expulsion from
membership for the period that the misconduct persists. Charges filed
for the misconduct described in this subsection shall be preferred by a
member of the charged party’s local and/or a member of an adversely
affected affiliate”.

In other words you are not supposed to work as a volunteer in any department that is an IAFF represented department. Caledon is one of those departments. They have both career and volunteer firefighters. The union has many reasons why they don’t want this to happen, but you can never get a straight answer when you ask.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk