When I was in the Navy I was fully fire fighter qualified and was number one nozzle-man on number one hose. One on One in Navy firefighting terminology. I was twice assigned to the ships fire department when we went into the yards for repairs. For some odd reason I liked the job and the second time asked to be put back on it. I thought about trying to continue firefighting when I got out. But I have an issue with heights caused by an Inner Ear issue. On the ship it didn't matter. In civilian firefighting it definitely would have been an issue. I even thought about VFD but I had a home situation for 30 years that was more pressing.
I read the article though. The city needs to find a middle ground on this. If a person works overtime they deserve to be paid. But it should not be beyond 96 hour consecutive hours. I'd say 72 should be a reasonable limit and would help manpower issues be corrected.
My last job I had which was building mechanics had lots of overtime that's how I got by pay wise was in overtime often double shifts. The company I worked for a large health care facility would rather pay overtime than hire more qualified help.
In the case of the man in the article for California I don't see a base pay of $65K as excessive for him because the cost of living there is astronomical. I would expect as well if he was say in Anchorage, Alaska his base pay would be higher as the local economy dictates.
My cousin made a career of fire fighting most of it working as a state emergency management instructor in a poorer southern state. He did it because that's what he liked doing. He recently retired and I think his son is a fireman in a smaller town.
Read the article, it was long and didn't see if it was a Union FD. In the South the FDs are usually Right to Work rather than Union, that's the reason for lower pay.
There are a few greedy ones that take advantage of the system which leads to a rule change that hurts the rest of them. Working that much overtime can be grueling and not good for relationships at home.