Posted on 04/03/2002 11:14:06 AM PST by Jonx6
Austin firefighter group wants all rescue operations to be placed within Fire Department.
As large urban fires have yielded to the challenge of medical rescues, some Austin firefighters fear that their stomping grounds will be trampled by paramedics.
Sept. 11 images of firefighters rescuing and caring for victims of terror in New York showed the public what many firefighters already knew: Medical and rescue missions are more common today than putting out fires.
Now, the Austin firefighters union wants to do away with Austin-Travis County Emergency Medical Services and assume all rescue and medical operations within the city. EMS would continue to serve Travis County.
EMS, city and fire administration officials are resisting the takeover, fearing it may hurt local rescue operations. The firefighters union believes it will save taxpayer money, although it has released no specifics.
Seventy percent of the Austin Fire Department's calls are for medical emergencies, and firefighters share most of those calls with EMS paramedics. But that relationship is no longer welcome by many in the firefighting community who think the city is big enough for only one rescue crew.
The argument has been simmering for years, but it reached the boiling point after the city set aside $525,000 for a new heavy rescue unit, a truck that will carry the rescue and extraction tools of a fire company and the medical apparatus for an EMS team.
"Make no mistake about this, it is a threat to our jobs," Scott Toupin, president of the Austin Association of Professional Firefighters, wrote in a recent Internet posting on the association's Web site. "We can no longer wait for our command staff to protect our jobs — EMS is in direct competition with fire in every area except urban fire extinguishment."
Firefighters are concerned that the truck will be staffed by both firefighters and EMS medics. Firefighters want the truck to themselves.
The truck hasn't arrived yet, but who will operate it promises to be a point of contention during negotiations in May, when city officials and the firefighters union try to reach a deal on salaries and benefits for the next three-year contract.
Toupin said the International Association of Fire Fighters is drafting a plan to put EMS within the Fire Department. He said he will take that plan to the City Council and will accept no plan for anyone other than firefighters to staff the new rescue truck. Otherwise, he said, legal steps would be taken.
City officials, who bought the truck to be used jointly by EMS and firefighters, are frustrated.
"Turf battles are not to the benefit of the citizens of this community. This kind of thing is irresponsible," said Toby Futrell, acting city manager. "The way rescue is performed now is like a dance, orchestrated perfectly between fire and EMS. This territorialism is rare."
Austin is the only large city in Texas with separate departments for firefighting and EMS, Futrell said. Yet Austin has the best of both departments, she said, and to keep their missions clear, they haven't been consolidated.
Firefighters are first responders who stabilize patients in medical emergencies, she said. EMS takes over to care for patients and take them to hospitals. Both departments have teams trained for swift-water rescue, high-angle rappelling and confined-space rescue.
In an emergency, such as a train wreck or house fire, both fire and EMS are dispatched. Detailed protocol regulates which team is in command depending on the circumstances; either way, saving lives is the primary mission. Firefighters assume command when fire or structural damage stands in the way. EMS assumes command once the patient is accessible.
Often, EMS and fire officials have different opinions on how to handle a situation.
"We're not in each other's chain of command, so sometimes issues come up with who has incident command responsibility," said Assistant Chief Jim Evans, Fire Department director of operations. "In a perfect world, fire would do most of the initial rescue operations, and EMS would deal with patient care. Confusion comes in when someone doesn't follow that prescription. A paramedic will grab a tool and try to cut open a car, or a firefighter will try and start an IV or intubate a patient.
"We're at the point where we need to make some policy decisions to clearly define rules and responsibilities," he said.
He doesn't have a problem with EMS paramedics riding on the new rescue truck — only the firefighters union has problems with that, Evans said.
EMS officials are worried about the future of the agency should the firefighters be successful in taking over their organization.
Currently, Austin-Travis County EMS is considered among the best in the state. It has won the Garner State Park Wilderness Rescue Competition five times in the past 10 years, most recently in 2000. The competition is the largest statewide rescue competition, and Austin-Travis County EMS routinely beats rescue teams from Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio, Amarillo and the Austin Fire Department. The Austin Fire Department also finished above the pack.
"We look at this as kind of a hostile takeover attempt, like when a bigger company takes over a smaller company," said Jason Martin, president of the Austin-Travis County EMS Employee Association. "We don't believe coming under AFD management will be successful. We don't want to become a secondary mission."
In other cities where large fire departments have taken over smaller EMS groups, Martin said, EMS paramedics fall low in the chain of command when compared with firefighters.
"EMS has never been able to establish itself into most fire-industry-dominated systems as a primary mission," said Gordon Bergh, EMS assistant director. "We're lean, and we've learned how to manage that way. It's a different philosophy, but the firefighters think of it as their birthright that we should be part of the Fire Department."
The industry appears to be moving toward consolidation, but rescue operations in Austin are superior to other cities, Bergh and Futrell said, and change is not necessary.
The firefighters union says the time for consolidation is past due.
"EMS has been encroaching on traditional firefighting rescues for quite some time," Toupin said. "We already have a well-trained and well-liked group of firefighters responding to every rescue in town. To have another service doing the same thing doesn't make sense. . . . It's going to come to a head pretty quick."
ataylor@statesman.com; 445-3863.
A workers party, is a union, is communism, is corrupt.
Our union is far from communism. You don't understand how civil service unions work. We can't strike or have "blue flu". And I'll tell you you why, because we are Firemen, and strikes are illegal and Firemen here in Tx just don't get "blue flu". We are here to fight fire and make rescues, not strike.
Our union is sadly alot like the socialist USA, we trade our civil service protection for pay like the US gives up freedom for (so called) "safety".
If either was run by me, they would be different.
And I agree with you. I think all man made constructs are corrupt.
AEMS used to justify having a separate special rescue team from the Austin Fire Department by saying that they had to help affect rescues in the county where AFD did not respond. But recently the County Chief Assoc. (an association that represents the Fire Departments that have the rescue responsibility in the county) told AEMS that they did not want them trying to conduct rescues in the county either because they have a habit of “freelancing” and not following the command structure and that made matters worse. Now that they do not do rescues in the city or county why have a rescue team? Since they are training in skills they can’t use, why not a train in dog catching or handling high voltage power lines? It is a waste of taxpayer dollars. If they want to play rope guru, they should work for the agency that is charged with that responsibility. We are welcoming them into the fold. However, but it is a very top-heavy agency and I believe that the many “bosses” of AEMS are afraid to lose their little “kingdoms”.
Your union, like all unions, is a workers' party. All unions portray themselves as working for the collective good.
Recent fashion aside, there are no greater heros than firefighters (and rodeo clowns). I have tremendous respect and gratitude for you and your fellow firefighters.
But; let's not kid ourselves; workers parties arguing for the collective good is a primary tenant of communism. Socialism is merely a stepping-stone towards the same.
and being in liberal-hell-hole-Austin-TX, doesn't help things.
It must be difficult. However; there is no more beautiful a spot on this planet than the Texas hill country.
Nice editing, why would you leave out USA?
Lets go point by point, shall we?
"Your union, like all unions, is a workers' party."
First, our association is not a political party. And second, how many parties are comprised of solely of unemployed people? The Dems, Repubs, and Libs are all “workers” parties. They all claim to be looking after the intrest of the working man.
All unions portray themselves as working for the collective good.
How many groups “portray themselves as working for the collective” bad? Our association does not claim to be for the "collective good" it's for the good of Austin Firefighters, but that does not mean that when it points out that something is a waste of taxpayer money, that it is lying.
"...there are no greater heros than firefighters (and rodeo clowns)."
When I was a rookie, my first Lieutenant, the great, now retired, Hutch “the clutch”, said to me while we were driving down the street and kids were smiling and waving at us, “Being a fireman is a lot like being a clown, you just smile and wave.”.
"I have tremendous respect and gratitude for you and your fellow firefighters."
Thank you.
"But; let's not kid ourselves; workers parties arguing for the collective good is a primary tenant of communism."
That may be, perhaps you could provide a link. The only primary tenant I've ever heard of is the "from each according to his ability , to each according to his needs" one, but I be not that learnedly hardly enuff.
"Socialism is merely a stepping-stone towards the same[communism]."
This I just do not think is true. We live in a socialistic representative republic and I don't think it could just make an easy slide to communism without your standard revolt. I could be wrong.
My apologies. I didn't realize we were speaking of an association.
The article speaks of a union. Unions, generally, use collective bargaining for the wage and benefits of it's members.
Is this not the case here?
(sorry, but I must run now. I will check back. Also; I meant no disrespect with my rodeo clown comment. I truly believe them to be heroic as well.)
Yes, but what I am trying to tell you is that a civil service union, like our, is not like a normal union. When we bargain for wages we don't have the same recourse as other unions. We can't strike and we wouldn't if we could. So we don't "shake down" businesses for cash.
What we do have to bargain with is our civil service protections.
As you know, civil service was created to insulate employees of the goverment from political winds of the moment, so that hiring, firing, and promotions were not based on who is Mayor at the moment. This was the death of the "good old boy" system. But politicians still want a "good old boy" system, now more that ever. However, this time instead of hiring their inlaws, they want to hire women and minorites. So rather than us use a objective civil service test, that doesn't care about the skin color or the sex of a person filling it out, to hire and promote, they want use a much more subjective process. So we allow them to use the non-civil service process in exchange for more money. If that's what they want to spend taxpayer money on, I guess that's the will of the taxpayers that vote these people into office.
On a personal note, I don't agree with this practice. I think the civil service test should be used for hiring and promotions. To say that there are no enough minorites in the Fire Department because of the test, is to say that minorites are not smart enough. That underminds all us minorites in the fire service. The extra money is nice but not may of us will starve and die without it, and you will never get rich in the fire service anyway. It's the job that attacts people, not the pay.
And I wasn't offended by the rodeo clown comment, those guys are extreme rescue freaks!
Having considered and accepted the job, the union now demands that their boss change the company plan or be faced with a lawsuit. Your union really will, while suing the good people of Austin, decry 'We are only here to help you!'.
If you can't accept the company plan, you shouldn't take the job. If you won't accept the company plan, hit the road.
"So we don't "shake down" businesses"
Based on the contents of this article; the union is, true to historic form, using threats and intimidation to subvert authority. Is this a union shakedown? Absolutely.
That is a silly statement. The union is not demanding that the "boss change the company plan”, it is stating that it thinks the "boss" is changing things in violation of law. Of course, it is for the courts to decide who is correct.
"Your union really will, while suing the good people of Austin, decry 'We are only here to help you!’
It is dangerous for more that one rescue team to be at the same scene doing different things. You may not understand why, but just take my word for it. Incident Command is given to Fire/Rescue by law. However, EMS is not in our chain of command, so we have no recourse when they "freelance", other than have them removed from the scene by Police. While I have heard that County Fire Departments have threatened to do just that, that is not the case with AFD. We need them there. We just wish that they would let their pride get over the fact that they are not in charge of rescue scenes, and work within the Incident Command Structure (ICS). That would, in fact, be best for the citizens of Austin.
"If you can't accept the company plan, you shouldn't take the job.”
Again, the courts will decide what the civil service law means.
“If you won't accept the company plan, hit the road.
Again, that is a silly statement. Do you tell someone, whose boss tells him or her to (in violation of law) handle power lines without proper safety equipment, ”If you won't accept the company plan, hit the road.”?
”Based on the contents of this article; the union is, true to historic form, using threats and intimidation …”
What threat are you referring to? Are you saying that insisting the people follow the law or go to court is a threat? So, if a cop wants to search your house, and you tell him he must get a search warrant, you are threatening and intimidating him?
“ … to subvert authority. …”
Nice choice of words here. Going to hang us for sedition? The law gives the authority here. And we will, of course, abide by the ruling.
” Is this a union shakedown? Absolutely.”
What glittering prizes do you think we are going to get out of this? This does us no good to fight this battle in public, especially right before starting new contract talks. Fire and EMS command staffs should have handled these problems long ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.