Volunteer Firefighters VS Living Wage Principle

[a_priori]

I was a volunteer as a kid and then spent 20 years on a paid department retiring out as a Rescue Captain. I now live in a town that has a volunteer department.

Pound for pound, I think that paid firefighters are better trained because the process is more formalized and they tend to work in places with much higher alarm numbers. They do it more so they are generally better at it. This is not to say that volunteers come up short. There are some volunteer departments that would put some paid departments to shame. There are many individual volunteer firefighters that would make many paid firefighters seem inept by contrast.

What is missing here is a discussion about what motivates firefighters. In this sense volunteers and paid people are not so different. Firefighting, EMS and heavy rescue are intoxicating. They are dangerous and require people who can think on their feet, overcome the emotions of life and death situations and have some “cajones”. (Even the ladies, metaphorically)

You have to be an adrenaline junkie to do it right.

When a firefighter (volunteer or paid) gets together with the “clan” he/she experiences a comradery that is intoxicating. There is a deep anthropological chord that is struck and the sense of oneness you experience is difficult to find elsewhere except perhaps with police and military. When you depend on others to come in and get you when you go through a floor or something collapses on you, you tend to develop a strong bond. These same human circuits are what have led people to put themselves at considerable risk for the sake of others for thousands of years.

The bottom line is this:

As long as people want to volunteer and fulfill all those impulses that make them do what they do, they should be left alone. Many of them would say “if you want to help, don’t help”. Let them be. If the time comes when the needs of the town cannot be met by the available volunteer force then a paid force should be formed.

These things tend to seek their own level.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

A living wage is a wage that one can live off of in normal relative comfort. The amount may depend on the price of things like houses or gas in an individual area.

Ok, I have seen it said that those working at fast food resturants should be making a living wage, that the minimum wage should be a living wage. So do you think a professional firefighter should be making the same wage that an unskilled laborer does?

I am not aware of any Fire Department that pays its full-time firefighters a sub-living wage.

So I just do not see what the “living wage prinicple” has to do with volunteer firefighters as they are not doing so to live, they have other jobs.

But besides that, how can you say that a town could afford a paid department? It is taxed based. A town can afford nothing, the taxpayers afford it and chose what they will afford by voting on the taxes.

A play on entities? Ok I guess the town can’t afford it just like the town can’t eat a pizza. How about the tax base can absorb the expense? Will this wording work?

No this wording will not work as the tax base can only absorb that which it choses to absorb. If the taxpayers do not want to pay higher taxes for a full-time paid fire department then the tax base can not absorb it.

I have another question. Please explain why this is a moral issue. What is immoral about a “town that can afford a paid department” but does not have one becuase the people chose to volunteer their time and energy to perform this civil service with one of the benefits of keeping some of the tax cost down.

You put the egg before the chicken. You say whats wrong with a town **that can afford a paid department but (****does not have one because the people choose to volunteer?) **

What? I am asking you what is immoral about a volunteer fire department. This is your premise. How is volunteering immoral?

If you make $70,000 a year is it ok for you to seek charity when you have no need of it? Can you go down to the soup kitchen and ask for a freebie with no guilt when you have full fridge? When a town can afford to pay a department from it’s tax base it is usery to seek volunteers. (Especialy when it comes to dangerous work). Will people line up out of goodness to do it. Yes they will and they won’t complain. Is the town right to ask this of people when they do not need to? No, they are using people.

Charity sought without a basic need for Charity seems totally dishonest and usery to me. Does the volunteer department exist because people volunteer? Or does it exist because the town recruits and seeks volunteers?

Volunteer fire departments are not charity. Many of them do recieve some limited tax money and most appeal to the community for funds.

On a side note, who is to say that someone who makes $70,000 a year might not need some form of charity or community assistance to make it. Seems there are a lot of assumptions going on here.

I wonder what you think of the fire departments that are subscription based. That is if you do not pay they do not come when you have a fire. They may show up to protect your neighbors property because they paid but will let your’s burn down.

This is new to me. Is this a common thing?

I do not know how common it is, I just know that it is out there.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Unless a town has made a contract with a firefighter’s union, it is not bound to pay fire fighters who are willing to serve it for free. It is only bound to pay a living wage those people that it does employ.

That does not get into whether it is prudent to do so. That depends on the quality of the volunteers and the quality of the professionals who are available, as well as many other factors.

 

[vern_humphrey]

A living wage is a wage that one can live off of in normal relative comfort. The amount may depend on the price of things like houses or gas in an individual area.

But not all people who work at low-paying jobs have familes to support – many are kids just starting out and getting work experience.

And when you jack up the wages, many jobs at the lower end are lost – so many kids can’t get the work experience they need.

And when the taxpayer has to foot the bill, other things and otehr jobs go lacking.

A play on entities? Ok I guess the town can’t afford it just like the town can’t eat a pizza. How about the tax base can absorb the expense? Will this wording work?

He makes a good point – the people are not slaves whose wages belong first to their masters. They are full citizens, with hopes, ambitions and aspirations.

You put the egg before the chicken.

I hate to break it to you, but the egg did come before the chicken – there were egg-laying creatures long before the first chicken appeared.

You say whats wrong with a town **that can afford a paid department but (****does not have one because the people choose to volunteer?) **

If you make $70,000 a year is it ok for you to seek charity when you have no need of it?

Volunteer work is not charity – it is people giving of themselves as part of a community.

Now, you find me a community with a good volunteer fire department, and I can find you a dozen things to do with the money saved that will be of more benefit than hiring a few firemen.
Darrel;1654160:

Can you go down to the soup kitchen and ask for a freebie with no guilt when you have full fridge? When a town can afford to pay a department from it’s tax base it is usery to seek volunteers. (Especialy when it comes to dangerous work). Will people line up out of goodness to do it. Yes they will and they won’t complain. Is the town right to ask this of people when they do not need to? No, they are using people.

You know, you’ve never answered me – do all volutneers sin by working for free?

If we must pay firemen, why not those who teach adult literacy classes, search and rescue teams, catechists, communion ministers, and on and on and on.

Charity sought without a basic need for Charity seems totally dishonest and usery to me.

Taxes sought without a basic need for taxes seems totally dishonest and usery to me.

(“usery” is your word. I assume you man “usury” but how that fits here is beyond me.)

Does the volunteer department exist because people volunteer? Or does it exist because the town recruits and seeks volunteers?

What difference does it make? People volunteer. They have a perfect right to serve their community.

Who rejects that rejects all charity.

 

[KathleenElsie]

A living wage to one person is poverty for another. Some people believe that a wage earner should be paid more the more dependants they have. So a single person would make less then someone that has seven dependents. I think that would be hard to justify.

Also everything is not just about money. Some people (I am among them) believe in being volunteers. God bless them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

A living wage to one person is poverty for another. Some people believe that a wage earner should be paid more the more dependants they have. So a single person would make less then someone that has seven dependents. I think that would be hard to justify.

Also everything is not just about money. Some people (I am among them) believe in being volunteers. God bless them.

Many decades of economic tinkering – with the best intentions in the world – have demonstrated that you cannot decree what a job is worth. The market must settle that issue.

Now you can TRY – and the results are usually the job goes away. Either employers decide it’s cheaper not to have anyone in the job, or they export it overseas.

When you try to FORCE such things, you lose jobs, you lose manufacturing capability, you lose all around.

Some jobs are worth very little economically, but worth a great deal in developing work experience and habits. One of the reasons poverty is so persistant in this country is that we overpriced the jobs that many poor kids need to start their climb up the economic ladder.

 

[Darrel]

I was a volunteer as a kid and then spent 20 years on a paid department retiring out as a Rescue Captain. I now live in a town that has a volunteer department.

Pound for pound, I think that paid firefighters are better trained because the process is more formalized and they tend to work in places with much higher alarm numbers. They do it more so they are generally better at it. This is not to say that volunteers come up short. There are some volunteer departments that would put some paid departments to shame. There are many individual volunteer firefighters that would make many paid firefighters seem inept by contrast.

This is true I know quite a few volunteer fireman who do a fine job. I’ve even been to a few fires, medical calls and vehicle accidents myself.

What is missing here is a discussion about what motivates firefighters. In this sense volunteers and paid people are not so different. Firefighting, EMS and heavy rescue are intoxicating. They are dangerous and require people who can think on their feet, overcome the emotions of life and death situations and have some “cajones”. (Even the ladies, metaphorically)

You have to be an adrenaline junkie to do it right.

I agree on the fact that it is intoxicating to be involved in dangerous work. Having been to a few thousand incidents in my day I understand all of this. On the other hand the thread was (supposed) to be about the decisions made by towns to save money. I think people just get to emotional to be objective about the issue. No matter how many times I point out the purpose of the thread a million reasons will be given to defend volunteer departments. This happens in spite of the fact that nobody is attacking a single volunteer department or volunteer.

When a firefighter (volunteer or paid) gets together with the “clan” he/she experiences a comradery that is intoxicating. There is a deep anthropological chord that is struck and the sense of oneness you experience is difficult to find elsewhere except perhaps with police and military. When you depend on others to come in and get you when you go through a floor or something collapses on you, you tend to develop a strong bond. These same human circuits are what have led people to put themselves at considerable risk for the sake of others for thousands of years.

Yes indeed,

This thread is about the Catholic perspective for me and how towns should pay people. I have chosen to turn off my deep anthropological cord for the purpose of discussion from the global town perspective. If a law were passed tommorow saying new standards for fire fighters are enacted and they will all be paid and have to pass the testing process, I know that we will see many thousands of angry volunteers.

The bottom line is this:

As long as people want to volunteer and fulfill all those impulses that make them do what they do, they should be left alone. Many of them would say “if you want to help, don’t help”. Let them be. If the time comes when the needs of the town cannot be met by the available volunteer force then a paid force should be formed.

These things tend to seek their own level.

I certainly see the natural progression from volunteer to paid. What I see you saying here is that we should not question the towns motives based on the fact that volunteers are under a primal impulse to protect people and are addicted to the rush.

I think it is always proper to question the towns motives. I know of a town that pays stipens to the volunteers for each call (which equals getting paid). If you break it down it’s less then minimum wage. The area of the town they are in is the only area of town that is not covered by a paid department. The area of the town they are in pays more taxes then the other areas of town under the paid department. Thats just the way it is. And who will question this when the whole thing feels so intoxicating?

One things for sure, it is always right to question what politicians do that affect other peoples lives. Politicians do not usualy say “these things seek there own level”. The politicians decide the level. I must again reinerate I have nothing but respect for firefighters (paid and volunteer) and would back them up myself in the blink of an eye if needed. Maybe I will start a new thread some time that won’t turn into a volunteerism debate and question this issue more from the Catholic perspective on a more global level.

-D

 

[a_priori]

What I see you saying here is that we should not question the towns motives based on the fact that volunteers are under a primal impulse to protect people and are addicted to the rush.

Now that is funny. I’m not sure that I would put it exactly that way but I guess you’re right. That’s what I’m saying.

I think I understand the point of your original post. But if a system has been working since the incorporation of the municipality and the firefighters are happy to do the job in the way it must be done, I don’t see why the town is at fault. If the firefighters are unhappy and the competence levels fall off or coverage suffers then, by all means, they should be compelled to go paid.

 

[hasikelee]

The moral question,

I have no doubt that it is good and honorable to volunteer as a firefighter. In some cases volunteers have out performed payed firefighters. They choose to do good and risk there safety for others while saving lives, property, and providing medical help.

The issue I have is there existence within the town. I feel that towns save serious money sending young people into harms way under the umbrella of volunteers. Many towns can afford full blown paid firefighters and choose volunteers.

Many towns could raise taxes to pay for full blown paid firefighters. The principle I see violated is the idea of a living wage. If we are sending people into situations that could kill them, should they not make a living wage? The people who volunteer are usually young and eventualy get out for the most part. Some older people stay on as leaders.

What say ye?

I say some young guys and gals might like the noble idea of volunteering, but overall the community is just reducing the number of people available to service them.

For example, my brother would love to be a firefighter. But he chose not to because you can’t have a wife and children on the pittance they pay over here.

 

[hasikelee]

And P.S. isn’t there some way to resolve this dilemma?

What about having salaried firefighters the “main” or first string? And offering higher salaries and raises based on performance and seniority?

And then having volunteers lined up for a big crisis?

 

[vern_humphrey]

And P.S. isn’t there some way to resolve this dilemma?

What about having salaried firefighters the “main” or first string? And offering higher salaries and raises based on performance and seniority?

And then having volunteers lined up for a big crisis?

Where is the dilemma?

No one has made the argument that volunteers are not as good, or provide as much protection as a paid fire department. The whole argument is that we have some sort of moral obligation not to allow volunteers to do the job, based on some idea of “living wage.”

 

[Darrel]

And P.S. isn’t there some way to resolve this dilemma?

What about having salaried firefighters the “main” or first string? And offering higher salaries and raises based on performance and seniority?

And then having volunteers lined up for a big crisis?

I think there are already many many varieties of volunteer FD’s. It all depends on the local circumstances. Volunteer Fire Departments are a long standing American tradition. Perhaps thats why it never gets questioned. I’m sure your idea or something similar is being practiced some place as we speak.

-D

 

[Scottgun]

Refresh my memory, where in Church teaching does it say that all paid jobs must be at a living wage?

 

[Darrel]

The whole argument is that we have some sort of moral obligation not to allow volunteers to do the job, based on some idea of “living wage.”

Thats the whole argument for you. Thats the whole Vern spin on my question. Thats Spin with a capital S .

I think the basic difference between us on this particular debate is the system and it’s right to use people how they please. You make a valid point when you say, if it aint broke don’t fix it. You also make a valid point when you say that volunteers have the right to volunteer, (thats common sense). Here is the sneaky part. You then use the fact that volunteers have a right to volunteer to invalidate my right to (ever) question the towns motives.

Just a heads up, two things can happen at the same time. Wonderful people can have a right to volunteer. Simultaniously they can be used by the town in a manor that is dishonest and contrary to moral principal. (Even if the town does not mean it that way). Using people as a means to an end is contrary to basic Christian teaching.

I don’t realy care if the town has a right to use people in a capalist free society. I don’t realy care if it’s an excepted tradition to use people in a capitalist free society. What is important is how God views it. I have a feeling he sees all of the truth in this issue from the hearts of the actors. From the volunteers to the towns leaders to the voters. It’s not just about living wage it’s about human motives and important decisions made affecting lives. The issue is complex with multiple truths and can’t be dismissed with a single point.

-D

 

[mary_bobo]

Nobody has addressed the point of small towns and villages that don’t have a tax base to provide fire service. Not so very many years ago, all fires in small towns were put out by volunteers, one’s neighbors.

 

[Darrel]

Nobody has addressed the point of small towns and villages that don’t have a tax base to provide fire service. Not so very many years ago, all fires in small towns were put out by volunteers, one’s neighbors.

If it’s a valid need that is perfectly fine. Just like it is perfectly fine to throw a bucket of water on a fire at your nieghbors house.

-D

 

[mary_bobo]

If it’s a valid need that is perfectly fine. Just like it is perfectly fine to throw a bucket of water on a fire at your nieghbors house.

-D

Cute?

 

[Darrel]

Cute?

Not at all,

I’m in support of a volunteer fire department if it is truely needed. If a town simply can not afford a paid department and nothing can be done to change that, then a volunteer force is just fine. It falls under the same principal as you helping a neighbor in need with a fire, be it with a bucket of water or a fire extinguisher. I meant no sarcasm if thats your concern?

-D

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thats the whole argument for you. Thats the whole Vern spin on my question. Thats Spin with a capital S .

When you start getting personal like this, you’ve lost the argument.

I think the basic difference between us on this particular debate is the system and it’s right to use people how they please.

Explain how volunteers are being “used?”

When a local girl went missing, and my neighbors and I joined the search team, who was “using” us? When I teach Catechism, or adult reading, what “system” is “using” me?

You make a valid point when you say, if it aint broke don’t fix it. You also make a valid point when you say that volunteers have the right to volunteer, (thats common sense). Here is the sneaky part. You then use the fact that volunteers have a right to volunteer to invalidate my right to (ever) question the towns motives.

What town’s motives are you questionning? And what evidence do you have?

Can you quote Alderman Tentpeg saying, “Hey, let’s exploit somebody?”

Just a heads up, two things can happen at the same time. Wonderful people can have a right to volunteer. Simultaniously they can be used by the town in a manor that is dishonest and contrary to moral principal. (Even if the town does not mean it that way). Using people as a means to an end is contrary to basic Christian teaching.

I suggest that accusing the town of being unchristian is unchristian.

I don’t realy care if the town has a right to use people in a capalist free society. I don’t realy care if it’s an excepted tradition to use people in a capitalist free society. What is important is how God views it.

If you read the Gospels, you note that Jesus had a lot of volunteers – Apostles and Desciples. Did He pay them?

I have a feeling he sees all of the truth in this issue from the hearts of the actors. From the volunteers to the towns leaders to the voters. It’s not just about living wage it’s about human motives and important decisions made affecting lives. The issue is complex with multiple truths and can’t be dismissed with a single point.

-D

And like the Shadow, you know what evil lurks in the heart of man?

 

[Darrel]

When you start getting personal like this, you’ve lost the argument.

Vern,

It’s nothing personal. In reading alot your debates and participating in a few I see a pattern of slick debate style that uses some pretty effective spin. Your a good debater take it as a compliment. And for somebody stating being personal makes you loose an agument… you sure do make a lot of “you” statements.

Explain how volunteers are being “used?”

If the town can afford payed firefighters and simply chooses not to create those jobs I think that equates to using people who do those jobs for free. (Still a good and charitable act by the volunteers)

When a local girl went missing, and my neighbors and I joined the search team, who was “using” us? When I teach Catechism, or adult reading, what “system” is “using” me?

Here is an expample of spin. I talk about towns paying people for doing an important job if they can afford to like other towns do. And you compair that to joining an effort in finding a lost person. Then you take an act of personal charity like teaching catechism and compair it to a town not paying people for what other towns do pay people.

Let me show you an example of spin to benefit my side of this argument. Lets say I make the final decision for the town.

I will create a volunteer snow removal department. I will use town funds to send people to school for there CDL. Then I will use them to run our snow removal process in the winter. We don’t need those town employees who do our snow removal now. Lets just lay them off. I’ll hire someone to recruit volunteers and advertise the fact that they get free CDL training if they help us once a month in the winter when it snows. This will reduce our outflow of money by eliminating town salaries. Because the people volunteer it’s all morally right.

What town’s motives are you questionning? And what evidence do you have?

I mentioned earlier that a town near me was using a stipen system etc. Please read the post. I am not hear to put a town on trial and post numbers.

Can you quote Alderman Tentpeg saying, “Hey, let’s exploit somebody?”

I don’t understand this.

I suggest that accusing the town of being unchristian is unchristian.

Why? I said using people is contray to Christian teaching.

If you read the Gospels, you note that Jesus had a lot of volunteers – Apostles and Desciples. Did He pay them?

Jesus provided for his deciples. Jesus provided food for the 5000 as well. God gives people what they need out of love. Remember the nets bursting with fish? Do you think when we go to heaven it will be a democracy with a free market economy?

And like the Shadow, you know what evil lurks in the heart of man?

lol :tiphat:

-D