This is an interesting blog or article on this issue which seems to be entering a new phase but still not necessarily a mature phase.

I have never been a “two-hatter” but have spent nearly my entire volunteer and paid-on-call fire service career in the combination departments – large (same place as you in PG) and a small (current town I live in) and it is really disappointing to see this issue surface selectively where the IAFF locals choose to utilize the bylaw.

I believe it becomes more polarizing and divisive because of how it is “selectively” applied or enforced by various affiliates. I don’t quite get the “it’s a labor thing” in your article and the african american analogy may not be the best example of the point you are trying to get accross.

I think the metro Chicago union president in the previous post seems to effectively explain the key reason and rational for the bylaw and a particular affiliates decision to use or invoke it on it’s membership. This is something any reasonable individual with a “pro or con position” can understand and respect. We may not agree but we can respect the position or statement.

Why can’t the IAFF and it’s affiliates just stop using other “reasons” for why the bylaw is in place and enforced? There are affiliates who won’t enforce it or take it away where they have members who want the opportunity to volunteer or make extra money in part time positions because there is no political reason beacuse of where the leadership or the majority of thier members stand on this issue.

However, another affiliate or group of affiliates will allow a local or group of locals to use it as leverage to gain or maintain staffing or deal with a trend or problem they do not or cannot adress head on and uses various outlets to publicize it which causes negative press, strife and helps feed the blogs.

This issue has a huge downside for the american fire service because it is a “cancer” to operating & sustaining a healthy combination fire rescue service. Many cities and towns will need this combination service model to provide reasonable and effective staffing, probably more neccessary in the next 3-5 years and likely much longer due to the fiscal challenges in every corner of the country.

I like the perspective a fellow FF provided to me who is an IAFF member and cardholder and a “two-hatter” by definition. He told me this is an internal issue some in the family are disciplined and some are not – it just depends!

This is an interesting blog or article on this issue which seems to be entering a new phase but still not necessarily a mature phase.

I have never been a “two-hatter” but have spent nearly my entire volunteer and paid-on-call fire service career in the combination departments – large (same place as you in PG) and a small (current town I live in) and it is really disappointing to see this issue surface selectively where the IAFF locals choose to utilize the bylaw.

I believe it becomes more polarizing and divisive because of how it is “selectively” applied or enforced by various affiliates. I don’t quite get the “it’s a labor thing” in your article and the african american analogy may not be the best example of the point you are trying to get accross.

I think the metro Chicago union president in the previous post seems to effectively explain the key reason and rational for the bylaw and a particular affiliates decision to use or invoke it on it’s membership. This is something any reasonable individual with a “pro or con position” can understand and respect. We may not agree but we can respect the position or statement.

Why can’t the IAFF and it’s affiliates just stop using other “reasons” for why the bylaw is in place and enforced? There are affiliates who won’t enforce it or take it away where they have members who want the opportunity to volunteer or make extra money in part time positions because there is no political reason beacuse of where the leadership or the majority of thier members stand on this issue.

However, another affiliate or group of affiliates will allow a local or group of locals to use it as leverage to gain or maintain staffing or deal with a trend or problem they do not or cannot adress head on and uses various outlets to publicize it which causes negative press, strife and helps feed the blogs.

This issue has a huge downside for the american fire service because it is a “cancer” to operating & sustaining a healthy combination fire rescue service. Many cities and towns will need this combination service model to provide reasonable and effective staffing, probably more neccessary in the next 3-5 years and likely much longer due to the fiscal challenges in every corner of the country.

I like the perspective a fellow FF provided to me who is an IAFF member and cardholder and a “two-hatter” by definition. He told me this is an internal issue some in the family are disciplined and some are not – it just depends!

Dave Statter’s item:
http://www.wusa9.com/news/columnist/blogs/2009/02/enforcing-two-hat-rules-how-one-new.html

I also have heard from others.

Mike
standing corrected

Dave Statter’s item:
http://www.wusa9.com/news/columnist/blogs/2009/02/enforcing-two-hat-rules-how-one-new.html

I also have heard from others.

Mike
standing corrected

So here’s the question: if you take the two-hatters off their vollie jobs, will the powers that be hire more career firefighters? Or will they run trucks even more short-staffed (or with less experienced “single hat” volunteers) or shut down stations, compromising firefighter safety? Most likely, some combination of the two, and union members will need to weigh them and decide. The IAFF obviously thinks it has the answer. But budget realities today may not be so simple. I tend to think station shutdowns and three or even two man crews are more likely than new hires in most places where two-hatters and volunteers are a real prescence.

So here’s the question: if you take the two-hatters off their vollie jobs, will the powers that be hire more career firefighters? Or will they run trucks even more short-staffed (or with less experienced “single hat” volunteers) or shut down stations, compromising firefighter safety? Most likely, some combination of the two, and union members will need to weigh them and decide. The IAFF obviously thinks it has the answer. But budget realities today may not be so simple. I tend to think station shutdowns and three or even two man crews are more likely than new hires in most places where two-hatters and volunteers are a real prescence.

What part of the labor perspective about two-hatters is warped?

Mike “FossilMedic” Ward

What part of the labor perspective about two-hatters is warped?

Mike “FossilMedic” Ward