Guest guest Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 The IAFF has recently claimed that they " represent " 85% of EMS providers in the US. I would love to see the math on that? There is no way that the IAFF can or could or should represent ANY volunteer so that portion of the market is already gone. The IAFF will also in the past would not take you as a local unless you had " substantial " fire related duties. When I was a member of a civil service union that could not represent the County Dispatchers I was a part of to save our lives we tried to go IAFF, out titles were " Fire and EMS Dispatcher " and we were denied entry to the IAFF as we did not have " significant " fire related duties at the time. This was 15+ years ago mind you so the times they may have changed some. Again I defy anyone to show me a valid way to prove the 85% as quoted. For the record I've never been a union FF, never been an IAFF member, but I have been both a union member (3 unions over my lifetime) and I have been a paid FF/EMT both full time and part time in my 25 or so years in Da Business. I have a great deal of respect for some of what the IAFF has done and a great deal of disdain for other actions that they as a union have taken over the past 20 or so years. I have MANY friends around the US, that are active IAFF members and in many cases are Officers in their locals etc. I am NOT anti IAFF in any way shape of form but I cannot see how they can make the above claim and then validate it! Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI LNMolino@... (IFW Office) (Cell Phone) (IFW Fax) " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude " The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 Why are we wanting to start nationally instead of starting locally (i.e. state)? That is where we need to clean house first. If we clean up the room the house looks a lot less messy. EMS needs to have its' own organization. True that Fire Departments have taken the lead for a number of years and we can all debate how and why this was started, but; we are at a point in our history where we need to separate and become the " Health Care Service " we all know deep down that we are. We do health care, we are a part of that system, like it or not, and we need to focus on that and figure out collectively where that road is, how to repair it , or how to build it up from a simple dirt foundation. I do believe at the national level, yes; we need to make sure the road does lead back to us as I think many on this list feel as well. Please correct me if I am wrong. But starting with our state I believe will make a big impact on what happens nationally. Think about it a state the size of Texas with the many EMS personnel we have, how can we not do some type of directing what happens nationally? Again please correct me if I am wrong. Danny L. Owner/NREMT-P Panhandle Emergency Training Services And Response (PETSAR) Office FAX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 Because I am a member of IAFF I will not get into a upright urinating contest about this story or its associated posts, BUT, I will offer this, if EMS, as a profession, was as well organized as the fire associations are and have the level of membership and resources they have we would not have these problems. Lee CQ Homeland Security Here is a story that tells it all. Apparently, unless you are a public, full time EMS employee, by their own admission, IAFF is only concerned with full time EMS employees working for a public agency. Even More reason that relying on IAFF to speak for your EMS concerns is a bad idea. This is from the Editor at Congressional Quarterly in Washington, DC Still just speaking for myself and my humble opinions) CQ Homeland Security Afternoon Update Editor's Note: On the Numbers Little did we know what a sandstorm we would kick up with what we thought was routine May 25 story on the opposition of firefighter trade associations and a union, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), to a proposal from a Washington University think tank that the Transportation Department's emergency medical services be consolidated in a new office in the Department of Homeland Security. Based on an interview with IAFF spokesman Jeff Zack, our reporter wrote that the union " represents about 85 percent of the nation's EMS workers. " Not quite so, said Kaniewski, deputy director of GW's Homeland Security Policy Institute, which made the proposal, in a heated e-mail. IAFF represents only about a quarter of the estimated 840,000 certified EMS workers in the country, Kaniewski said. Zack, however, countered that not all certified EMS personnel work on a regular basis and said they should not be included in Kaniewski's calculations. At press time, after a flurry of additional e-mails and telephone conversations with both sides, those numbers remained in dispute. Kaniewski did not, however, contest Zack's statement that the IAFF represents about 82 percent of the nation's 266,000 paid, public EMS workers. It does not represent volunteers, or those who work for private services, Zack said. - Jeff Stein, Editor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 I don't consider an open forum of a rational discussion (or even debate) to be a urinating contest at all. I welcome criticism and dialogue, that is what needs to happen to bring the issue to the forefront. However, I think you make the point for me.... >> " ..if EMS, as a profession, was as well organized as the fire >>associations are and have the level of membership and resources >>they have we would not have these problems. " Federal organization and coordination can start with USEMSA. This is the coordinated effort needed to become organized from the top down with clear direction and guidance. It also reinforces my previous point about lack of membership in EMS professional organizations! Date: Fri Jun 10 11:16:54 CDT 2005 To: Subject: RE: CQ Homeland Security Because I am a member of IAFF I will not get into a upright urinating contest about this story or its associated posts, BUT, I will offer this, if EMS, as a profession, was as well organized as the fire associations are and have the level of membership and resources they have we would not have these problems. Lee CQ Homeland Security Here is a story that tells it all. Apparently, unless you are a public, full time EMS employee, by their own admission, IAFF is only concerned with full time EMS employees working for a public agency. Even More reason that relying on IAFF to speak for your EMS concerns is a bad idea. This is from the Editor at Congressional Quarterly in Washington, DC Still just speaking for myself and my humble opinions) CQ Homeland Security Afternoon Update Editor's Note: On the Numbers Little did we know what a sandstorm we would kick up with what we thought was routine May 25 story on the opposition of firefighter trade associations and a union, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), to a proposal from a Washington University think tank that the Transportation Department's emergency medical services be consolidated in a new office in the Department of Homeland Security. Based on an interview with IAFF spokesman Jeff Zack, our reporter wrote that the union " represents about 85 percent of the nation's EMS workers. " Not quite so, said Kaniewski, deputy director of GW's Homeland Security Policy Institute, which made the proposal, in a heated e-mail. IAFF represents only about a quarter of the estimated 840,000 certified EMS workers in the country, Kaniewski said. Zack, however, countered that not all certified EMS personnel work on a regular basis and said they should not be included in Kaniewski's calculations. At press time, after a flurry of additional e-mails and telephone conversations with both sides, those numbers remained in dispute. Kaniewski did not, however, contest Zack's statement that the IAFF represents about 82 percent of the nation's 266,000 paid, public EMS workers. It does not represent volunteers, or those who work for private services, Zack said. - Jeff Stein, Editor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 I don't consider an open forum of a rational discussion (or even debate) to be a urinating contest at all. I welcome criticism and dialogue, that is what needs to happen to bring the issue to the forefront. However, I think you make the point for me.... >> " ..if EMS, as a profession, was as well organized as the fire >>associations are and have the level of membership and resources >>they have we would not have these problems. " Federal organization and coordination can start with USEMSA. This is the coordinated effort needed to become organized from the top down with clear direction and guidance. It also reinforces my previous point about lack of membership in EMS professional organizations! Date: Fri Jun 10 11:16:54 CDT 2005 To: Subject: RE: CQ Homeland Security Because I am a member of IAFF I will not get into a upright urinating contest about this story or its associated posts, BUT, I will offer this, if EMS, as a profession, was as well organized as the fire associations are and have the level of membership and resources they have we would not have these problems. Lee CQ Homeland Security Here is a story that tells it all. Apparently, unless you are a public, full time EMS employee, by their own admission, IAFF is only concerned with full time EMS employees working for a public agency. Even More reason that relying on IAFF to speak for your EMS concerns is a bad idea. This is from the Editor at Congressional Quarterly in Washington, DC Still just speaking for myself and my humble opinions) CQ Homeland Security Afternoon Update Editor's Note: On the Numbers Little did we know what a sandstorm we would kick up with what we thought was routine May 25 story on the opposition of firefighter trade associations and a union, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), to a proposal from a Washington University think tank that the Transportation Department's emergency medical services be consolidated in a new office in the Department of Homeland Security. Based on an interview with IAFF spokesman Jeff Zack, our reporter wrote that the union " represents about 85 percent of the nation's EMS workers. " Not quite so, said Kaniewski, deputy director of GW's Homeland Security Policy Institute, which made the proposal, in a heated e-mail. IAFF represents only about a quarter of the estimated 840,000 certified EMS workers in the country, Kaniewski said. Zack, however, countered that not all certified EMS personnel work on a regular basis and said they should not be included in Kaniewski's calculations. At press time, after a flurry of additional e-mails and telephone conversations with both sides, those numbers remained in dispute. Kaniewski did not, however, contest Zack's statement that the IAFF represents about 82 percent of the nation's 266,000 paid, public EMS workers. It does not represent volunteers, or those who work for private services, Zack said. - Jeff Stein, Editor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 True. And we do speak of EMS as a " separate profession " which it is. And as several folks have said, we haven't yet decided whether we are Medical professionals or Public Safety professionals. In my opinion, we DO have to choose. But all this points to the inescapable fact that we ARE a separate profession. So why are we represented at so many levels by the Fire service (including IAFF)? THAT's what doesn't make sense. I see our relationship with the Fire services in many ways like the stereotypical welfare abusers. They don't want the kids, but they keeps having them and hold on to them tightly, because they get paid for each child by the gubmnt. I wonder if the Fire service would be so attached if it didn't represent budget dollars and headcount? =Steve= Steve , LP AlertCPR Emergency Training 2300 Highland Village Rd, Suite 340 Highland Village, TX 75077 >--- Original Message --- > >To: < > >Date: 6/10/05 10:16:54 AM > Because I am a member of IAFF I will not get into a upright urinating >contest about this story or its associated posts, BUT, I will offer this, if >EMS, as a profession, was as well organized as the fire associations are and >have the level of membership and resources they have we would not have these >problems. > >Lee > > CQ Homeland Security > >Here is a story that tells it all. Apparently, unless you are a public, >full time EMS employee, by their own admission, IAFF is only concerned with >full time EMS employees working for a public agency. Even More reason that >relying on IAFF to speak for your EMS concerns is a bad idea. > >This is from the Editor at Congressional Quarterly in Washington, DC > > >Still just speaking for myself and my humble opinions) > >CQ Homeland Security Afternoon Update > >Editor's Note: On the Numbers > >Little did we know what a sandstorm we would kick up with what we thought >was routine May 25 story on the opposition of firefighter trade associations >and a union, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), to a >proposal from a Washington University think tank that the >Transportation Department's emergency medical services be consolidated in a >new office in the Department of Homeland Security. Based on an interview >with IAFF spokesman Jeff Zack, our reporter wrote that the union " represents >about 85 percent of the nation's EMS workers. " > >Not quite so, said Kaniewski, deputy director of GW's Homeland >Security Policy Institute, which made the proposal, in a heated e-mail. IAFF >represents only about a quarter of the estimated 840,000 certified EMS >workers in the country, Kaniewski said. Zack, however, countered that not >all certified EMS personnel work on a regular basis and said they should not >be included in Kaniewski's calculations. > >At press time, after a flurry of additional e-mails and telephone >conversations with both sides, those numbers remained in dispute. Kaniewski >did not, however, contest Zack's statement that the IAFF represents about 82 >percent of the nation's 266,000 paid, public EMS workers. It does not >represent volunteers, or those who work for private services, Zack said. - >Jeff Stein, Editor > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 True. And we do speak of EMS as a " separate profession " which it is. And as several folks have said, we haven't yet decided whether we are Medical professionals or Public Safety professionals. In my opinion, we DO have to choose. But all this points to the inescapable fact that we ARE a separate profession. So why are we represented at so many levels by the Fire service (including IAFF)? THAT's what doesn't make sense. I see our relationship with the Fire services in many ways like the stereotypical welfare abusers. They don't want the kids, but they keeps having them and hold on to them tightly, because they get paid for each child by the gubmnt. I wonder if the Fire service would be so attached if it didn't represent budget dollars and headcount? =Steve= Steve , LP AlertCPR Emergency Training 2300 Highland Village Rd, Suite 340 Highland Village, TX 75077 >--- Original Message --- > >To: < > >Date: 6/10/05 10:16:54 AM > Because I am a member of IAFF I will not get into a upright urinating >contest about this story or its associated posts, BUT, I will offer this, if >EMS, as a profession, was as well organized as the fire associations are and >have the level of membership and resources they have we would not have these >problems. > >Lee > > CQ Homeland Security > >Here is a story that tells it all. Apparently, unless you are a public, >full time EMS employee, by their own admission, IAFF is only concerned with >full time EMS employees working for a public agency. Even More reason that >relying on IAFF to speak for your EMS concerns is a bad idea. > >This is from the Editor at Congressional Quarterly in Washington, DC > > >Still just speaking for myself and my humble opinions) > >CQ Homeland Security Afternoon Update > >Editor's Note: On the Numbers > >Little did we know what a sandstorm we would kick up with what we thought >was routine May 25 story on the opposition of firefighter trade associations >and a union, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), to a >proposal from a Washington University think tank that the >Transportation Department's emergency medical services be consolidated in a >new office in the Department of Homeland Security. Based on an interview >with IAFF spokesman Jeff Zack, our reporter wrote that the union " represents >about 85 percent of the nation's EMS workers. " > >Not quite so, said Kaniewski, deputy director of GW's Homeland >Security Policy Institute, which made the proposal, in a heated e-mail. IAFF >represents only about a quarter of the estimated 840,000 certified EMS >workers in the country, Kaniewski said. Zack, however, countered that not >all certified EMS personnel work on a regular basis and said they should not >be included in Kaniewski's calculations. > >At press time, after a flurry of additional e-mails and telephone >conversations with both sides, those numbers remained in dispute. Kaniewski >did not, however, contest Zack's statement that the IAFF represents about 82 >percent of the nation's 266,000 paid, public EMS workers. It does not >represent volunteers, or those who work for private services, Zack said. - >Jeff Stein, Editor > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 True. And we do speak of EMS as a " separate profession " which it is. And as several folks have said, we haven't yet decided whether we are Medical professionals or Public Safety professionals. In my opinion, we DO have to choose. But all this points to the inescapable fact that we ARE a separate profession. So why are we represented at so many levels by the Fire service (including IAFF)? THAT's what doesn't make sense. I see our relationship with the Fire services in many ways like the stereotypical welfare abusers. They don't want the kids, but they keeps having them and hold on to them tightly, because they get paid for each child by the gubmnt. I wonder if the Fire service would be so attached if it didn't represent budget dollars and headcount? =Steve= Steve , LP AlertCPR Emergency Training 2300 Highland Village Rd, Suite 340 Highland Village, TX 75077 >--- Original Message --- > >To: < > >Date: 6/10/05 10:16:54 AM > Because I am a member of IAFF I will not get into a upright urinating >contest about this story or its associated posts, BUT, I will offer this, if >EMS, as a profession, was as well organized as the fire associations are and >have the level of membership and resources they have we would not have these >problems. > >Lee > > CQ Homeland Security > >Here is a story that tells it all. Apparently, unless you are a public, >full time EMS employee, by their own admission, IAFF is only concerned with >full time EMS employees working for a public agency. Even More reason that >relying on IAFF to speak for your EMS concerns is a bad idea. > >This is from the Editor at Congressional Quarterly in Washington, DC > > >Still just speaking for myself and my humble opinions) > >CQ Homeland Security Afternoon Update > >Editor's Note: On the Numbers > >Little did we know what a sandstorm we would kick up with what we thought >was routine May 25 story on the opposition of firefighter trade associations >and a union, the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), to a >proposal from a Washington University think tank that the >Transportation Department's emergency medical services be consolidated in a >new office in the Department of Homeland Security. Based on an interview >with IAFF spokesman Jeff Zack, our reporter wrote that the union " represents >about 85 percent of the nation's EMS workers. " > >Not quite so, said Kaniewski, deputy director of GW's Homeland >Security Policy Institute, which made the proposal, in a heated e-mail. IAFF >represents only about a quarter of the estimated 840,000 certified EMS >workers in the country, Kaniewski said. Zack, however, countered that not >all certified EMS personnel work on a regular basis and said they should not >be included in Kaniewski's calculations. > >At press time, after a flurry of additional e-mails and telephone >conversations with both sides, those numbers remained in dispute. Kaniewski >did not, however, contest Zack's statement that the IAFF represents about 82 >percent of the nation's 266,000 paid, public EMS workers. It does not >represent volunteers, or those who work for private services, Zack said. - >Jeff Stein, Editor > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 Excellent point! Having worn both uniforms (FD-based EMS & LEO) in Washington, I can certainly vouch for that from a local and Capitol Hill standpoint. From: lnmolino@... Date: Fri Jun 10 11:30:10 CDT 2005 To: Subject: Re: CQ Homeland Security One more point about organization. If you think fire is organized and seen in a different light in DC then take another look at the cops. When I was a Board Member for Helping Our Own (_http://www.helpingourown.org/_ (http://www.helpingourown.org/) ) and we did some foot pounding and door knocking in DC with Congressional and Senatorial Staffers we heard from more then a few of them how they " never see firefighters " on the Hill except for the CFSI week. They mentioned they saw LEOs in some form or another pretty regularly on the Hill. That speaks volumes to me. Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI LNMolino@... (IFW Office) (Cell Phone) (IFW Fax) " A Texan with a Jersey Attitude " The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is intended only for its stated recipient and may contain private and or confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed in the public domain by the original author. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 Mr. Molino, I can give you a few, I you would permit me. I am an EMT-I. I have absolutly no desire to be a firefighter. I would not even accept the training if you offered it to me. My job duties, SOPs, scope of practice, standing orders, and protocols include nothing about fire suppression, prevention, or investigation. I am a trained medical professional, not a firefighter. I have nothing against firefighters, they are men and women that deserve our respect and appreciation for the wonderful job that they do. Yet, I am not one of them, so why should my profession be grouped with them? Why can't we be inluded in a medical organization? Just my thoughts. Live for today, tomarrow is not here yet and laugh at yourself often before someone else does. McGee, EMT-I --------------------------------- Discover Yahoo! Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing & more. Check it out! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.