The "liberal" vision of firefighting.

[Quantum Windbag]

Ever wonder what happens when fire departments refuse to put out fires? It is a long article, but well worth the read.

In his week-long coverage of the event, Olbermann also touted the condemnation of the fire department by the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), the largest fire-fighters union. IAFF president Harold Schaitberger proclaimed in a press release that “everyone deserves fire protection because providing public safety is among a municipality’s highest priorities.” The press release concluded that because of a “pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home.” But what Schaitberger and his allies didn’t say is that fire fighters in municipal fire departments have several times been ordered to stand by and watch families lose their homes, and sometimes lose their lives. And who gave those orders? None other than the IAFF and other unions enforcing the “pay-to-play policy” known as the strike.
If the liberal blog site Think Progress wishes to frame fire protection as an issue of “two competing visions of government” and include the response to the Cranick fire as “the conservative vision . . . on full display” (which it isn’t necessarily, as I will explain), then the liberal vision of an urbanized and unionized “professional” fire department has to be scored as resulting in more property damage, injuries, and deaths. And if the IAFF and its allies get their way with federal legislation to mandate collective bargaining for public-safety officers in every American community, the deadly fire-fighter strikes of the recent past will almost certainly be a part of our “progressive” future.
Consider what happened in Memphis 32 years ago. On July 1, 1978, 1,400 union fire fighters walked off the job after rejecting the city’s offer of a 6 percent pay increase, leaving only 150 non-union personnel to assist supervisors. “Over the weekend of July 2 and 3, fires broke out around the city in far greater than normal numbers,” recounted professors Armand Thieblot and Thomas Haggard in their comprehensive book Union Violence: The Record and the Response, published by the Industrial Research Unit of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “On Saturday, the first day of the strike, 225 alarms of fire were reported, and on the following day, there were about 125.” Memphis mayor Wyeth Chandler told a local newspaper that the group of fires “was one of the most unreal scenes I’ve ever seen. It was like a World War II newsreel.”

The Firemen Next Time - John Berlau - National Review Online

I wonder if the people who condemned the firefighters in Tennessee will speak up against these examples. After all, everyone has a right to strike, even if it means a house, or five, burns down, or someone ends up dead.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I think that emergency service personnel are exempt from that rule Quantum.

Remember New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina? They weren't allowed to strike, so about 1/3 of them walked off the job.

Apparently, it extends to paramedics in NYC now......

New York officials are investigating two emergency medical practitioners [EMT] after they allegedly refused to help a pregnant woman who collapsed while they were taking a break, the New York Post has reported.

According to witnesses, when the Fire Department paramedics were approached for help during their coffee break, they suggested the staff call 911.

They left when they were asked to help Eutisha Revee Rennix, an employee at the downtown Brooklyn coffee shop Au Bon Pain.

It is believed that 25-year-old Rennix had suffered a seizure and was struggling to breathe.

An ambulance was called by her fellow employees, and she was taken to hospital but later died along with her unborn baby girl.

In response to the incident the Fire Department of New York suspended the medical practitioners involved, without pay while investigations continue, spokesman Steve Ritea said.

"Our people tend to spring into action whether they're on duty, off duty, whatever they're doing," said Robert Ungar, spokesman for the Uniformed EMTS and Paramedics, FDNY, explaining that Emergency medical practitioners consider themselves to be on call 24 hours a day.

The local EMTs have a "very strong bond with the people of New York City that they serve," he said. "They view themselves as always being on duty."

The union is awaiting the results of the investigation, "If there was unprofessional conduct by these EMTs, the union does not condone any type of conduct which in any way can harm members of the public," he said.

Furious at the incident, Mayor Michael Bloomberg reportedly blasted the two EMTs, "It was unconscionable, [an] outrage, pick some adjectives and stick it in," and then called for a return to common decency.

"The Fire Department, including EMS, is responsible for life-saving, and their first responsibility is to do that," the mayor said. "But even if they weren't part of the Fire Department sworn to protect all of us, just normal human beings, drop your coffee and go help somebody if they're dying. C'mon."
Rennix leaves behind a toddler son and grieving family.

Pregnant woman dies after paramedics 'refuse to help' - Yahoo!7

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think that emergency service personnel are exempt from that rule Quantum.

Remember New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina? They weren't allowed to strike, so about 1/3 of them walked off the job.

Apparently, it extends to paramedics in NYC now......

New York officials are investigating two emergency medical practitioners [EMT] after they allegedly refused to help a pregnant woman who collapsed while they were taking a break, the New York Post has reported.

According to witnesses, when the Fire Department paramedics were approached for help during their coffee break, they suggested the staff call 911.

They left when they were asked to help Eutisha Revee Rennix, an employee at the downtown Brooklyn coffee shop Au Bon Pain.

It is believed that 25-year-old Rennix had suffered a seizure and was struggling to breathe.

An ambulance was called by her fellow employees, and she was taken to hospital but later died along with her unborn baby girl.

In response to the incident the Fire Department of New York suspended the medical practitioners involved, without pay while investigations continue, spokesman Steve Ritea said.

"Our people tend to spring into action whether they're on duty, off duty, whatever they're doing," said Robert Ungar, spokesman for the Uniformed EMTS and Paramedics, FDNY, explaining that Emergency medical practitioners consider themselves to be on call 24 hours a day.

The local EMTs have a "very strong bond with the people of New York City that they serve," he said. "They view themselves as always being on duty."

The union is awaiting the results of the investigation, "If there was unprofessional conduct by these EMTs, the union does not condone any type of conduct which in any way can harm members of the public," he said.

Furious at the incident, Mayor Michael Bloomberg reportedly blasted the two EMTs, "It was unconscionable, [an] outrage, pick some adjectives and stick it in," and then called for a return to common decency.

"The Fire Department, including EMS, is responsible for life-saving, and their first responsibility is to do that," the mayor said. "But even if they weren't part of the Fire Department sworn to protect all of us, just normal human beings, drop your coffee and go help somebody if they're dying. C'mon."
Rennix leaves behind a toddler son and grieving family.

Pregnant woman dies after paramedics 'refuse to help' - Yahoo!7

That is because most states forbid collective bargaining with police and firemen, something the Democrats want to change.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ever wonder what happens when fire departments refuse to put out fires? It is a long article, but well worth the read.

In his week-long coverage of the event, Olbermann also touted the condemnation of the fire department by the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), the largest fire-fighters union. IAFF president Harold Schaitberger proclaimed in a press release that “everyone deserves fire protection because providing public safety is among a municipality’s highest priorities.” The press release concluded that because of a “pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home.” But what Schaitberger and his allies didn’t say is that fire fighters in municipal fire departments have several times been ordered to stand by and watch families lose their homes, and sometimes lose their lives. And who gave those orders? None other than the IAFF and other unions enforcing the “pay-to-play policy” known as the strike.
If the liberal blog site Think Progress wishes to frame fire protection as an issue of “two competing visions of government” and include the response to the Cranick fire as “the conservative vision . . . on full display” (which it isn’t necessarily, as I will explain), then the liberal vision of an urbanized and unionized “professional” fire department has to be scored as resulting in more property damage, injuries, and deaths. And if the IAFF and its allies get their way with federal legislation to mandate collective bargaining for public-safety officers in every American community, the deadly fire-fighter strikes of the recent past will almost certainly be a part of our “progressive” future.
Consider what happened in Memphis 32 years ago. On July 1, 1978, 1,400 union fire fighters walked off the job after rejecting the city’s offer of a 6 percent pay increase, leaving only 150 non-union personnel to assist supervisors. “Over the weekend of July 2 and 3, fires broke out around the city in far greater than normal numbers,” recounted professors Armand Thieblot and Thomas Haggard in their comprehensive book Union Violence: The Record and the Response, published by the Industrial Research Unit of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “On Saturday, the first day of the strike, 225 alarms of fire were reported, and on the following day, there were about 125.” Memphis mayor Wyeth Chandler told a local newspaper that the group of fires “was one of the most unreal scenes I’ve ever seen. It was like a World War II newsreel.”

The Firemen Next Time - John Berlau - National Review Online

I wonder if the people who condemned the firefighters in Tennessee will speak up against these examples. After all, everyone has a right to strike, even if it means a house, or five, burns down, or someone ends up dead.

I wonder if the people who approve of the "free market" firefighters in Tennessee will speak up in favor of this too... after all, organized labor is part of a free market...

 

[Charles_Main]

Ever wonder what happens when fire departments refuse to put out fires? It is a long article, but well worth the read.

In his week-long coverage of the event, Olbermann also touted the condemnation of the fire department by the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), the largest fire-fighters union. IAFF president Harold Schaitberger proclaimed in a press release that “everyone deserves fire protection because providing public safety is among a municipality’s highest priorities.” The press release concluded that because of a “pay-to-play policy, fire fighters were ordered to stand and watch a family lose its home.” But what Schaitberger and his allies didn’t say is that fire fighters in municipal fire departments have several times been ordered to stand by and watch families lose their homes, and sometimes lose their lives. And who gave those orders? None other than the IAFF and other unions enforcing the “pay-to-play policy” known as the strike.
If the liberal blog site Think Progress wishes to frame fire protection as an issue of “two competing visions of government” and include the response to the Cranick fire as “the conservative vision . . . on full display” (which it isn’t necessarily, as I will explain), then the liberal vision of an urbanized and unionized “professional” fire department has to be scored as resulting in more property damage, injuries, and deaths. And if the IAFF and its allies get their way with federal legislation to mandate collective bargaining for public-safety officers in every American community, the deadly fire-fighter strikes of the recent past will almost certainly be a part of our “progressive” future.
Consider what happened in Memphis 32 years ago. On July 1, 1978, 1,400 union fire fighters walked off the job after rejecting the city’s offer of a 6 percent pay increase, leaving only 150 non-union personnel to assist supervisors. “Over the weekend of July 2 and 3, fires broke out around the city in far greater than normal numbers,” recounted professors Armand Thieblot and Thomas Haggard in their comprehensive book Union Violence: The Record and the Response, published by the Industrial Research Unit of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “On Saturday, the first day of the strike, 225 alarms of fire were reported, and on the following day, there were about 125.” Memphis mayor Wyeth Chandler told a local newspaper that the group of fires “was one of the most unreal scenes I’ve ever seen. It was like a World War II newsreel.”

The Firemen Next Time - John Berlau - National Review Online

I wonder if the people who condemned the firefighters in Tennessee will speak up against these examples. After all, everyone has a right to strike, even if it means a house, or five, burns down, or someone ends up dead.

I wonder if the people who approve of the "free market" firefighters in Tennessee will speak up in favor of this too... after all, organized labor is part of a free market...

The difference here is stark. In this case these strikers are causing tax payers to go with out fire coverage.

In the other case a Guy refused to pay the annual fee for coverage.

How can you even compare the 2?

 

[midcan5]

Typical 'National Review' anti American worker propaganda, the review is a pro corporate enslavement policy think tank. Carried to an extreme, conservative republican 'freedom' rhetoric would get rid of all public services, so anyone reading this crap needs to look behind the curtain for the benefactors when the American worker is completely disenfranchised. It has always struck me as curious how republicans have managed to destroy American worker rights, starting with Reagan, and continuing to everything from minimum wage to refusing unemployment, to allowing business to buy the air waves. But it is the power of those air waves and the tools at the national review who hide the reality.


"Disagreements about the optimal level of wealth inequality underlie policy debates ranging from taxation to welfare. We attempt to insert the desires of “regular” Americans into these debates, by asking a nationally representative online panel to estimate the current distribution of wealth in the United States and to “build a better America” by constructing distributions with their ideal level of inequality. First, respondents dramatically underestimated the current level of wealth inequality. Second, respondents constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of the actual distribution."

http://www.people.hbs.edu/mnorton/norton ariely in press.pdf

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ever wonder what happens when fire departments refuse to put out fires? It is a long article, but well worth the read.



The Firemen Next Time - John Berlau - National Review Online

I wonder if the people who condemned the firefighters in Tennessee will speak up against these examples. After all, everyone has a right to strike, even if it means a house, or five, burns down, or someone ends up dead.

I wonder if the people who approve of the "free market" firefighters in Tennessee will speak up in favor of this too... after all, organized labor is part of a free market...

The difference here is stark. In this case these strikers are causing tax payers to go with out fire coverage.

In the other case a Guy refused to pay the annual fee for coverage.

How can you even compare the 2?

How can you can compare something that happened very recently to something that happened 32 years ago?

But the comparison is pretty simple. If your going to embrace the free market, and be ok with firefighters refusing to put out a man's burning house because he didn't pay the fee, how can you get upset when firefighters refuse to work because they're not getting paid enough? Both are simple applications of the free market.

 

[Gadawg73]

Ever wonder what happens when fire departments refuse to put out fires? It is a long article, but well worth the read.



The Firemen Next Time - John Berlau - National Review Online

I wonder if the people who condemned the firefighters in Tennessee will speak up against these examples. After all, everyone has a right to strike, even if it means a house, or five, burns down, or someone ends up dead.

I wonder if the people who approve of the "free market" firefighters in Tennessee will speak up in favor of this too... after all, organized labor is part of a free market...

The difference here is stark. In this case these strikers are causing tax payers to go with out fire coverage.

In the other case a Guy refused to pay the annual fee for coverage.

How can you even compare the 2?

There is no comparison. Not apples and oranges. More like oranges and basketballs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wonder if the people who approve of the "free market" firefighters in Tennessee will speak up in favor of this too... after all, organized labor is part of a free market...

The firefighters in Tennessee are not free market, they are government.

 

[Charles_Main]

I wonder if the people who approve of the "free market" firefighters in Tennessee will speak up in favor of this too... after all, organized labor is part of a free market...

The difference here is stark. In this case these strikers are causing tax payers to go with out fire coverage.

In the other case a Guy refused to pay the annual fee for coverage.

How can you even compare the 2?

How can you can compare something that happened very recently to something that happened 32 years ago?

But the comparison is pretty simple. If your going to embrace the free market, and be ok with firefighters refusing to put out a man's burning house because he didn't pay the fee, how can you get upset when firefighters refuse to work because they're not getting paid enough? Both are simple applications of the free market.

I do support there right to strike, but it is a stretch to call Government employed union workers a free market.

What I do not get is why you are trying to compare the 2 stories.

As I said in the case of the strikers we are talking about people who pay taxes for Fire Coverage, Not getting said coverage because of the strike. While in the other case we were talking about one man, who lived outside of the taxed fire coverage area, and refused to pay.

No real comparison there at all.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The difference here is stark. In this case these strikers are causing tax payers to go with out fire coverage.

In the other case a Guy refused to pay the annual fee for coverage.

How can you even compare the 2?

How can you can compare something that happened very recently to something that happened 32 years ago?

But the comparison is pretty simple. If your going to embrace the free market, and be ok with firefighters refusing to put out a man's burning house because he didn't pay the fee, how can you get upset when firefighters refuse to work because they're not getting paid enough? Both are simple applications of the free market.

I do support there right to strike, but it is a stretch to call Government employed union workers a free market.

What I do not get is why you are trying to compare the 2 stories.

As I said in the case of the strikers we are talking about people who pay taxes for Fire Coverage, Not getting said coverage because of the strike. While in the other case we were talking about one man, who lived outside of the taxed fire coverage area, and refused to pay.

No real comparison there at all.

I agree that they're not the same situation. But the OP looked to compare them - so I obliged.

My major issue with this is that I think firefighters should function like doctors - put the fire out first, then worry about the money. Same with police. If you're going to make a fuss about firefighters going on strike, you should make just as much fuss about the stupidity of firefighters watching a house burn down because the homeowner didn't pay what amounts to "protection", in the mafia sense.

 

[Charles_Main]

How can you can compare something that happened very recently to something that happened 32 years ago?

But the comparison is pretty simple. If your going to embrace the free market, and be ok with firefighters refusing to put out a man's burning house because he didn't pay the fee, how can you get upset when firefighters refuse to work because they're not getting paid enough? Both are simple applications of the free market.

I do support there right to strike, but it is a stretch to call Government employed union workers a free market.

What I do not get is why you are trying to compare the 2 stories.

As I said in the case of the strikers we are talking about people who pay taxes for Fire Coverage, Not getting said coverage because of the strike. While in the other case we were talking about one man, who lived outside of the taxed fire coverage area, and refused to pay.

No real comparison there at all.

I agree that they're not the same situation. But the OP looked to compare them - so I obliged.

My major issue with this is that I think firefighters should function like doctors - put the fire out first, then worry about the money.

I agree and 99% of the time that is the case. The situation with the 1 man who refused to pay was the result of an original way of covering an area that normally would have to find a way to cover itself.

Do you by extension think that the Governor of a state, or president, or even a mayor or county leadership. Should be able to stop striking Firefighters, and force them to fight fires anyways?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I do support there right to strike, but it is a stretch to call Government employed union workers a free market.

What I do not get is why you are trying to compare the 2 stories.

As I said in the case of the strikers we are talking about people who pay taxes for Fire Coverage, Not getting said coverage because of the strike. While in the other case we were talking about one man, who lived outside of the taxed fire coverage area, and refused to pay.

No real comparison there at all.

I agree that they're not the same situation. But the OP looked to compare them - so I obliged.

My major issue with this is that I think firefighters should function like doctors - put the fire out first, then worry about the money.

I agree and 99% of the time that is the case. The situation with the 1 man who refused to pay was the result of an original way of covering an area that normally would have to find a way to cover itself.

Do you by extension think that the Governor of a state, or president, or even a mayor or county leadership. Should be able to stop striking Firefighters, and force them to fight fires anyways?

I'm not sure. I've got mixed feelings about this one. I'll get back to you, I've got to think about it.

 

[Gunny]

I think that emergency service personnel are exempt from that rule Quantum.

Remember New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina? They weren't allowed to strike, so about 1/3 of them walked off the job.

Apparently, it extends to paramedics in NYC now......

New York officials are investigating two emergency medical practitioners [EMT] after they allegedly refused to help a pregnant woman who collapsed while they were taking a break, the New York Post has reported.

According to witnesses, when the Fire Department paramedics were approached for help during their coffee break, they suggested the staff call 911.

They left when they were asked to help Eutisha Revee Rennix, an employee at the downtown Brooklyn coffee shop Au Bon Pain.

It is believed that 25-year-old Rennix had suffered a seizure and was struggling to breathe.

An ambulance was called by her fellow employees, and she was taken to hospital but later died along with her unborn baby girl.

In response to the incident the Fire Department of New York suspended the medical practitioners involved, without pay while investigations continue, spokesman Steve Ritea said.

"Our people tend to spring into action whether they're on duty, off duty, whatever they're doing," said Robert Ungar, spokesman for the Uniformed EMTS and Paramedics, FDNY, explaining that Emergency medical practitioners consider themselves to be on call 24 hours a day.

The local EMTs have a "very strong bond with the people of New York City that they serve," he said. "They view themselves as always being on duty."

The union is awaiting the results of the investigation, "If there was unprofessional conduct by these EMTs, the union does not condone any type of conduct which in any way can harm members of the public," he said.

Furious at the incident, Mayor Michael Bloomberg reportedly blasted the two EMTs, "It was unconscionable, [an] outrage, pick some adjectives and stick it in," and then called for a return to common decency.

"The Fire Department, including EMS, is responsible for life-saving, and their first responsibility is to do that," the mayor said. "But even if they weren't part of the Fire Department sworn to protect all of us, just normal human beings, drop your coffee and go help somebody if they're dying. C'mon."
Rennix leaves behind a toddler son and grieving family.

Pregnant woman dies after paramedics 'refuse to help' - Yahoo!7

That is because most states forbid collective bargaining with police and firemen, something the Democrats want to change.

You would. Collective bargaining = government pandering. Fuck THAT. You sign up, you do the fucking job. If they refuse in a time of emergency, treat them the same as military personnel who refuse to engage the enemy. Maximum penalty is death for desertion under fire.

You pussy -ass liberals need to grow some balls. Geez.

Since when was money more important than serving an ideal? You leftwing fucks have sold your souls to the highest bidders.

 

[namvet527]

... everyone has a right to strike, even if it means a house, or five, burns down, or someone ends up dead.

NO THEY DON'T. If it involves PUBLIC SAFETY it should be ILLEGAL to strike.

If your strike causes someone to die it should be MURDER.

I was agreeing with you until this last line. That is not how us REAL CONSERVATIVES feel. We are very anti union & we care about public safety over working conditions. If you don't like your working conditions QUIT!!!

Why if you have a personal disagreement with your employment conditions should it affect me or anyone else?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

... everyone has a right to strike, even if it means a house, or five, burns down, or someone ends up dead.

NO THEY DON'T. If it involves PUBLIC SAFETY it should be ILLEGAL to strike.

If your strike causes someone to die it should be MURDER.

I was agreeing with you until this last line. That is not how us REAL CONSERVATIVES feel. We are very anti union & we care about public safety over working conditions. If you don't like your working conditions QUIT!!!

Why if you have a personal disagreement with your employment conditions should it affect me or anyone else?

You know that a strike is just everyone temporarily "quitting" at once, right?

Organized Labor is part of a free market. I thought REAL CONSERVATIVES were all about the free market.

 

[KissMy]

Democrats think it is great to be like Europe. Taxes, Unions, Strikes, Riots, Death.

FIREMEN'S STRIKE: I would not wish what happened to me on anyone else in the world; DON'T MAKE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN, SAYS MUM WHO LOST FOUR CHILDREN IN LAST FIREMEN'S STRIKE.

As a result Denise Brazier, aged 12, Suzanne Brazier, 10, and their half-sister and brother - Lisa Bowen, seven and Tony Bowen, five - all died.

 

[rightwinger]

Consider what happened in Memphis 32 years ago. On July 1, 1978, 1,400 union fire fighters walked off the job after rejecting the city’s offer of a 6 percent pay increase

1978???

And why is this on the Current Events Board? Souldn't it be in the History Board?

 

[Greenbeard]

NO THEY DON'T. If it involves PUBLIC SAFETY it should be ILLEGAL to strike.

I was agreeing with you until this last line. That is not how us REAL CONSERVATIVES feel. We are very anti union & we care about public safety over working conditions. If you don't like your working conditions QUIT!!!

Seems like there are some philosophical inconsistencies built in here. On the one hand, the "if you don't like it quit" attitude does seem to endorse a pretty free market notion: namely, that a person's labor is a commodity to be bought, sold, negotiated, and, if compensation is judged to be inadequate, withdrawn. On the other hand, you're also pushing for more government control over that commodity (i.e. government restrictions on an individual's ability to sell or withhold his labor) when it serves the public good. Just an observation.

 

[Revere]

Public services and utilities around which government has created monopolies, like fire, police, trash collection, are not markets, or commodities.