I’ve been advocating for 2 man fire/emergency response teams since the tragic 2003 San Diego “Cedar” brush fire, when I first became interested in firefighting operational reforms. It’s simple — two 2-man teams properly stationed apart in one fire station’s “district” = shorter response times than one 4-man team.
Lives are saved. Of that, there can be no doubt – and no one argues otherwise.
It’s great to see this idea finally gaining traction a decade later. But somehow this common sense reform was blocked – held hostage by the SDFD labor union that demands more 4 man fire stations before it will allow the 2 man response setup to be implemented. The problem we face today is labor union featherbedding — a time-honored goal for ANY union.
The SDFD union’s (like all unions) #1 priority is employing as many union members as possible — more “boots on the ground” (but only highly paid union boots). For firefighter union bosses, public safety is important, but constitutes a secondary consideration. Building and manning more 4 man fire stations is the top priority for our fire department union.
When push comes to shove, arguably SDFD union president Frank De Clercq is quite willing to let a few more San Diegans die each year rather than have the firefighters improve their response times with 2 man crews. When this happens, mark my words – De Clercq will blame the deaths on the taxpayers for not paying for more 4 man fire stations (actually 13 man/person fire stations, when you consider the 24/7 manning requirement).
Sadly, no union has greater pull in city hall than our beloved firefighters — and no union cares less about our city. Indeed, most “city” firefighters and their families don’t even live in the city of San Diego — many don’t even live in San Diego COUNTY (commuting from further north).
Yet the coveted firefighter candidate endorsement carries enormous weight in city politics. Unions rule!
Comments 1
Two man crews sound practical.
Proposition B passed in 2012 and former Mayor Filner negotiated the 5 year Pensionable Pay Freeze starting next year.
However no one has discussed, let alone challenge, any UNVESTED Pension Benefits including increases to the young Retirement ages of 50/55, elimination of DROP, ALL Unfunded Retroactive Pension Benefits increases, etc.
http://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/elections/city/pdf/retirementcharteramendment.pdf
Propsition B. “Eliminate, unless otherwise allowed by law or agreement, the requirement of a majority vote by employees or retirees in the retirement system for changes that affect their benefits.”
Prior City Council’s tried to increase the 50/55 Retirement Age, but the Unions Vetoed the Legislation based upon the Automatic VETO ability in the City Charter.
Now, in theory, the City Counil could eliminate ALL Unvested Pension Benefits with a majority vote. Increasing Retirement Ages would stop the large amount of Public Safety personnel retiring soon. And the need for more recruits.
http://voiceofsandiego.org/2013/09/12/what-the-city-loses-with-top-police-departures/#comments