As a former firefighter, I can tell you that 4-0 staffing is more efficient, safer and effective. However in a slow season, I recognize that it appears wasteful of monetary resources. We don't come cheap, I know. To have less staffing is also less effective and safe, costing perhaps more in losses and resources (you have to order more on the line to do better and save more).
I started in the days of one firefighter per piece of apparatus. It was pretty hairy at times and the public deserves better. When I left, we had 3-0 staffing with a few rigs at 4-0. That was MUCH more cost effective. Google 'synergy' if you don't understand.
The main "product"' of the fire service is a non-tangible, assurance. The "consumer" is assured that EVERY time they call for help, it will be sent. Be it mud slide, fire, transport to a hospital, a blood pressure check, safety inspections or advice on garden plants, the fire service does it all. The public knows this and is assured, can rest easier and focus on the more pleasant aspects of their life. That's the 'product' we offer.
So having said this, your answer is to be a thorn in the side of the politicos in your area. If you feel less safe by staff reductions, make it known to those we have granted control. It may come down to paying more for the service, or at the cost of another service.
Without debating politics, THAT is what we pay them to do. It's up to us to let them know how we feel so they do a more effective job. If we don't, they won't know and may make a less correct choice on our behalf.
Rick
Blame the typos on the iPhone. It's awkward to type on one.
Not sure if this is too off topic, but Browns proposed budget cut eliminates the 4th firefighter on every engine! I am concerned this will result in dangerous situations for both the public and the firefighters! What can we do?
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment