Connecticut's PBFD to lay off 9 FFs

N

nfd2004

Joined
Jun 22, 2007
Messages
5,972
The Pequonock Bridge Fire District will be laying off Nine Firefighters within 30 days (7/20/2014). Pequonock Bridge FD is the largest department within the borders of Groton, Ct. They cover the largest area including the business district, a high school, I-95, a small low income project, a small airport, and Amtrack and other railroad traffic travels through there. They are the busiest department in the Town of Groton.

  Of the 25 (?) member department, 9 firefighters will be getting their lay off notices. Roughly one third (36 %) of the entire department will be laid off. That compares to about 100 or so firefighters in the City of Hartford or Bridgeport, Ct getting laid off. For the FDNY maybe 3,000.

  It is my hope that if there is any kind of picket or protest, the Firefighting Brothers and Sisters will show their support. Although there is nothing planned at this point. (I will be sure to keep the members here advised).

  A frequent contributor to this site, "Bxboro", is a firefighter in that district, although he is not one of the members who will be laid off. But now, "Bxboro" will be required to respond to an incident, in most cases, just himself and two other firefighters, until some mutual aid can arrive. It's a dangerous situation but through local politicians, it has become a disaster in the making. (Bxboro also has a brother on the FDNY).

  Here is the story from the local newspaper this morning ;
    www.theday.com/article/20140620/NWS01/306209930/1017
 
Unbelievable that cities are still doing this. I know in eastchester,ny  although not the same circumstance they have started browning  out a truck when there are empty positions. Only 2 guys on a engine and truck.
 
No - they will be at 3 FFs per shift.  That is terrible.  They will have to wait for mutual aid at working fires.
 
Update: Those 9 firefighters were laid off at the end of July. Their previous manning had been 1 officer and 4 to 5 firefighters on duty. The nine laid off firefighters includes one member with 8 years on the job. They also remain short 4 firefighter positions, so in reality they have been cut 13 firefighter positions. A cut back of about 42 %, almost half, for the size of their department.

  Only one engine company is manned now with 1 officer and 2 firefighters. Their only ladder truck now is NOT manned and the first due ladder now responds from another, separate fire district, within the same town (Groton) with ONE firefighter.

  A meeting that had been scheduled prior to the layoffs was abruptly cancelled one hour before, as families and firefighters showed up to support their on the job brothers. There were no additional meetings rescheduled and the lay offs took place.

  In order to prevent these layoffs, the membership of the IAFF local was willing to discuss this issue and possibility reopen the current contract. That was never considered by the opposing Fire District board.

  The laid off firefighters are able to collect unemployment for a total of 26 weeks. However, they have lost their medical coverage at this time. Last Monday, August 11th, a court hearing was done to see if this issue qualifies as a serious hazard to the citizens and firefighters of that district. That matter was considered and the firefighters were able to prove that this is a threat to the public and its firefighters on duty. The next step is another court case to hopefully settle this issue and hire those laid off firefighters back. The court felt that time is an issue here, and going through the proper grievance procedure could take many months to accomplish. The court cited a case in 1991 in which a similar situation happened to the City of Waterbury, Ct. At the time, Waterbury wanted to lay off firefighters similar to what is happening here. The court ruled in favor of those firefighters and felt that the public and firefighters safety was in fact an issue and it was set as a priority case to by pass the grievance procedures.

  I wanted to report this as I see it from the outside. One site member here, "Bxboro" is a senior firefighter in that department. He is affected by these layoffs on every call he responds to. If he is able to, maybe he can correct me if I have things wrong, or he might be able to add to this event.

  Another recent lay off of public safety personnel occurred just a few weeks earlier. Six Dispatchers of what is called "South Central C-med" in New Haven, Ct were laid off. Those C-med dispatchers would coordinate all the medical calls within the County of New Haven, which is one of Connecticut's most populated county's. In addition to their medical call taking, medical patches to the hospitals, they also dispatched fire calls for some of the smaller towns within the county. I would compare this, on a smaller scale, to the FDNY/EMS Dispatch center.
 
This is insane, what can you do with 4 guys? Make that three, you need someone on the plug. Several towns in the Chicago are undergoing their own problems. Mayor of McCook want to abolish their dept and merge with a FPD. Granted they only have 260 or so residents but the town is heavily industrial and I-55 runs through it. North Riverside is talking about privatizing, they have a nearly 2 million dollar pension defecit which by law must be balanced this year. Many depts are facing these pension problems, for years they under-funded them.
 
Lining their pockets while heros who have dedicated their lives to serving the public are made to suffer and be criticized. No one took this job to be a millionaire. The only guarantees were job security and a decent pension.
 
R1SmokeEater said:
All of this everywhere comes down to one thing.....F@?king Politicians!
Click to expand...

  That is exactly right Jamie. Those politicians could care less about the safety of those firefighters OR the citizens who voted them in. They only care about their own political future. I was one of those that went down to support those PBFD members. Those are some dedicated decent guys. When I got to that scheduled meeting, I was actually running a little late. I saw a large group standing outside of the building. I first thought that maybe the place is overcrowded and no more could go in. Then I was told by one of those firefighters that the meeting was cancelled. In the door was a sign saying: "Scheduled meeting cancelled tonight". My guess is that the politicians got cold feet when they saw or heard of the opposing numbers they were facing. That meeting was cancelled ONE HOUR before.

  The guy in charge who pushed for the layoffs owns a package store and a marina. Has a beautiful home on Connecticut's shoreline. He had one of his workers join him saying that she pays too much for the fire protection. The amount of taxes she pays for fire protection is $3.29 a year, for her car.
 
There is a minimum manning amount that if you don't have, you might as well not have anyone.  I don't suggest any further cuts, but the unfortunate truth is - if you don't have enough soldiers to fight a battle, you don't have an army. 

Fire departments have established requirements with essential manpower, apparatus and equipment.  These requirements are learned from history as well as modern scientific research.  They are supported by national fire industry standards, insurance requirements and safety laws.  Minimum staffing is not arbitrary.  It is amazing that political administrators can simply ignore these life-saving requirements and diminish effective departments to dysfunctional and non-safe levels.  They should be held accountable if future loss of life, injuries and increased property losses result from fire department cuts.

I also do not understand how why the public is indifferent.  If a school administrator complains about the threatened layoff of teachers, and the potential bad effects upon students, both the media and the public become passionate supporters.  If there are cuts to social programs, there are petitions and protests.  Why is there deafening silence when firefighters are cut?  With the exception of a few political supporters and neighborhood leaders - a few - the only ones who fight against fire department cuts are mainly firefighters, their union and their families.  If people know that their fire department can no longer put a fire out in their home, or effectively rescue them until another town's fire department shows up, or are not available to perform CPR on a loved one because there is no one available to respond to the call - wouldn't they be concerned? 

Sorry for preaching to the choir here, but I don't get it.  Is the message just not getting out effectively or do people just not care?       
 
mack said:
I also do not understand how why the public is indifferent.  If a school administrator complains about the threatened layoff of teachers, and the potential bad effects upon students, both the media and the public become passionate supporters.  If there are cuts to social programs, there are petitions and protests.  Why is there deafening silence when firefighters are cut?  With the exception of a few political supporters and neighborhood leaders - a few - the only ones who fight against fire department cuts are mainly firefighters, their union and their families. 
Click to expand...
There is one place where the citizens seem to stand up to proposed reductions in the fire department resources and that's New York City!  I think it's because they are of the firehouses are more part of the neighborhood so when a proposal comes forward to close a house the neighbors in that area band together and protest.  Quite often it's been effective in preventing the closure of the company.  Too bad the same type of protests don't occur in other cities went for department reductions are proposed.
 
In regards to the pension problems I brought up yesterday, ChicagoAreaFire.com has an extensive article on it.
 
Yes, we do EMS........ The court ruled today against an injunction filed by the Union. Sad times here. A Quote from the Judges 6 page explanation regarding the chiefs testimony..."While the fire chief believes the 3-firefighter minimum presents his department with a manpower emergency, he does not believe it is an imminent danger so grave that it could not wait 30-60 days to resolve- although he said 60 days was " stretching it". He agreed that safety was not dependent exclusively on the 5-firefighter minimum but several factors, including training and good judgement. He said there was no "imminent and irreparable threat" caused by the reductions". We are in awe to say the least. Check out Pipenozzle.com to get the entire history of this BS thats going on here, especially if you work in a smaller department.
 
Bxboro said:
Yes, we do EMS........ The court ruled today against an injunction filed by the Union. Sad times here. A Quote from the Judges 6 page explanation regarding the chiefs testimony..."While the fire chief believes the 3-firefighter minimum presents his department with a manpower emergency, he does not believe it is an imminent danger so grave that it could not wait 30-60 days to resolve- although he said 60 days was " stretching it". He agreed that safety was not dependent exclusively on the 5-firefighter minimum but several factors, including training and good judgement. He said there was no "imminent and irreparable threat" caused by the reductions". We are in awe to say the least. Check out Pipenozzle.com to get the entire history of this BS thats going on here, especially if you work in a smaller department.
Click to expand...

  Scott, "Bxboro", you and your Brothers have been through a lot. Thanks for telling us what the latest news is regarding the recent lay offs of the nine firefighters from your department. I too was taken back by the statement that your chief gave to the court. "He does not believe it is an imminent danger so grave that it could not wait 30-60 days to resolve". How can anyone, including a Chief of Department, know whether it is more dangerous for the department 5 minutes or 5 years from now. That statement that he gave to the court will now put you and everybody else at risk until this issue is resolved.
 
Did your chief ever hear of the 2 in, 2 out rule?  Without at least five people on the scene is impossible to do a safe entry into a fire structure!  That alone presents a major safety issue to both your citizens and firefighters.
 
Bulldog said:
Did your chief ever hear of the 2 in, 2 out rule?  Without at least five people on the scene is impossible to do a safe entry into a fire structure!  That alone presents a major safety issue to both your citizens and firefighters.
Click to expand...

  I think the answer to that question may be somewhat explained here in "Bxboro's" earlier statement - reply #14, and also in the thread called "Engine 165 to Squad 165", replies # 133/134 of the Apparatus section.
 
Yes he is fully aware of the risks involved and obviously doesn't care. Even the judge said " it is not substantially probable that in the next 30-60 days someone will have to be rescued from a structure fire in Poquonnock Bridge." ( The labor board ruling should be out then) I'm sure also that the chiefs job has been threatened if he didn't supply the answers that the fire district board wanted. So now we operate one 3 (mininum) or 4 man engine company that will do roughly 2200 runs annually. 2nd due engine arrival times will vary depending if they are a career rig or a volly rig, and the truck......10-15 minutes...who knows.  Both will be mutual aid rigs. Anyone living above the second floor ought to pray....we only have a 24 portable. As far as the judges comment goes, I wonder what his view of the fire department was on September 10, 2001 ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top