SA Firefighter

Quote from: chook on February 05, 2008, 05:57:49 AM
The latest Wordback is interesting apparently the Government & SAMFS are mixing up the budget & EBA negotiations! Have a look and see what you think.
http://www.ufusa.asn.au/08_wordback_2_1.pdf
Anyway take it easy & cheers

Na they are just trying to raise their profile before going into EB. Its their traditional tactic. Beat the government until they are down, make the community scared about public safety and then go into EB so that the govt backs down and gives them everything they want.

I wonder if it will work this time.

I totally agree re the comment about 'things that go on behind the scenes that you might not be aware of'

what are these things???? please tell us? or is this info only for the in crowd?  would you rather just allude to them because you dont have to back up your claims with FACTS.

What are these things. Have the courage to make them known and back them up with facts. and be prepared to PROVE THEM.

All this 'he said, she said' rubbish really hurts us. It causes mistrust and a lack of confidence in the service from memebrs and causes the community to think that volunteers cant do the job.

I think it is entirely proper for the Minister to write to volunteers and to tell them what the Government is doing.

I think Pip has a much broader definition of operational than is actually contained in the legislation. Pip I suggest you read it. Then you will realise that anyting outside of of how the water is put on the fire is the business of SAFECOM/Minister and they do have a right to comment on it.

As for your claims of 'fiddling' in things. what are they? or are you just angry that its other people who are making the decisions and not YOU. There again proof that you are more concerned with your own empire of power, protecting and building an organisation rather than protecting the community. Pip your priorities are all backwards. Your so transperent.

There will always be an element in our organisations who are more concerned with their own empire, their own power and the organisational protection of their turf rather than the protection of the community.

Chook, there are some of us that think of SES as equals and just as important as everyone else. 

Quote from: chook on October 07, 2007, 06:07:08 PM
Sorry Pip, but the minister is ultimately responsible for us - not as individuals but as members of the emergency services.
Like it or not when we put the uniform on we are "employed" by the emergency services under the Fire & Emergency Services Act. It doesn't matter whether you are a full time in the service, Part time,Retained MFS or a vollie in CFS/SES. The minister is answerable to the Parliament, which in turn is answerable to the people. It is entirely appropriate for her to communicate with whoever she chooses and to make comments on whatever she feels like - thats democracy. I'm curious about one of your comments though,"There are also many things going on behind the scenes that perhaps you are unaware of.". Our Association makes similar comments - What does that mean exactly?
As I have said previously I'm sorry if you read "operational issues" in any of my posts. I have reread my previous posts and can't see any reference to how you guys go about fighting fires, doing rescues, fire management or any of the other operational things you do.
What I have read (repeatedly)though is times are a changin, there is a fantastic opportunity to help with the change and make the services fit the 21 century and continue being in a service to be proud of. But as was said by someone in a previous post - you must know exactly what you want!
What is good for urban/ semi rural brigades(units) may not be suitable for rural/outback brigades/ units. We have this conversation with our urban cousins on a regular basis. Anyway I think I've said enough on this subject, because at the end of the day we will end up doing what the other two services want us to do (it doesn't help being the runt of the litter :-D. cheers chook

As I said read the letter then criticise it. Doing so in the reverse doesnt render you with much credibility.

1) From my photo copy of the letter I was given by our DGO the information about black tuesday just says that it has been a long and hard process and that we should thank everyone for their efforts. - Hardly operational and something that I would expect the govt or the cfs hierachy to be doing... so not inappropriate at all.

2) The review of the legislation i would think is a matter for the Minister, given that the legislation itself says that the minister has to do it.

3)I agree with you that lots of things should be dealt with through the chain of command - but what do you do when you do that and nothing happens? Isnt it a good thing that the person ultimately responsible - eg the Minister has said that you can also contact them? As CFS Members we dont just have a responsibility to our organisation we have a responsibility to the community!!

I think too many times people get caught up in the 'save the cfs' mentality. Rather than do what is best for the community.

Pip i think that perhaps you are the one who prone to the personal attacks and prone to not listening.  You accuse me of not being grown up, and yet at least i inform myself before i make comment on things. You made comment on something you didnt read. You misread what someone posted (a good post by them) and you launched into an attack on the Minister based on your misinterpreted view. I think for whatever reasons (political/personal) you dont like the Minister and you tried to find a reason to launch an attack.

I'll bag the Minister, the CFS or the VFBA if I think they are not doing the right thing. But I also think its a good idea to give credit where it is due. I am not blinded by an agenda like some people. That agenda is what is going to kill the CFS, not the Govt or the MFS or the CFS Management.

I for one am happy whenever those at the top take the time to contact those of us on the ground. And if they give us a mechanism to communicate back I think it is even better.

Quote from: pipster on October 05, 2007, 10:46:17 PM

Quote from: AJ on October 05, 2007, 09:36:41 AM
The letter talked about the appointment of David Place, Volunteer recognition, the coronial inquest and the review of the Act - Please Pip can you Explain how this is operational??? You really are very petty. When you dont get toild things you whinge and when  you do you whinge. Why cant you just be happy that for once someone is listening to us and communicating with us. There was NOTING operational in the letter. You might want to read a copy before you launch into your usual negative rubbish.

Quote from: pipster on October 04, 2007, 04:44:40 PM
Why are we getting all this in a letter from the Minister?  Surely, much of the info you allude to is Operational stuff, which the Minister should not be fiddling in on a daily basis...... :|

Pip

I was going on the information posted by someone else...which alluded to things that I would see as Operational.

As yet, I have not received a copy of the letter - even though I am in a position, that according to others, was meant to receive this letter.   

As far as I can see, info about the "Black Tuesday" Coronial will impact on the Operational side of things....and shouldn't be in the direct realm of a Minister (ever heard of separation of powers?)

A review of the Act can also impact greatly on Operational areas, depending upon what direction the review heads.  However, this may actually be something the Minister should actually be involved with....but I suspect there are other issues that are better dealt with through an Operational chain of command.

I am sorry that you feel it necessary to bag others on this forum for their views, if they differ from your own - rather than being able to discuss the differences in a sensible grown up way.

Pip

 I dont think it unreasonable for Pip to have read the letter before slagging it off. But then again, some people are so blinded by their bias that they would do so anyway. And I think its pathetic when CFS volunteers like myself get accused of being UFU hacks or government stooges every time we disagree with the tactics of people who just want to bag. Its pathetic.

Quote from: Darius on October 05, 2007, 01:59:11 PM

Quote from: AJ on October 05, 2007, 09:36:41 AM
before you launch into your usual negative rubbish.

ah you again, so you're not just anti-VFBA but anti anything negative about the govt / minister.  I was in two minds whether you were a UFU-stooge or a ministers staff stooge, I think perhaps the latter (or maybe they are related).

The letter talked about the appointment of David Place, Volunteer recognition, the coronial inquest and the review of the Act - Please Pip can you Explain how this is operational??? You really are very petty. When you dont get toild things you whinge and when  you do you whinge. Why cant you just be happy that for once someone is listening to us and communicating with us. There was NOTING operational in the letter. You might want to read a copy before you launch into your usual negative rubbish.

Quote from: pipster on October 04, 2007, 04:44:40 PM
Why are we getting all this in a letter from the Minister?  Surely, much of the info you allude to is Operational stuff, which the Minister should not be fiddling in on a daily basis...... :|

Pip

I fail to see how the CFSVA or VBFA are standing up for volunteers when they are arguing that volunteers can't do the job and should be paid!
Doesn't say much for our volunteer ethos if the organisation set up to support and advocate for us is saying that we should have paid fire fighters.
Seems to be a complete paradox an organisation whose sole purpose is to stand up for volunteers saying that they should be paid and not volunteers!!

Quote from: bittenyakka on September 17, 2007, 09:40:24 AM
well start lobbying Hon Stephen Wade MLC to stir up something

Examples please? what are these decisions that are interfered with?
I have no problems with people having a go at the CFS management or the government but I think you have an obligation to provide the facts when you make the criticisms. I think thats only fair.

Quote from: rescue5271 on August 14, 2007, 04:05:36 PM
So where has the VFBA been offering to help the paid staff?? I have not read or heard any of this and I have been getting emails from the VFBA that support Volunteers not the paid staff.....

The VFBA exec officer was on radio saying that they wanted paid fire fighters. Thats where.

Actually I dont think it is the UFU that needs to step back is the VFBA - and I am a CFS Member
The VFBA are too busy trying to advocate for paid CFS fire to boot the CFS as an organisation.
SAFECOM have made it clear there will not be paid CFS firefighters.
So they VFBA need to step back and workj out a way to have integrated stations with paid MFS fire fifghters and volunteers - perhaps a joint station.

So rather than protecting and trying to boost their patch we actually need less of the attempts at empire building from the people whou are supposed to represent us.

The problem is Pip that no one is saying replace CFS with MFS.

People are just saying that we add another level of protection. CFS still remains, and will still have a job.  THe problem is that some people in CFS want to protect their organisation more than they want to protect the community.

The problem is that the reason why there is so much scepticism around new stations and service models is because there is so much patch protection and turf wars and empire building going on.

If MFS move into an area previously covered by CFS all I care about is 'is the community getting a serrvice' and in that case they get an extra service, MFS plus CFS.

The problem is that many people see this whole debate as CFSvMFS. It isnt.

It shouldnt be that way. If they decide to put an MFS station somewhere it just means there is more, it doesnt mean the CFS wont be working, cause as Pip pointed out there will still be a need for more than one appliance.
And if volunteers have to do less to protect the community because the Govt has realised there is a need for a paid service then isnt that a good thing? Or again is it not about the community and more about the organisation?

I think that when we get to the point where all this empire building turf war crap is over we willbe able to examine a decent service model. And sad as it is to say - its our fault. Because everytime someone talks about it the old cackles get up and people go into 'protect the organisation' mode and in the long term this does nothing to 'protect the community'.

There are some areas where there is a need for MFS presence where there isnt one now. But I am sure if the Govt tried to put one there there would be hell. Eg Seaford.

The CFS need to realise we are a volunteer service and we are never going to be given paid fire fighters. The VFBA need to realise its not their job to advocate for paid fire fighters - cause they get paid to advocate for the volunteers - not the CFS as an organisation!!!!!!!

The MFS need to realise they are not replacing CFS when move into an area they are just adding a level of protection and altering the service delivery model. When we can get both MFS and CFS accepting their role and not trying to step on the toes of the other and work together then we might have some progress.

AJ

I think you are a little behind the times

she said yesterday on radio backed up by the CFS that it was them who set the date before she was even a Minister.

Maybe we should be looking at paid CFS Staff too.

If it is true that they have known this was happening for over 2 years then why didnt they conduct the consultation with volunteers.

From the was said yesterday it was CFS who set the date a long time ago for when the transfer had to happem.

maybe we should bas asking a) why didnt the staff tell us
and b) why didnt the CFS staff tell the VFBA. I sustepect however that the VFBA knew when this was all happenign and were part of the problem as well.

Maybe someone should get the minutes from the SAFECOM Board meetings where VFBA reps sit and see if it was ever discussed there? And if it was why didnt they kick up a fuss at that time? Im sure they would have?