« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: sub-standard?? service  (Read 9366 times)

Offline Scania_1

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 443
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
sub-standard?? service
« on: April 11, 2006, 10:05:56 PM »
Copied article from out friends at the UFU SA branch publication.-
The Union was pleased to note that following extensive lobbying from both the SAMFS and the UFU the Government recently purchased land at both Seaford and Aldinga which is earmarked as future SAMFS Fire Stations. The Union has always held the view that as all people now pay the Emergency Services Levy, they should be entitled to the provision of the best available emergency service response.
Logged

strikeathird

  • Guest
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2006, 11:06:10 PM »
Does that mean they dont think Aldinga / Seaford have appropriate/adequate response ?



Personally I think the continual build up of the area and current risks definately need to be addressed..  But don't like the call of "sub-standard" service...
« Last Edit: April 12, 2006, 11:09:39 AM by strikeathird »
Logged

probie_boy

  • Guest
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2006, 09:23:01 AM »
jeez i'd be real happy if i was in one of those brigades. When people say things like that about volunteers, theres going to be a lot of people saying "well why do I waste my time if i'm going to be treated as sub standard?" Hopefully CFS and SAMFS can co exist down there. It would still make me feel worthless though.
Logged

Offline Darius

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2006, 10:03:01 AM »
Quote from: probie_boy on April 12, 2006, 09:23:01 AM
jeez i'd be real happy if i was in one of those brigades. When people say things like that about volunteers, theres going to be a lot of people saying "well why do I waste my time if i'm going to be treated as sub standard?" Hopefully CFS and SAMFS can co exist down there. It would still make me feel worthless though.

depends how paranoid you are I guess.  If the callout rate is high enough that volunteers are putting in so much time, then the govt is taking advantage of volunteers (they still collect the ESL from everyone after all regardless of where you live) instead of paying them to provide a fire service as their job.  I don't see it as anything to do with CFS vs MFS (I think people are far too quick to jump on that bandwagon).

anyway this type of topic has been done to death before and I don't see anything productive coming out of it.
Logged

Offline Alan (Big Al)

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,609
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • CRUMPETS
    • View Profile
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2006, 01:37:05 PM »
They aren't as busy as dalkieth, mount barker etc etc yet you don't here of them wanting to put mets in at Barker or out in the sticks at Dalkieth.

It's a pity things like that are said when most CFS/MFS working relationships are quite good it definatly can't help with those relationships.
Logged
Lt. Goolwa CFS

probie_boy

  • Guest
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #5 on: April 12, 2006, 02:22:53 PM »
logically, you think barker would be next to have an MFS station, i mean half the towns in the riverland do. Barkers pretty well a city now. So what I would do up there is put a 2 truck MFS station and knock barker CFS down to a 34-34p and a 14. So then barker CFS can take care of any bushfires and their larger truck could assist MFS with any structure fires and so on. Send Barkers Dennis to Belair to replace the volvo, send the volvo to a semi built up area until retirement.

thats my plan for what i would do with mt barker.
Logged

PF_

  • Guest
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #6 on: April 12, 2006, 02:27:05 PM »
Theyre probably close enough to Glen Osmond not to need a full time MFS station, the CFS do the same as a retained MFS. 

Who said it is sub-standard anyway, was that the wording or did ath just put it in?
Logged

Offline 24P

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #7 on: April 12, 2006, 02:58:42 PM »
Quote from: P F on April 12, 2006, 02:27:05 PM
 

Who said it is sub-standard anyway, was that the wording or did ath just put it in?
I think its just the way its worded but the UFU seem to think the area doesnt have the best possible service available ie CFS
Logged
Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you.

strikeathird

  • Guest
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #8 on: April 12, 2006, 03:10:36 PM »
Quote from: P F on April 12, 2006, 02:27:05 PM
Theyre probably close enough to Glen Osmond not to need a full time MFS station, the CFS do the same as a retained MFS. 

U looked in a Map book lately...?


They are ages away from G/Osmond...
Logged

rescue5271

  • Guest
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2006, 04:40:30 PM »
Time for a review of the way that both services operate and if the need is there why can't we have mfs/cfs in the one station? Or one not have full time paid staff in CFS stations as well as Volunteers?? works well in other states time for a change,as for the UFU well they should support any better working conditions for paid and Volunteers to work out of the same location....
Logged

probie_boy

  • Guest
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2006, 04:50:55 PM »
should, could, would - but probably won't. although they might, who knows in this crazy world?
Logged

rescue5271

  • Guest
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2006, 04:54:45 PM »
They may have bought the land but that does not mean a station will be opened there,SAFECOM may have a few things to say about it...may be they bought the land as the cost of land in these area's is going up so the MFS may make a few bucks :lol:
Logged

strikeathird

  • Guest
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2006, 04:57:53 PM »
MFS have land all over the place...
Logged

probie_boy

  • Guest
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #13 on: April 12, 2006, 04:59:50 PM »
training perhaps, too? be a good chance to use the ROSA's with running grassies and so on.
Logged

PF_

  • Guest
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #14 on: April 12, 2006, 06:00:47 PM »
Quote from: strikeathird on April 12, 2006, 03:10:36 PM
Quote from: P F on April 12, 2006, 02:27:05 PM
Theyre probably close enough to Glen Osmond not to need a full time MFS station, the CFS do the same as a retained MFS. 

U looked in a Map book lately...?


Nope, but when Im in the car waiting and bored I look in the UBD for fire stations and find good roads to drive in the hills. :-)

theyre not that far up the freeway though are they, CFS do a good job there not to need MFS.
Logged

strikeathird

  • Guest
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2006, 08:01:34 PM »
Quote from: P F on April 12, 2006, 06:00:47 PM
Quote from: strikeathird on April 12, 2006, 03:10:36 PM
Quote from: P F on April 12, 2006, 02:27:05 PM
Theyre probably close enough to Glen Osmond not to need a full time MFS station, the CFS do the same as a retained MFS. 

U looked in a Map book lately...?


Nope, but when Im in the car waiting and bored I look in the UBD for fire stations and find good roads to drive in the hills. :-)

theyre not that far up the freeway though are they, CFS do a good job there not to need MFS.

Oh okay.. Nah, they are a long way away..
Logged

Offline medevac

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,659
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #16 on: April 13, 2006, 09:19:15 AM »
presume your talking mt barker? bout 20ish minutes up the freeway (from tollgate)...

there may be land purchased down those areas, but im willing to bet nothing is built for years, and by the time it is (going by current growth in these areas) the whole area will be a huge risk for fire/rescue cover. and unfortunatley CFS cannot GARUANTEE (sp?) crews will roll 24/7.

also; i believe (rumor only) that MFS do own land in mt barker.
Logged

Offline oz fire

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 597
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #17 on: April 13, 2006, 12:18:39 PM »
MFS own land in a number of places in both metro and near fringe areas 8-) Likewise they have owned land before in CFS areas and then sold it!

They have enough problems with their current stations (ever spend any time in Glynde or Glen Osmond - both are rather dated and slowly falling apart.

We could all speculate on where, when and why MFS will build stations, however I think they have enough problems in Adelaide  - with gaps that they need to fill first!

As for the stations in the country areas (some one said riverland) - all retained crews and stations range from the palace at Renmark to old and tied stations in other areas!

As for the UFU - they are a union - it's their job to stir the brown stuff - thats what they are paid for and they have been good at it over the years - looking after their members and ensuring the brown stuff is always just balancing below the fan - ready to hit it when the need arises
Logged
Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the ability to control it.

Offline nomex_nugget

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 35
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #18 on: April 13, 2006, 09:35:19 PM »
[quoteThey aren't as busy as dalkieth, mount barker etc etc yet you don't here of them wanting to put mets in at Barker or out in the sticks at Dalkieth.]
Quote

Don't be so sure, You never know who is next...

This is an interesting development.

Logged

strikeathird

  • Guest
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2006, 10:57:54 AM »
And thats the way the cookie crumbles........



Interesting find nugget...
Logged

Offline 24P

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2006, 11:30:25 AM »
Love the use of the word 'discrete'. Why not be open about it?
Logged
Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you.

rescue5271

  • Guest
Re: sub-standard?? service
« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2006, 08:38:15 PM »
May be the land at mt barker is for their new station??? or a satelite station.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »