So our membership has a trust that administers our insurance benefits, so what? We are all city employees, we all get the same amount of sick leave, vacation and so on. Why should we settle for less than all other city employees?

Because, when the Fire Department decided to pull out of the insurance group the rest of the City Employees are in, the rates increased due to fewer employee participation. So it's only fair that Fire employees pay a larger percentage.

As part of a new policy to completely ignore RCjunkie I will fail this once. Junkie, your a vindictive person arent you? You basically have a management is right no matter what attitude. The FD left the city insurance pool when we figured out we could do a better job with the same amount of money. We assesed each member a certain amount to build our trust. We collected somewhere around 10 milion dollars, and our system works. Proven by the fact that the city switched to the same style of system.

I am floored that you think we should pay more, simply because we found a better way to operate. Further proving you hate firefighters.

As part of a new policy to completely ignore RCjunkie I will fail this once. Junkie, your a vindictive person arent you? You basically have a management is right no matter what attitude. The FD left the city insurance pool when we figured out we could do a better job with the same amount of money. We assesed each member a certain amount to build our trust. We collected somewhere around 10 milion dollars, and our system works. Proven by the fact that the city switched to the same style of system.

I am floored that you think we should pay more, simply because we found a better way to operate. Further proving you hate firefighters.

Wrong, once again, I have much respect for all Public Safety Employees, (just ask the 7 firefighters I'm related to, and several very close friends that are fire fighters) but when the Fire Department chose to leave the Insurance Program/System other City employees used, it caused a sharp increase in rates.

As far as ignoring me, please do, I get sick of your self promoting, woe is me attitude.

RC,
Yes the FD did pull out of the city sponsored insurance because we felt like it could be done more efficiently and with less of a cost to the membership while still providing greater coverage. It was done after extensive studies of the how much each department was costing the insurance "pool" within the city. Know what we found out? The FD cost the least of all departments when it came to health care coverage! Guess which one costs the city the most for claims and has the least amount of personnel? Management employees! I'm not sure how you see it as a woe is me attitude. We took a failing health coverage plan provided by the city, invested the money in our own health plan and are so much better for doing so.

RC,
Yes the FD did pull out of the city sponsored insurance because we felt like it could be done more efficiently and with less of a cost to the membership while still providing greater coverage. It was done after extensive studies of the how much each department was costing the insurance "pool" within the city. Know what we found out? The FD cost the least of all departments when it came to health care coverage! Guess which one costs the city the most for claims and has the least amount of personnel? Management employees! I'm not sure how you see it as a woe is me attitude. We took a failing health coverage plan provided by the city, invested the money in our own health plan and are so much better for doing so.

Further proof that you need to broaden your knowledge, as a management employee, I was offered and had the same insurance choices/options as AFSCM employees.

barnold it's pretty obvious he didn't understand what you were saying. You may want to try one more time to explain your point. If so, you may want to explain it a little slower.

barnold it's pretty obvious he didn't understand what you were saying. You may want to try one more time to explain your point. If so, you may want to explain it a little slower.

Wrong again!

Because, when the Fire Department decided to pull out of the insurance group the rest of the City Employees are in, the rates increased due to fewer employee participation. So it's only fair that Fire employees pay a larger percentage.

Proving once again that no matter how long you worked in "management", without using some critical evaluation of your own, you were just swallowing what they were feeding you. This is going to be a little lengthy, and it's going to be completely opposite of what you're being fed by the city, but try to read it all. You'll learn something.

When the FD negotiated their insurance benefits away from the city we were told at the time, by the people setting up our insurance trust, that as a deptartment we were holding down cost for the city because we used the insurance benefits less than any other departments. They couldn't believe the city would be willing to let us strike out on our own to find better rates and coverage for this reason.

As far as the rates for the other employees going up, that's because the other departments used more benefits per employee than we did. When we left the pool the amount of insurance usage per employee went up. It had nothing to do with making the group smaller. If that was the case how could the FD get better rates with as small a group as they had? We tried to explain this to the city but they displayed the same negotiating genius that they always do when confronted with the facts and numbers. They dared us to find a better deal. Now, they are more than a little pissed that we did exactly what we told them we were going to do and are trying to punish us through lessening the amount payed to us as opposed to every other city employee. What a suprise.

As far as the point barnold was trying to make, the city insurance usage can be broken up into groups so as to figure out who is using more benefits. Probably so they could charge that group more for driving up the cost for everyone else. They found that it was Management using the most insurance benefits per employee. I can't wait to see the proposal where they ask to raise their own insurance rates to reflect this.

Proving once again that no matter how long you worked in "management", without using some critical evaluation of your own, you were just swallowing what they were feeding you. This is going to be a little lengthy, and it's going to be completely opposite of what you're being fed by the city, but try to read it all. You'll learn something.

When the FD negotiated their insurance benefits away from the city we were told at the time, by the people setting up our insurance trust, that as a deptartment we were holding down cost for the city because we used the insurance benefits less than any other departments. They couldn't believe the city would be willing to let us strike out on our own to find better rates and coverage for this reason.

As far as the rates for the other employees going up, that's because the other departments used more benefits per employee than we did. When we left the pool the amount of insurance usage per employee went up. It had nothing to do with making the group smaller. If that was the case how could the FD get better rates with as small a group as they had? We tried to explain this to the city but they displayed the same negotiating genius that they always do when confronted with the facts and numbers. They dared us to find a better deal. Now, they are more than a little pissed that we did exactly what we told them we were going to do and are trying to punish us through lessening the amount payed to us as opposed to every other city employee. What a suprise.

As far as the point barnold was trying to make, the city insurance usage can be broken up into groups so as to figure out who is using more benefits. Probably so they could charge that group more for driving up the cost for everyone else. They found that it was Management using the most insurance benefits per employee. I can't wait to see the proposal where they ask to raise their own insurance rates to reflect this.

And you believe what the insurance people tell you---amazing. I think I'm right, you (firefighters) think your right, I call a truce, I'm tired of wasting my time and I have a long bike ride ahead of me.

And you believe what the insurance people tell you---amazing. I think I'm right, you (firefighters) think your right, I call a truce, I'm tired of wasting my time and I have a long bike ride ahead of me.

No that's the difference between you and me. I look at what I was told would happen, what actually happened and what the results were and then make my observances from that. You, on the other hand, seem to believe without question, anything fed to you from city hall.

You breezed by the question (big suprise!) of why the FD could find better rates and coverage with a relatively small group of employees, why would the rates for the rest of the city go up? I know the story you got from your bosses doesn't jive with what's actually transpired. They choose to demonize the FD so as to further splinter the employee groups. I gave you some facts to chew on, but that would take a leap of faith on your part that everything you've been told by city hall is not always factual. A little research and critical evaluation could help you out, but hey, enjoy the ride.

Wrong again!Wrong again

And you believe what the insurance people tell you---amazing. I think I'm right, you (firefighters) think your right, I call a truce, I'm tired of wasting my time and I have a long bike ride ahead of me.

RC,
Actually the numbers of insurance usage came from the city sponsored insurance provider. And as andy has pointed out, wrong again. Enjoy the bike ride.

It is obvious to see that the OKC Parks Department promotes using the Peter Principle when selecting its management employees.

It is obvious to see that the OKC Parks Department promotes using the Peter Principle when selecting its management employees.

Andy157, I have a question, are you really an idiot, or do you just play one on the Internet.

That's what you've got?

How about attempting to answer the question about the insurance? Or, like all the other questions I've asked, are you suddenly going to go deaf and mute when it comes to an answer?

Color me confused...

If the FD got better rates and better insurance by going with their own policy pool, doesn't that mean their premiums are lower? Wouldn't it make since to reimburse the employees at the lower rate (actual cost)? They are still getting the insurance paid for (or at least the same percentage), right?

I had a similar situation at work. I worked a 4 day week, 10 hour day. Yet when it came to Holiday pay, I wouldn't get paid for a complete shift (only get paid for 8 hours instead of 10). Was told that it wouldn't be fair to everyone else if I got paid for those 2 hours and they didn't. I pointed out that they are getting paid for their scheduled shift hours, just as I should. If I worked a 6 day week (6.66 hrs/day) I wouldn't expect to get paid for a full 8 hours, just the amount of my shift. In order for the 5 day/8 hr/day person to get a full paycheck, they had to do nothing. If I wanted to get a full paycheck, I had to work an extra two hours to come out even.

That's what you've got?

How about attempting to answer the question about the insurance? Or, like all the other questions I've asked, are you suddenly going to go deaf and mute when it comes to an answer?

Maybe if you had an intelligent question, they would get answered, all you, Andy and mike want to do is argue--sorry, but for me, third grade was years ago.

Color me confused...

If the FD got better rates and better insurance by going with their own policy pool, doesn't that mean their premiums are lower? Wouldn't it make since to reimburse the employees at the lower rate (actual cost)? They are still getting the insurance paid for (or at least the same percentage), right?

I had a similar situation at work. I worked a 4 day week, 10 hour day. Yet when it came to Holiday pay, I wouldn't get paid for a complete shift (only get paid for 8 hours instead of 10). Was told that it wouldn't be fair to everyone else if I got paid for those 2 hours and they didn't. I pointed out that they are getting paid for their scheduled shift hours, just as I should. If I worked a 6 day week (6.66 hrs/day) I wouldn't expect to get paid for a full 8 hours, just the amount of my shift. In order for the 5 day/8 hr/day person to get a full paycheck, they had to do nothing. If I wanted to get a full paycheck, I had to work an extra two hours to come out even.

Your pissing in the wind my friend, they don't want logic or reason, they are dead set on self-promoting, no matter how distorted their information is.

Well so much for arguing the points...i guess we're all back to name calling now. Great thread...NOT

Well so much for arguing the points...i guess we're all back to name calling now. Great thread...NOT

Thats how the firefighters roll, disagree with them on anything city related and the sharpend nails come out, I shouldn't fall for their childish behavior, but I will defend myself and fire back.

Kinda sad day OKC, We lost 22 police officers, 29 firefighters and countless other city employess. This is totally unneeded, the city amended the budget in February. The city refuses to release the new budget numbers related to the amended budget. They are just going back to the we are $19,000,000.00 short line. Remember they added $12,000.00.00 from fund balances to correct the budget. If you live in the city you are being shortchanged by your mayor and council. Just thought you ought to know.

Color me confused...

If the FD got better rates and better insurance by going with their own policy pool, doesn't that mean their premiums are lower? Wouldn't it make since to reimburse the employees at the lower rate (actual cost)? They are still getting the insurance paid for (or at least the same percentage), right?

I had a similar situation at work. I worked a 4 day week, 10 hour day. Yet when it came to Holiday pay, I wouldn't get paid for a complete shift (only get paid for 8 hours instead of 10). Was told that it wouldn't be fair to everyone else if I got paid for those 2 hours and they didn't. I pointed out that they are getting paid for their scheduled shift hours, just as I should. If I worked a 6 day week (6.66 hrs/day) I wouldn't expect to get paid for a full 8 hours, just the amount of my shift. In order for the 5 day/8 hr/day person to get a full paycheck, they had to do nothing. If I wanted to get a full paycheck, I had to work an extra two hours to come out even.

So you're saying punish a group of employees for going out on their own, taking the risk of finding their own coverage at a lesser expense with better coverage. Therefore they shouldn't be asked how they could save the city money, but they should not receive the same amount as the rest of the city employees?

As to your example of hours, I'll go there all day long with you. We work 216 hours in a 28 day cycle, but are only paid for 16 hours out of every 24hrs. I'm guessing you work a 40 hour work week and wouldn't mind only being paid for 30 hours then.....
The city considers 8 hours of every 24 sleep time and doesn't pay for it, regardless of how often you respond at night. If you don't think we aren't up more during the night than we sleep, send me your phone in a message and I'll call you everytime we get up and come back to the firehouse.

And yes, when we take off from the station we are only charged with 16hrs of vacation so it all must be legit right? I'll have to let my family respond to that one since I've missed more Christmas', birthdays and anniversaries than I've made in the last 24 years. They are the ones that I hold in high regards for allowing me to serve the citizens of Okc on their special days. The politicians have no clue what it means to "have to work" since they get every holiday they want off and never get their vacations cancelled due to manpower shortages.

barnold,

Think you took my post the wrong way. How is it punishing them? They got better coverage for less. If you are looking at $$$ amounts it looks unfair but if you look at it from the standpoint that your expenses are being covered...

Which is more fair? Getting a blanket per diem amount for lunch when out of town (eat where you want, but you pocket the change or make up the difference) or a policy that says we will reimburse you for actual expenses (usually with a cap equal to the per diem amount). Depends on your situation which is the fairest way to handle it.

Not trying to compare my 40 hr work week with Fire/Police at all. Apples and Kumquats.

barnold,

Think you took my post the wrong way. How is it punishing them? They got better coverage for less. If you are looking at $$$ amounts it looks unfair but if you look at it from the standpoint that your expenses are being covered...

Which is more fair? Getting a blanket per diem amount for lunch when out of town (eat where you want, but you pocket the change or make up the difference) or a policy that says we will reimburse you for actual expenses (usually with a cap equal to the per diem amount). Depends on your situation which is the fairest way to handle it.

Not trying to compare my 40 hr work week with Fire/Police at all. Apples and Kumquats.

Larry, your wasting your time trying to reason, do as I have, read their quotes, have a good laugh and move on.

RC,
Always quick with the sarcasm but never with true accurate statements or answers. Keep missing you at the council meetings for lunch. Thought you were going to be there to scream and holler about the 29 fire positions being lost?

RC,
Always quick with the sarcasm but never with true accurate statements or answers. Keep missing you at the council meetings for lunch. Thought you were going to be there to scream and holler about the 29 fire positions being lost?


:woowoo: Laugh Laugh Laugh

Who would have guessed? A man of knowledgable and detailed answers and a man of your word. LOL

Who would have guessed? A man of knowledgable and detailed answers and a man of your word. LOL

Like a cockroach in the dark!!, he resurfaces.

Well guess what? The city is still up to its old tricks, however, they just opened a new bag of them for this coming fiscal year.

Just thought you might want to know, they just cut 29 firefighter positions out of the budget. It even gets better, they are going as far now as asking for an additional 5% budget cut for the upcoming fiscal year on top of the what they were previously asking for. In addition, the city is now paying some of its firefighters now out of the Maps 3use tax and using those general fund monies that were going for the fire dept. to fund some of the city other pet peeve projects. The shell game starts again. This will give the appearance to the city constituents that they are following through on their MAPS 3promises, lol. Which in reality, you the citizens have 29 fewer firefighters on the streets and judging from this next fiscal years budgets cuts could be as high as an additional 50 fewer firefighters on the streets for a total of 79 fewer firefighters on the streets. This is good stuff.

Does anyone remember the public safety sales tax that was voted on and passed in 1989. It is a 3/4 cent sales tax that is supposed to fund 200 additional firefighters and 200 additional police officers on top of the fire and police that were on staff in 1989.
In 1989, fire dept had 948 firefighters, today we have 919 and still dropping, could be to the tune of 869 by the end of next fiscal year. Guess what, we the citizens of this city are still paying for 948 firefighters and the police are in the same boat, I just dont have their numbers handy. When is enough going to enough, to get some action by an interested party.

We either need to get these public safety numbers back up or we need the citizens to repeal this 3/4 cent sales tax supposedly ear marked for public safety. Whats it going to take. These guys are going to continue to play these and other shell games until someone of authority takes action and slams the city hands in the cookie jar. Its going to take someone such as the Oklahoma County District Attorney to do a full investigation into this. Is their not anyone out there who wants to make a name for themselves by exposing corruption at its finest. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

REMEMBER A YES VOTE FOR MAPS 3 WILL PUT MORE FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS ON THE STREET. LOL. GOOD ONE.
AND SOME OF YOU WONDER WHY WE WERE OPPOSED TO MAPS 3. THE PROJECTS ARE GREAT, THE PEOPLE THAT THEY REPRESENT ARE GREAT.
THE GUYS PULLING THE PUPPET STRINGS ON THE CITIZENS TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN, NO SO GREAT.

Sorry for the lengthy post. I cant wait for someone to try to justify this from the city side.

How much did a firefighter/police officer cost in 1989 vs. today? How much has the city budget grown? Have salaries outpaced budget growth?

How much did a firefighter/police officer cost in 1989 vs. today? How much has the city budget grown? Have salaries outpaced budget growth?

Good questions, I dont have those numbers off the top of my head but can get them.
But the thing that I find ironic is that their are other cities in our 10 city avg. whom are making it just fine, with depts as large and larger. We are the only city in our 10 city avg. that has a dedicated public safety sales tax to fund additional fire and police. That public safety sales tax provides a tremendous general fund relief for the city.
If they are making it just fine without this public safety sales tax, we should be doing much better than fine.

Midtowner,
I'll go and dig up the cost of firefighter/police in 1989 if you can dig up the total revenues from the 3/4 cent sales tax in 1989 compared to now. While your at it, look at fire/police budget from the general fund in 1989 compared to now. Deal?

What a neat thing that is going on. 7/1/10 the city made cuts to police and fire and nobody has said a word. Now there is a hint that since nobody complained they are going to reduce the remaining number of engine companies from 35 to 30. I hope it's only a rumor.

What a neat thing that is going on. 7/1/10 the city made cuts to police and fire and nobody has said a word. Now there is a hint that since nobody complained they are going to reduce the remaining number of engine companies from 35 to 30. I hope it's only a rumor.

No one said anything or complained? Obviously they weren't reading this thread.

This savings plus the fact that a judge ruled in the City's favor re: 1% pay increase, the budget looks better every day.

Actually the ruling of the judge said that the arbitrator couldn't throw out the cities last best offer, even though it was illegal according to the Oklahoma rules of binding arbitration. So where does this leave it all? Probably in the courts for another couple of years.
RC-it's never been about a raise of 1%, it's been offered back to the city politicians multiple times by the firefighters. It's been about manpower, equipment, safety of firefighters and the citizens we protect. If they do not care, we will continue to do our jobs; but we've never been a passive bunch and will continue to fight for the betterment of our city. Cancel a bus route that affects 40 people a day and they will fill the chambers, but if you cancel your fire insurance you won't complain until your house burns down. We are your fire insurance and hope that you never need us, but if you do need us, I wonder if you'll think of how long it takes us to get there and why? Why wasn't there a ladder that could reach the 4th floor window to save those that were trapped? Why were there initially only 3 firefighters trying to put out my fire instead of 6 or more? All of those little things add up to YOUR safety. If you don't care, we will for you.

Question - could the manpower issue be resolved by the city expanding EMSA resources (which has less expensive labor costs) so they can respond more to car accidents and reducing fire response to accidents with critical injuries or requiring jaws of life? I'm just recalling the reports from last year that show fire responses way down, and what is keeping firefighters so busy are accidents and medical calls.

I believe that really would help out a lot. So many calls are medical calls, if EMSA was staffed properly, the firefighters could, oh I dont know, fight fires.

But that's not going to happen. EMSA is a for-profit agency and as long as they are in control, that will be their focus. They think they are doing a good job, but we all know they suck. The paramedics are all just stretched too thin by the administration that sucks all the cash flow. It's one group that should never have been allowed to exist.

What a lot of people don't know is that the cost associated with the private for-profit operation of the ambulances is, I've always been told, offset by the ability of the ambulances to recover insurance and medicare dollars, and the lower cost of paramedics who are soley tasked with medical calls versus firefighters who are paid far more because of the hazards associated with responding to fires, chemical spills etc. What I've been told is what this city is doing with firefighters is having a phd teach college courses and elementary courses..... I've always wondered why the fire union ever agreed to get into responding to medical calls.

What a lot of people don't know is that the cost associated with the private for-profit operation of the ambulances is, I've always been told, offset by the ability of the ambulances to recover insurance and medicare dollars, and the lower cost of paramedics who are soley tasked with medical calls versus firefighters who are paid far more because of the hazards associated with responding to fires, chemical spills etc. What I've been told is what this city is doing with firefighters is having a phd teach college courses and elementary courses..... I've always wondered why the fire union ever agreed to get into responding to medical calls.

Job security, contract negotation leverage, make them appear busier than they really are.

Actually the ruling of the judge said that the arbitrator couldn't throw out the cities last best offer, even though it was illegal according to the Oklahoma rules of binding arbitration. So where does this leave it all? Probably in the courts for another couple of years.
RC-it's never been about a raise of 1%, it's been offered back to the city politicians multiple times by the firefighters. It's been about manpower, equipment, safety of firefighters and the citizens we protect. If they do not care, we will continue to do our jobs; but we've never been a passive bunch and will continue to fight for the betterment of our city. Cancel a bus route that affects 40 people a day and they will fill the chambers, but if you cancel your fire insurance you won't complain until your house burns down. We are your fire insurance and hope that you never need us, but if you do need us, I wonder if you'll think of how long it takes us to get there and why? Why wasn't there a ladder that could reach the 4th floor window to save those that were trapped? Why were there initially only 3 firefighters trying to put out my fire instead of 6 or more? All of those little things add up to YOUR safety. If you don't care, we will for you.

If it's never been about the raise, why does the union continue to fight for it in court.

Question - could the manpower issue be resolved by the city expanding EMSA resources (which has less expensive labor costs) so they can respond more to car accidents and reducing fire response to accidents with critical injuries or requiring jaws of life? I'm just recalling the reports from last year that show fire responses way down, and what is keeping firefighters so busy are accidents and medical calls.

Steve, I don't know if this would be wise. As it stands the best medics, and most tenured and or least burned out are fire medics. Rarely will you see a 20 year street paramedic unless employed by the FD. Right now, I recognize maybe 2 of the 12-14 rides I make a day.

I also think that it is misleading to say that fires are "way down." The split has been 80% medical and other rides to 20% fire for a very long time. Our ride totals increase yearly by fairly significant margins therefore it stands to reason that fires are also increasing. Already we are at 46,500(ish) rides this year with 5 more months to count and the biggest bulk of the fire season ahead (winter). Personally I am good for 7 working structures this year (starting in January), 4 vehicles (1 of which was threatening a structure), and countless rubbish and random materials fires. This is a decrease from years past due to the construction of the Penn bridge which interferes with our response to that neighboring district, and the housing of Engine 7 in Station 19 while their house is being gutted for remodel. I can forsee almost 2 fires per month by season's end for the year's total. This is one shift, one station, we have 3.

Not every station will carry these numbers, but houses that traditionally don't see a lot of fire are on the march and the apartments on the North side are catching with great frequency these days. Our numbers as a city are offset by outlying stations whose fires while usually more developed due to longer response times, are fewer in frequency. Perhaps the greater importance for these stations is their ability to respond to medical and other emergencies. Emsa will never staff out as far as these stations no matter how well staffed they are.

RC why you are fighting this fight is beyond me. I'm asking you to leave this thread alone. You don't belong here because you have nothing of worth to say and you are inflamatory for its sake alone.

"Job security, contract negotation leverage, make them appear busier than they really are." -RC

"This savings plus the fact that a judge ruled in the City's favor re: 1% pay increase, the budget looks better every day." - RC

This is really dispicable. We have a right to our opinions as do you but following a thread just to ridicule and debase them is not cool.

It sounds like you have a great deal of time on your hand for constructive activities (boating, fishing, enjoying retirement) in the scheme of things your ravings mean nothing. Nobody, really nobody and I mean this genuinely gives a shiny red cent about your posts because they are without worth. They are worthless. You will get a rise out of a fireman because you are purposely choosing your words to that effect. Look at your previous posts, besides us, nobody cares what you think. Let us fight this fight, with those people who matter, people who argue their side because they feel they are as right as we feel we are.

You are just background noise. I have a feeling that with this post, rather than bow out gracefully, you will just turn up the volume and that is your most deplorable trait.

Steve, I don't know if this would be wise. As it stands the best medics, and most tenured and or least burned out are fire medics. Rarely will you see a 20 year street paramedic unless employed by the FD. Right now, I recognize maybe 2 of the 12-14 rides I make a day.

I also think that it is misleading to say that fires are "way down." The split has been 80% medical and other rides to 20% fire for a very long time. Our ride totals increase yearly by fairly significant margins therefore it stands to reason that fires are also increasing. Already we are at 46,500(ish) rides this year with 5 more months to count and the biggest bulk of the fire season ahead (winter). Personally I am good for 7 working structures this year (starting in January), 4 vehicles (1 of which was threatening a structure), and countless rubbish and random materials fires. This is a decrease from years past due to the construction of the Penn bridge which interferes with our response to that neighboring district, and the housing of Engine 7 in Station 19 while their house is being gutted for remodel. I can forsee almost 2 fires per month by season's end for the year's total. This is one shift, one station, we have 3.

Not every station will carry these numbers, but houses that traditionally don't see a lot of fire are on the march and the apartments on the North side are catching with great frequency these days. Our numbers as a city are offset by outlying stations whose fires while usually more developed due to longer response times, are fewer in frequency. Perhaps the greater importance for these stations is their ability to respond to medical and other emergencies. Emsa will never staff out as far as these stations no matter how well staffed they are.

RC why you are fighting this fight is beyond me. I'm asking you to leave this thread alone. You don't belong here because you have nothing of worth to say and you are inflamatory for its sake alone.

"Job security, contract negotation leverage, make them appear busier than they really are." -RC

"This savings plus the fact that a judge ruled in the City's favor re: 1% pay increase, the budget looks better every day." - RC

This is really dispicable. We have a right to our opinions as do you but following a thread just to ridicule and debase them is not cool.

It sounds like you have a great deal of time on your hand for constructive activities (boating, fishing, enjoying retirement) in the scheme of things your ravings mean nothing. Nobody, really nobody and I mean this genuinely gives a shiny red cent about your posts because they are without worth. They are worthless. You will get a rise out of a fireman because you are purposely choosing your words to that effect. Look at your previous posts, besides us, nobody cares what you think. Let us fight this fight, with those people who matter, people who argue their side because they feel they are as right as we feel we are.

You are just background noise. I have a feeling that with this post, rather than bow out gracefully, you will just turn up the volume and that is your most deplorable trait.

Isn't it great to live in a free socitey, one where everyone is entitled to have, and voice ,said opinion, take care and have a great day.

Isn't it great to live in a free socitey, one where everyone is entitled to have, and voice ,said opinion, take care and have a great day.


:Smiley208CONGRATULATIONS:Smiley208


you are now the #1 hypocrite on this forum! :congrats:

:Smiley208CONGRATULATIONS:Smiley208


you are now the #1 hypocrite on this forum! :congrats:

Is my trophy/prize in the mail or do I need to pick it up!!

Steve,

To be simple and blunt-----NO it cannot. Do you really want to get into this when you already know the debate? You've been involved with it for many years. Jaws of Life? are you serious? This is like saying "stop the presses". Lets bring everyone up to the 21st century whether they like it or not.

Not it cannot what? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying barnold. I'm asking if there is a better way to allocate resources...

Question - could the manpower issue be resolved by the city expanding EMSA resources (which has less expensive labor costs) so they can respond more to car accidents and reducing fire response to accidents with critical injuries or requiring jaws of life? I'm just recalling the reports from last year that show fire responses way down, and what is keeping firefighters so busy are accidents and medical calls.

Let me clarify for you. Until EMSA is done away with in it's entirety costs in PS will not be reduced. There will always be a duplication of efforts until it's managed under one umbrella. EMSA employees are not City employees. But I'm sure you remember this even from years ago. The employees are paid from a private "For Profit" company that charges the EMSA trust which also charges the city a fee for providing ambulance service. This is one of the reasons for the FD ALS service and also why Tulsa is looking at dropping EMSA all together. If Tulsa EMSA folds, then the OKC EMSA will be unable to sustain itself even with the $4 water bill it's currently charging.
The ambulance is a transport, kinda like a bus. While they provide paramedics on each bus, many times they are not needed. Is there a better way to provide quality service? Yes. What a shame that a former Fire Chief and now city councilman can't pull up all the studies and numbers he requested from years ago and make a change from his position on the horseshoe.

But does it really make sense to have fire trucks responding to medical calls? Does it make sense for people trained to be firefighters responding to every medical call? I've just got to wonder: if someone were free to wipe the slate clean, would medical response involve EMSA or OCFD? Or would it be an entirely different model?

OK first off, to say the best paramedics are all in the OCFD is 100% wrong. You are forgetting how much of the city is NOT serviced by EMSA and is instead serviced by other ambulance services. IE Midwest Regional in Eastern Oklahoma County. There, you will find 20 year vets....there are still people there that STARTED the service. So don't make a blanket statement without knowing the facts. MRMC services a significant portion of EOC beyond just the borders of MWC. Last I checked, Norman still had REACT as well. You can't say a city of 100K+ people with it's own service doesn't have 20 year vets either.

And Steve, you wouldn't see a firetruck roll up to medical calls. What happens, is the paramedics drive the same ambulance they drive today. The difference....it's painted red. It's the same thing that happens in most large municpalities around the country, we're just waaaaaay behind the times.

It's up to the city to decide if they want to train a paramedic as a firefighter or not...and vice versa. If paramedic service folded into the FD, you don't HAVE to have the paramedic trained as a fire fighter. That's a decision made by the city to do that. Obviously an EMSA employee is not trained in fire fighting and do fine. You place 2 folks and an ambulance at each station and there's the service. I believe the city already owns the hardware and EMSA staffs the vehicle, right? So, it's not like we'd even be out the upfront cost. Not to say that EMSA wouldn't look to offload everything if they were being killed off.

Oh, and like mentioned above, if Tulsa is smart and folds out EMSA, OKC EMSA will die. Neither city can live without the other's service. It's 20 years overdue.

OK first off, to say the best paramedics are all in the OCFD is 100% wrong. You are forgetting how much of the city is NOT serviced by EMSA and is instead serviced by other ambulance services. IE Midwest Regional in Eastern Oklahoma County. There, you will find 20 year vets....there are still people there that STARTED the service. So don't make a blanket statement without knowing the facts. MRMC services a significant portion of EOC beyond just the borders of MWC. Last I checked, Norman still had REACT as well. You can't say a city of 100K+ people with it's own service doesn't have 20 year vets either.

And Steve, you wouldn't see a firetruck roll up to medical calls. What happens, is the paramedics drive the same ambulance they drive today. The difference....it's painted red. It's the same thing that happens in most large municpalities around the country, we're just waaaaaay behind the times.

It's up to the city to decide if they want to train a paramedic as a firefighter or not...and vice versa. If paramedic service folded into the FD, you don't HAVE to have the paramedic trained as a fire fighter. That's a decision made by the city to do that. Obviously an EMSA employee is not trained in fire fighting and do fine. You place 2 folks and an ambulance at each station and there's the service. I believe the city already owns the hardware and EMSA staffs the vehicle, right? So, it's not like we'd even be out the upfront cost. Not to say that EMSA wouldn't look to offload everything if they were being killed off.

Oh, and like mentioned above, if Tulsa is smart and folds out EMSA, OKC EMSA will die. Neither city can live without the other's service. It's 20 years overdue.

BA merely was pointing out that the best paramedics in OKC are with the OKC fire dept and not EMSA. But while you are on your soapbox about MRMC, they have an excellent service. Many of those paramedics at MRMC are OKC firefighters, as well as firefighters from other surrounding cities fire depts, such as MWC, Moore, Edmond, Choctaw and the like.

There are many calls in the rural areas of OKC that would be easier and quicker for MRMC and the like to take but they cannot make those calls without EMSA giving up the call. All of the EMSA units are in the busier areas of the city trying to cover up our fire dept rigs, while the outer areas of the city wait as much as 25-30 minutes for an ambulance. Not a good thing on a full arrest, diabetic sick call, and the like. Do you think that EMSA has the best interest of the patients in the city in mind or is it just a numbers and money game to them. You be the judge.....

You are correct, about OKC being 20 years behind the times. The city owns the ambulances and the equipment. The city has been subsidizing this company for 20 years or more, which provides the staffing for these ambulances. Any Big League city that has any size to it, the fire dept provides the ambulance service also. We want to be a big league city, lets do what the other big league cities have done and provide the ambulance service as well. First, we have to dissolve that EMSA trust with the city and get rid of the dead weight that is involved in that. Lets get rid of the all of the conflicts of interest associated with the EMSA trust.

Steve,

To be simple and blunt-----NO it cannot. Do you really want to get into this when you already know the debate? You've been involved with it for many years. Jaws of Life? are you serious? This is like saying "stop the presses". Lets bring everyone up to the 21st century whether they like it or not.

I work in the printing industry and as long as there are daily printed versions of newspapers, you may indeed still hear this from time to time. Granted with the advent of 24/7 internet sites, they are less likely to go to the trouble (time and expense) to actually stop the presses, make new plates etc unless it something that would be an obvious "OOOOPS" (such as incorrectly declaring an election).

I just have to question whether the existing set-up is the ideal way to go. Imagine a process free of politics, not bound by union contracts, not influenced by big money ... how would a city free of such things address public safety? Would it guarantee the same response times for those living far out on the fringe as to those who live in denser parts of the city? Would the city really try to have a person trained as a firefighter also double up as a paramedic - especially if the paramedic, free of the hazards of fighting fires, chemical spills, etc., came with lower labor costs? Would the city staff based on need, instead of what's in a contract? Would it be more creative in how it staffs and compensates less desirable shifts? If you were paying the bills and in charge of this operation, what would you do? And do many of you who live in Oklahoma City realize you are paying the bills? That you are, via your vote in city elections, in charge?

Sorry, but I haven't read the whole thread...and this seems to be now going off on a tangential argument, but......

Why is it that a firetruck has to accompany the ambulance and medics anyway? Seems pretty redundant. Medics should be medics and firemen firemen. Extenuating circumstances should apply if a firetruck is needed. And even if we multi-task the firemen, why do they bring the fire TRUCK?

I may be naive, but I would never run my company that way. Someone would have to show clear performance and results improvements from that kind of set-up.

Because that's what their transportation is right now. You'll usually see the fire department respond before the paramedic in any town. If they had a rescue squad vehicle, they would use that instead, but they don't.

They aren't going to hop in their personal vehicle to answer the call, so how else do you expect them to get there?

I just have to question whether the existing set-up is the ideal way to go. Imagine a process free of politics, not bound by union contracts, not influenced by big money ... how would a city free of such things address public safety? Would it guarantee the same response times for those living far out on the fringe as to those who live in denser parts of the city? Would the city really try to have a person trained as a firefighter also double up as a paramedic - especially if the paramedic, free of the hazards of fighting fires, chemical spills, etc., came with lower labor costs? Would the city staff based on need, instead of what's in a contract? Would it be more creative in how it staffs and compensates less desirable shifts? If you were paying the bills and in charge of this operation, what would you do? And do many of you who live in Oklahoma City realize you are paying the bills? That you are, via your vote in city elections, in charge?

Ah, wouldn't it be nice to start fresh and make decisions based on need and practicality, throwing in a little accountability along the way? Our government does a bang up job of wasting money and duplicating services, all at taxpayers expense. If it were me, I'd get rid of EMSA and have a small truck/ambulance at a predetermined number of fire stations, with one to three people responding to each call. It's probably more cost effective to have firemen trained as paramedics, even though you pay more per employee. If those firemen needed extra help, such as moving a heavy person, they could call for backup from one of the other smaller rapid response vehicles. But I also think those paramedics could be trained to triage people when they respond to a call and sometimes determine that a person could be transported by family and friends. I've seen all sorts of people with insignificant problems roll in via ambulance. Some people use them as a taxi service to the hospital.

Decisions are made all the time to ration health care. Rationing is a dirty buzz word, but insurance companies and health organizations make decisions all the time that result in rationing of health care.....we just don't label it as such. Emergency services need to be reserved for emergencies, and we need to give first responders the authority and protection from liability to enable them to function cost effectively, maximizing health care that doesn't maximize costs.

Betts is right that there are much better systems out there. OKC has chosen to stay in the dark ages just because of the other things that Steve mentioned. #1 would be the Big Money involved at the political level of city politics. Why aren't people asking why we pay millions of dollars to the EMSA trust to hire a personnel company to staff our ambulances? Why is it not a conflict of interest for a city council person to sit on the EMSA trust with long term ties to EMSA leadership? Politics and Money.....and the paying customers suffer for it along with the $8/hr medics that come and go.

Both Fire and EMSA have many good medics. Why not choose the best ones for a single service run by the city instead of a Trust and cut out the overhead of the middle man?

Cut and paste job from another thread......Larry stated the funding issues and misallocation of dedicated sales tax monies much better than I have and posted links with the report.


'This has been supported by the City Manager in the Budget Reports and most of the PS funding issues with manpower etc could be SOLVED if the City would stop diverting money from the dedicated 3/4 tax to the General Fund. I can only go back to the 2003-04 budget year (that is as far back as they are posted on the City's site) but since then, the charts in the yearly Budget Reports have clearly diverted (“Police Sales Tax to General Fund” & "Fire Sales Tax to General Fund” ) a total of $132,932,410 (presumably this practice has been going back to when the DEDICATED tax was passed). That's $132.9M in diverted funds (or an average of $18.99M/year)

Go and download the reports yourself if you don't believe me (I do have the pg numbers for each year in a document somewhere, but can't locate it right now). But for example: on page 43 of the 2009-10 Budget Report it states:




In a video blurb played in between Council playback, from the 2010-11 Budget, approved 6/15/10

Public Safety Positions
51 uniformed positions cut ($5M "value")

To keep from cutting more than the 51 positions, they used $20M ($10M in "one time money"; $7M from the MAPS 3 Use Tax & $3M from fund balances). Money that may/may not be available in the next budget. But the point is, if they would simply keep the DEDICATED BY LAW funds going to where they are supposed to be going to, there wouldn't be any need to use any of those temporary funding sources. They could have used the Use Tax to save those 51 cut positions (which the campaign promised, we wouldn't have ANY cuts "NO MATTER WHAT" happened with revenue).

Last years diverted amount of $19.9M would easily cover the $5M "value" of the cut positions and covered 75% of the funds from other sources.

Yeah ok...and then head down the street to the capital and you'll see how dollars that were once spent on education are now spent elsewhere because they think the lottery can make up for it.

Same song, different people.

There will always be somewhere money can be pulled from, but that doesn't make it the better choice.

Old arguement.

Bomber,
Amazing!!!! You admit that you realize they've been funneling money away from where it was intended but use the "what about them" rationale. I'm just as pissed at the state leaders for their shell game with education. Especially since one of my sons and daughter in law are teachers. But you don't care about either?
This venue is people taking a stand and letting everyone know about mismanagement and corruption with YOUR money. It may be an old argument but it still doesn't make it right. When are people going to start making the politicians accountable? They have stolen an average of $19 million a year from the PD & FD budget and label them as the thugs. And you think they shouldn't be pissed off, especially when they turn around and lay off even more personnel?