Being a firefighter means many differents things, dependant upon geography and, the configuration of the emergency response system in specific jurisdiction.
Here are some of their roles…
Suppression of Fires
Fire rescue
Fire prevention
Confined space entry
High angle rescue
Water rescue
Underwater rescue and search
Auto extrication
Chemical spill response
Biohazard Response
first aid
and other related issues
and in some areas…
Paramedic Response
There is no question that firefighters do provide enormous service to our communities, especially those in rural settings that do so on a volunteer basis.
That said, within firefighter traditional role- fighting fires, call statistics indicate that they don’t fight many fires anymore. In fact, because firefighters don’t fight as many fires as they once did, they have had to justify their existence by branching into areas of expertise outside their traditional boundaries.
As to why there aren’t as may fires as there once was is simply due to better building materials, better electrical codes and standards and better standards in the construction of structures.
Now and in the coming years firefighting will be less and less about their historic roles, like auto extrication, (this because of a decrease in the western world of drinking and driving related accidents-historically the #1 cause of auto accidents) and the need for enforced fire prevention.
Would a communities tax dollars be better spen upon beefing up the ability to respond to medical emergencies? Absolutely! The aging population will create a huge increase in the call volume to people in medical need.
So why is it that so many tax dollars are used to support the traditional role of firefighters?
When a corporation considers expansion into a community one of the most important questions they have for the community planners is, “What kind of emergency response can you afford our stuructures and processes?”. The corporation asks this question out of concern for the municipalities ability to prevent and suppress an emergency borne out of a chemical, structural or mechanical process gone wrong in which there is the potential of damage to outlying property or risk to human health. In essence, the corporation is attempting to secure protection from potential liability on the backs of the taxpayer.
In today world, industrial practices use the most modern(and in many cases the most volatile and dangerous) chemical and biological practices in pursuit of a better product. Why should the corporations themselves not be responsible for employing an appropriate in-house emergency response to their own problems?
There are still more than enough fires that professional firefighters are needed. They will be needed until the time that everything can be made fireproof. Of course then they will just move onto burning books…
I don’t suppose that you have anything, factual or anecdotal, to support this?
I think a direct analogy can be drawn to the Postal Service. When was the last time you got an actual letter, like from another private person. I can’t remember, myself. When I go to my mailbox, the entitys being served are entirely corporate: they send me advertising, the send me bills, etc. Yet they are supported by taxation of private citizens to the support of corporate interests, which I am willing to accept as a worthy definition of “corporate welfare”.
The Postal Service is, by law, mandated to be self-supporting.
3rd class mail brings in a disporportionately high share of revenue. First-class, non-sorted mail (the personal letters) are loss-leaders.
And by the way, my clients who have manufacturing facilities have significant fire-fighting capabilities on their own, particularly if they’re involved with hazardous materials. In fact, I’ve had at least two clients who trained their local fire departments.
I assume that you are asking me to support my claims, (even though you started the thread with nothing to support your claims). Ask and ye shall receive. According to this site the number of fires per year are down 43% since 1980. Before you start crowing, they also list that there were 1.7+ million fires in 2000. Would you just have them burn out of control?
I may be mistaken but I do believe corporations pay taxes that go towards things like emergency response teams and law enforcement.
Why should private citizens be equally as responsible? Actually there are many codes that a work environment must follow by law. These codes are there in order to help prevent accidents and if an accident occurs to ensure a minimal loss of life and property.
Some of my friends ask about emergency response before they make a decision to buy or rent a home. Why should private individuals themselves not be responsible for employing an appropriate in-house emergency response to their own problems?
MHL, from one leftist to another, I just want to suggest that you try to follow better “protocol” here. People get mad if you keep posting Great Debate threads that are overly controversial, or have imflamatory titles. It’s hard for me to explain the right protocol to follow. I sometimes have a hard time understanding it myself.
You don’t have many posts here yet. I suggest just relaxing and using the board more; learn about the protocol. Post on other people’s threads, but don’t start your own GD thread until you get more experience.
Hope that helps. I was going to email that to you, but your profile won’t allow other members to email you.
If corporations should be responsible for in-house emergency responses to their own problems, why shouldn’t households? The fact that corporations generally have more assets than households is not a sufficient response - the cost of an in-house emergency response for a corporation is proportionately higher;
Requiring each corporation to develop in-house emergency responses is a waste of money. Fire departments are essentially insurance - I, for example, have never had a fire in any place I’ve lived, but I gladly pay taxes that support fire departments, because it is cheaper than putting in high pressure hoses, a sufficient water supply, etc., in my house. Similarly, each corporation is unlikely to need emergency services in any particular year, so it is better that everyone, businesses and individuals, chip in lesser amounts to pay for emergency services on the off-chance that some of them may need the services;
More to the point, firefighting/emergency services is a classic example of a negative externality. Fires/chemical spills/etc. have the potential to affect others beyond the business where it occurs. Putting aside the issues of lawsuits for the moment, it isn’t in the interest of a corporation to pay for internal emergency services that would cover their neighbors, any more than it is in my interests to pay for the installation of sprinklers in my neighbors’ houses on the off-chance a fire at my place would spread to theirs. It is therefore in the best interests of the community as a whole to pay for service to prevent/mitigate these external costs.
Granted, there are an exceptional few corporations that that go beyond the limits of what is due diligence in providing preparedness to themselves and their neighbours.
That said, more often, these companies are forced into a higher degree of responsibility because of a negotiated labour agreement, prior inquest having made recommendations and past liability raising the bar of due diligence.
Reading the OP will help you understand that there are less fires than ever before per capita in North America. Keep in mind that the fire stats you provided include garbage can fires that in some instances would extinguish themseves with no risk to other structure or endangerment of human life. In many instances FD stats wildly exaggerate the risk to structure or human life, that is, they don’t tell you what the risk of the fire’s continuation represents.
If you are adept at stat gathering, find out how many firefighters work in a specific region and, see if there has been a proportional drop in employment as fires continue to drop…you might be suprised.
The real reason “tax dollars are used to support the traditional role of firefighters” (MHL) and “they have had to justify their existence by branching into areas of expertise outside their traditional boundaries” (MHL) is because when an emergency DOES occur, however UNFREQUENTLY, we as a society need the large number of emergency workers. Because fires occur less often, firefighters DO have to justify their schedules, to stay full time employees, therefore going into roadside service, community service, etc.
Many smaller communities get by just fine with 1 full time firefighter and lots of on-call volunteers. Ambulance drivers and First Aid workers as well. But, in larger communities (ie, cities), it is more difficult to rely on volunteers. THAT, MHL, WOULD BE AN INTERESTING DEBATE THOUGH! Meanwhile, we have full time employees who are trying to service their community in a more productive way than sitting around waiting for a fire.
But believe me, when your city’s wharf goes up in flames, you’ll be glad you have dozens of full time firefighters.
Once again much of the standard that does exist for corporations exists because of the points made in response to point #1.
Questions to you Sua:
*Do Corporations pay proportional amounts of tax dedicated to emergency response as do households per capita?
*Are there many Corporations that pay very little to no municipal tax?
*Are corporations wooed to come to a community having the community waive municipal and state/provincial tax?
*Do corporations threaten to, “go to Mexico” if taxes are maintained or increased to support Emergency services?
There are standards to reflect number of staff and types of vehicles required. We wouldn't just blindly staff communities with a randomly high number of responders. Typically communities are staffed based on population base, call volume, response time or a combination of those stats.
The question is, are we staffing to reflect a corporations needs? Would our tax dollars be better spent staffing, as an example,in an area of huge growth like paramedicine due to the aging population we now face.
Come on, MHL is right on! Privatize everything! Why should corporations get police protection? Make em catch crooks themselves. Why should corporations be able to use our roads? They should have to build their own roads! Why should our military defend them? They should have their own private militaries! And why should they get medical insurance? It they are sick, they should have their own doctors, none of that public health crap. Why should corporations get to use our court system? Corporations should be forced to set up their own private court system! And why should we let them use our laws? They should make their own damn laws!
God DAMN those capitalist fatcats, with their public works and public services. Libertaria, here we come!
However, poorer/slum neighborhoods have disproportionately higher numbers of older structures, poorer wiring and other problems that lead to higher fire risk. Slash firefighting budgets in order to take it to the evil corporate swine, and you’re likely to wind up punishing the wrong people.
Some concrete examples (read: facts) would help bolster your points. Example - the statement that modern industrial practices favor using “the most volatile and dangerous chemical and biological practices” to make better products. In what current situations do companies prefer using highly dangerous manufacturing processes where reasonable alternatives exist?