Firefighters looking for compensation before putting out a house fire

[MADMarc]

whoah

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot...logical-debate

[Austin@STM]

That SUCKS!!!, It would really piss me off if firefighters came and watched my house burn down. I understand the reasoning but still you gotta have some heart.

[Hammer]

Wait til they have another wild fire in California. If the state cuts the firemen's retirement and wages they might just stand around and watch homes burn as well. It would be there way of identifing their worth to the state of California and its people. Sports people get paid ungodly wages for playing a game. So I could very well understand this if it happened.

[j2k4]

Sports people get paid ungodly wages for playing a game.

Then perhaps firemen should charger admission while they perform in order to qualify as 'entertainment'.

It's not the same thing, and to make the comparison signals a very basic mis-understanding of how things work.

Should you get LeBron money to do your job?

[Rah]

Firefighter here.

I wish I knew more about the size and compositions of these departments. I am on a rural fire department and a suburban and the differences are night and day. For one, the small budget FD has an annual operating budget less than the wage of a single fulltime firefighter. When fuel costs were high we had to ask ourselves if we wanted to be invited to help at fires outside of our city when an all day operation meant $1,000 worth of Diesel fuel alone. Now compared to my other department with an annual operating budget of $1.3million they can be called to assist and not even notice. However if they were to be given sole responsibility for coverage in a city that is not their own the price would be extreme.

It sounds like in this case they setup this $75 a year to cover when your house does burn sounds more like an insurance policy. This gained them coverage from another city at a price.

The first fire departments in the US of A were insurance company run. If your house burnt down you had a mark on your front door stating you were covered and that corresponding fire dept came running. If the neighbor wasn't covered or was covered by someone else they wouldn't touch it. Not far removed from that in this story.

[CoreyB]

Punishment doesnt fit the crime. The should have put the fire out and charge him full cost to do so. The person in charge should be fired immediatly.

[DocWalt]

Isn't this illegal in a lot of states? I'm too lazy/busy to check myself.

[i3igpete]

quick notes:

-FD doesn't cover his county, they cover the next one over. they provide optional service to the unprotected town for a fee.
-the two counties together are 1200 sq. miles
-the FD consists of two trucks total
-responding to an unpaid house is considered off duty. if someone gets hurt insurance won't cover the lawsuit.

[CoreyB]

In responce to your first three notes, the FD went to the residence and watched.

[Quick VR-4]

In responce to your first three notes, the FD went to the residence and watched.

You are mistaken. The FD did not respond to watch so they could laugh and point fingers. The neighbor had paid for protection so the FD was there to protect his property as the fire was spreading towards his place.

Is it sad...yes. Could it have been avoided if the cheap ass would have paid his $75...yes. What do you think would happen if they put fires out for everyone and then collect the $75 at the time of the fire? I am sure the majority of this rural FD's budget consist of these payments. If word got out they would put fires out regardless if you paid or not, what do you think their budget would drop to? What you are suggesting is similar to only paying for insurance when you had a wreck...how would that work?