As far as the guy saying the whole department would have been fired by the mayor if they'd tried to put out the fire though, I'm going to go ahead and say it's the Chief trying to protect his colleagues. Would be ridiculously out of proportion given that they would have already been there, and it would have unleashed a complete shitstorm in the media/citizens. Not to mention that it's not like trained professionals are waiting in line to get hired in their place.
You're wrong about the last part.
Job prospects. Prospective fire fighters are expected to face keen competition for available job openings. Many people are attracted to fire fighting because (1) it is challenging and provides the opportunity to perform an essential public service, (2) a high school education is usually sufficient for entry, and (3) a pension is usually guaranteed after 25 years of service. Consequently, the number of qualified applicants in most areas far exceeds the number of job openings, even though the written examination and physical requirements eliminate many applicants. This situation is expected to persist in coming years.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook 2010-2011
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos329.htmThat doesn't even take into account the near 10% unemployment rate in this country.
Here's another article, albeit not in the same state, but still relevant as some places literally do have lines of people looking for work as a firefighter:
http://www.king5.com/news/local/Lakewood-firefighter-job-camping-out-100321574.htmlThe only stories I've seen involving shortages of firefighters comes from the lack of government willing to pay for the positions.
For the first part, you're just making guesses. Same as the firefighters would have had to do. Everyone knows that no matter the profession, you break the rules, no matter how stupid, you're at risk of losing your job. You almost make it sound like some sort of guarantee simply because the rule is dumb. Who's to say it even had to be the whole department? It could have just been one or two people to be used as an example. Guessing is fun.
And if you haven't read the rest of the article that Lithrael posted, you really should. Someone not even involved is being demonized by overzealous people out for blood.
The remaining 5 departments (city departments) in the county have been going out into the county without a subscription service with the hope that after responding they will bill the home owner and collect. It hasn’t been working. One of these departments even though it is a city department, has to get change out of their outside coke machine that sits on the front of their station just to have money to put fuel in their tank. They get very little help from their own city, let alone NO revenue from the county. Financially these departments will be forced to either go to a subscription based service or draw back into their respective city limits. If that happens, there won’t be any fire protection in three quarters of the county.
If that isn't enough to show you an ethical quandary over saving a trailer with no one in it, then nothing ever will. Apparently, as long as your neighbor pays the bill or the two of you go in together to pay half the cost, it's ok if something happens. The fire department has to put out your fire because they're already there.
As for other comments, everything I argued was in direct response to these quotes:
"Honestly, not doing anything while they were already at the scene sounds like an aberration to me. There's a point where common sense should take precedence over procedure.
I don't like scapegoating but I think the guys present at the time should all be disciplined."
"Well, I think it's pretty simple. If I had a say in it, they would all be fired for showing a obscene lack of character and sense of moral duty."
I'm sorry, are you stopping? What's this then? Did you not just reply?
Just because I said I wouldn't argue the morality behind the firefighters decisions anymore doesn't mean I wouldn't post in the thread anymore. My last comment was only geared at pointing out the ideologies and stating that it was useless to argue further. As for your later comment: "You mean you have nothing to add, aren't even addressing what I said and can't refute it and basically aren't listening to what others say." I'm not addressing these things anymore because I don't see the point. If I keep commenting then the argument will never end and there'll be a million more posts the size of this one.
No, I didn't say that.
"And there are certain professions that engage people's responsibilities more than others. That's why they're considered "noble" and why people doing them are honored. It's a vocation, like being a doctor or a cop, not just something you do because it pays well."
IE: Firefighters should be held to a greater standard than most other people trying to make a living.
And like Walter told you, that house was pretty much on their "territory" and the reason they weren't dispatched is because of that subscription business. When the neighbor called they responded and took care of the fire. Don't try to make the argument into something it isn't.
No, everything within city limits is their territory. Everything outside of it isn't. Unless the residents pay a subscription fee. 'Pretty much' doesn't cut it.
Then maybe you ought to do what you've been promising and keep quiet? In any case please spare me your whiny tirade about imaginary "personal" attacks since your whole posture in this thread has been offensive to begin with.
I take an offensive stance towards what I see to be offensive declarations. You can argue the effectiveness of that all you want.
