MadAxe

Thanks for the replies - much appreciated. The regulator was not hooked up at the time I started getting air hungry, I was breathing through the valve at the front of the mask. I was able to move air, just not enough of it to feel comfortable once I was all taped up and fully closed in - felt like I was breathing through a straw In defence of the exercise co-ordinator, the tenders (also new to Hazmat) were a little over-eager in getting me fully suited up before the air tanks were ready to go. Also, I figure I'm at least partly to blame in that I probably should have spoken up before hand that the equipment wasn't really fitting me properly. Thanks again.

Got an SCBA question for the firefighter/medics here that I hope someone can answer for me. I'm a complete newbie to SCBA but recently had the opportunity to get suited up in a B Level Hazmat suit with SCBA as part of a mock chem spill exercise. Both the suit and the mask were too small to fit me properly (they were the only ones available) but since it was just a training exercise we went ahead and got me and another responder suited up anyways. The tenders had just finished taping the last of the seams around the hood and the mask, but hadn't hooked me up to the air supply yet. I had felt fine up to that point, but within about 90 seconds of being fully taped up (but with no air running) I started feeling really air hungry. My understanding was that one can breathe through the port on a mask without the air supply hooked up without any problems, so I chalked it up to nerves/excitement and made an effort to relax and breathe normally. That did nothing to help, and I started getting -extremely- air hungry. I could feel myself beginning to panic, so I signalled to the tenders that I wanted the hood off. As soon as I got the hood off I pulled the mask away from my face a bit, got a good breath of air, and felt fine again. The incident got me wondering - should I have been able to breathe normally through the mask without the air supply running? For how long? I'm a big guy (powerlifter) and have a tidal volume way above average. I've had my lung capacity measured with a spirometer at just over 9L, which is about 1.5x the average, if that matters. I've never had an anxiety attack or incident of claustrophobia in my life, but having treated other people going through them I'm wondering if that might not be the explanation for what I felt. All I know is that I was extremely uncomfortable, but would like to know why, and if it is going to be a potential problem for me in the future. Apologies for the long-winded question (no pun intended).

Doesn't the top ACP rate in the GTA range from between $33-$38/hour? Who the hell's going to take a $15k-$20k pay cut just to move to Edmonton? I know the housing prices in Toronto are outrageous, but come on...

I think plenty of Ontario-based services would be happy to host an international observer. Most are run directly by the local municipal government. Your best bet would be to track down a few and send them an email asking if you'd be able to ride out. If your home service can offer them a similar option, I can't see a lot of them who'd say no.

Again, if it were as easy as you're suggesting, why on earth would this company have caved? Why capitulate and offer a massive raise if they didn't have to? Why not just fire them all and hire on these droves of unemployed EMT-B's? Why is any EMS agency paying its staff anything more than minimum wage, if there are 'a billion' of EMT-B's just salivating for jobs, as you claim. Why? The answer is that it would be fantastically expensive, and a huge beaurocratic hassle for any agency to just unload all its staff and try to re-hire new ones. That's where skill in demand setting comes in - make yourself the cheaper of all options while still getting the best offer you can. This isn't rocket science - every labour market on the planet does this. Why are you so convinced that EMS is any different? If anything, EMS has it better than most industries- our jobs can't be outsourced to India for $0.25 a day. A diesel engine manufacturer can shut down for two weeks to re-tool if they want to. An EMS service can't do that. That's the leverage we use to bargain with, and sometimes that might have to go as far as threatening to strike, depending on the conditions on the ground. Anti-union political sentiment and the actual labour laws written on the books are two very different things. Don't confuse them. Unions are a fact of life for the corportate world and will remain so. Look at the airlines. Look at all the major car manufacturers. Look at the movie industry - all heavily unionized. As for Canada, you obviously know even less than I know about California - government handover to private corporations is everywhere. Even our sacred cow of health care is slowly being privatized. EMS in Canada is one of the few exceptions, largely because we've got a strong labour movement within Canadian EMS services. And other than Ontario, none of the provinces have 2-year BLS programs. I'm trying to motivate and educate anybody and everybody who works for a living in this field to stand up and better their working conditions. Including you, assuming you do in fact do this kind of work. The pressures of government, budgetary, and corporate issues will form a natural opposition, and a fair solution for everybodywill be found in the middle. That's it. I don't want to see the public endangered, I don't want to see anybody's business go under - but I'm also unwilling to be stepped on so somebody can reap a greater profit off my back. I want a fair wage for the work I do. I want a level playing field for all parties, and on the worker side that means organized labour, until something better comes along. In the Perfect World of DustDevil, exactly how would things work? No unions? We take whatever companies offer without dissent? You've got a lot of hyperbole to offer, but that's about all I've seen from you so far. What exactly is it you think these people should have done? What do you think any service should do that's going into contract negotiations. I've got a plan - what's yours? Well, for one thing the word 'wanker' never appears in anything I've written - I think that says a lot about the difference between me and you. I'm trying to inform and encourage every person reading this who is facing or will face this kind of situation in the future. I'm trying to provide cogent arguments and actual data to support my position. You're engaging in name calling and reactionary rhetoric. You've yet to coherantly respond to all but a fraction of the challenges I've posited to you. I said stick to their position and they Powers that Be would cave, and they'd get what they wanted. Whether that took a strike, or just the threat of one. Well, they stuck to their position, threatened to strike right down to the 11th hour - and the Powers caved and they got what they wanted. They all still have jobs, and they all got a raise. Is this somehow confusing for you?

In the short term, they'll only be able to do so if a company like AMR is able to convince its staff to come in and work on OT, like the example already given above. If the staff in question were to show some solidarity and refuse to do so, that local government is in big trouble. As I've been saying all along, stick together and we all stand to benefit. A fire service, even one that already provides EMS coverage, is going to be very hard pressed to upscale to meet the new level of demand without a significant infusion of personnel and resources. It's cheaper to employ an independant EMS agency to do that than to try and fund Fire to do it. Those facts give workers, even those with an '80-hour EMT patch' that you so denigrate, some leverage in the bargaining process that they should be willing to use. If the rest of us will stand with them, they'll be successful. I'd like to add that my wife was an NREMT-I for four years before we got married and moved up here. I'm well aware of the differences between Canadian and American pre-hospital care, and the issues facing American EMT's and Paramedics. The legislation is different all over the continent, but the basic principles of organized labour in the workforce are universal. Again with the 'agenda' accusations. WTF does that have to do with politics? This is a labour issue that directly affects every single one of us who does this for a living. What are you here with? Helpful comments like this? And if they had listened to you, they would have gotten nothing.

DustDevil, your entire post is quoted above, and the words 'if they strike' aren't in it. And basic logic is clear in that a negative can't be disproved - hardly a victory for you. I'm quoting you in full, but let's proceed from the notion that you did in fact mean 'if they strike Fire will step in'. Okay... so why didn't they? According to you the Fire Dept's in California are ready to go with their contingency in the Chief's desk drawer, presumably with little or no need for additional resources from the local governments. Why did the politicians let it get down to 10 hours to the strike deadline without mobilizing Fire to ensure a seamless transition? Do they enjoy living on the edge? As for my passion clouding my judgement and 'having an agenda', you're the one typing in big angry letters and who started making insulting comments. Sounds like you're a lot more passionate about this than I. And my 'agenda' is to have EMS workers stand together and fight for improved wages and working conditions. Are you taking a stand against that idea? Are you arguing that we should all be poor and living in fear of our managers? All I predicted was that if the medics stood together, they'd prevail. And I was right. Are you so intolerant of anyone disagreeing with you that you can't accept any viewpoint other than yours having some validity?

Okay, fair enough. It's not for me to judge what people choose to do on their days off. And if you chose to take on another job to help pay some bills thats your business. But the reality is that from an organized labour standpoint, your actions helped to keep the former employees from getting any sort of concessions, or managing to get their old jobs back with any sort of improvements. You and everybody else in your situation could have declined those extra hours and extra pay, and helped out some fellow workers to improve their lot. That's not an entirely selfless action, either - somewhere down the road you and your colleagues might have been prepared to walk out. How would you have felt if those employees also refused to move in and do your jobs on OT? Again, it all comes down to sticking together for mutual benefit.

I predicted the politicians would jump if a strike became a real possibility, not if a strike actually occured. Well, it came down to the 11th hour, and they jumped all right. Into their budget and came out with the money to pay for a raise. My words. Been reading long?

So - you said the only place the politicians would jump to is their fire chief, and suggested that the employees would then be laid off from their 'low paying job.' Well, the politicians didn't do that. You were wrong. In the end they caved and came up with the money to grant the Piner's employees a good healthy raise. Your words.

That sounds like a really crappy deal for all involved. What strikes me about your story is that AMR covered the shifts with their own staff on overtime. I take it you were an AMR employee, since you state that the Mom and Pop medics weren't re-hired. How long were those shifts covered with staff on OT? Overtime is expensive - and not just when it comes to the wages. Inury rates go up, health care claims go up. AMR must have been banking on only a short period of time passing before they were awarded the contract themselves. Who did they then hire to staff the trucks? From a Monday-morning quarterback perspective, there are several things that could have been done there. The labour laws in the U.S. are pretty similar to those up here - forced overtime is illegal in all but the most extreme emergency situations. So all the AMR employees brought in to cover could have refused to work any OT to show solidarity with the Mom and Pop employees laid off. The local government would then have been forced to look for other options. Just about anything they come up with is going to be at least as expensive as just conceding to whatever demands caused Mom and Pop to go under in the first place. And yes, I am a really pro-labour guy. I wasn't until I got into this job and saw first hand the BS that politicians and manager will try and pull, if they're allowed to get away with it. All I want is a level playing field for all participants. Management makes their case, labour makes their case, and a fair solution is found somewhere in the middle.

In the event that management decides to hang tough, it will become a matter of public pressure. Every EMS manager governs at the pleasure of their political masters. They are ultimately responsible to the elected officials for providing the service for which they've been contracted. If they fail to do so (because their employees have legally walked off the job) then their necks are on the chopping block. They'll cave. But let's say a manager isn't just being obstinate, and they really can't afford to offer a raise. Okay, fine. They're still going to have to go to the politicians and explain why their ambulances are sitting empty. If they can make their case that they simply can't afford to pay their staff enough to keep them on the job, you can bet the politicians will come up with a solution. Either by funding that manager themselves, or bringing in another agency to do the job. As I've stated above, another agency is likely going to have to hire those very same workers themselves. From a worker's standpoint, they'll ultimately get what they want, if they stick together. EMS isn't alone in having difficulty unionizing. Look at the nightmare WalMart employees have been going through. It's not always easy. WalMart was willing to close an entire store - a multimillion dollar loss for their bottom line, just to keep a union from getting their foot in the door. But the difference between us and WalMart is that no government will ever be able to do without EMS. They can't just shut an agency down - not without opening the door to another agency. In this relationship, its the EMS workers themselves who have the power, so long as we open our eyes to that fact. Like any other business, EMS management hates organized labour, because it forces them onto a level playing field with its workers. They'll try every tactic they can, legal and illegal, to intimidate their employees into abandoning the union process. They stand to reap far greater profits off your back if they can do so.

Okay, so let's surmise that Mom and Pop's Ambulance service goes under because it can't afford to pay it's staff a wage that's competitive with other agencies. So what happens then? The area just does without EMS coverage? Of course not. Other arrangements will be made. The public will demand it, and the politicians will make it happen. So let's say Fire wants to take it over. Okay, great. They'll need enhancements to their staff and budgets at least as large as the service that just folded. They can't simply pull personnel off an engine company or rescue squad, because that then leaves them short-staffed on the fire suppression side. Since their fire-suppression numbers contribute to a municipalities ISO data and insurance premiums, that will not be tolerated. No matter how you slice it, they're going to have to hire more staff. If they hire 'firefighters' and simply put them onto the ambulance, they'll doubtless command significantly higher wages than the medics they've replaced, as they'll be trained to wear two hats. If they decide to form a secondary EMS division within the Fire Dept, and just hire medics... well, who do you think they'll hire? Out of towners? Ordinary Joe's off the street? No, it'll the medics who were just laid off by Mom and Pop's ambulance! So now they're working for a municipal agency, probably getting vastly improved wages and benefits. Sounds like a good deal to me. Option number 2 - Another private company is contracted to provide service. Okay. So who is that company going to staff their trucks with? They certainly don't have a bunch of salaried employees on the payroll sitting around doing nothing - they're going to have to hire a bunch of new staff willing to work in the area in question. Once again, all the people just laid off by Mom and Pop's are going to be the best candidates. Now of course, there is the risk of losing things like seniority, vacation and benefits, etc. when getting laid off and hired on with a totally new company. But that's where an organized approach comes in. A strong union will be able to negotiate with the incoming company to secure the benefits that stand to be lost in the transition. That's fairly standard business practice in other sectors. The incoming company will simply have to account for that in their bid for the contract with the local government. If they refuse to do so, then its up to the employees to stand together and refuse to join the new company. Said company will never be able to meet its service obligations without them, and so once again the politicians will step in to save the day, and their political careers. This isn't anything revolutionary. This has been standard practice within the labour movement for decades. The problem is that EMS is such a new industry, and has been run by such Mickey Mouse outfits for so long that we're all unused to it. But it works, dammit! Just have faith in each other and we can all look forward to huge improvements in working conditions.

Ahh, sarcasm. Tremendous! Let me try and respond to such cutting insight with my own humble observations. You and several others in this thread bemoaned the 'foolishness' of these medics and made all sorts of predictions that they'd all lose their jobs, that the Big Red Machine would step in and take over, that the public wouldn't stand for it, etc. etc. All of you were wrong. All of you ignored the arguments presented in favor of your pre-established opinions, largely based on an ethical standpoint that it was wrong to 'endanger the public'. What I said was that if the employees of Piners stood together, the Powers That Be would fold and concede to their demands (or at least agree to arbitration), rather than risk the cessation of services. I argued that Fire could not step in because they'd require such an infusion of cash and resources as to make it pointless - it would have been easier and cheaper to just give the medics what they were asking for. My whole point was that there wouldn't even be a strike if the employees stood together, and got even a shred of solidarity from their colleagues, especially those at companies like AMR. The politicians of today will never risk it. They'll cave, every time. Which is exactly what ended up happening. I predicted it because I have some knowledge about about labour relations and EMS. You obviously don't.