SkyDekker 1,465 #26 July 16, 2010 QuoteWell that is their right to try, Off course it is their right to. But that is exactly what drives the reaction by the employer, which is what was questioned by the OP. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #27 July 16, 2010 I don't have a problem with an incident pointing out the need for revised techniques. It is evolutionary. However, after Columbine, many schools outlawed trench coats....huh?I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #28 July 16, 2010 QuoteQuoteWell that is their right to try, Off course it is their right to. But that is exactly what drives the reaction by the employer, which is what was questioned by the OP. So if they filled out a multi page waiver, possibly with a videod portion, that reaction is not necessary, right?Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #29 July 16, 2010 > Firefighters are smart people; they can figure out what they do or do not > need to wear on a call. Well, apparently not. >Why do they need to be treated like children who don't want to wear a >sweater when it's cold outside? Because an injured firefighter can cost a fire department hundreds of thousands of dollars. (That's not to say that any new rule is a good idea - but employers do have a significant stake in their employee's behavior when it ends up costing them a lot of money.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #30 July 16, 2010 Quote > Firefighters are smart people; they can figure out what they do or do not > need to wear on a call. Well, apparently not. >Why do they need to be treated like children who don't want to wear a >sweater when it's cold outside? Because an injured firefighter can cost a fire department hundreds of thousands of dollars. (That's not to say that any new rule is a good idea - but employers do have a significant stake in their employee's behavior when it ends up costing them a lot of money.) Employees, yes, but would that be needed for customers that signed a waiver saying they couldn't sue? Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #31 July 16, 2010 QuoteSo if they filled out a multi page waiver, possibly with a videod portion, that reaction is not necessary, right? No waiver is going to prevent you from having to spend thousands on lawyers. On top of that, gross negligence cannot be waived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theonlyski 8 #32 July 16, 2010 QuoteQuoteSo if they filled out a multi page waiver, possibly with a videod portion, that reaction is not necessary, right? No waiver is going to prevent you from having to spend thousands on lawyers. On top of that, gross negligence cannot be waived. How is it gross negligence if they gave them the proper tools for the job, but the end users chose not to wear them? Should there be a Fire Fighter uniform inspector, you have to check in with him to verify you're in the right attire for the type of incident you're called to stop, before you go stop it?"I may be a dirty pirate hooker...but I'm not about to go stand on the corner." iluvtofly DPH -7, TDS 578, Muff 5153, SCR 14890 I'm an asshole, and I approve this message Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #33 July 16, 2010 QuoteQuoteSo if they filled out a multi page waiver, possibly with a videod portion, that reaction is not necessary, right? No waiver is going to prevent you from having to spend thousands on lawyers. On top of that, gross negligence cannot be waived. Disagree with you on that, some waivers are written so all legal costs or a set amount is automatically granted. Where's the gross negligence? If the gear was not provided you might have a case, but if the gear is available and in this case the SOP/guidelines is to treat gas leaks like fires then they simply made a concious decision based on complacency.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiver30960 0 #34 July 16, 2010 Quote This is a knee jerk reaction to one incident. It will cost taxpayer money to develop, institute and police. Firefighters are smart people; they can figure out what they do or do not need to wear on a call. They are also adults who are aware of the risks they are taking. Why do they need to be treated like children who don't want to wear a sweater when it's cold outside? Don't worry Bytch, it won't cost a penny of your money to keep the firefighters safe. The gear they are talking about making mandatory on all such calls is gear they're already carrying and (apparently) should have been wearing. Instead, I'd rather we worried more about the safety of four guys who went out to help others in need and got hurt doing it. Yeah, they knew the risks. I'm a volly firefighter and I admit that when we go on an"odor of gas" call we don't pack up unless we smell something or the meters are indicating there is a flammable or dangerous gas in the air. I admit this may not be the safest way to do business. I will find out if the chief heard about this one (he probably has, or will soon) and will see if there are any changes around my firehouse secondary to this. Additionally, I'll be interested to see if there is any increase in heat stress injuries that corresponds to changes requiring firefighters to be "on air" (i.e. fully geared up with mask on and breathing from their scba) for all such calls. As with many things in the fire service, tradition and "the way we do it" play a big role. To affect a change in such situations would take changing the standard pattern of thought. As it stands now, if I went to a run-of-the-mill odor of gas call and came off the engine with mask on and on air, I'd be laughed out of the firehouse. And I imagine that most of the other firefighters on this board would say the same thing. Elvisio "a hundred different causes of odor calls, and none of them are good" Rodriguez Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #35 July 17, 2010 QuoteQuoteSorry, didn't realize that pointing out a news story and making a few sarcastic remarks about it is considered to be trolling. My dear, I was thinking nearly the same thing as "Zenister", except I was thinking of referring to your post as "tongue-in-cheek"! I found it amazing that you mentioned firefighters being allowed to make adult decisions for themselves, when, in threads about wingloading and usage of cameras, that you tend to favor more rules for these adult skydivers. Did I misunderstand you? this.^ Didnt even realize it was an actual event. Guess I made a knee jerk reaction myself.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
