SA Firefighter
General Discussion => Country Fire Service => Topic started by: big bronto on April 26, 2009, 11:14:51 PM
-
Hi crew,
I have heard that a regional commander is trying to stop all CFS staff being officers in their volunteer brigades??
I can understand maybe operational regional staff not being officers in the brigades that are in their region but staff officers and the like being cut from this they will loose such a lot of quality experience from brigades. I thought the CFS was short of volunteers and this is not a wise move, i believe if this gets passed then this will cause brigades more harm then good.
-
I was under the impression that this was done a few years back so that there was no confusion in the chain of command. I think that when the region is at an operational level these staff members will not be available to their brigades.
Besides the operational aspects there is the perceived aspect that a conflict of inter3est can occur in between brigades and regions
-
As per the '05 SACFS Regulations:
Division 2:
(6) A person is not eligible to be nominated for election to an officer rank if the person—
(a) would, if elected, hold the rank and the rank of group officer or deputy group
officer at the same time; or
(b) would, if elected, hold the rank and a command or operational rank in another
recognised emergency service at the same time; or
(c) has been disqualified from holding the rank by the Chief Officer.
So although it doesn't specifically address Regional positions... it does make for interesting reading.
So much for all you Officers in SAPol and SAMFS! ;)
-
The staff that work in region 5 who where brigade officers with the Naracoorte brigade had to give up their volunteer rank when they became staff which is a good thing as you would never see them at training,call outs and so on due to their work. Its a shame that CFS have not followed this into regions but i hear all that is about to change as a RC who holds a brigade officer position is taking CFS to task over it.. MY view is the RC needs to pull his head in and deal with the rank that he holds which is higher than captain and much higher than a group officer.. Nice to see at long last something will be done and it will also give members the chance to step up to those positions...
BRING IT ON.........
-
I think it needs to depend on what they do in the CFS, I can't see how for example someone who works in say the comms area or mapping needs to drop their volly rank, what difference does that make to anyone, I think it should be for operational ranks not staff officers, staff officers have no operation role anyway. If they introduced it for all services then my brigade would lose 4 officers over night ! Not to mention about 45 years of experience.
-
just as well there arent any important issues for this erstwhile RC to be worried about in his Region. Lets not be too prescious, which Region is it?
at 2am when the pager goes....who cares who responds, so long as they are trained, and make themselves available. In fact it would be great if a few more staff (especially from Weymouth St) made themselves available for callouts with their local Brigade, they must see the real issues then and we might get some practical solutions
Only the CFS could continue to worry about the minutia in the face of far bigger issues. Its a Brigade decision, knowing all the problems that it involves (in terms of availability).... leave it to them to decide and move on....quickly.
-
I heard it was region one commander....
Do they not have more pressing issues like lack of volunteers, lack of training and brigades not turning out anymore, would this not be more important then fixing their own little grievance with staff members...
-
I heard it was region one commander....
Do they not have more pressing issues like lack of volunteers, lack of training and brigades not turning out anymore, would this not be more important then fixing their own little grievance with staff members...
You heard wrong!........or are you taking the piiss
-
Why do they need to hold Brigade officer status to attend the one off incident ? They can still be volunteers and be a resource to the incident if required.
If they are a Brigade/Unit Officer & part of the management group of the Brigade/Unit. How can they argue properly for your better truck, equipment, funding, training, etc that your volunteers need in the Brigade, when they are arguing with the person who could affect their employment (now or in the future) ?
Personally I believe all paid staff should drop volunteer rank. They can be a local resource to the incident team and brigade with speciality expertise (like any other builder, plumber, farmer, electrician, etc).
The reason I say all paid staff, is that at a major incident many of the 'non operational' staff are used (eg VSO cars provide crew transport at a major inicdent, secretaries answer telephones, etc).
So then your Brigade/Unit Officer is not available to the Brigade, so you are missing part of the Brigade structure & a important resource at a major incident.
You are then trusting your non-officer volunteers to manage the Brigade at the incident. If you trust the volunteer that much at the incident to be the officer, then trust them to be the officer every day.
** My personal opinion only **
-
How for exapmle is someone working at the airdesk who is essentially a shift worker affecting the operations of CFS by being a volly rank holder. What if they extend this to the MFS staff as well, you would be surprised how many people this affects. It could throw some groups and brigades into chaos. I guess we can just drop ranks and just run with the senior person in charge.
I am starting to wonder why I bother with the CFS anymore, just seems to be one lot of BS after another and they never focus on the simple task of getting bottoms on seats so trucks get out to calls.
-
How for exapmle is someone working at the airdesk who is essentially a shift worker affecting the operations of CFS by being a volly rank holder. What if they extend this to the MFS staff as well, you would be surprised how many people this affects. It could throw some groups and brigades into chaos....
Fair point, hopefully active mentoring & succession planning of brigade officer ranks is occuring to fill the gaps.
-
I know of at least 4 CFS Staff Officers who have been given operational duties....and no one has asked me to hand in my yellow helmet yet. :?
-
A Regional Commander destroying his own service! ..
-Operational Rank holders at Region+ level, fine. - Staff Officers whom hold no operational rank, leave them be.
-
Ok if this is coming in why not take it one more step and make it that MFS members can not hold rank in the CFS......
-
or people who were Scouts or Guides...or maybe those born on a day with a Y in it....
surely we can move on from this crap?
Region Commander reading this.......dont be a doofus, if u have enough spare time to worry about this crap please send me an email and i'll send you a list of tasks to complete before next fire season that will acually mean something
-
Ok if this is coming in why not take it one more step and make it that MFS members can not hold rank in the CFS......
As per the '05 SACFS Regulations:
Division 2:
(6) A person is not eligible to be nominated for election to an officer rank if the person—
(a) would, if elected, hold the rank and the rank of group officer or deputy group
officer at the same time; or
(b) would, if elected, hold the rank and a command or operational rank in another
recognised emergency service at the same time; or
(c) has been disqualified from holding the rank by the Chief Officer.
See above Bill.
Not so sure why we would want to enforce this, as others have stated we would lose probly a couple of hundred officers around the place from these positions. A wealth of experience and knowledge.
-
It was thrown out of SLG, so for now, nothing will happen.
-
Ok if this is coming in why not take it one more step and make it that MFS members can not hold rank in the CFS......
As per the '05 SACFS Regulations:
Division 2:
(6) A person is not eligible to be nominated for election to an officer rank if the person—
(a) would, if elected, hold the rank and the rank of group officer or deputy group
officer at the same time; or
(b) would, if elected, hold the rank and a command or operational rank in another
recognised emergency service at the same time; or
(c) has been disqualified from holding the rank by the Chief Officer.
See above Bill.
Not so sure why we would want to enforce this, as others have stated we would lose probly a couple of hundred officers around the place from these positions. A wealth of experience and knowledge.
have thought a bit more about this.... and i think I've narrowed it down in my own mind where this might be ocurring (also fits in with a couple other interesting bits coming out of the same head-shed).
Maybe enforcing this is a way of silencing the internal critics, there have been a few staff that have been a bit vocal on the "issues" from within their region (in a round about way)....the old divide and conquer maybe.
As for the rule Numbers has mentioned.....wonder why CFS has never chosen to raise it, and therefore why they had it reinstituted in the new rules. After all, they are well aware who is who in the other zoos. Be interesting to see that enforced, as others have said, theres a bunch of experience that then isnt available to us anymore as Incident Controllers etc. Mind you, if it's going to be enforced, a recent post in another thread could well be the catalyst.
-
The only difference between SO's & RO's (besides a few nit picky things) is that SO's work from HQ/STC. I know a few SO's who's work balance is 80% Ops & Training/20% Admin...
-
Mind you, if it's going to be enforced, a recent post in another thread could well be the catalyst.
:)
except attempting to do that would appear to be being vindictive (cos that's what it would be) and not go down too well PR-wise.
I like to think the CO has far more sense than that.
-
The only difference between SO's & RO's (besides a few nit picky things) is that SO's work from HQ/STC. I know a few SO's who's work balance is 80% Ops & Training/20% Admin...
As already said, the difference (really) is one group are operational, the other are not.
Either way, as Darren mentioned, nothing happend, it was thrown out, so we can all continue on our merry ways.. :)
-
Well from what has been said it has not been throwen out so i guess watch this space and see what goes on next.......
-
.
-
.
-
Why make them exempt from officer positions when they can be very good at running jobs that only last 3 hours...at 3 am Example: Fully involved House Fire.
Again, the focus is on, what the paid staff get involved in, funnily enough: Rural Incidents.
There's still plenty of officers around to run those good old dad's army jobs....
-
Whats the difference between a staff member who is operational and a 9-5 worker, sometimes they aren't always available, and the staff members that aren't volly's anymore (just because your a member of a brigades doesn't make you a volly) aren't going to affect anything. Those that hold volly ranks tend to be those staff members that still give a stuff about their brigades.
I don't see why being a paid staffer of any emergency service makes you special all of a sudden, we rely VERY heavily on these sorts of people to keep our brigades operational, especially during the day.
It almost seems the CFS heirachy are concentrating on everything but getting trucks on the road....imagine if they actually looked at how we are performing !
-
Lets have all SOs neutured....thatll fix'em 8-)
-
I would not say i hate staff it is silly that CFS have one rule for this region and one rule for the others...I know when the staff who where all officers of the naracoorte brigade got full time CFS jobs that they had to resign as brigade officers. Yet in other parts of the state we have paid staff in regional offices who still hold their brigade officer position so why have two rule's.....
Now i think you will find that CFS at the top is pushing for this due to the R/C in region ? who holds the R/C rank but is also a LT in a hill's brigade, hey I am well aware of staff who are brigade officers and do the right thing by their brigade and go to training and call outs but you still have staff who are on the books hold rank and you dont see them much.....
-
So whats the difference to any other CFS member, we have a lot of dead weight, just because they work for the CFS doesn't mean they are a waste of space.
Anyone can be called away to their paid job, I just don't see the issue here. Maybe if they are staff members perhaps they don't work on SFEC proposals or something, maybe thats a conflict of interest. But you could also say that if a brigade members works for say Moore's.
Oh well, see how long before they try the proposal again.
-
Meeeeh WHO CARES!
-
Hey jaff, you're not going anywhere near my nuts! :-D
-
Hey jaff, you're not going anywhere near my nuts! :-D
Youre right Wombat ................. I'm no Micro surgeon :-D
-
:lol:
-
:-o :lol:
-
Found out last night that the person who put this together has the support of 5 out of 6 regional commanders as they asked him to write the paper and put it in place. Now he also wrote 3 formats of this new SOP and there will be a consultation period with Volunteers before it comes into effect this year. Now this information was shared with all region one group officers the other night at a committee meeting as that region will be the hardest hit by te rule.
But lets look at it this way,the staff can still be volunteers,if they are the senior on the appliance they will stil be in charge it just means they can not hold any rank or brigade position...I am sure it will be talked about at group meetings over the next few months.
Before you all ask where did I get this information from, well it did not come a from a volunteer......
-
.....Wasnt it thrown out....
Or is this "pile of corner trash" not dying an easy death...
So i guess the regional commanders have found their niche market of who would accept the SOP...(the group officers, except the ones with some sense! how many 1, 2,..looking for 3...anyone, going going sold).
CFS just keeps removing the "Good"...and replacing it with the Bad...
-
I can see that we need to fall in to line with the Act, and that there have been many brigades that have been breaching these rules for a long time and have now come to rely on these people for the good of their brigade, but boy oh boy this is going to cause a big shakeup in some of those brigades and groups.
Standby for some interesting times.
-
or just change the act to remove the stupidity....
-
Thats utter stupidness.
-
... (stupid post button)
-
or just change the act to remove the stupidity....
That would be too easy, wont happen.
-
or just change the act to remove the stupidity....
That would be too easy, and wouldn't upset any vollies, wont happen.
Its targeting people that have a great deal of experience to assist the running of incidents during there "downtime" from work....or is CFS expecting to increase paid staff work hours to say 24/7?
-
Just had a read of a document being circulated throghout vollies and staff at the moment, the way it reads is that this has to happen. We are breaching the Act at the moment by having people who are holding two ranks and this is going to change, the consultation period is basically to work out how to upset people as little as possible.
It sounds like all the Regional Commanders agree that this needs to change except the one from Region 3 who is a Lt in a Region 1 brigade, not surprising he is against the idea.
I can see that we need to fall in to line with the Act, and that there have been many brigades that have been breaching these rules for a long time and have now come to rely on these people for the good of their brigade, but boy oh boy this is going to cause a big shakeup in some of those brigades and groups.
Standby for some interesting times.
Well looks like a hell of a lot of experienced officers will be sitting in the back of the appliance for no good reason.
I wonder if Steam Ranger are looking for new volunteers ?
-
At the risk of sounding stupid, lets look at this in perhaps a different light!
Does a helmet colour give you the respect of your coleages......in most cases not!
Do any of you in your brigades have ex officers who's opinion are still sought and if they are doing the right thing, help to mentor new officers!
Would this apparently inescapable soon to be inacted act, greatly affect the way we do our business? or would it just speed up the natural election process and force us to be serious about sucession planning!
None of us like change, but the only constant is change!
This section of the act has been known for a long time and at a guess most staff officers would have been aware of it when applying for their positions, hopefully when its fully enacted they will remain with their brigades and give them the benefit of their experience.
I personaly know a lot of people this will affect and its a great shame they will probably be forced to step down from their elected leadership roles, but it wont stop me from me and others from continuing to seek their council on and off the fireground!
-
Ever get the feeling our service is trying to self destruct?
-
As per the '05 SACFS Regulations:
Division 2:
(6) A person is not eligible to be nominated for election to an officer rank if the person—
(a) would, if elected, hold the rank and the rank of group officer or deputy group
officer at the same time; or
(b) would, if elected, hold the rank and a command or operational rank in another
recognised emergency service at the same time; or
(c) has been disqualified from holding the rank by the Chief Officer.
So although it doesn't specifically address Regional positions... it does make for interesting reading.
So much for all you Officers in SAPol and SAMFS! ;)
read further on in the Regulations Numbers.....
(8) The Chief Officer may, on the application of an SACFS brigade—
(a) determine that subregulation (6)(a) or (b) will not apply to a particular person;
do we assume this is indeed a mountain out of a molehill.....each affected Brigade only needs to apply formally in writing to the Chief, with (hopefully the endoresement of the SAVFBA - cos they will see the idiocy of wasting time in this manner) for an exemption and all will be apples....right?? After all...its not personal is it??
To be honest....if I was the conspiracy theorist type, I'd be thinking this was a part of a concerted effort by Region Commanders to get rid of the pesky thorn in the side vocal types that are in Groups and Brigades out there that make them (the Regions ) accountable for the dumbness that prevails out of their offices, some of whom have positions within our friends in red trucks service. Seems awfully convenient doesnt it?
As for our A/R3 commander...stick to your guns mate.....your Brigade would have been in a far worse state of play these days without your long standing guidance, support and filtered hard work. Nice payback isnt it....sort of makes u feel appreciated ....like syphilis
-
Now which brigade is our beauty RC1 from....
-
read further on in the Regulations Numbers.....
(8) The Chief Officer may, on the application of an SACFS brigade—
(a) determine that subregulation (6)(a) or (b) will not apply to a particular person;
Interestingly, most issues that people may have with the Act (Eg: Certain R1 Brigades having far more than the Capt, 4 Lt, 4 SFF) can be fixed by that lovely all inclusive "At the discretion of the CO" clause.
Will we one day audit all brigades to find out just who is following the act, and who is being a florist?
-
But is the region 1 R/C a officer in that brigade???
-
Epic failure on the part of the CFS.
Getting sick of putting in so much time for an organisation that only finds more ways to **** us over!
-
The issue of CFS staff also being officers (or even volunteers) has long
been an issue. I recall reading a staff member quote in "Tried by Fire"
bemoaning management's pressure to make a choice back in Allan Ferris' day.
Having people holding 2 different operational ranks within the one service
is a bad idea. Confusing for them and anyone who knows them - "which hat
are you wearing at the moment?" Also how do they deal with it when one role
conflicts with another - eg. Brigade/Group officer lobbying for more money
from CFS, when their paid role is to "find savings"...
It is a risk having key players holding rank in other emergency services.
But not really -that- much different to them being employees in some other
essential service - power, water, gas, telecomms & health to name but a few.
Hopefully, the revised proposal will continue to have the CO exemption clause.
If not, the proposer may well discover that he has shot himself & his fellow
ROs in the foot. The replacement officers may not be as 'reasonable' as the
current ones - they may be vastly less co-operative. They probably will be
angry with CFS management, and they will have the former incumbents to guide
& advise them in maximising their inconvenience up the food chain. Ask any
RC about 'ministerials'... :evil:
AND they will not have any threat to their employment hanging over them to
moderate their actions and dealings... :evil: (x2)
Methinks someone is betting high stakes on a pair of sixes.
Or the whole thing is a crock..
cheers
-
Its a pity the new Region One RC didn't focus on building the region, encouraging more volunteers, getting better funding for equipment and training and reducing the workload on Volunteers - rather than sticking the knife into his own - if he does that to a peer, what chance do we have as Volunteers.
HOWEVER ... maybe, if this is to be reviewed, nows the time to add competencies to all positions, from SFF through to and including CO. Competencies that needs to be adhered to, maintained and most importantly kept current.
How confident are you that the people you respond with or are deployed with have the currency and competency to get you out of trouble when it counts.
However we ask employers not to discriminate, to let their staff go, regardless of their importance in the system, but internally we question those who, in their free time, time when they are not paid, so could then be volunteering!
-
it would be interesting to make the Senior firefighter position a time/academically obtained position.....eg 6 years and done the training courses needed, and heaps of Refreshment. Instead of a position won by vote, make it a position won by effort.
Positive affect for the rest of the brigade? sure is....a shorter AGM on election years. ;)
-
it would be interesting to make the Senior firefighter position a time/academically obtained position.....eg 6 years and done the training courses needed, and heaps of Refreshment. Instead of a position won by vote, make it a position won by effort....
SES have been trying to introduce a position description for the volunteer officers but have been struggling. This is to set the education, training, management, etc requirements of the position.
-
it would be interesting to make the Senior firefighter position a time/academically obtained position.....eg 6 years and done the training courses needed, and heaps of Refreshment. Instead of a position won by vote, make it a position won by effort.
Positive affect for the rest of the brigade? sure is....a shorter AGM on election years. ;)
But then we wouldn't have anyone suitable, assuming that frequently attending brigade meetings and call outs is a requirement.
-
ha ha.... the underlying thing is...DUH ;)
-
The position description thing hasn't worked in SES, because of the same reason. It was written for a full timer by public servants & didn't address the actual reality of volunteer emergency services - we are volunteers!
From memory to meet the qualification you would have to be a minimum Cert 4 in business management, Cert 4 in Training & Assessment & other things & it did address the operational requirements for the position - in other words it was crap! While I agree there needs to be some standard & I think voting in a office bearer is rubbish, until the volly services can at least be able to qualify people to Cert 4 in Public safety then it all BS. So the the next best thing is use payed staff as volly officers :wink:
Cheers
-
SES have been trying to introduce a position description for the volunteer officers
thought it was already there in the act, it is for CFS (not in too much detail though)
-
As per the '05 SACFS Regulations:
Division 2:
(6) A person is not eligible to be nominated for election to an officer rank if the person—
(a) would, if elected, hold the rank and the rank of group officer or deputy group
officer at the same time; or
(b) would, if elected, hold the rank and a command or operational rank in another
recognised emergency service at the same time; or
(c) has been disqualified from holding the rank by the Chief Officer.
So although it doesn't specifically address Regional positions... it does make for interesting reading.
So much for all you Officers in SAPol and SAMFS! ;)
read further on in the Regulations Numbers.....
(8) The Chief Officer may, on the application of an SACFS brigade—
(a) determine that subregulation (6)(a) or (b) will not apply to a particular person;
do we assume this is indeed a mountain out of a molehill.....each affected Brigade only needs to apply formally in writing to the Chief, with (hopefully the endoresement of the SAVFBA - cos they will see the idiocy of wasting time in this manner) for an exemption and all will be apples....right?? After all...its not personal is it??
To be honest....if I was the conspiracy theorist type, I'd be thinking this was a part of a concerted effort by Region Commanders to get rid of the pesky thorn in the side vocal types that are in Groups and Brigades out there that make them (the Regions ) accountable for the dumbness that prevails out of their offices, some of whom have positions within our friends in red trucks service. Seems awfully convenient doesnt it?
As for our A/R3 commander...stick to your guns mate.....your Brigade would have been in a far worse state of play these days without your long standing guidance, support and filtered hard work. Nice payback isnt it....sort of makes u feel appreciated ....like syphilis
Your spot on there Ted, not just conspiracy theorist !
Also seems some have forgotten where many of these staff (Including the RC's) gained their operational experience that lead to them being employed by the organisation to start with. Having said that, there are also some filtered ordinary staff members around all the regions that I wouldn't like in an Officers/SFF position in my brigade.