Firefighter or Paramedic?

[The Jays]

Simple Question:

Which professional is more valuable to a city/town?

Firefighter or Paramedic?

During the 1990's, the city merged the EMS service with the FDNY. Only recently has EMS received uniform status. They, however, have to negotiate their contracts seperatly through their own union. They also are paid less than firefighters, sanitation, police, and transit workers. And it's not like they can strike like other uniform professions. When sanitation needs a raise, they strike, and the worse thing that happens is the garbage doesn't get picked up. If transit strikes, the trains don't run. But Paramedics/EMTs cannot strike because the worse thing that would happen is people would die.

So, the question again,

Which professional is more valuable to a city/town?

Firefighter or Paramedic?

[DarkHippie]

A firefighter, because an uncontrolled fire can devestate and entire city, or an entire region (like what happens in california)

[Hottub]

Gimme a minute on this one.
I'm still working accountant v Oil worker.:tongue:

[The Jays]

A firefighter, because an uncontrolled fire can devestate and entire city, or an entire region (like what happens in california)

Which happens very often all over the country what with these concrete buildings and all. Lack of ambulance service can result in being unable to treat gunshot wounds, heart attacks, stabbings, people injured in fire.

[Coach]

Having Been both (but not in NYC)..I can see the firefighter aspect..but I would have to go Medic/Emt.
We trained as Firefighters..then went beyond that training.
We treated Firefighters and cops alot when I was stationed in Newark. And came under Fire and stayed when the firemen bugged out. We were duty bound to stay.

[razorboy]

I voted Firefighter, mostly because I used to be one. Everything is about me and I am the most important person ever.

[A.J.]

Why not be both?

http://dogwood.phpwebhosting.com/~tvshrine/Emergency/erj51.jpg

[Fezticle98]

Yeah, a firefighter trained as an EMT would rule over all.

Given the option, I'd say firefighter is slightly more important. Without paramedics, you still have doctors and emergency workers who have at least basic life-saving skills. You can always toss someone into a car and get them to a doctor. You can't bring a fire to someone who is more highly trained in what they do as a firefighter.

But when you need one, both are extremely valuable.

[razorboy]

Yeah, a firefighter trained as an EMT would rule over all.

Given the option, I'd say firefighter is slightly more important. Without paramedics, you still have doctors and emergency workers who have at least basic life-saving skills. You can always toss someone into a car and get them to a doctor. You can't bring a fire to someone who is more highly trained in what they do as a firefighter.

But when you need one, both are extremely valuable.

In Florida, at least, you have to have NAEMT EMT basic certification and BFST I and II training, so technically you are both. I just figured we were picking sides.

[ChrisTheCop]

Simple question he says!

Well, prior to this, I havent thought which was more valuable,
but I have decided I wouldnt want to do either job over mine.

EMTs deal with all kinds of blood, contagions, and idiots; if any of those present themselves to me, I can walk away. They cant.
No one will call me a coward if I take cover from a bullet,
but a firefighter hiding from a fire would be ridiculous.
Nope, I dont wanna do either of their jobs.

We're definitely lucky to have them both, but are they an absolute necessity? In the olden days, the town would get together to put out a fire, and of course there was always the town doctor.
In many communities, you have volunteer firefighters that do just as good a job; same with volunteer ambulances, and just good old folks who are emts, though not professionally.

So, I think theyre both equally valuable, but not essential.

[DarkHippie]

Which happens very often all over the country what with these concrete buildings and all. Lack of ambulance service can result in being unable to treat gunshot wounds, heart attacks, stabbings, people injured in fire.

It happens every year on the west coast

[The Jays]

Simple question he says!

Well, prior to this, I havent thought which was more valuable,
but I have decided I wouldnt want to do either job over mine.

EMTs deal with all kinds of blood, contagions, and idiots; if any of those present themselves to me, I can walk away. They cant.
No one will call me a coward if I take cover from a bullet,
but a firefighter hiding from a fire would be ridiculous.
Nope, I dont wanna do either of their jobs.

We're definitely lucky to have them both, but are they an absolute necessity? In the olden days, the town would get together to put out a fire, and of course there was always the town doctor.
In many communities, you have volunteer firefighters that do just as good a job; same with volunteer ambulances, and just good old folks who are emts, though not professionally.

So, I think theyre both equally valuable, but not essential.

Yeah but, once your town/city gets a population above a certain amount, and has a significant amount of development, you can't cut it with volunteers.

I'm coming at it from looking at the NYC FDNY and the EMS. Firefighters spend alot of time chilling at the fire house, waiting for calls to come in, when they aren't checking fire hydrants and control boxes and such. Paramedics/EMTs are out in the ambulance, waiting on calls for heart attacks, car accidents, drownings, stabbings, shootings, people in diabetic shock, choking, severe arterial bleedings. They don't get a station house to sit in and wait, they have to be out there on the streets ready to roll. Oh, and they don't lunch breaks/dinner breaks. They're expected to squeeze it in somewhere, which means no paid hour of downtime for food, not even a stipend.

What do they get for being out there? Do they get treated like they are on par with firefighters? Not in the least.

This article just ran in the Daily News on June 2. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/06/02/2008-06-02_emts_drive_home_plea_for_more_pay-2.html)

The members' contract expired two years ago, and their starting salary remains at $27,295, far lower than that of their Civil Service counterparts. They top out at $54,000 after 20 years.

That's two years they've been working without a contract. In any other service profession, would they work without a contract for that long? But, those salary numbers, they just don't seem right to me.

Now, keep in mind, there are over 11,000 firefighters for NYC.

A firefighter's starting salary is $36,400 base, plus fringe of $4,090, is $40,490. After 5 years, salary is $68,475, plus fringe of $18,043, it is $86,518 total. (http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ff_salary_benefits_080106.shtml)

Compare that to about 3,000 EMTs/Paramedics. So, you would think, with such a small force, they should be able to get paid at least on par with fire fighters.


An EMT's starting salary is $27,295. After 5 years, it tops out at $39,179.
A paramedic's starting salary is $37,346. After 5 years, it tops out at $50,501. (http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ems_salary_benefits_042607.shtml)
No fringe, just overtime, which is great, because get this, OVERTIME IS MANDATORY.

How many calls are responded to by the FDNY? (http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/stats/fire_cwsum_cy07.pdf)

In 2007, they responded to 28,004 structural fires, 19,388 non-structural (brush/wildfires)
209,943 non-fire emergencies (utility emergencies or emergencies not fire/medical related), 207,677 medical emergencies ( as a first responder, meaning, if they have EMT/Paramedic background,maybe a firefighter might start CPR or perform basic treatment, otherwise, they stand and wait for EMS to show up and appear only so that the city can say response time is lowered) and then 25,755 calls are spent responding to malicious false alarms. That's a grand total of 490,767 calls responded to by engines. Not too shabby.

How many calls are responded to by EMS? (http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/stats/ems_cwsum_cy07.pdf)

In 2007, EMS responded to 1,187,602 calls. 442,575 of which were life threatening calls, 24,966 of which were cardiac arrest or choking.

So, say the structural fires and the medical emergencies responded to by the fire engines were, at the worst, all life threatening situations. That would be still only be 235,681 compared to 442,575, over a 50% difference of life-threatening situations responded to.




As to who's more valuable... eh, I'm on the fence.