NSW Rural Fire Service commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons has rejected calls for his members to be compensated for their work in the ongoing bushfire crisis, saying it would undermine the spirit of volunteerism underpinning the RFS.

http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/rfs-boss-rejects-calls-for-firefighters-to-be-compensated-20191224-p53mnz.html

Obtaining such payments goes against the spirit of volunteering and providing assistance to others in a time of help and need. It sends a message that as humans we should be financially compensated for everything done in life when helping others as some are putting their life on the line.

Is it though reasonable as some and some also in politics are now calling for, financially compensation, if ones time to help others is long, time consuming and hits their families as they are left without?

What do you think, Nathan?

Yes they should be compensated on this occasion. But not as a general rule.

Volunteer fire brigades are a community endeavour for good reason.

Volunteering requires a different motivation to seeking a paid job.

Many older and pre-retirement unemployed, need volunteer hours to qualify for the dole.
It is a useful personal contribution to a community, to have the skills gained by them over the years, freely given to this community service.

Dan

A lot of these volunteers are not highly paid people. Not all of their employers continue to pay their wages while they are off fighting fires. Should a highly paid Rural Fire Service commissioner still paid while others actually fight the fires perhaps pull his head in. It is not him who is likely to face any financial hardship for doing anything useful, but the blokes at the fire front.

The army people will be getting paid, the reservists will be getting paid although not any where near as much as a Rural Fire Service commissioner would be getting paid. When the fire fighting goes on for a considerable length of time, of course the volunteers should be compensated.

Every one of them has given up a considerable amount of their time for training nights, & overseeing burn offs to gain the experience they need without compensation, & none is asked for. The least we can do is make sure they are not financially disadvantaged helping protect others.

We should not have to rely on volunteers when those who are causing the problems are so highly paid.
What we need is a National Service to take the load off the volunteers & replace them altogether in time. We should simply just have volunteers in a local sense in small towns. National Service could act as a kind of non-military reservists.

Not one to often agree with Hassy, but I do on this occasion. Any employer who would be that tight not to pay an employee (with appropriate evidence of service supplied) during this this of crises is a low life. In case of out of pocket to the level of hardship, should also be covered.

Indy; "We should not have to rely on volunteers" I don't believe all those volunteers in the RFS are in it for purely the ultrasonic reason of serving the community, most do enjoy the participation. As for your conscript army idea, it can be counter productive if those involved are not motivated to perform the tasks required to the level required.

if those involved are not motivated to perform
Paul1405,
the motivation is the Welfare payments & peer pressure will ensure the rest, followed by personal satisfaction. All that's needed is a starting gun !

The idea of paying willing volunteers is just another one of the stupid ideas emanating from the appalling mob hysteria that Australians are suffering from at the moment because of somewhat worse than usual bushfires. Paying volunteer fighters wouldn't make a whit of difference, apart from involving more red tape and bureaucrats, and probably unions. The government has, rightly, decided to abandon the push for a surplus so that there is money for a proper investigation into fire mitigation in the future.

Any other crackpot ideas,like paying volunteers, are just attempts to cover up the fact that the responsibility for fiercer fires than are normal for Australia lies fairly and squarely with Green Labor and eco-nuts who have done everything they could have to increase the frequency and ferocity of bushfires.

Why do some people here think that employers should be required to continue to pay wages for firefighters if they choose to fightfires instead of turning up for work?

This is a really be BAD idea. What this would do is incentivize employers to NOT hire/employee fire fighters.
Put youself in this scenario: You have two potential employees with exactly the same skills and experience but one was a firefighter while the other not. Now the one which is a firefighter may at ANYTIME disappear and you will still HAVE TO PAY their wages. Which would you hire?
See how how this is a really stupid idea!

Now instead consider this scenario: the GOVERNMENT pays the firefighters (how the government raises money for this is a different debate) AND ALSO GIVES EMPLOYERS a bit money whenever a firefighting employee serves their community by fighting-fires. Now which out of the two employees in previous case would the business hire?
See here how we now incentivize people/business better. ie: the business would prefer to hire firefighters. And thus more people (particularly such as the currently unemployed) would want to become firefighters since they are now more employable.

I would employ the volunteer person, they show initiative, team involvement, resourcefulness, leadership, with what would be minimal cost to me. Its a no brainier.

I have actually interviewed people for positions, and I have looked favourably on their non job related extracurricular activities as an indicator as to what kind of person they are.

What have you done thinkabit?

Paul1450: I would do want any sensible business person whould do. I would hire the person that gives me the most return for the wages I spend. ie: the non-firefighter.

I don't know you're personal circumstances but I'll tell you mine. I'm middle aged and retired with a considerable amount of money. So how do you think I got that money? Well, I accumulated that wealth by being savvy with money. Have you accumulated enough wealth to retire early? Have you ever been your own boss? Have you ever employed people? Or are you the usual left-wing whinger who rely on other people to provide them work and opportunity? Or worse still are you living off the government?

I the real world (ie: the private sector) the crapola that people put on CV's about how good a person they are is totally ignored by employers. When an employer employs someone, all they care about is that: 1) you're capable of doing the work, 2) you will do the work properly without causing trouble and lastly 3) you turn up every day to do the work that you're meant to do. Employers in the main really couldn't give a toss about what you do outside of work (except when you're stupid enough to have a social media account where you defame the them or put the business in a bad light).

Paul1450: You mention the attributes "initiative, resourcefulness, leadership", these are not attributes that employers would find very useful in most employees. Indeed many employers would find these to be a negative. The vast majority of employees are doing routine, systematic, tightly organised/planned work. Whether it be flipping burgers at MacDonalds, answering phones at a call center, assembling stuff, machining stuff, doing nursing rounds taking vital signs, picking fruit, laying bricks, processing forms in an office, conducting/teaching a regular repetitive class, etc..
People who want to be leaders and creative are not well adapted to this sort of work and their "initiative" will most likely cause them to leave the job shortly after the employer has spent time,money and effort training them up in their workplace systems.

The qualities you've listed are those best suited and desired by people who are self-employed and/or employers.

(PS: Just a little correction: In my last post: "I would do want any..." should be "I would do what any...")

hinkabit to answer your questions;

So how do you think I got that money? Does it matter.

Have you accumulated enough wealth to retire early? Yes, and yes I am retired without an aged pension, unlike most of the forums old farts.

Have you ever been your own boss? Yes, I ran my own successful engineering/design business for several years.

Have you ever employed people? Yes, see above.

Are you the usual left-wing whinger who rely on other people to provide them work and opportunity? No, although I have at times had an employer.

Worse still are you living off the government? No, refer to your accumulated wealth question.

A question for you, only one;

Are you a right wing nutter?

The problem only arises when it is a long emergency.
I was myself involved in a statewide emergency operation that went for
three weeks. My employer paid my wages while I was involved.
It is normal practise. I have never heard of an employer refusing to pay.
However this has been going on for months, but not all members are
full time involved so rotation should have been possible up to before Xmas.
After that employers should be offered no payroll tax and perhaps a
subsidised payment. I fee sure that such offers would be accepted.
As Paul said, it is a plus for the character of the employee.

Your wrong Thinkabit, I have done rostering during an emergency and
spoke to a number of employers about members and never had a complaint.
The fact that we spoke to them and enquired about the employers
situation made them understand we were considering their situation.
These enquiries were at the request of the member.

One thing for sure is that regressives will always spend more of other people's money than those who have had to earn it. $1 billion a year to push marxist dogma. Far better to give it to those fighting fires at their own cost.

Paul you just don't understand about the bush. Why would you as a city person.

Around here most small business operators would be lucky to net $50,000 a year.

One, our local volunteer fire warden & chief instructor of the rural fire brigade has a steel fabrication business, with some hire of agricultural machinery, contract slashing & plowing, & anything else that will bring in a few bob. He & his son run it, with a couple of full time employers, & the odd farmer called in for a few days when needed.

He was telling me the other day that most of his gear is up for sale, as he is giving up, & looking for a job. He & his son shared the profit of just $53,000 last year. Yes it was a bad year, with farmers short of a quid, but will next year be any better. HE & his son alternated on the fire front, with one at home working to pay the staff & bills.

Another truck body fabricator has given up, & taken a job as janitor at the high school. That lost 2 jobs.

A third, a cabinet maker is now working for a charity supporting the elderly stay in their homes. Another 2 jobs gone.

Another with a service station/corner store has to call in casual labour to replace him when he goes fire fighting. The cost of that labour from 6.00 AM to 9.00 PM is greater than his usual profit.

When things get tough during a drought, many business struggle, & some go to the wall. While some may be able to pay staff off fighting fires, & most would want to, for so many, it is just not possible.

Most call outs are for half a day, of perhaps a little more. They are often to car accidents, that are of short duration, but when they are on going for many days it stretches many to continue to pay staff, or themselves when they are the fire fighter.

What are you going on about Hassy! I AGREED WITH YOU! I said; "Not one to often agree with Hassy, but I do on this occasion."

Are you potty or dotty or both? No wonder I think you are an old fool. Even when I agree with you, you still come up with it.

"Paul you just don't understand about the bush. Why would you as a city person."

BTW I was born in the bush, on a sheep property near Wellington NSW.

You sir are a hobby farmer, only playing at rural life in your old age!

How about reading what I have posted, and then comment!

Paul I was merely trying to explain why many country employers are unable to continue to pay volunteers when fire fighting extends to longer periods, not having a go at you.

Yet another good reason for a National Service !

Could someone please enlighten us as to why there's a necessity to fly in volunteer fire fighters from other States ?
I concede that we can't put the average, drugged to the eyeballs mutt into a uniform & hand him a hose. Aren't there enough Army reservists who'd be in the field of competency to fight fires ?
Why not let the uninhabited bush burn & concentrate on protecting homes ? Yes, it would be terrible for wildlife at first but surely after much of the fuel has gone, the next fire will be nowhere near as bad & after season after season, the fuel can be kept at much lower concentration than just sitting back & do nothing ?
Create a national Service & the battle will be won before it needs to be fought !
Just keep the "experts" away !

Why can't the insurance companies pay them?

Individual the army teach their blokes to shoot guns, drive tanks trucks & such things, but are more into blowing up the bush than putting it out when on fire. Some of them have high bulldozer skills, which could be very useful in building fire brakes.

The navy do have a lot of people trained in fire fighting, using breathing apparatus & such, but few of them have the sort of bush craft required to keep safe in it, let alone understand the dangers involved when it is on fire. I'm sure there are plenty of jobs back from the actual fire front they could do, to free up those with bush fire fighting skills.

The whole idea of a national Service is to get young people ready for life's challenges. Anyone who thinks a NS should be an instant working success story is totally missing the point. It's a ladder of society. The first rung is instilling a sense of responsibility, the 2nd rung is consideration, the 3rd rung is discipline, the 4th deals with finding an individual's aspirations, options & limitations & so on. It's an apprenticeship in social aptitude & belonging.
It's a rekindling of life skills !
It is beyond me how people always waffle on about Govts failing when it's people failing Govt & when asked to contribute to the efforts of Govt they baulk !!
A NS would get misguided young people off the streets, it would open opportunities that were lost when Goaf & Co secured the federal election by promising to abolish NS. This was the single worst move in the history of Govt in Australia. It played straight into the hands of the hangers-on groups & look where it has got us to in 2020 ?

If insurance companies profit when there aren't fires;.
And they save money when fire fighters protect homes and assets from going up in smoke.
Then why don't insurance companies pay the firefighters out of their profits,
Or else we just let those 'covered' properties burn?
Why risk the lives of fire fighters to save property that's already covered by insurance?
i.e. why risk the lives of fire-fighters for nothing?
It actually benefits the nation more to let it burn, because the rebuild paid for by the insurance payout will create jobs.

- And yes I think they should be paid, when say their efforts go above and beyond whats expected from a volunteer, or any significant length of time, that impacts them financially.

Way too much shirking of responsibility going on here ! If you're the cause of the problem, YOU fix it ! Stop demanding others putting in the effort to help solve the problem YOU created !
If help is required YOU jump in, don't bleat for Govt to do "something".
Don't be so bloody Australian !

They most definitely should be compensated. And I think fully compensated. I think Soot 'Beam up me Scotty' Morrison would agree.

Soot has 11 billion dollars stuck away in his election slush fund to buy votes with at the next election which could be used to compensate the fire fighters.

Come on Soot, have a heart! Everything is not just all about you now.

Armchair Critic: Insurance companies cannot produce money out of thin air!
If the insurance companies had to cover the whole cost of the bushfire effort (including paying for the fighters) then for them to remain viable businesses fire coverage premiums would have to rise. Is this what you intended with your idea or is it something you didn't account for?

To put the cost onto the insurers would push up the premiums and as
a result more would not be insured. See the feedback loop ?

Compensation of volunteer firefighters is a side issue which just pulls attention away from the main issue, Green Labor's culpability for removing laws and regulations on undergrowth removal and other fire mitigation. The idea has never been put up before; and if would be as useless as blaming climate change for the fires.

And, it doesn't matter what anyone here thinks about the rights or wrongs of compensation for firefighters: the decision will be made by politicians without any reference to us.

ADF Reservists called up will be paid at the rate appropriate to their rank, so it's possible and highly probable that some will get paid at a higher rate than they do at their civilian job.

Good.

AC, you are not to far off history, until recently a levy on insurance policies paid for the fire brigade. In a bygone era, early fire brigades were operated by insurance companies. I'm not to sure how that actually worked, the insurance company brigade would only attend fires of customers of their company.

In Victorian London, private fire brigades operated like tow truck drives today, alerted to a fire they raced to the scene, then touted for the business. I assume negotiations on price took place while your establishment burned to the ground.

I would be interested to learn how in earlier times people fought bush fires in Australia. I can recall as a kid, my grandfather and a couple of uncles and neighbours fighting grass fires near the house with back pack pump sprays and sticks with rags on the ends dipped in water bucks filled from the house tanks. Can't recall any local service with trucks that had water tanks and pumps. There must have been some kind of organised system, somewhere.

Paul1405,
You're referring to the real Australians, you know the ones who did National Service, not the present-day versions who demand the Govt do "something" !

Hey thinkabit,

"Is this what you intended with your idea or is it something you didn't account for?"
- Something I didn't account for.

The point is, I see volunteer fire-fighters risking their lives and getting paid squat, while they could be at the least defending their own homes, and for what purpose?
So insurance companies get to save a few dollars?
I think that something doesn't seem fair or right here.

Paul, most farmers in the Young area had a table top truck, then a number of things to fit on it up on stands. You drove under the stock crate, or the water tank, & lowered it onto the truck. Most tanks were only a thousand gallons or so, as the trucks were not big.

In our area it was only grass fires. They would tie us kids sitting on the side of the truck with a hose, to hose the tyres if they drove through fire, & have one or 2 men hosing the fire with fire hoses.

Some used a rear spray rail, & would drive through the edge of the fire spraying it, with kids on each side defending the tyres. Health & safety were not a big deal in the 50s.

A lot of it was wet corn or heavy wheat sacks, bashing the fire as it came out of wooded areas. I never saw any attempt to fight fires in moderately wooded country. That kind of stuff was forest grazing, & burned every 3 years or so to control woody weeds saplings & noxious weeds, so all the fires were small compared to today's fires.

We never had anything like these heavily wooded national park forest country fires. There was some heading into the blue mountains from Bathurst, but I never heard of any one fighting fires in that.

I see volunteer fire-fighters risking their lives and getting paid squat, while they could be at the least defending their own homes, and for what purpose?
Armchair Critic,
Well, the way the situation looks from my viewpoint is that staying home protecting your home is not as exiting & glorious as being flown to another State with TV cameras rolling etc which, I think, is the whole purpose.

No Flak ? It must be true then !

Wow ! This is really surprising as I expected tonnes of Flak for my assertion. Am I really right ?

Indiviual,

You could be partly right there has been an apparent element of 'Gung Ho' in some fire fighting groups.

Did see one up-market fire service ute marked "Command Resource Vehicle" or some such, which struck me as being a bit upmarket from the days when we considered ourselves well equipped if we had leather beaters instead of hessian bag tied to a handle (usually a hastily cut sapling).

is Mise,
unfortunately and, at the expense of the community many such services have been hijacked by people desperate to be somebody important, even if it's nothing more than wearing a uniform.
People have lost focus on what being a decent human being & citizen is all about.
The monetary cost of such egotism is blowing emergency services out of the water. Then, there's the being a Hero pursuit. All these traits amount to reduction in effectiveness & outcome.
If people really feel the need to be 'somebody" they should learn, study & get experience before they think they should be put onto a pedestal !