PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE W e have all seen over the summer that our “out of service crews” have done the usual spike. This was more apparent due to COVID, as we went from no crews out in April, to a few more in May and then to the highest we have seen in a few years. We, at the Association, understand the frustration and the stress it causes people not knowing where they will be working from day-to-day. I field many calls on this subject, and there is a lot of misinformation as to why this happens and why we have allowed it. With this article, I will discuss the history of 1997/98, explain where we currently are with out of service crews, how we are planning to raise this issue and the various consequences of dealing with it. Prior to 1998, we were six former departments. Each department handled the various ebbs and flows of available staff differently. Some used a form of overtime, some cancelled or postponed time off if it could not be accommodated, some removed crews from service and some used a combination of the above. When amalgamation was announced in 1997, the various cities did a hiring freeze. They did not know what would happen once we amalgamated and when there is uncertainly, their first reaction is to do nothing. Once we amalgamated, we were hit with our first issues regarding staffing. The various tools that were used to keep crews in service prior to amalgamation were no longer valid. Overtime was not offered, and changes took place on how time off was granted. To make the problem worse, the former departments did not hire prior to amalgamation, so the overall staffing levels were the worst after amalgamation than a few years prior. The process of removing crews from service was utilized, but to a greater number than anyone had ever seen. It was so high, that stations went unattended. TFS also used a former department ratio of 21 firefighters per heavy truck in service. That former department cancelled time off and also had a system to completely balance vacations for the year. That city, at the end, was also experiencing issues with the ratio being unreasonable. Those tools were not used after amalgamation and the ratio should not have been used at all. An assessment, given the various variables and assumptions, should have been used. A public campaign fight was launched and positions were added back into operations, but they were still not at the pre-amalgamation levels. Fewer crews were removed from service, but we
never reached a system of a minimum crew count, or developed other tools to deal with the ebbs and flows of staffing over the various time periods. Various decisions and agreement enhancements were made with no corresponding adjustments to the amount of the complement to fulfill the changes. To identify a few: vacation time improvements; a recent move to a 48-hour vacation week average; lieu day time improvements; parental and pregnancy leave improvements to paid leave; education and presumptive legislation on PTSD; the addition of FITs across the city; Association leave for union work similar to other city unions; a change to the 24HR shift; an agreement on mandatory training; and the ability for union members to act in non-union roles. I may have missed some, but these all add up. When you factor in the demographics of an older work force, it makes the issue worse. In 2014, council agreed with the Fire Chief’s recommendation to decommission four crews. One of the speaking points they used was that these trucks were not in service. It’s actually a speaking point I hear from the members a lot. “We should not have trucks out of service because the city might think they are not needed.” It sounds logical - but here is where the BIG disconnect is. The trucks themselves do very little, if anything. It is the staff that is important. If there are not enough firefighters to staff a vehicle, then you cannot lose them, but you could potentially lose the truck. We need to separate the two. We tried to make that argument in 2014, but obviously not as successfully as we should have. Let’s say that for two years straight we had the same ten crews out of service each shift. The performance is measured, and all standards are being met. Council wants to save money and decides that, since they are not in service, they will remove them. The issue is that they are not in service because there are not enough firefighters. We would be short ten crews, multiplied by 21 firefighters, for a total of 210. If you remove 210 firefighters, then you would still be left with ten crews out of service each day, but now at a greater reduced starting point. That is a big difference that we must educate people on and not get caught in the trap. If you only remove the TRUCK, then the savings is only on the capital costs. For staffing, it is the difference of the 40 officer positions, which carries a 20% premium, and some acting time. However, on average, the actors would not get paid when the truck is out of service. We
are starting the education process to ensure that councilors understand all the variables of crews out of service and what it means. We are using 124 heavy truck crews, as that is what council approved in 2014, and what the Insurance Underwriters agreed was the minimum. I have no data or analytics to say that number is not the amount we should have for Toronto to meet standards. We believe we need around 250 more firefighters in order to not “brown out” crews with the current minimum staffing. The operation deployment review might alter that and make the number even higher. To be clear, this has nothing to do with hiring, as we are replacing our complement normally. This has to do with a 1998 complement ratio formula that is flawed and has never been adjusted. We hired the actuarial firm Eckler to study our operations complement and provide their expert help in determining the amount of staffing needed to match the goal of 124 heavy crews in service. We have a draft report and are working to finalize it for a broad distribution. It is important to note that there are various levers the city could employ to help with the staffing issue. They can staff to a lessor target of 124; they can use overtime to keep crews in service; they can continue to strive for 124; when they can’t achieve 124, they can temporarily remove the truck from service; or they can obtain language changes to the various contract enhancements and they can add to the full time complement of positions to keep the 124 heavy crews in service. With our current model, we believe, on average, that about 110 crews can be in service with the minimum on each trucks (i.e. aerials staffed with three). We need to be objective and honest, and decide if we are looking to staff the trucks for real or just on paper. We should determine what the amount we need in service each shift and have the tools in place to ensure that we maintain that number. We will continue to communicate as we progress down this path. Frank Ramagnano, President Toronto Professional Fire Fighters’ Association I.A.F.F. Local 3888 Vo l u m e 1 4 | I s s u e 3 | F I R E WAT CH
5
