City near tipping point on paying OT or hiring more firefighters
Photo
Photo
JANESVILLE — Janesville firefighter overtime is projected to top $450,000 this year, and city council members want to know if the city could save money by adding three firefighters.
Pay and benefits for three firefighters would total about $195,000.
The department on average pays about $1,000 a day in overtime pay and associated benefits.
Fire Chief Jim Jensen said overtime has spiked for several reasons, including:
The city’s philosophy of holding staffing to a minimum to avoid high-cost benefits.
Injuries that have thinned firefighter ranks.
More employees taking family leave.
With more firefighters taking time off, the remaining firefighters work more overtime to cover those shifts. As the number of calls continues to rise, Jensen worries about firefighter fatigue, he recently told council members.
“It used to be we could go all night without a tone,” Jensen said. “Now, that never happens.” A tone is the sound that alerts firefighters to emergencies.
Firefighters work schedules exempted from federal labor law, allowing them to work 56 hours a week rather than the typical limit of 40 hours.
Janesville firefighters have negotiated a schedule of 24 hours on and 24 hours off. Schedules vary among departments—some use 48 hours on and 96 hours off, for example.
After working three 24-hour days separated by 24 hours off, Janesville firefighters get four days off. The schedule means firefighters work about 10 days a month.
Overtime has increased dramatically since the federal Family and Medical Leave Act was passed in 1993, Jensen said.
The Family and Medical Leave Act allows workers—male or female—to take off up to 84 days for the birth of a child, personal illness or family illness.
Firefighters earn one day of sick leave each month up to a maximum of 84 days and can use paid sick leave to cover family leave.
The department logged $42,000 of overtime in 1993, Jensen said. In 1994, it increased to $80,000. By 2008, firefighters logged almost a half-million dollars in overtime . The firefighters’ contract requires that they receive 24 hours of overtime pay as a premium if they are required to switch shifts to cover for another firefighter on long-term leave. Recently, the department had a high number of firefighter injuries and long-term illnesses, Jensen said. “That’s really hurt us,” he said.
Minimum staffing, more overtime
The city historically has avoided adding personnel because of the high cost of benefits , but adding firefighters might be cheaper than paying the rising overtime total, Jensen said.
“Any department with minimum staffing has problems with overtime,” he said.
The number of firefighters is the same as in 1980, even though the city has added a fifth fire station and two paramedic ambulances, Jensen said.
Each station now houses a fire truck run by three people and an ambulance staffed by two people. The exception is station No. 3, which has a truck with three people and no ambulance. Station No. 1 has an additional shift commander, bringing the number of personnel there to six.
Staffing five stations requires 24 people every hour every day. To maintain that level, the department has three shifts of 29 firefighters. That allows five people off on any day for vacation, illness or family leave.
Lately, five hasn’t been enough, Jensen said.
Firefighters usually like working extra hours for overtime, but Jensen sometimes must order people into work because there are not enough volunteers.
“That’s when I get concerned about the work schedule and the way our call volume has increased,” Jensen said.
Jensen recently told council members he is concerned firefighters are not getting enough rest, especially when they take on additional shifts.
Studies show recovery time is important to avoid sleep deprivation, he said.
“They’ve found firefighters can go 24 hours without sleep if they have time to recover the next day,” he said.
“The thing that scares me—because of overtime—what happens when (someone works) 72, 96 hours in a row? And that happens here, now, because of overtime. That is not uncommon.”
Firefighters must get Jensen’s approval to change shifts, and he considers the consecutive days they would be working.
“I know that some people can manage it better than others, but it’s a concern,” he said.
Overtime would decrease if reserve staffing were increased, he said. If no person was off, additional staff could help shift commanders during emergencies, he said.
Switching to a 40-hour work schedule wouldn’t solve the financial problem, he said.
If firefighters were limited to 40 hours a week, the city would need 33 additional firefighters, he said.
With starting wages and benefits, that would cost about $1.9 million a year.
“People say, ‘Why do we pay for them (firefighters) sleeping?’ Well, it’s a matter of economics today. We can’t go to a 40-hour schedule.”
The city historically has underestimated firefighter overtime, kept the levy lower and covered firefighter overtime with money leftover in other departments. Leftover money is hard to find now that budgets are so lean, Jensen said.
For 2013, City Manager Eric Levitt budgeted $340,000 for firefighter overtime. That’s about $120,000 more than 2012 but well short of the $450,000 expected by the end of 2012.
Dec 4, 2012 at 11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
good idea 'truth'!!! fires aren't always caused by people being irresponsible. what if your loved one was at home making YOU dinner and happened to have a heart attack, or a stroke, or anything for that matter?! house burns down...and you get stuck with an ambulance bill, a fire department bill, obvious hospital bills, and possibly the loss of your loved one! great idea! they are called ACCIDENTS for a reason. people cannot be perfect all of the time. but you are rite! and while we are at it, why don't we make people plow their own roads too. you are really on to something here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dec 4, 2012 at 5:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Say a tenant has a habit of overloading outlets or unsafe smoking habits and it costs the landlord $2000 fire call in addition to repairs...makes them consider who their tenants are, etc. etc...................
Dec 4, 2012 at 5:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
3. This should actually cause premiums to go DOWN because now the municipality is forcing an incentive for peple to do everything they can to prevent the house from catching fire in the first place and being a possible total loss..........THERE YOU GO.
Dec 4, 2012 at 5:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
1. Landlords would pay the fire dept, not tenants...Your tenants cause the fires, kick them out.
2. $10,000 cap on service fee so homeowners insurance doesn't skyrocket...Fee to be commensurate with fire severity and nothing to do with actual cost of fire dept itself....So there is AT LEAST AN INCENTIVE for a house owner to do everything they can in prevention.
Dec 3, 2012 at 6:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
"truth1
Dec 3, 2012 at 12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
To make myself more clear....Make the USERS of the service pay for it."
Good idea but here are some issues-
tax payers will have to pay for those on free service.
People dont get renters ins now to save money. I think it should be required!!
3- cannot get blood from a turnip!
Dec 3, 2012 at 4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
in the past. Sad... ( sorry, I didn't finish my post )
Dec 3, 2012 at 4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Unfortunately , it has happened .
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/...
Dec 3, 2012 at 4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
It's a public safety issue. What do you do when people and children are trapped inside a structure and they haven't paid?
Putting out fires as soon as possible also has benefits to the public in general. Houses close together will catch fire, creating the firestorms that used to happen. Trees, brush and grass will spread a fire like crazy, depending on the moisture levels. Letting someone's house burn because they didn't pay is absurd. This isn't 1875.
Dec 3, 2012 at 2:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
That's a great idea truth, if you'd like to see your homeowners insurance quadruple.
Dec 3, 2012 at 2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
truth1, that's a fantasy. Experience shows that even well-meaning property owners will forgo maintenance. Additionally, people who have just lost their home are rarely in a financial position to recompense the fire department for fighting the fire in which they lost their home. It makes about as much sense as charging burglary victims for the police call.
.
Fire departments used to operate as private insurance services, and that model was not sufficient to provide for fire prevention or handle the major multi-block urban fires that plagued almost every American city through the end of the 19th century. Public fire departments allocate the risk more fairly and are tied to the long-term investment by cities in code enforcement and fire safety. Decoupling all that because of a relatively minor staffing and overtime headache is the height of foolishness. Penny wise, they say.
Dec 3, 2012 at 12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
The only tools needed is forcing people to be responsible with their property(s) so they have fewer fires.
Dec 3, 2012 at 12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hey stout I think there are several tools already here on this blog.
Dec 3, 2012 at 12:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Somebody call Gov. Walker, he should help with some tools!
Dec 3, 2012 at 12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'll bet making the users pay for the service will make the need go way down....House owners will upgrade wiring, kick out irresponsible tenants who cause fires by overloading electric, pay better attention to their woodburning appliances, etc etc etc.......
Dec 3, 2012 at 12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
To make myself more clear....Make the USERS of the service pay for it.
Dec 3, 2012 at 9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Unions have nothing to do with the overtime gaps. The city admin. has the ability to hire people when someone retires. It really is as simple as that. The city for years has chosen to run city services at bear bones to save a buck. The proof is in the article. The fire dept. has the same amount of employees as they did in 1980. Population, coverage area and call volume are all up almost 40%. Not to mention the addition of two new fire stations in the 90's. LTE's are not the answer. Especially in public safety. You dont want a part-time cop or paramedic taking care of your child or parent would you? Not to mention in an emergency situation you need to trust your co-workers and they need to trust you. That type of trust isn't built in a part-time environment.
Dec 3, 2012 at 9:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
All homeowners are paying for Fire Department services through our property taxes.
Dec 3, 2012 at 9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
I don't believe that overtime will be eliminated by adding to the payroll. Unions know how to work around all this.
Dec 3, 2012 at 8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Make the homeowners pay for the services used just like ambulance calls....why should responsible people pay when others who don't watch their stuff have a fire?...It isn't everyone else's fault you overload your outlets or have bad wiring and won't upgrade it or overfire your woodstove and have a chimney/wall fire, etc. etc etc.........
Dec 3, 2012 at 5:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Dane County (and the State for that matter) utilize limited term employees (LTE's) to cover schedule gaps d/t FMLA, personal leave and workman's comp in an attempt to avoid overtime. LTE's do not get benefits...or if they do, they are limited.
Dec 3, 2012 at 2:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
“The thing that scares me—because of overtime—what happens when (someone works) 72, 96 hours in a row? And that happens here, now, because of overtime. That is not uncommon.”
>
Welcome to Scooterville, sleep, schmeep, they're just public employees right? Who cares about their needs, if one of them buys it on the job we'll just go get another one. Wake up folks, they're public employees, not indentured servants, something the current state leadership seems to confuse.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.