Running a store is very different from firefighting - arguably there is a much higher moral good being done by literally saving people from imminent death by burning. Firefighters are also paid in many places, even if volunteer services are available.
Finally, they do have charitable "food delivery" places - they are called soup kitchens, but they are intended for people who can't afford food at all, not necessarily for people who have the money to buy what they need.
Expenses of firefighting are paid from the state budget. When expenses of grocery stores (dispensaries?) will be paid from the state budget, the comparison would stand.
Also, shoplifting is like calling firefighters to water your lawn, because, see, it's free!
Most jobs provide some important service. The person that bags groceries at the supermarket is part of the system that feeds all of us. Firefighting is a job; one that is widely respected. However, the workers on farms and ranches and fishing boats work under riskier conditions and are paid less. Firefighting isn't a particularly dangerous job (although several times riskier than programming). With respect to training, I'm not a firefighter and I'm sure it varies by department, but I believe firefighting requires a highschool degree, EMS training and a few weeks of training on firefighting methods.
Before being concerned about firefighters, it seems to me that we should be more concerned with improving the conditions for loggers and garbage collectors which have much greater work related risks.
the people we rely on to extinguish our flames cannot afford
What a strange example for you to use. First, firefighters in most urban areas make muchos, muchos dollars. Second, firefighter jobs are extremely desirable, for that reason and many others ("heroism", firefighter groupies, extreme lengths of downtime, early pensions, etc) Third, in poorer areas, volunteers are all-too happy to be firefighters.
As I said, strange example. Maybe you could fret about garbage collectors instead...?
Not really. Most firefighters in the US are volunteer, so not enough pride to pay people to do it.
In big cities, it's more of an internal camaraderie thing. They live together, cook together, shop together, etc. A lot prefer being at the station with their 'brothers' to being at home.
Do firefighters routinely do charity collection while on the clock? I don't think I've ever heard of that, but I'm from the UK not the US. Are they from small fire depts that operate as charities and rely on donations to stay open or are they collecting for unrelated charities?
"How come volunteer fire departments exist?" is a rethorical quesiton. Whether volunteer firefighters have other jobs is beside the point. Clearly, useful tasks can be executed without a work context.
The reason you need to pay firefighters is because society is work-centric.
Other situations exist in which firefighters don't kill themselves (quite literally) over it. Take fast food joints. First, they're notorious for not cleaning their grease traps, but second, many are self-insured. More interestingly, the fast-food companies tend to scrap a building that has had a fire, have it scraped down to the concrete pad, and build again. Source: was just talking with a fire chief about this.
Volunteer firemen in the US certainly do get paid, or at least reimbursed. They're not working for free. And places with volunteer fire departments aren't volunteer because there's no pride, they're volunteer because there aren't enough fires to warrant paying people full-time to sit around doing nothing. They're on-call, and they get paid to respond to fires. In the meantime, they go to their normal job that also pays them money.
Most firefighters in the US are volunteer, so not enough pride to pay people to do it.
Having a volunteer fire department does not mean there isn't pride.
In fact, it can be argued the opposite -- Volunteer departments mean the citizens take enough pride in their brigade that they get directly involved in it, rather than farming it out as a civil service.
I used to be a volunteer firefighter and really enjoyed the work. I was not an inmate, nor do I see a distinction here. Thousands of civilians risk their lives every day for $0/day fighting fires.
I highly doubt any firefighters are doing charity work while getting paid. Most of them are probably just wearing the uniform because kids think firefighters are cool. And firefighers _are_ cool, so I don't think it is completely unwarranted.
Though firefighters starting fires for something to do does happen (I went to high school with a guy busted for exactly that; he was not the type that I was shocked to hear the news), you are going way out on a Limb of Supposition there.
And as sibling points out, there’s no monetary motive, they’re volunteers for the most part. (Then again, so was my high school buddy). And the paid ones, just like the paid crew down the street from my house, get paid the same if they’re fighting fires or playing Call of Duty at the station house.
In my area (Tampa, Florida) firefighter jobs are very desirable and there's a lot of competition for them. They're difficult to land. They're very stable, they give you enough free time that many firefighters have second professions/businesses, some days you don't have to work.
The role of firefighters has also expanded well beyond fighting fires - they also act as medical first responders, and it's required here that firefighters get EMT certified in their first two years on the job, or else they get fired.
So it's... kind of a position with a lot of public trust. I'm not saying I agree with this, but I imagine it would be very bad for a city's leadership if their firefighters went to someone's home for a medical issue and then robbed them.
Finally, they do have charitable "food delivery" places - they are called soup kitchens, but they are intended for people who can't afford food at all, not necessarily for people who have the money to buy what they need.
reply