Don't Burn Our Seasonals

General Discussion
#1

Word is coming down the pipe that this last round of seasonal 1039 hiring is intended to be the last for Region 5 for the Forest Service. The objective is to eliminate the seasonal position in order to staff with a year round permanent workforce. This is a regional and upper level staffing decision in direct contradiction to the opinion of many as to the most effective staffing method available for entry level and non-career-minded employees. We are being told the goal is that these seasonal positions will be replaced with 26/0 appointments, possibly 18/8. While this opportunity to attain a permanent appointment should be available for those whom elect to pursue such a schedule with the Forest Service this oppressive top-down push for permanent year round staffing is a threat to retention of an already compromised workforce. What sets the Forest Service apart from it’s cooperators who offer more substantial financial compensation is the seasonal work model which enables the retention of motivated, hardworking individuals who want to couple their time of unique work-life experience with the return of unique personal-life experience during the off season. Removing this lifestyle opportunity removes one of the greatest incentives the Forest Service offers to its employees, it is the most notably unique facet of the employment opportunities the Forest Service has to differentiates us from our cooperators and we are in the process of eliminating it. The result will be increased attrition to competing agencies that offer a greater deal of financial compensation coupled with a more balanced work schedule as well as a decreased level of interest in entry level applicants. Additionally the lengthening of a high demand work year for career FS employees now erodes the efficacy of the pay stipend, hopefully soon to be permanent pay increase, as now these employees will be expected to take on increased work duties with the larger year-round employee base and increase in fuels treatment goals. Essentially it is a zero-sum, or negative-sum, result. More money plus more work does not equal an improvement in work conditions. The time demand on FS fire staff is already at saturation and to increase this via increased staffing and project goals during the historically lower workload months will not have a positive effect on retention.

The term “fire year” is being thrown around as justification for a year round full staffing agenda however outside of anomaly events, such as the Thomas Fire which would not have been stopped at IA regardless of how many people were staffing, there is not the need for a fully staffed suppression workforce year round, especially the further North or higher above sea level you get. The true justification of the intended year round workforce is to accomplish a fuels treatment program labored by suppression staff.

Basically what I’m saying is retention was bad when only the 7/8/9s were year round but at least there were enough people sticking around to transition into career positions after they had their fill of the 1039, 13/13 GS5 and 18/8 6 life. If they want us all permanent at least give us the 13/13s.
#dontburnourseasonals

7 Likes
#2

Not every USFS seasonal wishes for a year-round appointment. My winter works pays me enough that I can “afford” to work as USFS summer seasonal. I love the “seasons” of my work life!

6 Likes
#3

correction: winter work

1 Like
#4

IMHO the FS of reacting to the pending schedule change for Calfire and the eventual hiring of over 2,500 employees to fill out the scheduled work load. At full staffing, Calfire will go from 65 year round engines to 155 year round engines due to all the perm staff being hired. There have been no less than 4 public budget hearings and the same questions continue to come up. “What will resources do in the winter months” and the answer is the same
FUELS PROJECTS. It would appear the FS has similar thinking. With the continued demographic shift and decline in birth rates. There has to be a way to retain employees. Calfire will convert over 800 seasonal positions to permanent positions with an Eventuall municipal staffing model at full build out and hiring in year 5 of the plan. While I agree with the thought process of not eliminating the 1039. The reality is this, fewer and fewer people want or can afford that lifestyle and still live in California.

6 Likes
#5

On that note of impartiality, there will still be seasonal wildlands work. The need and demand for year round fuels projects isn’t going to go away any time soon, but private outfits aren’t as beholden to the taxpayer and homeowner, and homeowner and taxpayer, like CalFire, FS and BLM, who absolutely are. It’s difficult to overstate the negative impacts that boom and bust economies and homelessness have had in the west.

Not trying to judge, though. The Indiana Jones and Tales Of The Gold Monkey stuff can be incredibly fulfilling. I played it loose for a while, but if I had the late 90s to do over again, I think I might have preferred working for a wildland outfit, instead of hazmat contracts for DoD (scaping out lead paint at Mare Island, bleh, and caked on jet fuel at McClelland, cough, for example), as well as it paid.

Develop a durable business plan and get a contract, or find somebody who can, like many of the air tanker services do. I’m not saying it would be easy, but it would be possible.

2 Likes
#6

Thinking about this a little more and inviting more discussion. Private firefighting companies are not a slam dunk. There are issues. Beyond certification, there are issues of integration and command that could be difficult for a private seasonal wildland firefighting company.

Some contractors are simply inconsiderate opportunists who are miserable to work for. Some are greedy and find a hundred ways to short you. Some have axes to grind against the government and want to pull you into their grudge matches.

On the other hand, some are benevolent teachers who are fully prepared to help you succeed, not only for your work for them, but also where you go in the off-season, or what you will do next. Some may be incompetent and unsafe. Generally, there will be somewhat less oversight working for a private company and just like working for a general contractor, you’ve got to take responsibility for your own health and safety and be ready to say, “no.”

There are also political and economic factors to consider:

Some Californians are hiring private fire crews to save their homes. Regular firefighters aren’t happy about it - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)

Overgeneralizations and other critical thinking errors, aside; and having brought these factors up, I think it is a real issue worth some thought and discussion by the upper management and leadership. There may be some key differences between an outfit, contracted by a private entity (individual, family, insurance company, property management, etc.) ready to do structure defense, and a wildland crew that contracts with the govt, are ordered and supervised by Incident Command, and are integrated to ops as an ICS resource.

You don’t really want to be turning away the adventurers out of hand.

It’s not all billionaire playboys. Not only is the sense of adventure and confronting threats and dangers to the public one of the attractions of the job, but you might also need that surge capacity.

You might like to try and avoid setting up too many regulatory conditions that make it impossible for a smaller outfit to succeed without ridiculous investment outlays, but not so loose that you sacrifice safety and performance and wind up back at square one.

3 Likes
#7

I think most of your observation apply to almost every employer in the world, including local, state, and federal agencies.

6 Likes
#8

Okay, so maybe we’ve established some pov (surely, there must be more) for somebody coming here to look at seasonal work and wanting some realistic takes and expectations. It would be unfortunate for this topic to just fade away, and potentials to wander off because it’s too hazy, uncertain and distracting, or worse, it’s declared a electrified third rail and becomes yet another can to be kicked between Novembers. I just dont have all the facts and experience to solo it and hope more of you want to engage in discussing good answers.

#9

There are substantial differences in mission and scope within the private entities. Some private companies are on the resource lists for both Fed and State fires. If they are hired onto the incident, their scope and mission are much different than those same entities being hired by insurance companies for specific high value loss prevention. Those resources are not assigned to the incident and as such pose a significant risk to all fireline assigned resources. Their mission is to protect the specific dwelling under the direction of the insurance company not the incident command.

8 Likes