OS: Fire department serving Disney in talks to drop special operations

[GrumpyFan]

I know its an open discussion and all, but are any of us really capable of understanding the risk and actual need here for this?

I'm all for safety, and I agree that whenever possible, money should be invested in people, equipement and processes to ensure safety and continuity of operations. In fact, I'm responsible for my company's Disaster Recovery plan, and its part of my job responsibility to plan for scenarios and how the business will continue should one occur. Unfortunatly, part of my planning and preparation also has to take into account cost vs risk. In other words, how big of a risk does a specific type of disaster pose for our business and how much should we spend or plan to prepare for it, in case it were to become reality. The bigger the risk, (and potential) the more the company is willing to spend. But, even with the biggest risks, the company is only willing to invest so much toward preparation. So, as much as I would like for them to spend more, knowing full well that it will make a difference IF something happens, there's only so much they will support. At some point the decision is made that the risk isn't THAT big that they will spend as much as suggested. They choose, like many, to take a gamble, and hope the ods stay favorable.

WIth that said, I could go either way on this. I think it's great to have that extra "insurance", especially in a place like WDW, where there are so many people from so many places in constant rotation and the risk of something catastrophic or extremely dangerous in nature would seem higher than other cities of similar population size. Dare I say, there is the terrorist threat as well, which is what prompted RCID to create the SOAR team. But, then I think about the safety record of WDW over the past 44 years and realize that they actually have a much, MUCH better record than a city of equal population. So, it would seem that they don't need it.

 

[invader]

Some of you make very strong arguments but costs should NEVER come before safety in any situation.

 

[GrumpyFan]

Some of you make very strong arguments but costs should NEVER come before safety in any situation.

The operative word there being "should". In a perfect world, that would be true. But, if it were a perfect, we wouldn't have to worry about safety.

Sad reality, cost ALWAYS plays a role in determining how much safety will be applied. Becaue this isn't a perfect world though, there has to be a healthy balance between the risk and the amount of safety that gets applied. Otherwise, wouldn't we all be wearing protective suits with padding, fire protection and air masks everytime we left the house?

What was it Marlin said to the last remaining egg he named "Nemo"?

Marlin: I promised I'd never let anything happen to him.
Dory: Hmm. That's a funny thing to promise.
Marlin: What?
Dory: Well, you can't never let anything happen to him. Then nothing would ever happen to him. Not much fun for little Harpo.​

 

[lazyboy97o]

Some of you make very strong arguments but costs should NEVER come before safety in any situation.

That's not really an actual option anywhere. Complete safety is an abstract ideal, not a tangible reality. There is always more that can be done. Earthquakes can happen anywhere, but not every building is built to the stringent seismic regulations of California. The problem is that the incidents the SOAR team is intended to address are more rare and thus more terrifying as we have not become collectively numb to their persistence. We're debating the merits of a seldom used hazmat team while Walt Disney World is accessed only by automobile roads, a system that [on average] has claimed 22 lives in the roughly six hours this discussion has been taking place. That doesn't bother us because spread over the population the probability decreases. Shifting attention away from an area of specialized focus is not analogous to just doing nothing. It is an assessment, just like any other activity.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Same with the vast amounts of money the NSA burns up to protect us. The average person would say great the NSA is after the terrorists. In real life 50-70 billion dollars a year is going to monitor your phones calls, your internet activity and most likely your movement. Even if I knew I couldn't tell anyone or a secret court would put me in jail. Secret courts, police etc. all cost money and those are in existent to make sure people don't say what the government is actually doing to spy on it's citizens.

Who cares, right?

Well that 50-70 billion a year could be going to fix the roads saving more people in one year then have ever died from terrorist attacks. Every child in the US could have health insurance for free but instead that's where the government spends it's money. Actually your money. Again that would probably save more children a year then have ever been killed by terrorists but fighting terrorist and spying on everyone in the US is more attractive to power hungry politicians with the rank file letting them do it.

There's a point where just endless spending money on paranoia does nothing for you.

There's a bit of a difference between the NSA and specialized technical rescues not to mention to all the Hazardous Materials around the 47 square miles.

There's a giant difference between the two.

 

[invader]

Yeah, Im not going to quote who responded to my post because that would take a lot of effort but you guys blew it out of proportion. I was simply referring to the safety measures on WDW property. I don't think Disney should spare any expense when they handle that amount of people, of which those people pay a premium to be there - to feel safe and enjoy a quality product.

 

[jannpell]

I am not sure where this would fall, whether within special operations and/or training, but last Christmas/New Year's vacation my children spent two hours plus stuck in a resort elevator with no working emergency phone. Response from Disney was absolutely inadequate. we felt once fire and rescue arrived, they organized a better rescue, by far, than anything that had gone on before their arrival. We have been to Disney several times and I cannot express the dismay and disappointment I still feel after this incident. However, the fire and rescue team from RCID did an excellent job. If we would have had to rely on Disney personnel, we may still be there!

 

[bakntime]

I live in a small town. I'd love for my small town to have a paid fire department (we only have volunteers), a full police department, a hazmat team, a hospital, Batman, a team of 30 ninja warriors, and a giant force field built over the town to protect us.

Safety is always a trade off of cost vs. feasibility. Is the education being provided to these people ultimately going to save lives? None of us knows. But no matter how much you do, you can always do more to make yourself safer. You can always spend more to guarantee more services. But at the end of the day, how much is too much? Disney didn't have this team before 2001, and they don't feel it's necessary training any longer. Do any of us know for sure that it's necessary training? Nope. To be honest, I think that equipment (helicopters, for example?) is far more critical in responding to emergency situations. You can hire 100,000 hazmat specialists, but if there's a chemical weapon explosion, those 100,000 people are 100% useless unless you have the infrastructure, specialized equipment, and emergency response vehicles to deal with such a catastrophe.

If a building collapses, what kind of equipment even exists on WDW property to allow these specialist teams to act? I think it's quite likely that the equipment would take longer to get on site than external (Orange County) specialist teams would take to get on site. In other words, in the case of an emergency, there may be very little benefit (if ANY) to having this training for on-site firefighters, because there's only so much a human can do without the tools necessary for extracting people or responding to a chemical threat.

But I just don't know. That's the thing. I'm not claiming I do, nor am I claiming to know anything more than anyone else. I'm just asking the questions that haven't been addressed.

My gut? The union wants this training because it's more money. I don't blame them for wanting an extra $40 a week in their pockets. I'd want it, too. That's the point of a union. We need them, and it's a good thing we have them, especially when it comes to working conditions and human rights. But my point is that unions aren't always the best when it comes to knowing what's necessary in the grand scheme of things vs. what's fluff that will help pad their employee's pockets.

(And just for the record, I am not by any means implying that health and safety workers are overpaid, or that they don't deserve more. I'm simply stating, from experience, what often happens in union negotiations)

The key quote for me is this:

The department said it would save hundreds of thousands of dollars annually by disbanding the team. Those savings would be poured into more advanced training for its general emergency force

What this implies, to me, is that the money would be put to something that Disney feels is a wiser spending of that money. In fact, a more generalized training may be more beneficial and actually save MORE lives than this other form of specialized training which as thus far proven to be mostly unnecessary, because the RCFD workers may be able to respond better to a wider variety of emergencies. Of course the union doesn't like that, because it would result in $1 less per hour for those trained, since I would assume this "new" training that Disney would enact wouldn't come with a fancy certificate, which would mean no additional pay. I can hear the complaints now, because I'd be making the complaint myself: "So you're telling me I still have to go for training but now I get $1 less per hour? "

My question: Does the union honestly believe that the generalized training (plan B) would be overall less beneficial than the specialized $1 more per hour certified training (plan A)? Or, do they simply know that under plan A they get $1 more per hour than under plan B?

Far be it from a union head with a vested monetary interest, or the Orlando Sentinel to spin this as "Disney doesn't care about saving lives!"

EDIT: The poll is a loaded question. Based on the content of the article (if -- and I grant you that it's a big if -- it's actually true that Disney would spend the money on other things including general emergency training), a better poll might be this:

Do you think Disney should spend money on generalized emergency training or specialized training for building collapses and chemicals?

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

If you haven't had a claim on your insurance why pay for it, right?

I think it's more like not carrying flood insurance on my house in the foothills in the desert. I still carry insurance but opted not to get the optional flood insurance because the possibility of a flood ever reaching my homeis so small it doesn't make financial sense.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I live in a small town. I'd love for my small town to have a paid fire department (we only have volunteers), a full police department, a hazmat team, a hospital, Batman, a team of 30 ninja warriors, and a giant force field built over the town to protect us.

Safety is always a trade off of cost vs. feasibility. Is the education being provided to these people ultimately going to save lives? None of us knows. But no matter how much you do, you can always do more to make yourself safer. You can always spend more to guarantee more services. But at the end of the day, how much is too much? Disney didn't have this team before 2001, and they don't feel it's necessary training any longer. Do any of us know for sure that it's necessary training? Nope. To be honest, I think that equipment (helicopters, for example?) is far more critical in responding to emergency situations. You can hire 100,000 hazmat specialists, but if there's a chemical weapon explosion, those 100,000 people are 100% useless unless you have the infrastructure, specialized equipment, and emergency response vehicles to deal with such a catastrophe.

If a building collapses, what kind of equipment even exists on WDW property to allow these specialist teams to act? I think it's quite likely that the equipment would take longer to get on site than external (Orange County) specialist teams would take to get on site. In other words, in the case of an emergency, there may be very little benefit (if ANY) to having this training for on-site firefighters, because there's only so much a human can do without the tools necessary for extracting people or responding to a chemical threat.

But I just don't know. That's the thing. I'm not claiming I do, nor am I claiming to know anything more than anyone else. I'm just asking the questions that haven't been addressed.

My gut? The union wants this training because it's more money. I don't blame them for wanting an extra $40 a week in their pockets. I'd want it, too. That's the point of a union. We need them, and it's a good thing we have them, especially when it comes to working conditions and human rights. But my point is that unions aren't always the best when it comes to knowing what's necessary in the grand scheme of things vs. what's fluff that will help pad their employee's pockets.

(And just for the record, I am not by any means implying that health and safety workers are overpaid, or that they don't deserve more. I'm simply stating, from experience, what often happens in union negotiations)

The key quote for me is this:

What this implies, to me, is that the money would be put to something that Disney feels is a wiser spending of that money. In fact, a more generalized training may be more beneficial and actually save MORE lives than this other form of specialized training which as thus far proven to be mostly unnecessary, because the RCFD workers may be able to respond better to a wider variety of emergencies. Of course the union doesn't like that, because it would result in $1 less per hour for those trained, since I would assume this "new" training that Disney would enact wouldn't come with a fancy certificate, which would mean no additional pay. I can hear the complaints now, because I'd be making the complaint myself: "So you're telling me I still have to go for training but now I get $1 less per hour? "

My question: Does the union honestly believe that the generalized training (plan B) would be overall less beneficial than the specialized $1 more per hour certified training (plan A)? Or, do they simply know that under plan A they get $1 more per hour than under plan B?

Far be it from a union head with a vested monetary interest, or the Orlando Sentinel to spin this as "Disney doesn't care about saving lives!"

Yes but hundreds of thousands of dollars is not even one day of parking revenue. So the idea that they can't afford it doesn't wash with me.

Alas interesting analysis even tho I don't necessarily agree with it all.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I am not sure where this would fall, whether within special operations and/or training, but last Christmas/New Year's vacation my children spent two hours plus stuck in a resort elevator with no working emergency phone. Response from Disney was absolutely inadequate. we felt once fire and rescue arrived, they organized a better rescue, by far, than anything that had gone on before their arrival. We have been to Disney several times and I cannot express the dismay and disappointment I still feel after this incident. However, the fire and rescue team from RCID did an excellent job. If we would have had to rely on Disney personnel, we may still be there!

What resort/elevator if I may ask?

 

[KeithVH]

Perhaps they have grown weary of blowing up innocent backpacks.

They don't do that. Security has Special K-9s for that.

Wait. What?

Since when do they let the dogs handle explosives?

 

[bakntime]

Yes but hundreds of thousands of dollars is not even one day of parking revenue. So the idea that they can't afford it doesn't wash with me.

No, I do see your point here, but I think all businesses do this. They compartmentalize their divisions. It over simplifies things when you say "Disney is so rich they should just pay the darn money." No business operates that way. Emergency services, RCID, RDFD ... they all operate separate (economically) from the theme parks.

At what point do you draw a line and say "that's enough spent on safety?" I mean, I can think of a dozen things that would make Disney parks and resorts safer. Hundreds of life guards stationed around Bay Lake or the Seven Seas Lagoon to make sure nobody jumps in? It would only cost a few hundred thousand a year, and you'd save that one life of that one kid who might jump in and can't swim. You can see where I'm going with this...

But I do, in principle, agree with you. A few hundred thousand dollars is a relative drop in the bucket. But from a business standpoint, no company operates this way. They all trim anything that they can possibly deem as unnecessary fat. For all I know, RCFD may be among the most well-trained, highest paid fire departments in the country. They could also be vastly underpaid and under-trained. I honestly have no idea. But I do get a sense (only a sense based on educated guess, not experience or deep knowledge of this field), that this training was a panic move post-9/11 for a type of training that's really not worth the investment, especially with Orange County teams on hand if necessary.

If, as Disney claims, this money would go to other forms of emergency training, then I do believe it's a wiser investment.

Just a note: We wouldn't be hearing anything about this if it weren't for the fact that some wages would be lost over this. The Union likely wouldn't care, and to a man, the union and its head(s) might philosophically agree that generalized training might be a better way to spend a few hundred thousand if you're talking about overall value in emergency response.

What we need is an objective 3rd party with deep knowledge of emergency response teams. We also need to know if indeed this money would go to other training, or if Disney was planning on pocketing the difference. We don't have enough information or expertise to jump to conclusions.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yeah, Im not going to quote who responded to my post because that would take a lot of effort but you guys blew it out of proportion. I was simply referring to the safety measures on WDW property. I don't think Disney should spare any expense when they handle that amount of people, of which those people pay a premium to be there - to feel safe and enjoy a quality product.

Even within just Walt Disney World there is no objective dollar amount that suddenly makes it safe. There is always more than can be spent.

 

[SYRIK2000]

It's better to have it and not need it. Than need it and not have it.

 

[SYRIK2000]

With WDW being the most visited tourist destination on the planet, I think it's a very necessary precaution.

 

[dreamfinder]

You really think firefighters are expected to know every building in their jurisdiction?

All I know is that every year the fire department sends a bunch of guys over to our company for a thorough tour and walk through. This is beyond the level of just a safety inspection, sometimes they have sent enough crew over they have to bring the trucks in case of an alarm and needed hasty exit.

And yes, we do have our own onsite emergency response team as well so haz mat spills, confined space rescues, etc are handled by onsite first responders as well as local fire rescue.

 

[emcclay]

Keep them.. you can never be too safe when it comes to things like this.

 

[TheScreed]

It's better to have it and not need it. Than need it and not have it.

That's why the entire perimeter of the property should have anti-aircraft missile batteries. After all, the September 11 attacks were carried out with airplanes. Is there anyone on property capable of shooting down multiple passenger jets on suicide missions to Space Mountain? Cost be damned, won't somebody think of the children?

 

[Shaman]

So firefighters are not being let go...this is about a group of them no longer receiving a special training/certification? Seems like a labor dispute.

But does anyone really think Disney cares about safety (beyond the basics)? They do just enough to keep the lawyers away should the poop hit the fan, e.g., entrance bag checks. The image is more important than the reality.

Something is better than nothing I suppose. Especially in a society filled with crazies and their anger-management issues...

I am not sure where this would fall, whether within special operations and/or training, but last Christmas/New Year's vacation my children spent two hours plus stuck in a resort elevator with no working emergency phone. Response from Disney was absolutely inadequate. we felt once fire and rescue arrived, they organized a better rescue, by far, than anything that had gone on before their arrival. We have been to Disney several times and I cannot express the dismay and disappointment I still feel after this incident. However, the fire and rescue team from RCID did an excellent job. If we would have had to rely on Disney personnel, we may still be there!

Wow. Sounds terrifying.

A non-working emergency phone on an elevator at an over-priced resort...magical. That has to be a violation with some kind of fine?