So many different facets to this story, it's hard to know where to begin.
I'll start with the low-hanging fruit. Why do we pay first responders so much? Theirs is a job few people want to do, but such is the case of janitors, too - and nobody's arguing sanitation services are breaking the bank. They tend to be on the lower-end of the pay scale.
The reason why first responders get paid what they do is twofold; they have specialized training to manage crises that most people will never comprehend, much less learn themselves. Heck, how many of us know basic first aid or how to do the Heimlich?
Second piece - what they do saves lives. That's something we can't do; if we're in a car accident, or have a heart-attack or whatnot, we need them to save the day, period. That is something we're willing to pay for.
What's really interesting, though, as we get mad at the costs of first-response personnel, is how mad we keep getting at nanny-state legislation that's designed to reduce the need for first responders.
How about texting while driving, or crap food in our schools, or work lives designed more for the good of the company than the health of the employee? Diabetes Type II is manageable; cardiac health can be managed and even people who've had heart attacks can significantly reduce their chances at recidivism if they exercise, eat healthy and reduce their stress.
Yet we're not willing to inconvenience ourselves/work lives in the interest of self-preservation - essentially, we've outsourced our own well-being and, as a consequence, social sustainability to first-responders, emergency room doctors, etc.
We don't want to pay them to do it, or at least not as much as they're getting. They don't want to do the job if they don't feel they're getting fair value for picking up social slack. If they don't do it, or do it with less gusto, what happens then?
Of course, few first-responders get into the biz to make a pile of money - there are less strenuous ways to do that. They do it because they care, because they like the idea of being on the frontlines, etc. Money is something that keeps them there, sustains their living and post-career life (which can be a hard adjustment after decades of living crises day after day).
Then there's the money side of things. It always, always costs more to react to a problem after the fact than to invest and avoid it up front. Yet we've got a culture that is increasingly focused on short-term ROI - if I can't see the benefit of my investment in four months, say, I don't want to do it.
Even though it means more painful changes and higher costs down the road, as is the case with our infrastructure deficit, with a focus on crime and punishment over sociology, etc.
Then there's the responsibility factor. Who is in charge of preventing accidents? Who leads when a crisis hits, or a series of long-term crises hit? None of that's clear and citizens aren't part of the conversation - we're service consumers, after all, rate payers - not social participants.
It doesn't have to be this way; there are models emerging out there of how we can do the broader emergency preparedness thing better. If more people had the capacity to reduce crises and respond effectively at the front-end, we'd have less demand, less need and lower cost to the tax base on the back end.
The emergency responders aren't the problem - they're filling a market need. If we reduce their pay, reactively, we'll find lower uptake in their role, meaning things will get worse. We'll either have to up their pay after the fact or find an alternative solution.
Me, I like the shared solution angle better. It's challenging, which makes it fun, plus it's efficient. It does, however, require active participation and more than a little sociology-committing.
How about you, reader? What are you prepared to do?
No comments:
Post a Comment