Photo by Triborough

Until yesterday, I was unaware that the District’s firefighters work eight 24-hour shifts a month, and that 40 percent of them live over 30 miles away from the city. These may seem like disconnected little factoids, but they’re playing into what could well be a nasty battle between firefighters and the District over how much they should work.

At a breakfast between Mayor Vincent Gray and the D.C. Council yesterday, D.C. Fire/EMS Chief Keith Ellerbe summarized a plan that would take firefighters off of 24-hour shifts and instead put them on 12-hour shifts — and more of them. Under his plan, the firefighters would work 22 days month on what’s called a weekly “3-3-3” rotation: three day shifts, three night shifts, three days off.

According to Ellerbe, the plan would put more firefighters on duty, save $36 million a year on overtime costs (which has long been a problem at D.C. Fire/EMS) and promote safety, since most accidents and injuries happen in the second-half of a 24-hour shift.

Additionally, he said, the change would likely encourage more firefighters to move closer to the District. Currently, only 25 percent live in the city, and with a large number residing further away, the city faces challenges if it has to recall them during emergencies. With more shifts, firefighters would be less inclined to live far away from the city, he said.

Of course, firefighters aren’t going to just roll over and accept the changes. (They’re also peeved that they may be forced to wear shirts with the agency’s full name, FEMS, instead of their current DCFD). According to the Post, D.C. firefighters union chief Edward C. Smith predicts a number of negative side-effects from the change. “Morale, people’s family lives, day care, commuter costs, all sorts of problems,” he was quoted as saying. According to The Washington Times, the union is ready to put up a fight, and it already spoke to one member of the council — at the breakfast, Councilmember Jack Evans (D-Ward 2) said that he had been visited by 15 firefighters who made their case against change. (He was also endorsed by the union the week, despite the fact that he’s running unopposed.)

Many councilmembers seemed open to the idea, though, provided that public safety wasn’t put at risk. Councilmember Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) said he saw no problem with it, and hoped that contract negotiations expected to begin soon could proceed smoothly. Many legislators seemed were put at ease when Ellerbe and Councilmember Marion Barry (D-Ward 8) explained that the 3-3-3 shifts weren’t particularly revolutionary — they were used from 1967 to 1985, Barry said.

Still, firefighters have one point going for them — many don’t live in the District simply because they can’t afford it. Changing the shifts that they work won’t likely make living here any easier, they argue.

The issue isn’t far from many related discussions in the District. Many police officers and government employees live outside of the city, and elected officials have long sought to both give preference to residents and encourage more teachers, public safety employees and government workers to move into the city. In an era of tighter municipal budgets, moves like Ellerbe’s could well win over more supporters because of possible cost-savings.