As departments across the country struggle to recruit and retain volunteers, a renewed push to offer compensation is gaining traction — and it’s sparking strong opinions from those in the fire service.
In New York, fire service leaders are exploring proposals that could allow volunteer firefighters to receive up to $12,000 annually, framing the move as a potential solution to declining membership and increasing demands on responders.
When FireRescue1 asked readers whether paying volunteers makes sense, the responses showed just how split the fire service is on the idea.
“It’s about survival, not tradition”
For many readers, the issue is less about preserving tradition and more about keeping departments staffed.
Several firefighters pointed to the steady erosion of volunteer ranks, describing compensation as a necessary step to sustain the service.
“Dedicated and professional volunteers are following the path of the dinosaurs,” one reader said. “The sustainability of volunteer service continues to erode.”
Others echoed that sentiment, emphasizing the growing time commitment and personal cost of volunteering.
“Sure, why not, or at least a tax credit,” another reader wrote. “It does cost us our time and money just to volunteer.”
Some suggested indirect compensation — like tax breaks, stipends or reimbursements — as a more practical and politically viable solution than salaries.
“Tax credits might be the least costly and easier to do than paying,” one reader noted.
Compensation helps — but it’s not a silver bullet
Even among those who support compensation, many cautioned that pay alone won’t fix recruitment and retention challenges.
Firefighters from departments already offering stipends shared mixed results.
“We get a small stipend each month … it helps retention but is not enough for recruitment,” one reader said, adding that training requirements remain a major barrier to entry.
Another reader with decades of experience said their department introduced pay for calls and training — with little long-term impact.
“Hasn’t changed helping with recruitment or keeping people active,” they wrote.
Others described compensation as just one tool in a much larger toolbox.
“This is not the silver bullet to save the volunteer,” one commenter said. “The ‘test of time’ will tell the success or failure of this option.”
“If you’re paid, are you still a volunteer?”
For some, the debate comes down to identity.
A number of readers argued that once money enters the equation, the definition of “volunteer” no longer applies.
“If departments feel the need to compensate firefighters, then they cannot be called ‘volunteers’ anymore,” one reader wrote. “You are being compensated.”
Others raised concerns that partial pay could blur the line between volunteer and career service — without providing the full protections, benefits or wages of a professional firefighter.
“At $12,000, you’re a part-time employee, not a volunteer,” another commenter said.
Concerns about equity and unintended consequences
Beyond semantics, some readers warned about how compensation could reshape the fire service — particularly for smaller or rural departments.
There were concerns that paying volunteers could increase competition between departments or strain local budgets.
“So you pay vollies, increasing the tax burden on the community,” one reader wrote. “Looked at from a bigger perspective, communities also need affordable housing to keep younger members local.”
Others emphasized the need for broader investment, including funding for equipment and support services, rather than focusing solely on pay.
“What would help smaller departments would be more help to buy equipment that has become extremely expensive,” one commenter said.
A mix of tradition, pride and evolving realities
Not all readers supported compensation. Some firefighters said the value of volunteer service lies in its mission — not a paycheck.
“Being of service is enough for me,” one reader wrote.
Others pointed to long family traditions of volunteering without pay.
“I believe in giving back to the community, not taking from it,” another said.
Still, even among those who oppose compensation, there was acknowledgment that the landscape is changing — and that staffing challenges are becoming harder to ignore.
No easy answers
If there was one point of agreement among FireRescue1 readers, it’s that there’s no simple fix.
Some support compensation in some form, especially if it helps departments stay staffed. Others believe pay changes the nature of volunteer service altogether.
“Does anybody have a better plan?” one reader asked.
The comments made one thing clear: departments are feeling the strain, but readers are far from sold on pay as the answer.
Is there anything you’d add to the conversation? Share with us below.
FireRescue1 is using generative AI to create some content that is edited and fact-checked by our editors.
