Autumn 2009 Issue Number 113

Is a monthly electronic newsletter which links current events and issues to the daily challenges faced by fire and emergency services managers. Current topics in the areas of leadership development, workplace diversity, change management, and conflict resolution will be discussed.

We hope that you find the information here useful and provocative.
Let us know what you think! If you'd like to subscribe to the newsletter, please enter your email address in the box below.

Sign up for our free newsletter,
Consider This...

PC: Politically Correct or Professionally Courteous?

In a recent response to a column about the concept of “brotherhood” in the fire service, one person wrote, “Political correctness, harassment complaints etc all have damaged the core values of the fire service.” His response undoubtedly spoke for many who feel that being politically correct, or “PC” in the workplace is a leading cause of loss of camaraderie and good will among firefighters.

Being “PC” gets a bad rap generally, but what does it really mean? Some people see political correctness as hyper-sensitivity– the belief that because there will always be someone who will be offended by something, the result is that you can’t do or say anything at work anymore outside of official communication. Others respond to fear of PC by walking on eggshells when they are with “those” people (i.e. those who are different from themselves), but then they make up for this restraint with excessive behavior when with their “own” people. These are bad outcomes all the way around.

The concept of political correctness is much too vague to be useful. I once had a captain turn the TV off whenever I entered a room, because he felt that something (even if it was just the evening news!) might offend me as a woman. This was ridiculous behavior, and served only to isolate me from the group based on my gender. On the other hand, an officer putting the reins on an escalating conversation that includes racial and ethnic slurs is good leadership. Such behavior violates policy and law, and can incur liability for individuals and the department. Allowing such talk to be the norm among a group also undermines teamwork and performance.

Keeping firefighters from doing stupid things is not ruining the fun, it is keeping those firefighters safe, not just physically, but professionally. YouTube videos of firefighters in uniform hazing one another, using department property to play dangerous pranks on one another, and engaging in behavior that is clearly derogatory to other groups within the department or the community make firefighters look like children, not the professionals they are. Allowing such an image to be publicly presented undermines the credibility of every individual firefighter and the service as a whole. In tough economic times, it is critical that the public perceive emergency services providers as competent, trustworthy professionals. That’s not “PC,” it’s just common sense.

There is nothing about fostering a culture of professional courtesy, both internally and externally, that precludes having fun. In fact, when a culture is based on respect and genuine inclusion, as well as unwavering dedication to public service, fun is not only possible but essential to team development. The bottom line is that firefighters, whether paid or not, are professionals, and occupy a position of nearly unlimited trust, both with the public and among their coworkers. Professional courtesy is a critical component of that trust relationship, and is a core value in the emergency services. And that’s what “PC” should really be about.

The London Fire Department plans to remove beds from all fire stations as part of its restructuring plan for the department. The department wants to move all 5800 firefighters to rotating 12 hour shifts and eliminate sleeping spaces as part of an effort to make the department more efficient in the wake of budget cuts. Said one senior source, “Do you know any other occupation where people are able to sleep on duty?” The London Fire Brigades Union has previously warned that changing the shift pattern could lead to “the mother of all industrial battles.”

Source: The Evening Standard, September 17, 2009

Retroactive Standards vs. The ADA

Can an employer impose new standards for positions even if it means the dismissal of current successful workers in those positions? Consider the case of Barbara Hennagir, a physician’s assistant who worked for the Utah Department of Corrections (DOC). Ms. Hennagir had been functioning successfully in her position for several years, despite some physical problems including lupus and arthritis.

In 2001, the State of Utah contacted the DOC regarding its plan to include staff positions in the Public Safety Retirement system. Enrollment in this system required that participants attain Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certification, which includes a strict physical fitness component. Ms. Hennagir initially was excused from the training due to her physical limitations, but in 2003, she was told that absent POST certification, she was no longer eligible for her current position, and would have to accept an alternative position at a different facility 100 miles away. Ms. Hennagir turned down that and one subsequent offer of a different position.

Ms. Hennagir sued her employer on the basis of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She lost in lower court and again on appeal. The court stated, “Provided that any necessary job specification is job-related, uniformly enforced, and consistent with business necessity, the employer has a right to establish what a job is and what is required to perform it.” The court continued that even though a confrontation with an inmate might be a rare occurrence, the employer may consider, “the consequences of not requiring an employee to perform the function.”

Further, the court rejected Ms. Hennagir’s request for accommodation in her present position related to the ADA, saying, “The idea of accommodation is to enable an employee to perform the essential functions of h[er] job; an employer is not required to accommodate a disabled worker by modifying or eliminating an essential function of the job.”

This case has clear significance for emergency services workers who face changing job requirements, whether those requirements demand new certifications or adherence to new physical fitness standards.

Source: Hennagir v. Utah Department of Corrections, 10th Circuit Court of Appeal, 08-4087

© Linda F. Willing, 2009