Women have been able to vote in this country for less than 100 years. Legislation guaranteeing voting rights to African-Americans was passed less than 40 years ago. Today, people around the world are still struggling, and dying, for their right to vote. Voting is not just a right, it's an obligation in a free society. So don't allow any excuses; vote early, vote absentee, or vote in person. But VOTE!

October/November 2004 Issue Number 64

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...

Women Chief Officers Conference November 11-14, 2004, Wyndham Hotel, San Diego. For more information, go to www.womenfireofficers.org

11th International Conference of Fire Service Women March 29-April 3, 2005. Montgomery County, Maryland. Go to www.wfsi.org for more information.  

The Trouble with Labels  

A group of us was talking recently about a mutual friend, when one of the guys commented on the fact that Frank had grown up on an Indian reservation in Wyoming. "But I probably shouldn't say Indian," he said, half joking. "I guess I should say Native American." Another person in the group chimed in, "Oh no. That's not right either. The latest thing is to say First Nation."  

First Nation? This was a new one for me. It wasn't that I was objecting to the new name, but I was confused by it. After all, Frank called himself an Indian. If he used that term, was it then okay for others to use it too? How do you know what to call someone these days?  

A recent controversy about the use of the term "African-American" has contributed to this discussion. Some people who refer to themselves as African-Americans have objected to that term being used for recent immigrants to the United States from Africa. They say that African-American should refer to a history of slavery in this country, something recent immigrants do not share. Others feel that it is fine for everyone with any African roots to claim the title. Others prefer being called "black," or say that the term African-American does not reflect their heritage that may include many ethnic backgrounds.  

A similar discussion has taken place among those with Spanish roots. Is the correct term Hispanic? What does Chicano mean? And what about Latino? And what about white people? Are they Caucasian? Should someone's ethnic heritage be reflected in any description, such as referring to someone as Irish-American? And who exactly is included when talking about "people of color?"  

What's a well meaning person to do? I have had people tell me that they are scared to make any reference to race or ethnicity, fearing that the wrong term will be used. And those who are included in those groups are often equally frustrated by being labeled. "Just call me by my name," is how some respond.  

Certainly people should be treated as individuals, no matter what their backgrounds. But in a society as race conscious as ours, it is sometimes necessary to make reference to identifiable groups. Is there a way to do this, without offending?  

The obvious approach is to ask what people prefer to be called, although this may not clarify things in the big picture. One person might prefer African-American, while the next prefers black. Some may use both interchangeably. Some will get irritated by the entire discussion. But at least asking opens the door for honest dialogue, and indicates good intentions.  

Obviously, there are some terms that should not be used when talking about groups of people. Words that condescend or denigrate are always inappropriate, as are terms that are overly familiar. When inclusive words are available, they should always be used, such as choosing the term "firefighter" over "fireman."  

This discussion highlights the problem with labels. No matter how good the intention, generalizing about groups of people is always dangerous. Better to get to know people as individuals, build trust and respect in that way, and then labels, for better or for worse, are much less important.  

 

The current average for workplace email is 54 messages per day, up by 13% since 2002. Non-essential messages have increased by 41%, according to recent study of the use of email at work. More than 50% of workers surveyed said that they suffer mental fatigue from handling and receiving time wasting messages.  

Source: http://hr.blr.com August 2, 2004

Frequency Matters  

Thomas Bainbridge was employed by the Loffredo Gardens fresh produce company for two years. During that time, his supervisors used offensive racial and ethnic slurs in his presence on a regular basis. Bainbridge, who is white, objected to the language in general and also because his wife is Japanese, and anti-Asian slurs were often used. Mr. Bainbridge complained several times about the language to his direct supervisor, Dave Dennis. Mr. Dennis told him that he would take care of it, but instead, when Mr. Bainbridge left on a scheduled vacation, he was fired in his absence. The cause given for his termination was "problematic interpersonal skills with subordinates."  

Mr. Bainbridge sued for hostile environment harassment and retaliation. He lost his first case and appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals. Although the appeals court did give some merit to his retaliation claim, he once again lost his suit based on hostile environment harassment. Why? According to two of the three judges, the comments were not frequent enough to constitute harassment.  

Mr. Bainbridge had claimed that the racial slurs were made approximately once a month in his presence. The court accepted this claim, but further found that some of the comments, while made in Mr. Bainbridge's presence, were not directed at him. The majority of the judges felt that offensive comments made once a month did not create an environment that was hostile to the point of altering the terms or conditions of his employment.  

One judge disagreed. He felt that the once-a-month comments established a pattern and created a work environment, especially since the remarks were often made by the owners of the company. This judge felt that the case should at least go to trial. But he was in the minority; the other judges upheld the original court's summary judgement in favor of the employer.

This case, which applies only to the 8 th Circuit, demonstrates the high standard that must be met to prove discrimination in the workplace. Occasional remarks, even very offensive ones, are not likely to meet this standard.  

Source: Thomas Bainbridge v. Loffredo Gardens Inc. 8 th Circuit Court of Appeals, #03-3192