May 2008 Issue Number 98

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...

Trouble in Cyberspace

The Internet is a wonderful resource, but it has also created many headaches for supervisors and managers. How much access should people have to the Internet while at work? Should some sites be blocked? Is it ethical to monitor an individual's use of the Internet? Would it just be easier to ban access to the Internet altogether?

This last approach is one most recently taken by the Chicago Fire Department, which issued an order on April 2 banning all access to the Internet at fire stations, unless a waiver is granted by the department. This ban applies to both station computers and personal laptops. The fire department has installed filters that allow only a few sites to be accessed on the station computers. In addition, monitoring software is being used to track computer usage.

The trigger for this action by the Chicago Fire Department is an ongoing investigation into whether a firefighter inappropriately used a personal computer at work. However, the department stated that developing such a prohibition has been in the works for months.

Do organizations have the right to regulate and monitor use of official computers? Can they limit use of personal computers and/or the Internet? The answer to the first question is clearly yes. Workplace computers belong to the entity that provided them, and legal decisions have reinforced that the parent organization owns everything associated with those computers, including deleted files that may surface in a deep search. (For this reason alone, personal business, including the preparation of documents or writing of letters, should never be done on workplace computers.) As for monitoring, the software that allows for this is cheap and widely available, and the majority of companies, cities, and other organizations already have it in place.

The use of personal computers raises different issues. Is it okay to use a laptop in the evening at the fire station to do homework for your fire science degree? What about using it to do homework for your accounting degree? Is it all right to look at pictures of relatives wearing bathing suits that were taken during your beach vacation last summer? What about models in online magazines wearing bathing suits (or less?) If it is okay to buy insurance for your new car online while at work, is it then acceptable to buy merchandise on eBay? And if it is all right to have a cell phone at work and receive personal calls and text messages, then why would it not be okay to check email on your laptop?

Most people agree that there are limits to what is acceptable in terms of conducting personal business while on duty in the fire station. Unfortunately, there is little agreement beyond that point of what those limits should be. The Chicago Fire Department has taken an uncompromising approach to a problem facing all organizations. What is clear is that all organizations need to be more proactive in dealing with issues and conflicts that result from rapid changes in technology and its impact on the workplace.

Source: The Chicago Tribune, April 15, 2008

The United States Naval Academy has instituted a program to prevent sexual harassment that uses peer trainers. The program spans the four years that midshipmen are at the academy, and will result in about 25 hours of training per student. Although the program has received good reviews by some, others say that the amount of training on the subject is inadequate, especially considering the history of sexual harassment problems at the school.

Source: Associated Press, November 17, 2007

"Gay" Jokes: Taking them Seriously

A firefighter has recently sued a large fire department, alleging that he experienced retaliation after he told colleagues to stop making derogatory comments about another firefighter they perceived to be gay. The firefighter claims that after he confronted his coworkers, they made him a target of ongoing and systematic mistreatment.

The case is still pending, but even at this stage, it raises interesting issues. One allegation in the complaint is particularly noteworthy: that the station captain "attempted to minimize the inflammatory nature of the discussion by contending that it was a joke."

Without commenting on this particular case, it is worth asking if such a reaction to derogatory comments about homosexuals is plausible. The answer to this question is: Absolutely. Turn on the television or the radio, or hang around most schools, workplaces, and clubs in the country and you'll hear jokes about gay people. People who would not dream of saying malicious things about racial or ethnic minorities may make anti-gay comments with impunity. Spend time around virtually any high school and you'll hear the phrase "that's so gay" used to mean any number of negative things.

So it wouldn't be surprising if a supervisor did downplay anti-gay comments as a form of (in his opinion) a benign joke. But this mindset must change. First are the legal imperatives: this particular incident took place in a state where gays and lesbians are protected in the workplace as a matter of law, and homosexual slurs are treated the same as those against other protected groups. But more important is that tolerating mistreatment of any one group of people (even if the mistreatment is intended as a joke) gives permission in the workplace for any group or individual to be mistreated or marginalized. It is cowardly to hurt or exclude others, and then excuse yourself by saying, "Oh, I was only joking." Real leaders make a stand against such behavior, both through their own example, and by standing up for those who are affected.

Source: Los Angeles Times, November 13, 2007

 

© Linda F. Willing, 2008