June 2008 Issue Number 99

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...

Personal Problems

When a firefighter is going through the break up of a relationship, the reactions of coworkers can be widely varied. Some colleagues might express sympathy while others make jokes. Others might choose to ignore the entire matter as a personal problem that has no place at work. But what happens if that firefighter jumps off the rescue vehicle and starts beating up his estranged wife's divorce lawyer on a city street?

This is exactly what happened recently when a Connecticut firefighter riding on a city ambulance suddenly leapt from the vehicle and attacked his wife's lawyer when he saw the two of them walking together on a downtown street. The firefighter was arrested and is likely to lose his job.

Such behavior is not unique. Firefighters have stalked ex-spouses while on duty, have made inappropriate phone calls, have used their positions to intimidate others, have violated restraining orders. Many of these acts result when firefighters are having personal problems that are not being adequately addressed. Given the nature of the fire service, with members working long hours in close quarters, it is not too surprising that such problems will occasionally reach crisis proportions at work.

What can you do to prevent embarassing, illegal, or dangerous behavior from troubled coworkers? The first step is to recognize when a coworker is having personal problems and take them seriously. Joking about a difficult divorce may be the easiest way for colleagues to handle a touchy subject, but it doesn't really provide the support and resources someone needs. Recognize signs of real trouble: is the firefighter absent more often from work, or less productive when there? Are there indications of alcohol or substance abuse? Does the firefighter own weapons and talk about using them, even apparently in jest? Does the person get into arguments more easily and make threats among coworkers? Any of these signs point to potentially disastrous outcomes if the root cause of the problem is not addressed.

Of course, it is not the place of firefighters or even officers to provide psychological intervention or counseling. However, it is the responsibility of those in positions of leadership to recognize danger signs and activate the appropriate resources. These resources may include Employee Assistance Programs, mediation services, department discipline, or even law enforcement authorities.

Nobody wants to be the bad guy, and it may be easier to pretend that someone's divorce or child custody battle is just funny, but such a reaction does nothing to help someone in real need. The mandate of the emergency services is to help others, and the best place to begin is by helping each other.

Source: The New Haven Register, March 24, 2008

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that local governments and state universities in Michigan cannot offer health insurance to the partners of gay workers, because a 2004 state ban on gay marriage also blocks domestic partner policies affecting public sector employees.

In California, the state Supreme Court recently struck down a ban on same-sex marriage as being in violation of the state constitution. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has stated that he will respect the court's ruling and will not support an amendment to the constitution to overturn it.

Sources: Associated Press, May 7, 2008 and The Los Angeles Times, May 16, 2008

Oh Boy: The Sequel

In 2006, the US Supreme Court ruled that the use of the term "boy" to address an adult African-American man could substantiate a claim of racial discrimination in the workplace (see Archives). Anyone who has been alive in this country in the last 50 years knows that calling a black man "boy" is a deliberate insult. The Supreme Court has made it clear that they understand the historical context of that usage as well. So why are we still talking about it? Consider the recent case of Bobby Bailey and Robert Smith, dock workers and truck drivers for USF Holland. For over ten years, these two men, both African-American, complained to their supervisors that coworkers routinely referred to them as "boy," "hey boy," and "damn it boy." The response of the other employees was that they did not mean anything by the term and would continue to use it. Supervisors also used these terms when addressing Mr. Bailey and Mr. Smith, and when asked not to by the plaintiffs, were told "not to take things so personally."

When the company finally instituted what they described as sensitivity training in 2004, several white employees in the class voiced resistance to the idea that it was wrong to refer to African-American men as "hey boy" or "damn it boy." One white employee told the instructor that the word "boy" was a "southern thing" and that he would continue to use it regardless of company policy. Later that same year, the company attorney advised USF Holland that, "while the environment is likely not racially hostile, it is certainly one in which more sensitive employees can feel uncomfortable."

Not racially hostile? In addition to being called "boy" as a matter of course, the plaintiffs also experienced racial slurs in the form of graffiti in the workplace, found nooses displayed at work, and had their work vehicles and personal property vandalized. Yet the company's conclusion was that they could not discipline anyone for the behavior because "those employees had denied the conduct charged" and besides, "no one had used this term ["boy"] with racial animus, nor with any intent to hurt [the plaintiff's] feelings."

The plaintiffs won this case on the first round, and on appeal. But the fact this appeal was pursued by the company is telling. How could a major company have leadership so deliberately ignorant and antagonistic to its employees? How could any attorney look at the facts of this case and conclude that it was just a matter of some individuals being "too sensitive?" How could others at the company stand by for over ten years while these abuses took place? It is beyond comprehension, but the fact that it is still happening is important information for those who would like to believe that race is no longer an issue in the workplace.

Source: Bobby Bailey and Robert Smith v. USF Holland, Inc. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 07-5304

 

 

© Linda F. Willing, 2008