January 2009 Issue Number 106

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...

Why Hazing Won't Die

The headline read, "Firefighter fights demotion over hazing." It was a familiar story. An experienced fire officer with an otherwise unblemished record had suddenly been disciplined for allegedly allowing hazing of rookie firefighters. The firefighter has appealed his demotion in Circuit Court.

Officially, hazing is ancient history in the fire service. The reality is quite different. Hazing continues to be practiced in departments ranging from small volunteer organizations to the largest metro departments. So why is it that hazing refuses to go away?

Years ago, I did some work with a large urban fire department that had a well-known reputation for hazing and extreme pranks. Department leaders had made policy changes to modify what had been at times out-of-control behavior on the job. I asked the senior officers in my class about the current status of hazing within the department. "It's completely gone," they assured me. "We have zero tolerance for it now. It never happens." I was skeptical, but they were adamant. Then at the break, a few of the officers who had responded to the question started talking among themselves. "It's too bad we had to give it all up," said one. Another responded, "Remember the time we did..." waxing nostalgic about hazing pranks from the past. It was clear to me that this department had given up hazing in name only, and it was no surprise when, ten years later, that same department was sued for a large sum of money related to hazing and inappropriate pranks on the job.

So perhaps the first reason that hazing won't go away is that some people really don't want it to. They pay lip service to new standards of professionalism, but in their hearts, they truly believe that hazing has some value and can be okay if only it doesn't go too far. Even a city councilman involved in the case mentioned at the beginning of this article said, "From my perspective as a former fire chief, hazing that is disruptive or injurious is not acceptable." The implication of this statement is that some form of hazing might be acceptable.

Another reason why hazing is so difficult to stop is that it is a self-perpetuating cycle. You come on the job as a rookie and must put up with a certain amount of mistreatment as a way of proving yourself. Then, after a period of time and successful completion of the trials you face, you become a full member of the dominant group yourself, and get to haze those who come after you. Stop hazing, and there is always one group of people who were treated badly but never get to have their chance to do it to someone else. This situation leads to the desire to keep the practice going, "just one more time."

Firefighters' competitive nature is another reason hazing continues. If a small prank is funny, then a big one would be very funny. If a little hazing is okay, how is more any different? If the intention was good, how can the outcome be bad?

The bottom line is that hazing is a relic of the past. It serves no useful function and allowing the practice to continue in any form undermines professional standards, creates division among workers, and leaves a department open to charges of harassment. Hazing is not the same as assigning different jobs for different ranks or positions. By definition, to haze someone is to "persecute or harass with meaningless, difficult, or humiliating tasks." The fire service should be better than to tolerate such a practice for even one more day.

Source: The Virginian-Pilot, December 22, 2008

A federal jury has awarded 23 Akron, Ohio firefighters nearly $2 million after finding that 2004 promotional tests skewed against white applicants for the captain's rank, and against black candidates for the lieutenant's rank. The jury also found that the lieutenant's test discriminated against candidates over the age of 40.

Source: Akron Beacon Journal, December 25, 2008

Family Caregiver Discrimination

One of the fastest growing areas of employment litigation is so-called family caregiver discrimination-- lawsuits that claim employers do not fulfill their legal responsibilities when it comes to supporting workers in their needs to care for children, parents, spouses or other dependent family members. Since the mid- 1990's, the number of workers who have sued their employers for this type of alleged mistreatment has increased by more than 300%. And many of these plaintiffs are winning their cases-- those who bring such lawsuits to court have a more than 50% win rate, more than double the average rate for wins among plaintiffs in other types of discrimination suits.

Although most plaintiffs are women, family caregiver discrimination is not gender specific. In fact, several of the higher profile cases have involved men, including Kevin Knussman, a Maryland State trooper who was denied state mandated leave to take care of his wife and baby after a difficult childbirth. A personnel manager told him, "Unless your wife is in a coma or dead, you can't be [the] primary care provider."

Recent research indicates that women with more than one child face the most potential discrimination related to their role as caregivers. A Cornell University study, published in the May 2007 issue of The American Journal of Sociology, reported that mothers were consistently viewed as less competent and less committed and were held to higher performance and punctuality standards. They were also offered lower starting salaries than childless women, while fathers were offered the highest starting salaries.

The laws supporting litigation for family care discrimination are a mix of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Recent changes in the ADA may also have an effect on these types of cases. Many states and local jurisdictions have laws relating to caregiver benefits.

In tough economic times, when both parents often work and when single parent households are common, the need for employers to recognize and support their employees' family obligations will only increase. It is better to take a proactive approach to this reality than to be on the losing end of a lawsuit.

Source: The New York Times, July 29, 2007

 

 

 

© Linda F. Willing, 2008