February 2012 Issue Number 139

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...

Is it possible to train someone to be more resilient? The Army thinks so, and has invested $90 million over the past two years toward a program that supports soldiers' psychological fitness for duty.

Master Resilience Training (MRT) is part of a larger effort called Comprehensive Solider Fitness, a program designed to teach soldiers to be psychologically strong in the face of adversity. In the wake of unprecedented multiple deployments in ground wars that have lasted longer than any in the history of the United States, the Army and other military branches have seen significant indicators of long term stress, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and a marked increase in suicide among service members.

The program requires that every soldier, both active and reserve, take an online assessment annually. This evaluation indicates areas where individuals are strong and where they can improve. For those who show needs, online training modules are available, and counseling can be recommended.

The individual assessments that are done are confidential, but the overall scores are aggregated for statistical purposes. Master Resilience Training is peer led with soldiers trained through the University of Pennsylvania, where the program was developed. Early indicators are that the training diminishes negative outcomes and risk factors as indicated by the annual assessment.

The Army has stated a commitment to continued funding the program, as they feel it is a preventative measure that not only makes soldiers more fit for duty, but also could diminish risk factors in the long term.

Sources: www.army.mil January 24, 2012; www.npr.org January 8, 2012

 

February is Black History Month. This event began in 1926 as a week set aside in February to honor the contributions of African-Americans. In 1976, the celebration was expanded to a month. According to the US Census, 42 million people in the United States identify themselves as black, either alone or in combination with other races. This accounts for 13.6% of the total population. The black population grew by 15.4% between 2000 and 2010.

Source: www.census.gov

 

How Free is Expression at Work?

The FDNY has recently announced the enforcement of a policy that limits the expression of personal opinions in the fire station, specifically as it relates to posting material on fire department bulletin boards. The policy reads as follows: "Bulletin boards in facilities shall be used only for official Department business or important information relating to approved Departmental organizations. In addition to applicable EEO restrictions, material presenting opinions or viewpoints is not permitted anywhere in quarters. It does not matter whether such opinions or views concern Department matters or non-Department matters. NO articles/material may be posted from any publications, internet or other sources."  The union president has said that the union intends to file a lawsuit over the order, for infringement of First Amendment rights.

This policy certainly seems like an overreach, but it will be interesting to see how it fares in court. It is difficult to know exactly what the disputed postings include—news articles mention everything from the American flag to formal criticisms of the department’s diversity policies. It does seem likely that the bulletin board that is in the fire station is owned by the City of New York and not the firefighters themselves.

If you look at other organizations, there is little support of unlimited free expression in the workplace, especially when that expression goes against specific policies. Consider the case of Richard Peterson, a long-term employee of Hewlett-Packard in Boise, Idaho, whose personal religious beliefs led him to post Biblical passages and anti-gay rhetoric in his workplace cubicle in plain view of others. The company asked him and then required him to remove the postings, and when he refused, he was fired.

He subsequently claimed that his First Amendment rights had been violated. The courts did not agree. He lost his first case, and then lost again at the federal circuit court level. Mr. Peterson had violated no laws in his postings—at the time, there were no federal, state or local ordinances that included sexual orientation as a protected class for the purposes of discrimination. His actions did violate policies and specific expectations of his employer and that was enough for the court to decide against the First Amendment claim.

Consider also the case of Matthew Dixon, an employee of a dairy company in South Carolina. Mr. Dixon, a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, put several Confederate flag decals on his workplace toolbox. The employer had a policy against provocative language or displays in the workplace that included display of the Confederate flag. Mr. Dixon was told to remove the flag decals, and when he refused after several attempts at negotiation, he was fired.

He later sued, saying his First Amendment rights had been violated, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals did not agree. The court ruled that Mr. Dixon was not fired for his political opinions but instead for his workplace behavior in support of his political opinions, a significant difference in the eyes of the law.

Each case is different, and First Amendment law is constantly developing. An employer may not completely abridge a worker’s First Amendment rights, but it is also clear that freedom of expression in the workplace is different from that which applies to private life.

Sources: Richard D. Peterson v. Hewlett Packard Co. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 01-35795; Dixon v. Coburg Dairy Inc. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals No. 02-1266; CBS New York January 26, 2012

© Linda F. Willing, 2012