Harassment policies and emergency services

[ex-commish 490]

Lately there seems to be a strong emphasis on harassment and harassment policies in emergency services. While I don't condone or encourage any form of deliberate harassment against anyone due to their race, religion, gender, etc...I do wonder if this has become a shield for the thin skinned or those with agendas. Like many on here I remember the days of good old fashioned b*** breaking and pranks and many times being the target of it and laughed with it and got even and laughed even more. It was a sense of belonging. A sense of trust. I also remember many strong disagreements and arguments, some very intense but at the end of the day it was over. Today you have to worry if someone will take what you say or do to the point where they will file internal or even get a lawyer or run to the police ( yes I have seen this happen) and look to file outside charges. I feel it has come to a point where you truly have to be careful what you say and do because you never know how someone is going to take it and it is unfortunate because I feel most incidents are not intended to be malicious rather innocent yet there is a chance someone may take it the wrong way and harassment policies that I have read are pretty much clear cut with zero tolerance by the AHJ and the AHJ has to act if a complaint is brought to them.

Here's to the good old days!!!

[Dinosaur 844]

Act but not investigate seems to be the usual course of action. They don't even bother to get the other side of the story in many cases.

[ex-commish 490]

Act but not investigate seems to be the usual course of action. They don't even bother to get the other side of the story in many cases.

So true

[nfd2004 750]

I went on the fire dept in 1975. I didn't know anybody. I thought I made a mistake taking the job. I thought these guys in the firehouse hated me. But I found out in a short time that it was actually the opposite. Very strong friendships developed. Actually, we all seemed to enjoy the attention. Name calling, joking, verbal abuse was all part of the firehouse. When one of us needed help at home for whatever reason, those guys were right there. It didn't matter who you were.

Things started to change in the mid 90s. You couldn't say things that we used to say. There was a change in the overall firehouse atmosphere. Life in the firehouse changed. Suddenly we were like kids in school being told what we could say and what we couldn't say.

Those guys that busted my stones years ago get together for a Country Breakfast once a month now. We act the same way as we did back in the 70s and 80s at the firehouse kitchen table. The other people in the restraunt get a free comedy show when we're all there. Our mannerism doesn't seem to bother those people in that restraunt and it certainly doesn't bother us.

I'm just glad I got a chance to have a great group of guys give me plenty of verbal abuse over the years. And I gave it back too.

[bad box 371]

Coming soon to a Kindle near you: "Hurt Feelings on the Fire Floor" a novel co-authored by folks who have gotten on the job via court order rather than merit ... So sad.

[Westchester 49]

I too remember the good old days, but as we get older the laws change. Going to the Firehouse is sometimes like walking on eggs. You have to be careful what to say, where to say, and you your saying to. Know a days cell phones can record, take video, and pictures. I't at the point that you respond to a call and return home after. And if you attend a FD meeting and a subject comes up and you debate on it! Hold on to your hat's, all hell will break out. Which makes me laugh.The Department Heads always say if you have something to bring up, bring it up at a meeting. Well, if you bring something up in a meeting, you better be careful. The good old days are gone! Fire Service, and EMS is just that! A Job or a Volunteer. In and out,Say nothing and leave with your tail between yor legs.

[nfd2004 750]

"Westchester" it is true what you say. And you make a good point, it doesn't matter if it's in the firehouse in NYC or the volunteer monthly meeting for the fire or EMS group. And as the saying goes: "Whatever you say can and will be used against you in a court of law".

I recently visited a career fire house in a large city in Connecticut. My brother once worked in that firehouse and I remember going there when everybody was talking and joking at the kitchen table. And in between that talking and joking, they were flowing water on fires whether it was a car fire, a rubbish fire or a three frame. They were a tight group of individuals. I went to that same firehouse last year. Sat at that same kitchen table and other than my buddy talking to me, no buddy else said anything.

It's really sad how things have changed over the years. I'm just glad that I was a part of it when things were GREAT. And through no fault of their own, most guys today will never really understand what we are talking about.

[Westchester 49]

It seem as though if members of a Emergency Service( Paid or Volunteer ) have been in for along period of their career, that person knows the boundaries of what they can say or do.I always felt that joking and breaking b***s was a important part of bonding with one another.It seems as though when a probie joins or is hired they are quick to jump to conclusions that there is hostile or harassment taken place. It's important that employees or volunteers have a chance to release steam in the form of ribbing or practical jokes. It's like the old saying" If they don't make fun of you or break your chops, most likely that person doesn't like you. Thick skin is wearing out in the service, and it does effect moral. Of course there is a thin line not to cross, but if that happens it should be dealt with in a professional manner behind closed doors. The one thing I hate is when someone is made a example of in front of others. In a field where we deal with fire, accidents, death, etc. We need each other in a caring and joking atmosphere, not a hostile and "Let's not joke around anymore" attitude. Humor is the best medicine. But not in front of civilians! Everybody is always listening and watching. It's a damn shame, but this is the world we live in today; Sue, Suspend, Lay off, Transfer,Arbituator,and Sue again

[DannyB119 2]

This is on a slightly different track, but I cannot find the option for me to create a thread.

I'm currently in a Master's Degree program, and I've decided to write my thesis on the efficacy of pre-employment psychological examinations in the public safety field. With recent events, both here and in the world in which we live, I decided to write a little bit about it here to gain a little bit of a "real world" perspective that is generally not published in textbooks or in research material.

As public safety professionals, we're often held to a higher standard. This higher standard applies both on the job and in our personal lives. But, with the increase of psychological diagnoses in the population-at-large, as evidenced by the increase in television commercials advertising the myriad psychopharmacological options that we as a society have at our disposal, how are public safety agencies capturing the most qualified personnel from the applicant pool when the tests that they often administer aren't completely on pace with the ever-developing medical community? What I mean by this is that many of the personality exams (MMPI, NFSI, NCJOSI, etc.) are dated within the recent 5 or so years, but whenever one watches television, there seems to be a new drug being advertised that is designed to treat either an existing or new medical or psychological malady. (As an aside, during a recent one-hour block of prime-time television, I counted that out of the 18 minutes of commercials, 13 minutes consisted of drug advertising. Out of the 13 minutes, 8 minutes dealt with psychopharmacological issues.)

So, with that said, what seems to be the prevailing thought process when analyzing a potential applicant for his or her fitness for duty? While nothing is completely foolproof, how efficiently are we - as public safety professionals - doing when it comes to selecting the best qualified applicants in favor of those who may do our industry and our reputations harm?

[AFS1970 504]

Quite a few years ago our city put in a very draconian sexual harassment policy. We were told that failing to sign it would result in immediate termination. Our union advised us all to add the words "signed under duress" above our signatures. To the best of my knowledge nothing else was ever done about the fact that this threat bypassed the normal chain of discipline. I think the union knew that this was a hot button issue and any attempt to alter the policy would fail n the court of public opinion. I only know of two complaints filed under that, one was found to be false and the other was thrown out because of the insane nature of the complaint (it also mentioned that the harassment involved the past lives of both parties).

Back when I was a volunteer officer, there was a brief push to write a code of conduct that would address this. The chief wanted to hire a lawyer to write it. I asked to do it and have the lawyer look it over. My version (as far as I know) is still a draft that was never adopted. This was mostly because the members the chief was looking to harass with charges of breach of conduct all left the department so he didn't see the vital need for the document any more. A few years later another officer tried writing a sexual harassment SOP, he was assisted in this by his girlfriend / subordinate (as opposed to his wife at the time) so you can see where the frame of reference was going on that one. However she was taking much from the corporate world which had some truly bizarre regulations. Mine had come largely from college athletic programs because they recognized that close physical contact might be part of the activity and not harassing in any way.

To the best of my knowledge, my former volunteer department still has no policy despite a couple of high profile incidents. Lately at work there is some new form that acknowledges the long policy from before that we all have to sign. This time the union seems silent on it, offering no advice about how to sign it.

The end result is you have people who are too afraid to talk with each other look at each other or even engage in friendly banter because something might be taken the wrong way. In my opinion this actually makes for a more hostile work environment as it erodes the camaraderie that has been a hallmark of the emergency services forever.

[v85 212]

However she was taking much from the corporate world which had some truly bizarre regulations.

This is the problem with the emergency services in general today.

To all managers of emergency services: The emergency services ARE NOT part of corporate America, and the ARE NOT 'customer service jobs'

Now, do emergency services personnel have to use what are widely considered customer service skills like empathy and active listening, yes. But that doesn't mean emergency services positions are customer service positions

[ex-commish 490]

"The end result is you have people who are too afraid to talk with each other look at each other or even engage in friendly banter because something might be taken the wrong way. In my opinion this actually makes for a more hostile work environment as it erodes the camaraderie that has been a hallmark of the emergency services forever."

I agree word for word...just want to add it also gives some in charge that have vendettas against certain people some leverage.

[nfd2004 750]

"The end result is you have people who are too afraid to talk with each other look at each other or even engage in friendly banter because something might be taken the wrong way. In my opinion this actually makes for a more hostile work environment as it erodes the camaraderie that has been a hallmark of the emergency services forever."

I agree word for word...just want to add it also gives some in charge that have vendettas against certain people some leverage.

I agree and several years ago, in my department, I signed a paper "under duress". And I also agree where someone mentioned, these policies have actually created hostile enviorments. People are afraid to talk to each other today.

Edited August 10, 2013 by nfd2004

[ex-commish 490]

I agree and several years ago, in my department, I signed a paper "under duress". And I also agree where someone mentioned, these policies have actually created hostile enviorments. People are afraid to talk to each other today.

And this is my point exactly. You have to worry if someone will get their feelings hurt and run to the police or thier lawyer and file charges over a comment or statement that was deemed harassing in nature. Again I do not condone deliberate harassment of anyone but what happened to being thick skinned and taking it on the chin?