Should Firefighters be forced to particpate...

Originally Posted By Dabob2

I would be interested to know what other parades this fire dept. is required to appear in; 4th of July parades, Christmas parades, etc. If there are any others, in which one or more firemen are required to appear whether they want to or not, in order to give the fire dept. a "presence," I don't think they have much of a case here. If this is the only one, perhaps they do.

Also, workplace harassment, AFAIK, is normally predicated on other employees (especially higher-ups) doing any harassing, inappropriate comments, etc. Not members of the general public they come into contact with in the course of doing their jobs. For instance, if a saleswoman at a counter at Sears gets inappropriate comments from a male customer, I don't think she can sue Sears for it. If it comes from her boss, she might. But how can Sears be expected to be responsible for something any Joe Shmoe customer off the street might say?

 

Originally Posted By avromark

Mrs ElderP - Parade Marshall I think.


Just to play devils advocate, what if it was the firefighters hitting on the parade route (any parade, thanksgiving for example)?

 

Originally Posted By barboy

I was thinking the same thing bob2 and you beat me to it.



However, if(a big "if" at that) the firefighters' superiors knew ahead of time or should have known that taunts and harassment will likely take place then the firefighters might have something to work with here. Employers have to take reasonable steps to keep their employees safe from injury and all forms of harm while at work.

(and I am not saying that these men were harmed by the way)

 

Originally Posted By Inspector 57

<<Inspector, I ALWAYS appreciate your thoughts and opinions...but in this case I think you are reacting without thinking the whole thing through.>>

I've been thinking about this case. I still believe that -- given what I know -- if I were on a jury, I wouldn't award the firemen anything.

I do have some sympathy for them. That comes from my general disdain for "cat-call" type comments. I have no use for that behavior. (I've been to different clubs/shows in which women stripped for men, men stripped for women, and men stripped for men. I've found all of them to be gross, because of the cat-calling element. Go figure.) I'm not one to advocate that gays should "butch up" or try to appear more straight-like while in the public eye, but I wish we'd drop the leering sexual comments that typically accompany events such as this. I'd've felt uncomfortable myself if I were riding that float and guys shouted "Show me your hose!" at me.

But, bottom line... It didn't hurt the firemen in any appreciable way. There was no threat to their physical well-being, their sexual safety, or their employment. It was an unpleasant situation. And that was it.

REAL sexual harrassment does present a threat to one's safety, well-being, income, or ability to perform one's job.

These guys didn't want to participate in a gay-themed event. I liken their reluctance to cops or county social workers or state reps who would balk at doing a routine public outreach presentation at a synagogue or an inner-city school or a seniors center because of the prejudice they have against the type of crowd they'd be working with.

The deal here is that these firemen (and the Thomas More Legal Center) see "gay" as amoral, political, and threatening. They're fighting the fact that the City of San Diego non-judgementally recognizes that a gay parade is just another event in which a large group of its constituents is gathered, and which presents a good opportunity for public relations and outreach.

THAT's what my reaction is about. I honestly don't think this is a case about four guys who suffered substantive abuse. I think it's about four guys who want their prejudices to be respected. And it's about the Thomas More Law Center seizing another opportunity to vilify, stigmatize, and criminalize homosexuality.

[Disclaimer. The TMLC is the creation of Tom Monahan (who founded Domino's Pizza and became uber-rich from it). Tom and the TMLC actively promote a very conservative pro-Catholic, anti-gay agenda. It is largely because of his cabal's influence that it has become illegal in my state for ANY public institution to recognize homosexual relationships in any manner. One of the results of that is that my access to health insurance (through my partner) is jeopardized.]

 

Originally Posted By Mr X

Interesting comments, Inspector. Good food for thought.

I'm not sure where I am on this one, to be perfectly honest...I will have to give it some more thought.

 

Originally Posted By Inspector 57

<<NO ONE should be forced to participate in ANYTHING they do not belive in or support. Regardless of what your job is!>>

Lady Starlight, I respectfully disagree. There are occupations in which there is an inherent requirement to participate in assisting those you don't agree with or support. (And there are PLENTY of other jobs in which you just have to do things you don't want to do!)

We can use one of my jobs as an example.

I'm an HIV Test Counselor for my county. My job is to talk (intimately) with people who want to get the test, to make sure they understand the test, and to do what I can to reduce their future risk for HIV and STD's. I provide a free service for them, and, from a public health perspective, I'm doing what I can to limit disease in my county.

You can't imagine a more "politically correct" employer than the county. We're all about equal opportunity, protection in the workplace, maintaining a non-offensive environment, etc.

But could I EVER say to my supervisor, "I won't work with this client because he's Muslim?" or gay? or straight? or black? or a drug user? or a convicted criminal?

I COULD. And then I'd be fired. Because I'd be refusing to do my job.

When I signed on for this, it was with the understanding that I would be serving the public -- ALL of the public. Including: those who have religious beliefs that I disagree with; people I find generally creepy; guys who may treat me hostilely; women who may come on to me; clients who don't speak English well; etc.


When I get a client whose value system I don't agree with, I don't go whining to my boss, the press, or the Thomas More Law Center. I remember the job I signed on for, I work harder than usual to be effective, and I try to represent my employer well.

 

Originally Posted By peeaanuut

People are likening the pride parade to a thanksgiving parade or 4th of july parade. When in reality it is a cause parade. The parade has a specific agenda and I do not think that public servants should be required to represent a cause they do not believe in.

These were not firefighters assigned for safety, these were firefighters forced to support something they dont believe in. Whether the belief is right or wrong should not come into question. They were forced to participate and support in something they do not believe in.

Now had they refused to work that day because of the parade and had been assigned to work, than they should be reprimanded and proper action taken. That would be an outright refusal to do their job and is cause of action.

While some may feel that they were not humliated, it is not our call to make. They have a belief system that they were forced to go against by their employer. It would be the same thing in the opposite. While I am certain their physical wellbeing was in tact that does not mean that an emotional strain was wasn't thrust on them mentally.

I do agree that they have no court case and in no way should win some money, but the situation should definitely be under review by the heads of the fire dept and a policy should be put into place that would exclude forced participation in support of a political agenda on company time.


And come on Inspector, you know that there are more than just harmless cat calls being yelled out at Pride. It gets pretty nasty (verbally) at that parade. Its worse than a vegas strip club.

 

Originally Posted By debtee

<But, bottom line... It didn't hurt the firemen in any appreciable way. There was no threat to their physical well-being, their sexual safety, or their employment. It was an unpleasant situation. And that was it.

REAL sexual harrassment does present a threat to one's safety, well-being, income, or ability to perform one's job.>

I also agree with this.

What these firemen went through is not real sexual harrassment in the workplace, it's almost as if they are on a personal crusade and will tie the courts up with another un-neccessary law suit.

 

Originally Posted By Mr X

It went far beyond catcalls from what *I* read.

Lewd conduct and indecent exposure, beyond all the words, was also at issue there.

Debtee, if a man came up to you on the street and exposed himself, would you not consider that matter of sexual assault?

 

Originally Posted By Inspector 57

Damn, peeaanuut! Just when I thought I was going to get Mr X to come around to my way of thinking on this!

<<People are likening the pride parade to a thanksgiving parade or 4th of july parade. When in reality it is a cause parade. The parade has a specific agenda and I do not think that public servants should be required to represent a cause they do not believe in.>>

<<forced participation in support of a political agenda>>

That's where we disagree.

I agree that this parade was different than a 4th of July or Thanksgiving parade. Those I would call "traditional" parades.

This one I would call an "interest" parade. Just like I would call an "African-American Heritage" parade or a "German Festival" parade or a "Festival Latino!" parade an "interest" parade. It's a group of citizens with a common cultural bond.

This wasn't a "Defeat Proposal 7" rally or a "Legalize Sodomy!" fund-raiser. There was nothing POLITICAL about the event. It was just a community celebration. And that community was a subset of the citizens of San Diego.

If it were a pro-choice or pro-Hillary parade, I could see your argument. But it wasn't.

Accepting that gays are a substantive, productive, tax-paying, diverse, and largely boring percentage of a city's population is not making a moral decision. It's simply acknowledging an obvious fact. Having a presence in this parade made perfect sense if The Department took advantage of other such opportunities to make themselves visible to the populace of San Diego.

<<While some may feel that they were not humiliated, it is not our call to make.>>

Okay, THIS is subjective and open to attack, but... If they weren't so prejudiced, they might not have felt so humiliated. They could have just gone with the flow and enjoyed the party. I've got lots of straight male friends who would have found the attention flattering, a little embarrassing, totally mystifying, and lots of fun.

<<And come on Inspector, you know that there are more than just harmless cat calls being yelled out at Pride. It gets pretty nasty (verbally) at that parade. Its worse than a vegas strip club.>>

Actually, I don't know. I've never been to a Pride Parade. I've been to festivals and seminars and parties. But parades aren't my thing. I believe you, though. And I said previously that I find suggestive verbal comments to be gross. I do sympathize with the firemen over that. I just don't find it actionable in this case.

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

One thing to point out, the 4 Firefighters (crew) are all stationed in the same station (5) in the Hillcrest community of San Diego, which has one of the highest percentages of LGBT residents in the city. These firefighters do their duty in both fire fighting and paramedic duties all the time, and not one claim of them refusing to perform their assigned duties to anyone, for any reason.

What they complained about, PRIOR to the event was being forced to become part of the entertainment in the parade, when in the past it has always been volunteers that have done it, even if it was "on the clock". This is the first time that a crew was told they MUST drive down the Parade Route as part of the show.

 

Originally Posted By Inspector 57

<<Debtee, if a man came up to you on the street and exposed himself, would you not consider that matter of sexual assault?>>

The firemen were on a firetruck that was moving down a parade route. If some man flashed his penis toward the truck, that did NOT present a threat of rape to the firefighters. They would have no real cause to feel threatened. The same could not be said for a woman on a sidewalk next to a stranger who whipped out his unit. (Although exhibitionists are hardly ever rapists.)

 

Originally Posted By Mr X

I thought flashing was its own form of assault, regardless of whatever else happens?

Or is indecent exposure okay as long as you're far enough away for the flashee to not feel scared?

I think you're stretching the argument here, Inspector. Sure, they weren't threatened with rape. But they WERE put into a situation (which they knew IN ADVANCE could result in some of this stuff, because they complained about it BEFORE), where they were subjected to all kinds of lewd behavior.

If it were a women's firefighting brigade and men (straight OR gay) subjected them to such, I wonder if we'd be having a very different conversation.

Funny how this conversation hasn't gone homophobic (yet...I'm sure some pinhead will chime in at some point though), but has a distinctly SEXIST tone to it.

 

Originally Posted By Mr X

In other words, they're men (strong/macho), they can handle it (women are too delicate, but a GUY?), they're probably homophobes anyway (big assumption).

 

Originally Posted By Inspector 57

<<What they complained about, PRIOR to the event was being forced to become part of the entertainment in the parade, when in the past it has always been volunteers that have done it, even if it was "on the clock".>>

Okay. Two new relevant piece of information there.

1) There was a history of the Department participating in this parade.

2) These four firemen decided well ahead of the parade that they would find the experience of being in the parade "traumatizing."

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

From Firefighter Chad Allison's Statement...

>>However, my complaint is that I was ordered into a non-emergency environment against my will and subjected to sexual harassment as a result. I have received no consolation and no support from those in a position to effect change. I was a victim of sexual harassment and I have not been treated as such. I believe that if I was a female with a similar complaint, this would have been addressed immediately. There would be a fact-finding and discipline would result.<<

And from Firefighter Jason Hewett

>>On Friday July 20,2007 at approximately 1400 hrs at the San Diego Fire Training facility in the front office I encountered Battalion Chief Tony Pollard near the front copy machine. Also in the room was Engineer Jermaine Stevenson who was next to me. I said hello to the Chief and said that I will be working at fire station 5 (FS5) tomorrow. At that time he told me to be prepared tomorrow because 5's (Engine Company 5) is going to be in the Gay Pride Parade tomorrow so I better be prepared. He said that every year the department goes through this situation of trying to find people to drive a fire apparatus in the parade and I'm tired of it! This parade is in engine 5's district and engine 5 is going to be in it! So be prepared to possibly be given a direct order. They haven't told me to give it yet, but if they do, I will give the direct order! If you refuse the direct order than you will be suspended the rest of the shift and I'll get someone else. If everyone refuses I'll shut down engine 5. If can't find anyone else to come in, than I'll go to fire station 8. If they refuse I'll shut down engine 8. Then I'll go to fire station 14 and if they refuse I'll shut them down also. I'll shut down the whole Battalion! I don't care! <<

>>If I go into work tomorrow, and I am given a direct order to be in the Gay Pride Parade and I refuse. I will be suspended for the remainder of the shift. That is what our discipline manual says and because of this suspension I will no longer be eligible on the current captain's list. Also, I will not be eligible for the next captain's test or any other special assignment for the next two years. <<

>>At approximately 1030 hrs we saw Senior Staff and were then told where we needed to place the fire engine because up until that point we had no point of contact and no one to tell us where to go. I was told hello from a few Senior Staff members and even teased by one that stated something along the lines of, "how are you guys doing" or "are you guys having fun". This being said with a smile on there face. I was also greeted by another senior staff member that asked me if I was doing alright and shook my hand. I said no! I'm not alright! He then said I know. <<

>>We were in a fire engine out of service for emergency responses in an approximate crowd of 150,000 people. We had no plan of how do we get out of the parade if something happen. No medical bike teams to assist with medical emergencies and no alternative means of emergency response routes planned out. There was no plan and I/us weren't given one. I truly believe our safety and the public's safety was a potential risk with the number of people attending this event. In the past, for Fourth of July, Street Scene, Rock 'N' Roll Marathon, and the Qualcomm Stadium Sky Show we had a contingency plan in place. For this event with the amount of people we had nothing extra! We are short fire stations, fire apparatus, and personnel. So let's take an apparatus out of service for the parade. My opinion, we shouldn't take an apparatus out of service for any parade or function. We should have reserve rigs available with volunteers to participate if they choose too.<<

>>He told me that his Captain Trish Stone asked her crew if they wanted to be in the parade and they all agreed to do so. But her Engineer Pat White had a family emergency and she had to make a last minute trade with Shaun Rohrhach. He found out that he was going to be in the Gay Pride Parade and called Captain Trish Stone and refused to go. Matt Salmon said mat he was told by Chief Bowlin that I can't force you to go this isn't a community event. So Captain Trish Stone took the day to go to the parade and Engine Company 25 didn't have to go to the parade. Why is there an inconsistency of who gets a direct order and who doesn't. <<

I think that last comment is pretty telling...

 

Originally Posted By ADMIN

<font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>

 

Originally Posted By Inspector 57

Thanks, Darkbeer. Post #36 shows us that:

-- The San Diego Fire Department has a long history of putting its employees in non-"traditional" parades: <<Fourth of July, Street Scene, Rock 'N' Roll Marathon, and the Qualcomm Stadium Sky Show>>

-- Firefighters are apparently not selected for their verbal/writing skills

-- San Diego needs to hire more gay firefighters, or at least a few straight people who won't panic at the thought of appearing at a gay event.

 

Originally Posted By ADMIN

<font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>

 

Originally Posted By Mr X

Inspector got the red pen for using too many variations of the naughy "P word"...lmao! Too funny!