Should Firefighters be forced to particpate...

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

>>only those employees who volunteer and wish to attend would have to<<

That gets dicey, too. Imagine what would happen if a city employee appeared at San Diego's "Over the Line" event (do they still have that?) showing support for some of the stuff that goes on there as a representative of the fire dept, police, or whhathaveyou. That gets pretty raunchy from what I've heard.

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

Yes, Over the Line happens every year, and there are no required "community service" city employees being required to be there while the event is happening.

It is also free of kids, unlike the LGBT Pride Parade. Plus it is held on a remote area of Fiesta Island, where the general public wouldn't run into the teams playing a type of softball and socializing.

Are there some girls and guys in bikini's.. yes, do some of them represent strip bars, yes. Are they allowed to be naked in public, NO!

OMBAC enforces a code of conduct for the event, and while there is a sexual overtone during the event, especially the first weekend (of a two week event), it is really a PG-13 style of event.

But no city employee, other than public safety officers patrolling the area, making sure the laws are obeyed, need to be in the area during the event, as OMBAC does the basic clean up and maintainance of the area.

And I have never heard of a Police officer being taunted at OTL.

 

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

>>And I have never heard of a Police officer being taunted at OTL.<<

At least none that complained.

 

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

And now...

 

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

Disapproving Dalmatians

 

Originally Posted By debtee

<>>And I have never heard of a Police officer being taunted at OTL.<<

At least none that complained.>

Well put 2oony!

 

Originally Posted By Mr X

K2M, you couldn't have thrown "Firehouse" somewhere in there?

Come ON...this thread was SCREAMING for a clever dalmatians/firehouse dog thing.

Geez...now we have to go through a hundred more posts before you get your chance again!

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

"But no city employee, other than public safety officers patrolling the area, making sure the laws are obeyed, need to be in the area during the event, as OMBAC does the basic clean up and maintainance of the area."

At OTL? You might not realize it, but they're everywhere. I used to practically schedule my life around OTL when I lived down there. There are all manner of police and fire at that thing, uniformed and non-uniformed. OTL is a non-stop drink and well, let's say a flirt-fest for many people, as we all know.

">>And I have never heard of a Police officer being taunted at OTL.<<

At least none that complained."

There's much more truth to this exchange than many realize. It goes back to what I said before, which was mystifyingly singled out as "condescending" a few posts ago. Police and fire that work these things, on the whole (no pun intended), well, I'm looking for a clean way to say they rather enjoy themselves as a result of being there, either then or later. Not all, mind you, but quite lot.

Look, my father-in-law is retired police, I worked closely with all manner of agencies in Southern California for 22 years, many of my former employees went on to become police or fire, I'm now in the family law/child support business for a county, my wife is in H.R. for a large city, trust me when I say this- it's true when you hear that over 50% of police and fire marriages go south. Many. many of these guys are blatant about cheating. The women, not so much. Saying these guys enjoy a woo-hoo thrown their way or a breast flash (tame by what really often happens) is certainly not being condescending (!) but merely reporting from the scene as it happens. So when you hear about a group of these guys getting "offended" or "harassed" at a gay parade, I'm truly sorry, but it's almost laughable, not to mention hypocritical. Now, because there are no absoluts in harassment situations, I'll allow it's possible, but it doesn't take a forensic effort to tear apart the statements of the fire guys made available so far. The inescapable conclusion is that they didn't like being ordered to be around gays and they decided to make an issue out of it. It's right there in their statements for all to see.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

"Now, because there are no absoluts"

LOL. Boy, now THERE'S a freudian slip if there ever was one.

 

Originally Posted By debtee

<The inescapable conclusion is that they didn't like being ordered to be around gays and they decided to make an issue out of it. It's right there in their statements for all to see. >

Yep.. That's my take on this too and it looks like they could get away with it, if this thread is anything to go by.

 

Originally Posted By RoadTrip

This is the coolest thread ever. Darkbeer has OPINIONS!!

 

Originally Posted By Dave

>>OPINIONS!!<<

Or is it issues??

He is like up to 20 posts.

 

Originally Posted By Mr X

Well, I probably have around 20 posts invested in here too, Dave (some may have been erased though ).

Does that mean I have issues?

Well, yeah.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

More things to consider-

as a government entity, the city has these things to factor in-

How can they allow firemen or other employees to pick and choose which events to work based on personal preference? If they allow these firemen to recuse themselves because they don't like the homosexual lifestyle, where would it stop? Can others choose not to work anything to do with Martin Luther King Day? St. Patrick's Day? The Fourth of July? If you allowed these firemen to not work the Gay Parade, you'd HAVE to allow the others. However, there are Constitutional issues here. Discrimination comes into play, and cities aren't allowed to let that happen, which is a simplified way of stating things.

Likely, their lawyers realize this and so they're trying to couch this as sexual harassment. There's something wrong with that. It would be a hard road to prove the city's responsible for the acts of third parties. Where does the line get drawn? Let's say the firefighters are sent to a gay bar that's engulfed in flames. The same yahoos that made gay slurs show up and do it at this fire. Are these guys going to complain and file another harassment claim? How could the city be liable? The examples here are endless.

These guys didn't like the order they were given and decided to make waves. Their union didn't think much of it, so they went or were sought out by the More legal center. They're trying to hide their disapproval behind a harassment claim.

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

<a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20070810-9999-7m10policy.html" target="_blank">http://www.signonsandiego.com/
news/metro/20070810-9999-7m10policy.html</a>

>>Controversy over a Hillcrest fire crew being ordered to take part in the July gay pride parade has prompted the San Diego Fire-Rescue Department to issue a new policy of relying on volunteers.

An on-duty engine crew will no longer be required to drive a firetruck in local parades if no volunteers step forward, a department spokesman said.

Under a policy revision worked out between Fire Chief Tracy Jarman and San Diego Firefighters Local 145 over the past two days, an unpaid volunteer engineer would first be sought to drive the truck. That failing, a volunteer would be paid four hours' overtime.

The department takes part in 14 community parades each year, including the pride celebration, Fourth of July, St. Patrick's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Cesar Chavez Day.

Fire Capt. John Ghiotto, Engineer Jason Hewett and firefighters Chad Allison and Alex Kane filed a complaint with the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing on Aug. 1, seeking the right to sue the fire department for sexual harassment. The crew said they were ordered to drive the July 21 gay pride parade route, where they were hit with sexual comments and gestures from men in the crowd.

Their lawyer, Charles LiMandri, west coast director of the Thomas More Law Center, said yesterday that the wording of the new policy may not go far enough.

“It's a step in the right direction,†LiMandri said, “but it doesn't say clearly that no one will be ordered to participate. I'm not persuaded that it solves the problem.â€

Fire department spokesman Maurice Luque said it was unrealistic to worry about a lack of volunteers.

“Someone is going to step up and want four hours of overtime,†he said. “We're not going to order anyone to participate. We wanted to rewrite the policy, trying to correct a problem.†<<

While it is a step in the right direction, I have a couple of problems with this.

First, paying overtime with OUR tax dollars. No thank you.

What should happen, and should have happened in the Pride Parade, if they couldn't find volunteers, and the Senior Staff thinks it is important enough to participate, then the Senior Staff should do it, the supervisors, captains and Battalion Chiefs should all know and and be trained in driving a Fire Engine.

Also, this rule talks ONLY about the engineer (driver), it has nothing to do with the rest of the crew.

Now, the last quote, where they say don't worry about it, we won't do it again. Sorry, I would want the policy in writing after all that happened.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

"First, paying overtime with OUR tax dollars. No thank you."

Even you must know that overtime is built in to most police and fire contracts. Cities and counties pay tons of overtime routinely each year, and this is without some sort of emergency. Most sworn officers are entitled to ask for and receive a certain amount. Patrol officers and regular fire fighters who make over $100K are just about the norm these days.

 

Originally Posted By Darkbeer

Yes, and overtime for keeping a Station staffed so they can respond to fires, assist paramedics, etc. is a fact of life.

We don't need to be paying for folks to be part of a parade (as in being part of the entertainment), ANY parade. Not regular hours, not overtime. They should be using Volunteers, and to me, a volunteer is someone who donates their time because they think it is a worthy cause.

The City of San Diego has some serious financial issues, and needs to watch their budget.

With a large group of people attending, crowd control and Fire Marshall issues should be addressed, and the need for medical emergencies, though IMHO, the city should require the Parade staff to offer at their costs some standard first aid stations, either thru volunteers, or by the Parade organizers paying a private firm to do it.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

OT is the ONLY way you're going to get most police and fire to do just about anything.

I also see this policy as ultimately not working. It reeks too much of selectivism. Either the city attorney will point this out to them, or some appellate court will down the road.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

Being in a parade is part of PR. PR is a function of being a fireman, which is why they go to schools, why they show up at civic events, and so on.

But, again, given the overtly sexual nature of gay paraded, I can perfectly understand how someone would not want to be associated with them. If they were simply parades that showcased people behaving reasonably, there would be no issue, I would think.

But because during these events the homosexuals in the crowd and the parade content itself are both bizarre to say the least, I can see these firefighters point of view entirely.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

If this is the new policy that applies to all parades, and they're all treated equally, it's probably a good compromise. Juries have returned stranger verdicts, but I think they would have had a very hard time proving sexual harassment.