The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Should the fire service follow the lead of the Navy in dealing with incompetence?
The U.S. Navy fired the captain and executive officer of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington because of a massive fire that damaged the ship in May, Navy officials said. Both the captain and executive officer were relieved of duty after a fire damaged the ship in May.
The two were fired because of practices on their ship that Navy investigators believe led to the fire, Navy officials said.
The Navy officials said investigators believe the fire was started when a cigarette ignited material stored in an engineering room.
Investigators found flammable liquids stored in an engineering area of the ship, which is strictly prohibited. Investigators also found that sailors were allowed to smoke in the same engineering areas, considered another violation.
It is estimated that the damage to the ship will cost about $70 million to repair, the Navy officials said.
Is it time for the fire service to follow the lead of the Navy and hold officers and leaders at all ranks accountable for not only their actions but also for their non actions when safety violations and common sense has fled out the window?
Why should we, or why should we not, follow this lead to save lives of our firefighters?
The two were fired because of practices on their ship that Navy investigators believe led to the fire, Navy officials said.
The Navy officials said investigators believe the fire was started when a cigarette ignited material stored in an engineering room.
Investigators found flammable liquids stored in an engineering area of the ship, which is strictly prohibited. Investigators also found that sailors were allowed to smoke in the same engineering areas, considered another violation.
It is estimated that the damage to the ship will cost about $70 million to repair, the Navy officials said.
Is it time for the fire service to follow the lead of the Navy and hold officers and leaders at all ranks accountable for not only their actions but also for their non actions when safety violations and common sense has fled out the window?
Why should we, or why should we not, follow this lead to save lives of our firefighters?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Some departments already do this. Unfortunately, this usually takes place after firefighters die, criminal charges are placed against the officers in question, or a very large financial loss hits the department and/or the citizens they are supposed to be protecting.
A lot of this depends on where you work, too. In departments that have civil service protection and/or a union contract, it's much more difficult to fire anyone for incompentence. On the other hand, in a right-to-work state, a chief or firefighter can be fired for anything, everything, or nothing.
There is no perfect solution for this. Common sense is probably the best we can hope for.
As long as people are fallible, we'll all make mistakes. Hopefully, those mistakes will be the minor variety that don't injure or kill anyone.
-
Permalink Reply by FETC on
-
I agree with all Ben said.
But long before the incompetence occurs, what if we did a real hiring process with candidates at the right level of training/education/experience to match that job description, solid background checks, third party or outside testing, criminal/honesty lie detector tests, outside interview board / assessment centers for new hires and/or promotional processess. Wow all stuff that could be done pretty easily... and I know some will say we can't afford that. Hey outside means outside of your department, use the Chief's Association or Fire Academy for interviews, and I am sure your PD uses a lie detector if not, how about calling the references the candidate listed and only ask those people for 3 names of others that this candidate also knows? Nobody lists a guy that is not a friend or a major bullshitter. Look outside the box.
That way you would weed out the incompetence before it ever occurred, you see we can usually predict the future, ever hear I can't believe so and so got that job? Especially when it comes to incompetence, but hey the company or department vote process works too, right?
-
-
Being proactive is a good thing. Criminal background checks and basic work history checks are two of the first things that should be done. They're mandatory for all firefighters and EMTs in my state.
My department also uses outside assessors for promotional boards at the rank of Lieutenant and up.
There are problems with some of the other things that are used to screen applicants around the country, though. Lots of departments use lie detector tests, but those tests are of very questionable value. For starters, the results aren't admissible in court, and that's where most really bad hire/promotion mistakes end up. Some people are so nervous about taking polygraphs that they can't pass one, and the REALLY psychopathic bad actors can lie their way through a polygraph without blinking an eye.
I also question the value of a psych test. I'm familiar with several departments that have dropped the psych test requirement, due to legal problems with denying employment or promotion that is based on hypothetical future performance. We're going to severely limit our already-too-limited pool of qualified candidates and lose some lawsuits if we keep using those techniques.
We should be hiring and promoting based on peoples DEMONSTRATED ability and character, not what a polygraph examiner or psychologist thinks that a person may or may not do later on. That puts our hiring and promotional processes into the same situation as Tom Cruise found in Minority Report, and that's way to Big Brotherish for me.
-
-
Dan, I agree with your concept too, but I for one have seldom seen the confidence vote go for the person with the most ability and experience. Usually popularity wins the promotional vote. My old volunteer department, went away from this entire concept years ago, and started to use the same process as other fulltime fire departments, with job description, minimum qualifications, years or experience to just apply, then go through a process like stated before, less the lie detector (they are already employees) In the end, the person would be appointed from the recommendation of a promotional hiring commitee. The annual popularity vote was abolished...
Ben, lie detectors do identify if a person is honest or not, they should never be used criminally against a candidate. When asked a series of questions, you can get an idea if they are honest or not. Whether they agreed they smoked pot in HS is not a basis of hiring or not hiring them, it is whether they are honest. Now if the guy says he smoked it last week, then he currently has a drug problem. FF/Medics are around narcotics, and the two biggest things happening now is honestly (stealing) and drug use.
In our state, the test is permissable, lawyers will obtain results and use the test against a law enforcement officer who is on the stand, (either as a witness or as the arresting officer) therefore backgrounds are vitally important, so why not in the fire service? A DWI or arrest from the past that doesn't show on a history check (out of date) can pop up as a red flag when asked during the poly.
This is also just one part of the test and therefore not just the only reason to not hire a guy. A thorough background on a red flag will find what he or she may or may not be hiding. But it is just one part...
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Graner on
-
Ben
Excellent thoughts on the subject.
Just one point re your comment that in departments that have civil service protection and/or a union contract, it's much more difficult to fire anyone for incompentence. The truth is that in even the strongest union departments there is a process to remove the imcompetents. The process does work unless incompetents are doing the progressive discipline. Then their bosses need to act on those incompetents and so on up the line until all are retrained or replaced.
I think the key issue to be learned from the Navy action is that over looking the minor stuff leads to the major stuff happening and that is what real leaders are supposed to do to assure safety.
-
Permalink Reply by Bulldog324 on
-
you have to understand in the navy the c.o and the x.o is is over all responsiable for the ship no matter what happens or who ever gets hurt in the process,if you had read the offical investigation like i have it not just what you call incometence whether it is in the militar or the civilian sector.the investigation found that there was flammable material stored in the bilges and in an undesginated storage area where there was cigartte butts also found in the same area.it was also found that cigartte butts were found in the uptakes of the space in which they think the fire had originated.
the co and the xo are not the only personial found guilty of this what you call incompetence so in other words if you have served on an vessel like that or in the navy then you dont have no understanding of what these guys go through to store some of this stuff especially an engineer such as i.
-
-
FETC,
Are you saying that lie detectors are infallible?
If you aren't saying that, then why would you want to use a technology with so many demonstrable problems?
If you want to know if the candidate smoked dope last week, have him submit to a drug screen.
That is a lot more reliable way to determine drug use.
"Getting an idea if they are honest or not" is extremely subjective. I thought the entire point here was to get the subjectivity out of hiring/promotions. The way I interpret your stance, you seem to be arguing for a subjective test to "get an idea if they're honest or not" while arguing for against subjectivity in hiring and promotion standards. That seems to be inconsistent.
Also, you didn't address the fact that a pathological liar can easily beat a lie detector test.
The pathological liar is the worst possible candidate, and polygraphs are worthless in screening them out.
I'm not arguing against background checks - I'm all for them. I just don't believe that lie detector tests are a reliable part of that check.
-
Permalink Reply by Rob Elliott on
-
First of all, I am retired Navy with 21 years service and have a number of cruises aboard aircraft carriers as I was in an Airdale rating.
While I understand the actions of the Navy in regard to this case , I also know that depending on the squadron I was in at the time, smoking during unauthorized times was not uncommon. I feel that if the CO and XO are gonna get fired it seems only right that everyone from the shop superviser, division chief, division officer, department head should also get fired. Two men should not bear the brunt of this mistake it is a failure of the entire chain of command.
Now, when you want to apply military regs to the fire service I feel that if there is a problem and the fire company officer fails to address it up the chain, and the shift commander doesn't handle it or ignores it and the alleged safety committee also does nothing it seems to me that there is enough blame for stupid things all around. Granted there are cases where someone warrants removal but, the is still a whole lot that each and every firefighter can do to mitigate a problem.
If the problem is an equipment problem then obviously that's got to go to the Chief so that he can hash it out with the local government body but if it's something due to poor training, bad judgement, or willful neglect you really need to Identify exactly who is the problem and have written gudelines/regulations to follow (ie UCMJ) I believe if you see a problem handle it and let someone know it exists so that they can get a handle on it and who really care who fixed it as long as it gets fixed and no one gets hurt or killed. unfortunately there are those who see a problem and shrug and say "not my job" and others who won't let you forget that they "fixed what ever " I'll stop rambling know, except to repeat by saying you see a problem act on it
-
-
So Ben, when you ask a pathological liar candidate about any drug use and make him pee in the cup, how do you know that he hasn't used in the last 3/4/5 mos knowing the process is coming, testing, interviews, and background. Hire him and place him on the ambulance with access to the narcs??? Your drug guy has an easier chance of getting past your process than asking him about illegal drug use on a poly, see something on the test and then following up on it with a thorough background.
It works both ways, you look into it and maybe you find nothing.... and hire him.
-
-
Every firefighter in my state gets a statutory pre-hire criminal background check. That law was just extended to non-fire EMS personnel as well. My municipality also has a civil background check, done by a reliable contractor, for every firefighter candidate that is offered a position. We also drug screen 100% of our applicants, and 100% of our incumbents are tested at least once per year and randomly in between.
We don't do polygraphs due to the large amount of false positives that have been proven with the technology. False test results will get you sued, and they're born losers in court. False positives from a polygraph are pretty ironic, since that means that some lie detector test results are...lies.
As for narc tampering, our narcs are carried in a transparent box with a numbered seal in a seperate lock box. Multiple signatures are required at each shift change and when the narc seal is broken. We also use a couple of other anti-tampering measures. It would take at least 2, and usually 3 ambulance personnel to be in collusion to tamper with the narcs, and then the chances of discovery are almost guaranteed. In other words, engineering controls and common sense process management can eliminate almost any possibility of drug diversion.
Most EMS personnel who tamper with agency narcs for either personal use or resale are long-term employees who ran into personal difficulties such as divorce, PTSD, personal financial difficulties, etc. A pre-hire polygraph, even an accurate one, won't detect that problem, let alone stop it.
If your drug guy/firefighter-EMT candidate is the aforementioned pathological liar, he's going to skate on that worthless poly, regardless. If his drug use isn't recent - per your example of someone who gets clean in order to test - then the poly isn't going to help. Either way, it's the drug test that picks up the doper and keeps him out of the department.
I firmly believe that trust in polygraphs is trust in something that is bad science at best and voodoo-like urban legend at worst. The courts seem to agree with me. If polygraphs were reliable, they'd be admissible in the legal system. They are not.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
If we cannot get uniform, national training standards, then how on Earth are you going to get national disciplinary standards?
You have to remember that, in this country, if it isn't being conceived and pushed by the IAFF, NVFC, IAFC and NFPA, it just isn't going to fly.
Unfortunately, ferreting out the undesirables and incompetents are left to the individual departments and as long as they are struggling with recruitment and retention, they are going to take anything that can fill out bunker gear and BREATHE!
They aren't going to do pre-physicals, drug screens and background checks because THEY DON'T WANT TO KNOW.
Sad, but true.
Now; we don't operate that way, but a lot of fire departments still do and will continue to do so, until something catastrophic occurs.
Of course, by then, it's too late. And even then, some of them won't change.
But, I'm in.
TCSS.
Art
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
