The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
The gray area....Harrassment.....Chain of Command.....CYA
After a recent annual harrassment class, I thought of bringing this topic up and perhaps an idea of how others handle such things, or at least things to consider. While Harrassment, the chain of command, and covering the a$$ (CYA) can be separate issue, they can also go together, they can all be applied to the Gray area.
So what do you do? How do things work? Are they fluid?
Harrassment:
The ever sticky situation. What is it? How is it defined? Well as mentioned this was the reason for this topic and while watching the video there were several issues brought up, rather blatant, situations to consider. We did the regular go over discuss type of stuff, with most other FF's looking just to finish and move on with the day. I would garner to say most of us would have a decent idea about harrassment and what it is and how to avoid it, but what happens if it does happen? What happens if it doesn't fit the definition of harrassment, but is a disagreement? How is it handled?
First thing I brought up on the video was in the scenarios it showed people harrassed, but it never showed how to resolve such issues, it never showed someone telling the others to stop, etc. Instead it should the "effects" of harrassment and the woeful me person who goes on to make other assumptions. Human nature? maybe.
So what do you do if someone comes up saying they are being harrassed? Or even grayer, what happens if someone says they don't like the station the crew is watching or how so and so swears all the time. Is the individual talked to? Is there a blanket policy that comes out? Is the offender written up?
Well to the point here, the city's insurance rep goes on about DOCUMENTATION and so forth. I brought up a few issues, but it was obvious he didn't want to belabor the issue, after all he is just there to provide the training, not implement policy.
So what do you do? Is everything documented? Is there a defined paper trail? Is this the way to handle it?
Second Chain of Command:
Being a former vet I worked in a chain of command and for the most part the military is pretty well schooled in the proper use of a chain of command. Is your dept? Does information go down just as easy as it goes up? Is the chain well defined, meaning people go to a company officer before a chief officer? Or is it Gray?
So with the harrassment training a LT asks what he should do type of thing, with the response being document and use the chain of command. Well for us, there have been issues that should have stopped at a link, but didn't, why? Because not everyone understands the chain of command concept.
Face it, you have FF's today working in depts that there isn't a clear chain. You have FF's who never served where there is a clear CoC and view discussing issues with a chief as they would another FF. But it isn't just FF's, do you see chief officers hearing an issue and create a blanket order or statement to ALL, even non-offenders? If a crew has an issue with another crew, does the chief officer handle it and go up, or tell the company officers to handle it? If info doesn't go down the chain, how does one expect an officer to know what to do, or what their responsibilities are?
Third CYA:
We see and hear this A LOT. Cover Your Ass, document, document, document. Yes, good advice, but to me, to a point. Have we become so afraid of a litigous society and sue happy lawyers, that we fail to handle the issue when it is small, thus creating a bigger issue? Does everything need documentation or to go up the chain? Is an accused member treated the same as an the one accusing? IE is a harrasser treated the same and fairly as a harassee?
Yes, I know a lot so far, so let me get to the gist here:
First CYA and documentation. To me when there is an issue, many times it can be resolved with simple communication and to tell someone to stop. How am I, as a harrasser, etc, know I'm offending someone if they don't say something to me? If I'm offending and asked to stop, shouldn't that take care of the situation? Should it need documentation?
OK, go up a level. I ask someone to stop, they don't, or I feel I'll get more grief if I ask them to stop, so I go to my officer. Does the officer have to document this and CYA? Or would it be more officer like to get to the root of the problem at a company level? To me, if I were an officer I would ask the person accusing if they asked the accussed to stop. If no, then I would ask if they would feel comfortable to sit down 1 on 1 with me to discuss the issue. To me, most issues can be hashed out by letting people talk, and this may mean a neutral third party is present, but should documentation take place? In my eyes, no, not yet.
To me the problem with documentation is that it goes up easy, but not down. One link in the chain moves the issue up and washes their hand, so does the issue really get resolved, or is more undue pressure being created. Should a microscope be placed on someone because of a simple misunderstanding? Look back at some issues, what was the nature? A simple misunderstanding exploded into an issue or a legitimate issue?
Which now goes into the CoC. If there is an issue, does the chain just move it on up, or does it go back down? If someone goes to a chief officer about an issue, does that chief officer take it and run ,or do they ask if the person discussed this with the company officer? To create a good officer, it helps to know their role in the CoC. If such issues go up, skipping a link, with a blanket policy, does that establish how the officer should handle future issues? In some cases, yes, wash your hands and move it up the chain, perhaps creating a larger issue. But, does it effectively show them that the company officer does have role? If a crew complains about another crew on a simple assumption and goes to a chief officer who runs with it, what does that do for crew B? Whereas if the chief officer hears the issue and askes accuser A if they discussed the issue with accused B, wouldn't that show a responsibility of the company officer?
So what are your thoughts? Can you say your chain is fluid? What about CYA and documention, needed always? What are those gray areas?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
you have to CYA all the time , nip in the butt as soon as it happens.
Kind of two different things here if you look at it. CYA is one thing, and nipping issues in the bud before they escalate can be another. For sake of discussion, couldn't the issue of documentation help fan the flames and build an issue even bigger than if it was nipped in the bud early?
That's the point of this topic, there is a lot of grey area and if focusing on just CYA, it can also fail to handle the issue at a small level before it was even an issue.
You mention about good ol boys and playing jokes and so forth and comments also depends on the issue. Not every joke or comment is harrassment, but things can also be taken out of context easy, especially if a person is having a bad day. Does it necessarily need to be documented, or would documentation blow the issue out of proportion? That's the touchy part about the issue. Should people have to live their lives walking on eggshells because of fear of documentation or even offending someone in the slightest way?
How does one who may be offending know they are offending someone if nothing is said? If documentation ensues, now said person is placed under a microscope, perhaps needlessly, because there is a paper trail.
For example...A crew gets back from a call late at night, instead of turning in, decide to turn on TV for a bit and watch a program. The program is a comedian, cussing like a sailor on shore leave, etc and a person is offended by the program. Instead of asking the other crew members to turn something else on, or leave the room, the person lets it go. Next night, same thing happens and now offended person, still not asking the crew to stop, goes to another crew's officer. The officer CYA...documents the issue and it goes up the chain (ish). The next link sends the issue up further to CYA and wash their hands. Goes to the chief....chief makes a blanket statement order that no crews can watch such a program anymore.
So what did CYA do? Did it address the issue? Not really, was chain of command followed? Not really. Was the issue blown up more than what it should be, quite possibly. Was everyone basically punished for the actions of a few? Yes. Why? because we are too afraid to address an issue when it is small and the act of CYA let it grow. Just because ONE person was offended, all personnel are now treated like kids vs the fact that the offended person could have said something to the crew.
Now, that is part of the reason for this topic, not just to document and CYA....because personally I disagree with some of these courses. They may be necessary at some point, but perhaps not a first course of action.
For this scenario, the first course of action would be for the offended person to say something. After all, how can the other members know this program is offensive if they aren't told? If the offended is afraid to say something to them, the next course would be to go to their officer and the officer should either ask if the person said something, or to sit down wth the other members to make them aware. Issue nipped, if it persists, then document and go further.
With the offender going to a different officer, that officer should ask if the issue was discussed with the person's officer. Said officer, if CYA should also discuss the issue with the other officer before sending the issue up the chain.
For sake of argument, let's say the offended person was just having a bad week, some issues at home and didn't care for the program. The person just wanted the other members to turn on something else while doing a report etc. The offendee says they don't want the issue to blow up, but it did because of the CYA.
That's the point here, that not every offense is a harrassment thing and many things can be taken care of with communication. After such a blanket policy, another crew, who may enjoy the program with no problem is treated like children because of of one person. Whereas if the issue was discussed one on one, with an officer present, then the issue can be resolved easy.
As for CoC...if the officer who takes such report moves up the chain and not says anything to the other officer, or higher up the chain doesn't say anything to the crew officer, then the chain breaks. It shows that the officer isn't regarded as such within the chain. In the military if such an issue were addressed, then the member's officer, or NCO, would be notified. If a person were to move over a link, like going to a Dept head before division officer, the issue would get sent back down.
Basically there is a way to CYA without having to document every issue and without having a blanket policy where everyone walks on eggshells.
-
-
Which goes to the issue at hand and being a grey area.
Even in the military, you did a harrassment training etc yearly and I would agree that all depts should also do this on an annual basis. Yes, it does get dry and gets old, but the reality is, most people doing such training have no clue about THIS job. When an outsider starts advocating documentation and CYA it can take away from how one can be an effective leader.
If one is more concerned about CYA and documentation, does the issue really get addressed? Are they being a good leader? Are they actually concerned about the crew, or just themselves?
That is the point of this topic.....be nice if some others would weigh in with an opinion.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
John,
I think there are a couple of issues at work here:
1) Nowadays people are more aware of their rights and less concerned with those of others. Jerry Springer, Judge Judy et. al. as well as chat rooms and web sites have ensured that people have become well versed in not just "knowing" their rights, but that they should be vocal and "all up in your grill" about it. There is never any reasoning with someone who "knows" their rights.
2) 'Leaders' who follow the rules to the letter of the law (rather than even considering the spirit) do so to ensure that their own ass is covered. They aren't worried about getting people to get along so much as they are worried about how it's going to reflect on them.
(I had a company officer who documented everything. No matter the incident or issue, later that day emails would be sent out to whomever he thought appropriate. He made every effort to make sure everyone knew HE was doing his job of documentation. Funny thing was, he never made any effort to deal with the actual problem, he just documented it and passed it on.)
Overall it's failure of leadership. Leaders that lack the sphericals to tell their people how it is and is going to be (and to nip things in the bud) are not leaders, they're passer-oners. Leaders that allow the whiners and firehouse lawyers to dictate their own actions are conduits. Nothing emanates from them, rather, issues, complaints, rules and decisions simply flow through them.
As those same 'leaders' move up the CoC they bring with them their conduit-ness and continue to pass the buck up and away from them. Ultimately the entire CoC is comprised of others equally conduity. Hence the Chief hands down rulings as if the entire department were a second grade class.
Solution? Develop a leadership program that teaches conflict resolution with rules that require issues be addressed at the company level, in-house. A company officer who tells his or her people that it is as much their responsibility as his/hers to ensure that everyone gets along. That means that they need to try and resolve issues individually and, failing that to then bring them to the company officer. Kicking a problem upstairs should be a last resort. In other words, everyone acts like an adult. Easily said, harder to accomplish.
-
-
Chief,
I haven't had to deal with such items, I'm at the lower end of the totem pole. But it does go back to those individuals who "know their rights" and simply want to get their way. I don't deny that documentation is good, but it isn't an end-all-be-all, simply part of the process.
And of course in-house remedies will not always work, for all problems. The whiners and firehouse lawyers will always exist and persist. Whether they succeed or not depends on your documentation. But overall, for most normal people, issues that arise in the firehouse can and should be dealt there, not simply documented and kicked up. That's all I was saying.
-
Permalink Reply by Rusty Mancini on
-
I've seen these issues over the years, and they can be difficult to handle at times. I think Jack said it best about the leadership. I've witnessed two kinds of leadership. There are leaders that will pacify the individual, and there are leaders that will nip it in the bud immediately.
A Insurance rep told of a story that a member of a fire department was given a not-- so nice nickname by the other members. That individual went straight to the chief, and asked him to have the members stop calling him that awful name. Well the chief ignored the issue and the nickname was allowed to continuing on.
That member decided to call his attorney, and was awarded six figures when all was said and done!
You are liable for what comes out of your mouth, and some don't get it!
-
-
A Insurance rep told of a story that a member of a fire department was given a not-- so nice nickname by the other members. That individual went straight to the chief, and asked him to have the members stop calling him that awful name. Well the chief ignored the issue and the nickname was allowed to continuing on.
Rusty, this goes exactly back to an issue of chain of command and even the issue of such reps clueless in the operations of such structured entities like police and fire. Reality is that in such a case if the offended one goes directly to the chief, it completely bypasses the rest of the chain of command. As it is, how do other members or those offending even know what they are doing is offensive to the complainor?, they don't. Actuality is the chief should have addressed the issue, but to whom? Who is the offendors? Everyone? Why discipline the masses for the actions of a few? How do you show a chain of command if not sending the issue back down to where the offended should have first reported such a problem?
This is the issue we face. Such reps are typically clueless to how the operations within a chain of command SHOULD operate and instead stay focused on the tunnel vision of the offended, disregarding the rights of the offender or even the actions the offended one took to address the issue.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
What is harassment? Without beating this up too much, here's a simple saying that covers how to define these situations...
CATSINRO
1. Comments, Actions, or Things, Sexual In Nature, that a Reasonable Person would find Offensive
If one does not follow these simple guidelines, then they deserve what they get... we all know better, it's just a matter of being mature enough to know when to say when.
And for those incidents where someone still does not get it... regardless of who the company or chief officers are, it always starts with the basic three step "Progressive Discipline"...
1. Verbal Warning
2. Written Warning
3. Kick it up a notch, you get to have a Chief Officer involved now...
Patterns? Long time problem, see ya...
-
Permalink Reply by RRW on
-
Harassment doesn't have to be sexual, it can also simply create a "hostile" work environment. the other thing is everything should be documented but kept in a private file and only seen by anyone else if the issue continues and/or escalates. you have documented that you didn't ignore the incident and a simple misunderstanding won't ruin a career. Also, if it turns out the accuser is actually the problem, that would be well documented also.
© 2025 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
