The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
ADA and Firefighters
I was wondering how people felt about recruits who are disabled going through academy? What is your opinion on this? We have a recruit with uses a handicap placard whenever he goes someplace, even to the station. He is very overweight, I would like to say grossly. I do not know the reason for his acceptance except maybe to satisfy a portion of the American with Disabilities Act. That way no discrimination is show? Or to prove a point that maybe he should not have joined? I don't know the full reasoning so this is only my viewpoint.
How do other stations handle applications from those with handicaps?
I know that the three out stations that I drill with do not feel comfortable being on a call with this person cause if poop hit the fan we do not trust that he would be able to perform. If he is on a call with me do I as a probie have the right to tell my commanding officer that I do not feel safe in this persons hands or trust his abilities?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Fabulous Heather Days of Summer on
-
yes patti, i hear ya. I was not saying you were disrespectful. but in the age of people suing over confidentiality issues and departments under attack from their towns - I just wanted you to have an outside perspective - if someone from your department or neighboring dept saw this post - it might get back to your dept and make drama.
By the process of elimination, and small town fire service, people can be identified even without name and gender. So maybe use "a department I know of" or "I heard about"... just some thoughts.
on to your second question. You ALWAYS have the right to refuse a command under the rule of safety. there were 5 guys over my time served that I would NEVER partner with on interior attack - because I knew that they lacked in keeping themselves safe with poor actions and poor decisions, so there is no way that they could be trusted to keep me safe. I discussed each situation with my officers.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
Any body can be an asset if they work hard and do what they can without putting anyone else in danger
And thus becomes the basis for the social club mentality as Jack mentions.
i.e. manning the rehab truck then he is a valuable asset to the team
Be part of or start an auxillary then. There isn't a reason to have people on the job who can't do the job or pick and choose what they will do.
I've heard many excuses in the past of how if someone is exterior only, blah, blah, blah, they free up the FF's who are interior qualified to go in, blah, blah, blah.
Here is the reality, if there is a small handful of people who are interior qualified, then how is being exterior only being an asset, especially if a FF goes down? Nope, sorry, if you want to be a part of the dept, expect to be utilized in any capacity. Picking and choosing is a social club.
-
Permalink Reply by Gary Stevenson on
-
If a standard is in place and an individual can achieve it, then I say welcome. If an organization chooses to not have standards then they "roll the dice".
-
Permalink Reply by Patti Walz on
-
This sucks really to have to be placed in a position where this is a concern.
-
-
You ALWAYS have the right to refuse a command under the rule of safety
Sorry Heather, wrong. When it comes to orders, orders are followed. You can air your concerns, but if the decision is made and you are ordered to go in, then you follow the orders. This job is inherently dangerous and if you feel that doing a task is a safety issue, then you shouldn't be on the job. If there is a valid concern where you are told to cut a hole in the roof and you can visibly see the roof sagging, then that is a concern and something to point out. It is another thing to refuse to go in because you feel someone isn't a safe person. If ordered, you go.
-
-
Yes and no. In your example of an un-sound roof, what do you do if you're still ordered to the roof after expressing your concerns? If you ever refuse an order it better be on the basis of safety or lawfulness (department or higher)... and then you dang well be better to irrefutably back your decision.
You may still "pay a price" for your decision but if you'd make the same decision knowing you'd pay a price, and you'd still make the same decision then 'may be' you were correct. I'm not talking storming a beach here. I am referring to a fire scene where you have the training and experience to be making the decision you made.
-
Permalink Reply by Damo on
-
I am sorry John, but I have to disagree with you. I have people in my station, that have gone through the basic VFD training and all they want to or are capable of is being on the rehab truck. So, if I took your way of thinking, they shouldnt be allowed on scene as they are just social members. Or I could take two FF off the fire to ensure that all the drinks and the cold wet towels are ready and leave the guys in the fire short of man power. If we don't have enough personnel an interior attack may not be possible and so we go defensive. Or if we have enough personnel to fight interior then we are covered on all bases.
Not every member has to be the FF that runs into a burning building, I happen to be one. But, the ladies in my house are happy to be the ones that look after me when I come out.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
John C. and Chief France;
There is likely to be blowback from your comments but I agree with you both. By the time you get to the fireground, unqualified people should have been weeded out or sent for coffee.
The problem here (as I see it) is that when a person "joins" they are to often permitted to choose which tactical activities they want to participate in. This only further strengthens the belief latter on that they can then decide on the fireground which orders to follow and which to refuse. It becomes more like summer camp activities, "I'll shoot bow and arrow and I'll make macaroni picture frames but I won't swim or canoe."
If you have a command structure that not only willingly hires unqualified/incapable people but then deploys them on the fireground, you have much bigger problems than the person you're concerned about.
N.B. I didn't bother to include the "not to be a jerk" disclaimer since it wouldn't be believed anyway.
-
Permalink Reply by Diane Seltzer on
-
I am an EMT-B and an employment lawyer who has represented many firefighters throughout my career. Under the ADA, the person must be able to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation. Also, the person must not pose a direct threat to himself or to others while performing his duties. Most of the time, the firefighter has a disability that will not prevent him/her from doing the job -- the bigger problem is that others worry how the firefighter's disability (epilepsy, diabetes, monocular vision, whatever) will affect his/her ability to perform the job and will not want to work with him/her.
If the firefighter passed the academy, can do the drills, hasn't had an accident or problem, and hasn't had a change for the worse in his/her medical condition, he/she should be allowed to work. If you are worried about his/her ability to perform, try to identify the specific function that you think he/she isn't doing properly, and focus on performance issues -- not the reasons for the performance issues.
-
-
Gary,
The point here is there is a difference when ordered to say the roof and there is a valid safety concern the ordering officer may not see. It is something else to refuse to go in because one believes the person they are going in with is unsafe. If the person is qualified for the job, there is no reason not to go in.
Whereas on the roof thing, that is a real threat, of which command may not see. If the concern is aired chances are there is another way to vent or tactics switched. An IC who continues to order in folks after such a VALID concern is made is very few and far between. Something like that which is a real threat is one thing to refuse orders, however, most times it isn't a refusal because command doesn't see the same picture. There is a difference in a perceived threat and refusing to do your job, such as refusing to work with another FF because of personal issues, or refusing to RIT if assigned to the position etc.
-
-
Thank you Diane. I appreciate your prespective. Good point on trying to identifying the specific function.
-
-
I would like to say that I appreciate everyones comments here. I am learning a lot. Thank you.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
