bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
I think that this sums up my thoughts.
Strike ballot over 'fat' fireman
- Thread starter danny la rouge
- Start date
I think that this sums up my thoughts.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
I thought not.
So that's smokers, people who like a wee tipple...who else?
No, again; I'll take my steer from the guy's work mates.
Lack of hard facts on both sides to be fair - I have no idea how many of his colleagues really support him, whether there's any dispute between them, whether there's a natural us v them antagonistic relationship between the bosses and workers. Which, given recent history, I suspect there is.
Either way the only hard fact we know is that this bloke is 20stone and almost certainly not fit enough for active duty. If he's not a piss-taker he should be allowed to move elsewhere in the organisation. However, I'm also wary about any precedent that sees firemen expect to be moved to desk roles should they consciously allow themselves to get out of shape.
internetstalker
Get naked!
but its a job that you have to have a high level of fitness to even get an interview for.
I'd say this is more a fitness thing then just about weight
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
As I saidm my dad, after 27 years service was 'medically unfit' for full duties. He was put on desk/light duties. No mention of his being sacked.
Fictionist
Serving Eargasms....
If you smoke then you have to accept that there is a cost, and if you allow yourself to grow to 20 stone - knowing that you are part of an organisation where fitness is *presumably* important - you have to accept that there might well be consequences.
Of course the employer has a duty to help the employee once they are aware of the problem, and to offer support and guidance and be sympathetic to the circumstances which might well have informed the situation.
But what happens if this is done and the employee persists in behaviour which is clearly detrimental to their role?
What then?
chegrimandi
associated with adultery
no you won't - you'll probably jump in half cocked and tell him to pull his socks up...
internetstalker
Get naked!
yeah but that was due to the job
not due to laziness!
it's part of a firemans duty to keep him self at a decent level of fitness
Yes, but I'm guessing that he wasn't primarily declared medically unfit because his eating habits were at the root of the problem. Plenty of blokes were medically sideshunted through injury, but that's was always a privilege rather than something you ate your way to.
Love DLR's hyperbolic comparisons though. This isn't necessarily the thin-edge of the wedge - the fact that someone has a tipple or a smoke off duty isn't necessarily an issue. Someone turning up patently unfit for work for months on end obviously is. It's more akin to someone having a serious alcohol problem - give support and help by all means, but someone unable to control their drinking would almost certainly be dismissed in the longer term. Is eating to the point of unhealthiness any different really?
Love DLR's hyperbolic comparisons though. This isn't necessarily the thin-edge of the wedge - the fact that someone has a tipple or a smoke off duty isn't necessarily an issue. Someone turning up patently unfit for work for months on end obviously is. It's more akin to someone having a serious alcohol problem - give support and help by all means, but someone unable to control their drinking would almost certainly be dismissed in the longer term. Is eating to the point of unhealthiness any different really?
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Errr NO it wasn't. He was colour blind, fuck all to do with his job. Next.....
internetstalker
Get naked!
Sorry,
getting you confused with danny la rouge!
either way it's got nothing to do with his fitness/weight levels so is a totally different thing.
being overweight/unfit is the fault of the individual
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Well they woulda had a shit storm if they'd tried to sack him. 27 years, unblemished record, awards for bravery for risking his life, wel, well above and beyond when he went into a buring house to rescue two blokes without safety gear.
The point is, given the Fire Service make it clear they haven't given the fella the right to appeal have the Fire Sevice acted in the right way here? His union and colleagues seem to think not.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Always?
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
Apart from being medically and factually incorrect you're spot on. Carry on....
internetstalker
Get naked!
I do think a sacking is a bit harsh tho
a suspension with a time limit for him to report back with a better fitness level would of been much fairer IMO
a suspension with a time limit for him to report back with a better fitness level would of been much fairer IMO
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
But it might be, you think?
I'm not making hyperbolic comparisons, I'm pointing out that if he can be sacked for being fat, his mate who smokes 20 a day might be next. You think the management sees this as a one off issue? I seriously doubt it.
But the botom line is this: his workmates support him, therefore I do.
internetstalker
Get naked!
comparing smoking is a total strawman
we're talking fitness levels here mate!
smoking has very little effect on fitness levels
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
No, we're talking solidarity.
Not what this peer reviewed paper in the BMJ finds:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/311/7007/715
In fact, it quite definitely isn't ... it's the fat end of the wedge ...
I think what we have here is a situation where both the employee and the employers have rights and responsibilities. Specifically, the employee has the responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure they are fit for work, where "fit" means reasonable requirements defined by the employer. The employer has the right to expect that of their employees. The employer has the responsibility to do all that is reasonable to assist their employees in remaining fit and (in relation to work related injury or unfitness) to do everything reasonable to prevent them becoming unfit and compensating them in some way (by redeployment or other means) if they do. The employee has the right to expect that.
Whilst the facts are (unlike the fireman) a little thin, it does appear that there has been some attempt by the employer to work with the employee to address what is, it would appear, a reasonable work-related fitness issue. It is alleged that the employee has not cooperated with that. It is not possible to reach a firm decision on whether the various things done (by either side) have been reasonable without lots more detail.
It is interesting to note that many posters (and possibly the FBU) seem to be lining up not on the basis of an bjective appraisal of the situation but on a Workers-v-Bosses basis ... many clearly being of the view that workers can never be in the wrong and bosses can never be in the right.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Do employers have a right to ask for certain criteria in those they employ?
And do they have the right to dismiss people if during the course of employment they start to fall outside these criteria?
Obviously there are some things employers cannot in the main require for example those things in the anti discrimination legislation, gender, sexuality, religion, age ..
And do they have the right to dismiss people if during the course of employment they start to fall outside these criteria?
Obviously there are some things employers cannot in the main require for example those things in the anti discrimination legislation, gender, sexuality, religion, age ..
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Dismissal is a last resort.
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Well if he cant do the job &they have proved that he has been offered help
to get fit eventually he must be got rid of .Cant be that many jobs in the fire service for unfit firefighters and guess they go to those who are broken on the job .Eating yourselve unfit never a good move .
to get fit eventually he must be got rid of .Cant be that many jobs in the fire service for unfit firefighters and guess they go to those who are broken on the job .Eating yourselve unfit never a good move .
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Did you read the bit about the Fire Service apparently taking on 7 retired firefighters for investigative work but not redeploying this guy?
Yes, as long as they are genuinely job related criteria.
And yes, as long as they follow the appropriate course of action, comply with procedures, take all reasonable steps to assist, etc.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
FBU regional secretary Alan Paterson said: “The general feeling among members is sheer frustration and astonishment that management can portray it as though they have applied a fair and open process".
And, yes there is plenty fire prevention work to keep him busy. Anyone with any knowledge of the modern fire service could tell you that.
Fictionist
Serving Eargasms....
DB,
Did they have regular fitness testing in the Police? Looking at some of the officers you see on the street sometimes it doesn't appear to be the case?
If they don't how can the Police Servicedetermine who is 'fit' for duty?
No. There are some roles (e.g. firearms, public order units) where there are specific fitness tests and regular refresher checks, but even there there have been constant disputes about whether they are discriminatory (against women) or can they be justified or whatever.
Generally, there IS a fitness test to join (and has been for donkeys years, although again they keep fucking about with what it is for the same reasons as above) but there has never been a regular re-check and certainly no "you're out unless you pass" regime. So far as I am aware that is still the case today.
In terms of physical fitness (as opposed to being pissed / wasted), they can't.
Given that I can only go onwhat has been reported and been said on this thread. I really feel that to have been dismissed there must be an underlying story that hasn't been fully reported. His attitude o the counselling, and fitness training or whatever. Similarly the reports about support from 80 of his colleagues, are these his immediate colleagues, or the usual group that turn up to FBU meetings.
I don't want this taken as my taking a stand on this case, because I simply don't know enough to do that. All I've done is highlight a couple of areas where the information is ambiguous.
I don't want this taken as my taking a stand on this case, because I simply don't know enough to do that. All I've done is highlight a couple of areas where the information is ambiguous.
danny la rouge
Ninja swords for all disabled people
I don't know what your union meetings are like, but I've been a union rep, and in my experience an attendance of 80 is not a "usual" meeting, even in a huge workplace.
As to Kevin Ogilvy's "attitude", in August 2006, he was deemed worthy of being awarded a long service medal (report).
And as to whether overweight firefighters can be found desk jobs, here is a picture of the Grampian Chief Officer, who fired Ogilvy:
David Dalziel
Chief Fire Officer
Similar threads
