FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => General Interest => Topic started by: Midland Retty on July 16, 2008, 11:41:35 AM
-
Im sure some of you will have heard that Grampian Fire Service have sacked one of it's firefighters for being "too fat"
What are your thoughts on this? Im sure that the firefighter concerned would have had the opportunity to address his weight before it came to this, but are we seeing a pre cursor to brigades clamping down on operational personnel, and indeed firefighetrs who now serve in support departments (but whom could be called back to front line operations in spate conditions?)
Does fat mean you are physically unfit (i cite rugby players as an example - laurrie delagio is considered morbidly obese apparently)
And as someone pointed out on the radio this morning could or should this firefighter have been offered another role in the organisation if not fit for duty
"offer him another role?" said the radio presenter "isnt that what got him in this position in the first place?"
-
I'm sure in this case fat means 'physically unable to do the job'. You can't be a firefighter and be unable to do everything the brigade asks of every other firefighter in my opinion.
Why should an employer put itself out for someone who is not prepared to keep themselves fit enough for the job? It shouldn't.
-
I'm sure in this case fat means 'physically unable to do the job'. You can't be a firefighter and be unable to do everything the brigade asks of every other firefighter in my opinion.
Why should an employer put itself out for someone who is not prepared to keep themselves fit enough for the job? It shouldn't.
Yep fair comment Toby
Im not questioning the decision - Im just garnering opinions really out of curiosity :-)
-
Heh. I thought so. Thats my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
Now I'm off for a pint and a pizza. :D
-
Without knowing the chap in question I'm loath to comment on an individual case. However keeping yourself at a reasonable level of fitness for what at times is a physically demanding job isnt that impossible surely? Within my brigade we have fitness time set aside, what can be better than being paid to keep yourself fit?
If an individual has fitness issues then surely a plan could be put in place to address this? Nobody says we have to be olympic athletes, just at a level to carry out the sometimes strenuous tasks thrown at us.
We rightly make a big play of how professional we are, professionlism covers many issues.
Any way unlike Toby i'm now off for a pint & a low fat kebab ;)
-
Have on for me Stevo
Again fair comment
What then about say officers who have transfered into support departments (not through ill health) but are quite happy to stay where they are in that role, have no real intention of going back ops.... what about them could they still be targetted for being overwieght - afterall they could be called back to the frontline and they do have to maintain competence.....go discuss.
-
Have on for me Stevo
Again fair comment
What then about say officers who have transfered into support departments (not through ill health) but are quite happy to stay where they are in that role, have no real intention of going back ops.... what about them could they still be targetted for being overwieght - afterall they could be called back to the frontline and they do have to maintain competence.....go discuss.
Very valid point MR perhaps a month long retraining /fitness programme before you go back on ops ? You could also instigate a fitness regieme for day staff as well? as already acknowledeged you dont have to be olympian fit !!
-
As we do not know the full story of this "sacking" in Grampian it is hard to make a comment. I am sure that Grampian FRS have given the chap opportunity to do something about his weight, fitness etc..
As mentioned earlier, most FRS give personnel the opportunity the train during work time! Being paid to work out in the gym, fantastic!
I dont wish to sound harsh but it is about time FRS took a stance against operational personnel that are overweight and cannot fulfill the role that they are paid to do!
There is certainly a few in our FRS that would have been long gone years ago! However our FRS take people off the run and place them in day shift jobs! This cant be right either, if they cant do the job and they have been given all the assistance and time to sort them selves out and they stillcant lose weight or get fit should they be kept on?
What is the difference between not being able to do the job because of ability or just because they are too fat and not fit? In my opinion nothing.
The FRS does not require olympians but it does require a certain standard of fitness.
-
As we do not know the full story of this "sacking" in Grampian it is hard to make a comment. I am sure that Grampian FRS have given the chap opportunity to do something about his weight, fitness etc..
As mentioned earlier, most FRS give personnel the opportunity the train during work time! Being paid to work out in the gym, fantastic!
I dont wish to sound harsh but it is about time FRS took a stance against operational personnel that are overweight and cannot fulfill the role that they are paid to do!
There is certainly a few in our FRS that would have been long gone years ago! However our FRS take people off the run and place them in day shift jobs! This cant be right either, if they cant do the job and they have been given all the assistance and time to sort them selves out and they stillcant lose weight or get fit should they be kept on?
What is the difference between not being able to do the job because of ability or just because they are too fat and not fit? In my opinion nothing.
The FRS does not require olympians but it does require a certain standard of fitness.
I aqree and think I need to join a gym. Dont want to go back ops now as too old and long in the tooth but it could happen and perhaps I need to remember that and need to do something about my belly. Im off for sunday carvery now then a few pints.
-
Aren’t all brigades signing up to a new fire-fighter fitness strategy with annual testing?
If I recall correctly there will be 3 tests all of which give a similar result.
Test 1 is reaching 8.2 on the bleep test.
Test 2 is the Chester step test.
Test 3 is walking on a tread mill for 12 minutes. You start walking, level for 2 minutes then raise the tread by 3% then after another 2 min raise it by another 3% and so on until you reach 12 minutes. i.e.
0-2 min level
2-4 min 3% incline
4-6 min 6% incline
6-8 min 9% incline
8-10 min 12% incline
10-12 min 15% incline
Test 3 has been designed to make it easy to test your own fitness.
These may not be the exact figures but they are not far off.
Obviously you won’t have to do all 3 tests.
-
"Grampian Fire and Rescue Service said it had been forced to act after a "very long and arduous process of support and consideration". "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/7506909.stm
I don't think they decided to get rid of him on a whim, it is reasonable to expect that when you call a fire fighter they will be up to the task that you need them for. That is after all why i pay my taxes.
Yes they could of given him another roll (*role :) ) but whats to say they didn't think he was up to a more interlectual role within the service. People are desperate to get into the fire service and wait years for the chance.
If you can't hack it then you shouldn't be in it
-
Im sure some of you will have heard that Grampian Fire Service have sacked one of it's firefighters for being "too fat"
What are your thoughts on this? Im sure that the firefighter concerned would have had the opportunity to address his weight before it came to this, but are we seeing a pre cursor to brigades clamping down on operational personnel, and indeed firefighetrs who now serve in support departments (but whom could be called back to front line operations in spate conditions?)
Does fat mean you are physically unfit (i cite rugby players as an example - laurrie delagio is considered morbidly obese apparently)
And as someone pointed out on the radio this morning could or should this firefighter have been offered another role in the organisation if not fit for duty
"offer him another role?" said the radio presenter "isnt that what got him in this position in the first place?"
under descrimination law he can grab a lot of money, and then rejoin the same organisation or get another job
-
is he being sacked for being overweight or unfit, there is a big difference in my opinion. Personally, I am a big unit and overweight, but I have competed in the Toughest Firefighter Alive competition at both European and World championship levels and had very respectable times. I still get stick at work from some of the guys for being a fatty, but most of them decline the chance to join me in competition.
-
I understand that he wasn't dismissed for being overweight but for being incapable; i.e. he couldn't carry out the normal tasks required of a firefighter. Although he is now back at work but in a different roll, this really does set alarm bells ringing for me. Put a 29 year firefighter through the hoops and see if he passes - No? Sack him and save 10 years pension!
-
Sorry, couldn't resist the roll/role bit.
-
If anyone is unfit to do their job they cannot expect to keep it, would seem to be even more important for a Fire Fighter.
Most employers will have a system of dismissing people with medical conditions who prevent them from doing their job, even if it is not their fault. If an accountant has a car accident that leaves him in a vegatative state, his firm are not going to keep paying him and expecting him to sit in his office doing nothing. That is why people sue those who injure them for loss of future earnings.
-
I understand that he wasn't dismissed for being overweight but for being incapable; i.e. he couldn't carry out the normal tasks required of a firefighter. Although he is now back at work but in a different roll, this really does set alarm bells ringing for me.
Now I can see a clear picture then...
Put a 29 year firefighter through the hoops and see if he passes - No? Sack him and save 10 years pension!
The Tax payers may lose when sacking him out, he may not find a job so quick and then rely on 'benefits', it comes to the same thing, it seems to me, this wil increment the 3million people getting full support from tax payers by '1'.
-
That is why people sue those who injure them for loss of future earnings.
Just heard some news about some of the American soldiers do that, to avoid getting returned to IRAK... and lives all the rest of their lives with desability and pension...
-
That is why people sue those who injure them for loss of future earnings.
Just heard some news about some of the American soldiers do that, to avoid getting returned to IRAK... and lives all the rest of their lives with desability and pension...
I don't know of that. That would seem to be a different scenario.
-
That is why people sue those who injure them for loss of future earnings.
Just heard some news about some of the American soldiers do that, to avoid getting returned to IRAK... and lives all the rest of their lives with desability and pension...
I don't know of that. That would seem to be a different scenario.
Yes mate, just heard it this morning in the news, people trying to escape their job are various and in every nation, also at all levels, just don't be surprised!
:)
-
Agreed, but soldiers deliberatly trying to avoid duties is a different situation than Fire Fighters being unsuitable. Different motives, different causes.
-
Agreed, but soldiers deliberatly trying to avoid duties is a different situation than Fire Fighters being unsuitable. Different motives, different causes.
have given the same result :)
-
I understand that he wasn't dismissed for being overweight but for being incapable; i.e. he couldn't carry out the normal tasks required of a firefighter. Although he is now back at work but in a different roll, this really does set alarm bells ringing for me.
Now I can see a clear picture then...
Put a 29 year firefighter through the hoops and see if he passes - No? Sack him and save 10 years pension!
The Tax payers may lose when sacking him out, he may not find a job so quick and then rely on 'benefits', it comes to the same thing, it seems to me, this wil increment the 3million people getting full support from tax payers by '1'.
Agreed, but the funds come from a completely different budget and has zero impact on the Fire Authority budget.
-
I know you are right pugh and isnt that just another example of the waste imposed by the governments financial systems and regulations- we can waste as much money as we like provided it shifts the burden onto someone elses accounts. We see it all the time dont we- local and national governments and in particular the health authorities.
Off topic example- prescriptions used to be good for 56 day supply of tablets. Considered wasteful on drugs so potentially savings can be made by reducing to 28 day maximum.
Result - saving for the PCT drugs budget.
However doctors now have double the work for repeat prescriptions
NHS paperwork doubled for repeat presscriptions
Chemists have to do each job twice - double the staffing and stocking costs
Patient has to visit doctor and chemist twice as often - double bus fares, petrol etc
I dont believe it!!!!!
-
Unfortunately Kurnal, this is the world in which we live. (Soapbox time again folks!) VALUE for money has been thrown out in place of reducing (perceived?) costs and meeting targets; consultants roam freely through our once treasured and revered organisations, wreaking havoc with systems and procedures that have stood the test of time and delivered high quality service for years. They have yet to realise that everything that can be counted doesn''t necessarily count, and that many things that cannot be counted do!
The rot started with education many, many years ago and quickly spread to the NHS. This was followed swiftly by the armed forces, the police and now the fire service. We can see the results as plainly as the nose on your face and yet the Whitehall mandarins press on with short termism and box ticking instead of a sustained, long term policy. (The only long-term policy that has ben successful over the years has been to deny the country a decent road infrastructure (as compared to France, Spain, Germany, etc) and to drive the motorist to the brink of bankruptcy.)
Nurse, the screens!