# Firefighters' fitness test ruled discriminatory



## Scott (15 Dec 2006)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061213.CABRIEFS13-2/TPStory/Business

Firefighters' fitness test ruled discriminatory
VIRGINIA GALT 

A Canadian Forces fitness test that requires firefighters to complete a circuit of 10 activities in eight minutes is invalid because it discriminates against women and men over 50, an adjudicator has ruled in response to 329 grievances. 

The employer failed to make the case that the ability to complete the circuit, which measures strength and speed, in eight minutes is "a bona fide occupational requirement," the Toronto-based labour law publication, Lancaster House, reports in its most recent human rights bulletin. 

The circuit consisted of 10 firefighting-related tasks, to be completed while wearing full equipment: "one-arm hose carrying, ladder raise, charge hose drag, first ladder climb, high volume hose pull, forcible entry, victim drag, second ladder climb, ladder lower and victim carry," according to adjudicator Guy Giguère, who found that it takes women and older men longer to complete these tasks. 

While the adjudicator agrees that firefighters must be fit, the test was ruled invalid because the employer did not make a compelling case that all tasks must be completed in eight minutes. 

The "one-size-fits-all fitness test in not a bona fide occupational requirement," Lancaster House reports, and the Canadian Forces has been instructed to come up with a new standard.


----------



## Teflon (15 Dec 2006)

Note to self:

If the person(s) responsible for the the above decision find themselves trapped in a burning building, send only fire fighters that took over 8 minutes to complete the test.

That is all


----------



## Rice0031 (15 Dec 2006)

I don't know what they are going to do about it, but I think it would be silly to lower the standards. Doesn't matter if you're a woman, an older male, or just someone who isn't at the level that is physically fit enough. Either you can save someone from a burning building and do your job or you can't.

If I was in a burning building, I wouldn't care if it was a woman that was saving me, or some 56 year old guy. So long as you can do your job, then right on.
Its like applying for a job, doing the interview, and the interview deeming the candidate unqualified because he or she doesn't have enough education. Then the interviewee appeals the decision because his experience is not adequate.
It is the same sort of scenario with the firefighter fitness test. Anyone who failed a grievance because they weren't good enough is silly. Either you need to do more training, or you just aren't cut out to be a firefighter. Fires aren't going to stop just because one of the firefighters needs to take 5.

I hope this didn't come across as sexist, because that was not my point. My point was either you meet the standard, or you don't.


----------



## Pte_Martin (15 Dec 2006)

Teflon is right, Does it matter if people over 50 can't pass the test maybe that mean's that it's time to find a different job. if theres a fire i want someone who can get the job done quickly


----------



## Bo (15 Dec 2006)

Oh man!, Is it me or are the fatasses taking over? Didn't Hillier want the Forces to get in better shape? Yet here we have the fitness standards of FIREFIGHTERS dropping!!

Obviously men over fifty are gonna have trouble with this test. That's why they get desk jobs. Though I know a couple 50 year olds that could pass this test no problem. When you've committed yourself to a healthy lifetsyle, that's what happens.

As for the women, well there are some that can meet the standard but the majority won't due to physical limitations. Is that any reason to lower the standard?


----------



## sigtech (15 Dec 2006)

Those tests are there for a reason, what is next a beat cop with a Kain

I would have loved to be a cop or a firefighter but my eye site wouldn't allow it, as a big boy/girl (PC), you learn to except there mite be jobs out there you are physically unable to do.

I think we as a society are becoming way to PC thus turning out a weaker product then there needs to be. So when people start dieing due to this what will the boys/girls in Ottawa do. 

They will turn the blame on the people running these tests and forget they were the ones that called for the lowering of the standard.

Tests to be in the Police, Firefighters and combat arms should be one test for everyone, Here is the the physical requirements that you "must" have and if you don't either head back to the gym and meet the standard or don't do it.


----------



## Pea (15 Dec 2006)

As a female, I don't agree with this. If I am trapped in a burning building I want out as fast as possible. I'd prefer the 8 minute guy/gal, over the 20 minute guy/gal please. I'd like minimal burn and smoke damage.

 I wanted to be a firefighter at one point, so I had a look at the standards and what I would be expected to do to complete the job. I then had a look at all 5'2" of myself and realized I am just not cut out for this job. As much as I'd love to do it, I know I couldn't haul some 6'4" guy out of a burning building, not even if my life depended on it. So I seek employment elsewhere. 

We aren't all cut out to be brain surgeons, musicians, or athletes, so we obviously can't all be firefighters either.


----------



## Rice0031 (15 Dec 2006)

Pea said:
			
		

> We aren't all cut out to be brain surgeons, musicians, or athletes, so we obviously can't all be firefighters either.


Exactly.
For some reason this really bugs me. I don't understand how they can possibly alter the test. It would be like altering the test to become a brain surgeon to allow people who are underqualified to become neurosurgeons. That wouldn't happen because the underqualified people will get people injured or worse.

But what do I know? I'm no review board, clearly underqualified people should be considered for a job that will require extreme physical exertion.


----------



## battleaxe (15 Dec 2006)

Scott said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061213.CABRIEFS13-2/TPStory/Business
> 
> While the adjudicator agrees that firefighters must be fit, the test was ruled invalid because the employer did not make a compelling case that all tasks must be completed in eight minutes.
> 
> The "one-size-fits-all fitness test in not a bona fide occupational requirement," Lancaster House reports, and the Canadian Forces has been instructed to come up with a new standard.



I'm with everybody here...if somebody can't do it, they can't do it - and it's time for them to find another career choice.
A lot of thought is put into BFORs-by the people who work in the professions for which the BFORs are tailored.
Any info or details on the adjudicator?  Was he or she a CF firefighter?  Have anything to do with firefighting?
What would be a compelling case for this adjudicator?
I hate this stuff - now all I see is a lot of time/effort/inconvenience going into picking apart every BFOR currently in effect in the CF.
Hope that doesn't happen... and I'll be interested to see what the new standard will be... and if it causes any problems with safety in the end


----------



## George Wallace (15 Dec 2006)

Blind Hunters in Texas.   Geriatric Firefighters.  Darwin must be rolling in his grave.


----------



## gaspasser (15 Dec 2006)

I definately want the PERSON who completed the test in less than required time to come save my ass if I'm ever in a burning building.  I can't do it, and I've tried it when a Volunteer on tour, that's why I'm not a firefighter.  I have the utmost respect for the FF trade, they run into danger while we run away.  And maybe the adjudicator needs to placed in danger to know the difference between being politically correct and having his ass saved.
"Support you SAR Techs, GET LOST"
Thanks to all the Fire Fighters out there who train to save.


----------



## Rice0031 (15 Dec 2006)

BYT Driver said:
			
		

> Thanks to all the Fire Fighters out there who train to save.


+1


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 Dec 2006)

This is so stupid.....

What's next:
A midget requirement?
How about guys in wheelchairs?  Ramps on trucks would look pretty snazzy wouldn't they?
How about a necessity to throw in sound beacons so we can have blind firefighters?

For the love of God, we need someone to step up and explain the value of a meritocracy again.  

Those are best suited to role should do the damned job....especially when it involves life or death....and these people who live in the fantasy world that make decisions like this should do what they do best and stay the hell out of everyone else's way.


Matthew.    :threat:


----------



## Scott (15 Dec 2006)

This will get you really wound up:

While I was in the fire school a guy won a human rights complaint against the school for turning him down for entry due to the fact that he was legally blind.  ???


----------



## Rice0031 (15 Dec 2006)

Are you trying to get me started on a rant??
IF YOU ARE BLIND HOW CAN YOU BE AN EFFECTIVE FIRE FIGTER!?!?!?!
(Apologies for the caps and excessive unnecessary use of exclamations)

Since the trend here seems to be giving people without the proper qualifications jobs they can't handle, I propose allowing people who only speak english to translate russian. If they say no I'll just appeal it an claim they are discriminating against non-russians.


----------



## R933ex (15 Dec 2006)

Thought here,
You hire a person without the capability to do the job. The person gets hurt or worse fails to complete his/ her task resulting in a co worker getting hurt. In my world we call that failing to meet Due Diligence, and in this case the employer could be looking at the tail end of a C-45 prosecution. (AKA 217.1 of the ccc)


----------



## Armymedic (15 Dec 2006)

A few questions before I dive into the pool like everyone else:

Is this an entrance fitness standard or is it a maintenance fitness standard for currently employed CF firefighters?

Because if it is a maintenance standard, then those over 50 would be in a supervisor/command role after 20(or so) yrs of being a firefighter...How relevent is that PT test to their role?

There must have been a complaint to investigate this standard...what is the rest of the story?


----------



## Rice0031 (15 Dec 2006)

You make a good and valid point. My original rant was based on the idea that it was for a fitness entrance test for candidates with no prior experience or similar such scenario. If the person has x-number of years on the job, is full of experience, and was once doing what the candidates are doing and is now in a supervisorial position, then there should be no problem.

If 55 year old Joe Schmoe comes in off the street and says he wants to kick down doors and put out fires but he can't handle the entrance test...
But if 55 year old Captain Joe Schmoe knows the ropes, and knows what's going on...

You get the idea.


----------



## Scott (15 Dec 2006)

Further,

In my job we aim to provide the best. That means that we train, alot. Training allows opportunities to _constructively_ criticize performances. Constructive criticism allows the member to build on mistakes so they do not happen again and identifies weak points that can be improved upon.

Here's where it gets tricky in this context:

Sometimes the criticism is offered in an opinion that you just should not make this a career. That is what probation periods are about. You get to suss the job and the guys on the job get to suss you. It's a two way street. You don't like it, leave. They don't like you (Or better said, they find you are not capable), you leave. No harm, no foul. There is nothing wrong with that.

One problem, and I have seen this in relation to almost every CF trade discussed on this board, is that when people have their hearts and minds set on doing something they just cannot accept that their best may not be good enough.

My slapshot sucks but I am going to sue the Leafs for a spot on the team. 

And for those that think that this is limited to the CF, you have another thing coming. Standards are dropping everywhere.

I train hard, not just because MY life depends on it, so does YOURS and those of your loved ones.

It has been said already: Who would you rather?

SMMT: Not sure, I'm not a firefighter in the CF. Some places have age grouped standards, IIRC. I'll let a 651 answer.

davidhmd: I hope you're joking.


----------



## Scott (15 Dec 2006)

Rice0031 said:
			
		

> You make a good and valid point. My original rant was based on the idea that it was for a fitness entrance test for candidates with no prior experience or similar such scenario. If the person has x-number of years on the job, is full of experience, and was once doing what the candidates are doing and is now in a supervisorial position, then there should be no problem.
> 
> If 55 year old Joe Schmoe comes in off the street and says he wants to kick down doors and put out fires but he can't handle the entrance test...
> But if 55 year old Captain Joe Schmoe knows the ropes, and knows what's going on...
> ...



And this I have zero issue with. Most, if not all, of the firefighters I have worked with who could be categorized as "more mature"  ;D, know their role well and fill it effectively. Why get rid of them?


----------



## Rice0031 (15 Dec 2006)

Exactly.
Effectiveness is key.

/End of miffed ranting (for now)


----------



## gaspasser (15 Dec 2006)

davidhmd said:
			
		

> I forsee the creation of "other" fire fighter jobs so everyone can play. Sure the blind guy can't charge into a building and save a family, but he can turn the knob that makes water go to the hose. So he can be hose knob guy. There you go.


A Fire Fighter MUST know all aspects of the job while on call.  The "guy" designated as driver one day is a hoseman (is that PC?) the next.  
Is that about right, Scott?


----------



## Inspir (15 Dec 2006)

What a gong show! I hate to see what's next  :

Edmonton and Calgary Fire Rescue/Fire Department have pretty much the same thing.

http://www.edmonton.ca/EmergServ/AerobicEndurance.pdf
http://www.edmonton.ca/EmergServ/ChargedHoseAdvance.pdf
http://www.edmonton.ca/EmergServ/HighVolumeHosePull.pdf
http://www.edmonton.ca/EmergServ/ForcibleEntrySimulation.pdf
http://www.edmonton.ca/EmergServ/VictimDrag.pdf
http://www.edmonton.ca/EmergServ/LadderClimb.pdf
http://www.edmonton.ca/EmergServ/EquipmentCarry.pdf



> Candidates are tested for physical fitness to ensure they possess necessary firefighter physical capabilities.


http://www.edmonton.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_272_214_0_43/http%3B/CMSServer/COEWeb/emergency+services/fire+and+rescue+services/our+team/physicalfitnesstest.htm

Clear as day


----------



## Blindspot (15 Dec 2006)

I think it's time I filed a suit of my own now that the precedent has been set: I just decided to become a lawyer and failing the Bar exam would be descriminatory.


----------



## Poppa (15 Dec 2006)

Scott said:
			
		

> My slapshot sucks but I am going to sue the Leafs for a spot on the team.


hijack begins
Maybe you should with the season they're having
hijack done


----------



## dapaterson (15 Dec 2006)

I think we need to take a step back and re-read the decision.  It acknowledged that firefighters need to be fit.  The problem is that DND failed to demonstrate what the standard demanded was based on.

In other words, the committee said:  "Yes.  They have to be fit.  But you haven't proved how fit, or how your test meets that standard of fitness."  It's DND that's srewed up here, being unable to prove where the standard comes from, or what it measures.  Anyone familiar with bureaucracy should not find this surprising.


----------



## childs56 (15 Dec 2006)

I gave an example at work the other day for the average Airmen who is not in shape nor has the phsical means to lift their own body weight. 

A Pilot, Airmen are inside of the cockpit on a F18, all of a sudden the person passes out, 

Do you have the strength to lift that person out of the cockpit and to safety. Or do you wait untill the firefighters show up in a mintue or two. 

Second Scenerio. You are a Soldier in a Armoured vehicle, something happens and you are the only one left to pull your buddies bodies out of the hatches before they die. 

These scenerios are realistic and have happened in the past and will in the future. 

Do you have the strength to be able to do either of these? 
It left a couple of blank stares on peoples faces,

I have no problem for them to lower standards of any job, but if you cannot complete the required section. IE firemens carry the average person up or down a few flights of stairs then I do not feel safe with you protecting me. (note Dragging me down grate stares is not an acceptable alternative unless their are circumstances outside your control) Being in physicle shape to do this is not one of them.

Good luck to all. 
What does the FireFighters board think about this, what do the Firemen themselves think about this?

Cheers


----------



## goodform (15 Dec 2006)

I actually see this as a fluid battle and not a set piece massacre of standards. davidhmd may have been hitting us with some sarcasm but, I think that idea could work. As the CF now does fitness testing at training centres, firefighters can use something similiar. If you don't make the standard but, meet another minimum you go into 'firestarter' platoon (or however firefighters are organized) and have X number of days/weeks/months to meet the standard before real training. There are any number of ways to skim the fat off the cream. Random or provoked barrack inspections begat kit inspections begat hygiene inspections. With this principle, the optimist in me sees the 'gold standard' being the altered standard being the modified standard.

The good lord willin' and the river don't rise...


----------



## blacktriangle (15 Dec 2006)

With regards to ALL CF fitness: I see no reason why people can't meet the standard, instead of bringing the standard to meet them...

On a side note, I was basically told "good effin luck" getting firefighter in the CF later on in life... :boring:


----------



## GO!!! (15 Dec 2006)

Scott said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061213.CABRIEFS13-2/TPStory/Business
> 
> Firefighters' fitness test ruled discriminatory
> VIRGINIA GALT
> ...



Who did this? - Firefighters themselves. 

The fatties for not being able to pass the test, and the poor showing by their leaders for not being able to demonstrate what level of fitness was required.

329 Grievances? How many CF Firefighters are there? Did they all file grievances?


----------



## blacktriangle (15 Dec 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> 329 Grievances? How many CF Firefighters are there? Did they all file grievances?



Apparently at least 329, all women and men over 50...


----------



## FuzzyLogic (15 Dec 2006)

There are very few professions that require physical strength and stamina; the Army, Fire Fighter, and Police to name a few.  It’s a significant component of the job … so why would anyone want to water that down?  Political Correctness is fine to a point, but when it begins to endanger people… it’s gone way to far. :rage:


----------



## GO!!! (15 Dec 2006)

_Endangering_ people is perfectly acceptable it seems - it is _offending_ people that is the sin!


----------



## battleaxe (15 Dec 2006)

Except that, by lowering standards, you offend and insult all the ones that work hard and train so that that they can pass the current physical requirements. 
How will this affect the workplace?  A lot of bad feelings/in-fighting can result from stuff like this.
I'm hoping we get more details, in future. I'd hate to think we're all condemning this based on a story that is written for drama-rather than the facts.  My opinions are based on the premise that the requirements are for entrance into the trade.  Maybe I shouldn't be assuming this.  
Others have made me pause and wonder if we aren't missing many important details.


----------



## TCBF (15 Dec 2006)

"A Pilot, Airmen are inside of the cockpit on a F18, all of a sudden the person passes out, 

Do you have the strength to lift that person out of the cockpit and to safety. Or do you wait untill the firefighters show up in a mintue or two?"

- Use the darn ejection seat?

- Honestly, until we have blind people hiring on as airline pilots, doctors and dentists, this bull will just get worse and worse.


----------



## ff149 (16 Dec 2006)

I am a military firefighter and have done the fitness test for several years. It was an annual test that we had to complete every year instead of the CF Express test.
One thing that many people do not know is that there are two types of firefighters. CF military firefighters (651 trade) and DND Civilian firefighters. CF Firefighters are found on major airfield bases (and CFB Edmonton) and on ships, as well as some smaller places mainly as fire inspectors or deployed as fire inspectors. DND Civilians cover everything else such as the Dockyards in Halifax and Esquimalt, Mosejaw etc.

I don't know for sure that there were not grievances placed by military firefighters but most came from the civy side. I do not know of any military firefighters that failed the test, not saying none did I just haven't heard of any. I also know several firefighters over 50 that have passed the test. The quickest I have heard of anyone passing the test was about the 4:30 minute mark.

Hope this helps clarify somethings.


----------



## gaspasser (16 Dec 2006)

Four and a half minutes!!!
I want that person to save my butt if ever needed.
Good show for that person.
I suppose the likely question is... is that person young or older and male or female?


----------



## medicineman (16 Dec 2006)

TCBF said:
			
		

> I actually had a blind physioterrorist when I did in my knee in high school - who actually went to a physio school for the blind no less.
> 
> MM


----------



## Babs087 (16 Dec 2006)

From a females perspective. The standards, are the standards. If you can not achieve them, get off your butt and work a little harder at it. I'll be damned if someone lowers there expectations because i have breasts.   (but thats just me.)


----------



## armyvern (16 Dec 2006)

+1 Babs,

Once again, someone has made an asinine adjudicated decision to save oppressed, aged and weak persons from the unfair treatment we always receive, whether we know it or not. 

I say we because I am a female, and therefore must constantly need a babysitter of the highest level to look out for me. Apparently, well paid babysitters will ensure that I never have to actually work my butt off for anything if I wish to succeed. Babysitters will ensure, despite the fact that I am 38 years old, that my youth will endure forever. The will guarantee, by their adjudication, my _right _ to undertake a highly skilled and unbelievably physical jobs just because I want to, and not because I can perform. Where have we gone wrong?

If there is one thing that my father _did_ manage to instill deep within my psyche somewhere, without knowing it. It was my sense of fight, that I would no longer be the weak and protectable. That I would stick up for and defend me. That no-one would speak on my behalf, that no-one would ever again need to protect me. That I would work my as$ off to accomplish what I wanted; that I would _earn_ it; not be handed it on a platter because I was someones vision of a poor begotten soul. If I fail at my task or goal, it is because I _deserved_ to fail, either because I was not physically capable or mentally ready; it is _not_ because I am a woman.

When one fails, either because they were not strong enough, fit enough, fast enough, mentally tough enough; one picks up the pieces and carries on. Giving themselves a good boot in the as$ for not ensuring they were ready to perform the requirement/task/test at hand. That is what I call honour and integrity; and that, ladies and gents is what should be making the world go round.

Equal opportunity? Then just do it. Equally and to the same standard. For if you can not do it to the equal standard of your counterparts, do you really deserve to be there? I think not. I know not. Therefore I do not want to be. I'd rather have my honour and integrity, and the personal knowledge that I am where I deserve to be.

To my bro, a CF fighterfighter (formerly PPCLI), sorry bro; this latest decision is not on. It wasn't me!


----------



## gaspasser (16 Dec 2006)

+1 Vern
     I agree, equal opportunity or it don't mean crap. That is how you find out what you are good for or not.  Some of us are good at electronics, I am not!  And found out the hard way.  Did I want them to downgrade thier standards so suit me? No!  Who would you want working on your "stuff"?  The person who topped thier class in whatever trade you are subscribing too, or the person who the standards were lowered so they could be passed on.  
    I think this too is a major problem with how some things are done in school too.  Some kids are being passed on and can not do the work necessary to pass said subject.  
    That is also why Ontario now has six new ways to graduate for students who lack academic skills but do well with thier hands mechanically.  
    The other side of that argument is: Do I want the person working on my car who is book smart and hasn't done the hands on; or the person who can't read but is a mechanical genius?
     I have seen and taught people who are fantastic drivers but can't operate equipment worth poop.  It would be unfair to other operators to lower the standard and pass a person who can't operate.  It would also lower and demean the worth of your higher skilled operators/tradespeople.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Dec 2006)

>Is this an entrance fitness standard or is it a maintenance fitness standard for currently employed CF firefighters?

That was my first question also, but it's been answered.  So the issue moves on to the point: is the fitness test occupationally justified?

The alternative to proving the existing test is justified is to start from first principles and develop a different test that is justified.  It should not be assumed that a different and justified test will necessarily be easier.


----------



## old fart (16 Dec 2006)

I prefer Babs approach.

"From a females perspective. The standards, are the standards. If you can not achieve them, get off your butt and work a little harder at it. I'll be damned if someone lowers there expectations because i have breasts.   (but thats just me.)".


----------



## Long in the tooth (16 Dec 2006)

The fire department in Calgary had a test about 15 years ago that was ruled 'non bona fide work requirement' (BFR).  It required the members to raise a ladder onto two hooks for storage.  It was found to be difficult for women and shorter men to do and was ruled bogus for several reasons:

1.  The height for storage was arbitrary and was clearly set at a height too high;
2.  The operation was normally completed by two people, not one; and
3.  As the action was completed at the end of the call there was no time restriction and no reqr for all pers to do it.

It's fine to exhort people to try harder, but if the reqr is 15 pushups, do we really want to start punting pers if they can 'only' do 14?  Should we be demoting clerks to privates if they can only type 39 wpm?  And no, don't start arguing that one is more vital than the other, as most posters here have already stated that 'the standard is the standard'.  We never would have put 7 divisions in the field in WW2 if these standards were required, and we'ed have to ground all the pilots whose vision wasn't perfect.  Hell, we should have just conceded the whole war because we couldn't meet standards....

Years ago when we were preparing to deploy the CO categorically stated that all members WILL complete a run to his standard or not go overseas.  Just before the test a former Recce Pl WO suffered a knee injury.  The CO had to backpeddle to and made clear that his formerly unequivical policy did not apply in 'this' particular case.


----------



## GO!!! (16 Dec 2006)

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> Years ago when we were preparing to deploy the CO categorically stated that all members WILL complete a run to his standard or not go overseas.  Just before the test a former Recce Pl WO suffered a knee injury.  The CO had to backpeddle to and made clear that his formerly unequivical policy did not apply in 'this' particular case.



That's quite a bit different from the much more common "I passed the EXPRESS test, and you can't make me do anything else, even though I wear mod tentage as a shirt"

There are some jobs that certain people are just not cut out for, and it is no more discriminatory than the line on the roller coaster that says "you must be this tall to ride".

I find it interesting that CPC has never seen fit to change it's standard for basic para - why? because if you can't pull your bodyweight up on the risers - you could die - plain and simple. How can the Firefighter leadership not not articulate this to the powers that be?


----------



## battleaxe (16 Dec 2006)

Any firefighters or people in the know- how long have the current standards stood as they are now?  Also, is there a lack of pers in the trade?
If this test is so hard that not enough people can pass it to fill all firefighter positions, there may be a logical need for looking at the physical fitness requirements.
As long as enough are passing it to fill the trade, however, it should not even be an issue. Let those who can meet the requirements do the job- keep the best and the strongest. Seems silly to compromise standards when lives are on the line- when it isn't even necessary to do so (ie there are already enough who can pass it to meet pers requirements).

Just my thoughts.


----------



## ZipperHead (17 Dec 2006)

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> It's fine to exhort people to try harder, but if the reqr is 15 pushups, do we really want to start punting pers if they can 'only' do 14?  Should we be demoting clerks to privates if they can only type 39 wpm?



There is a reason that we have entrance requirements: where do we draw the line??? One push up is enough for any combat trade? 1 WPM is good enough for clerks? One eye (and no depth perception) is good enough for pilots/surgeons/electricians/etc???? The standard is there. As it is in most trades, it is pathetic enough to reprehensible (in physical, mental, and/or emotional levels) already. Why accept second (or third or fourth) best??? 

We have allowed EVERYTHING to cross over into the grey zone, where we allow anybody with a heartbeat and a brain wave to enter (or so it seems). I'm not too certain that it has made it a better military (based on the cases of "You can't make me do THAT!!!" or "My limitations say that I can only do this" or "But I only had to do the EXPRES test; how do you expect me to carry FFO [or marching order, with all the gear that would realistically be carried]!?!?!?" that the majority of the pers here have heard). I would argue that we have scared away more good Warfighters (to use the American term for "Soldiers, soldiers, airmen/women, marines"..... a much nicer, succinct term, IMO) than we have attracted, with the "Come join the CF for a McJob/McCareer" mentality from a few years back. Make people DESERVE the honour to be in the CF, with a little hard work, be it mentally or physically. 

I would argue that any requirement that any institution puts into place is somewhat arbitrary: who put the requirements into place for the person(s) who made the decision on this case?!? What schooling do they have? Who assessed them on their qualifications?!? I demand a recount!!!! To allow civilians the final word on restrictions that they themselves would never be placed under is somewhat ludicrous: the standards that CF firefighters (should) have to maintain should be higher than their civilian counterparts would have to maintain, due to the unique requirements of the trade. Just saying: "This Member has to be able to put out a fire" is hardly enough of a requirement. The number of complainants is large enough to disturb me: hopefully not all are serving CF firefighters. Hopefully the powers that be in the Firefighter trade are clever enough to come up with requirements that are stringent enough to keep the eggheads happy, yet keep the firefighters fit enough to drag my sorry ass off a C130 should it plow in on a runway somewhere in our fine country, or elsewhere.

AL


----------



## ff149 (17 Dec 2006)

Battleaxe,

The fitness test has been around as long as I have been a firefighter (since 2001). I have heard that it came in during the late 90's. I will try to find out when it did come in for sure. As far as the trade, we have around 450 - 470 in our trade. We lose roughly 70 - 80 a year for various reasons, with an average of 60 to 80 joining a year. So the numbers "technically stay the same", however we are really losing the experience. But again that is pretty well the same through out the CF from what I have heard.

On the subject of the firefighter leadership, our trade is a little different. We may not have a firefighter in charge of us. We fall under the officer trade of Airfield Engineers. So we may or maynot have someone with firefighter experience. Right now from what I understand the CFFM is a firefighter but some of the previous ones were not.

Hope that helps


----------



## armyvern (17 Dec 2006)

Here is the link to the case and the decision from the Arbitration Board:

http://www.lancasterhouse.com/decisions/2006/july/CPSLRB-BarrAndFlannery.pdf

Most of these grieivances are from Civilian Firefighters employed on CF Bases, with UNDE back-up:

http://www.unde-uedn.com/english/info/committees/ne/Annex_1_FR.doc


----------



## Long in the tooth (17 Dec 2006)

Once again, standards have been taken to extremes... I suggested 14 pushups vice 15, and 39 wpm vice 40.  A later writer took it to the wall with 1 pushup and 1 wpm.  This is a silly position to take IMHO.  I suggest that this is the precise reason that we have career managers and MOs aroung with the medical staff.  The smaller the trade the more restrictive the criteria, to be sure.

The CDS's intention is good, but not attainable overnight.  In the last year I personally have lost 25 lbs by attending PT classes that I could not attend before - now it is a command performance.  Another 15 lbs to go?  It's all priorities.


----------



## armyvern (17 Dec 2006)

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> Once again, standards have been taken to extremes... I suggested 14 pushups vice 15, and 39 wpm vice 40.  A later writer took it to the wall with 1 pushup and 1 wpm.  This is a silly position to take IMHO.



No really, dropping the standard is what's silly. Period. Standards are there for a reason.

Think about it. You suggested, as you point out, 14 vice 15. Guess what then happens? The person who can only do 13 starts whining and kicking and screaming; someone else comes along and says "well it's (13) only one less than the 14." It's all downhill. Let the standards alone. Meet them, beat them, or carry on doing something else.


----------



## Long in the tooth (17 Dec 2006)

Alright, let's start to get rid of these duffers!!!

What's the releae item?


----------



## Shamrock (17 Dec 2006)

What's the difference between 14 and 15?  An F.

Persons failing can either take their freddy and train up to achieve a P or they can sod off.  Meet the standards, don't expect the standards to meet you.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go do 18 pushups and call my lawyer.

_*Edit:*
Post changed to illustrate I wasn't funshining the Librarian, I was supporting her statement.  Hopefully, I have done it right this time.
Now, I'm going to take my sub and Eurodisney and try to get them removed from my clothing docs._


----------



## armyvern (17 Dec 2006)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> What's the difference between 14 and 15, funshine?  An F.
> 
> You can either take your freddy and train up to achieve a P or you can sod off.  Meet the standards, don't expect the standards to meet you.
> 
> Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go do 18 pushups and call my lawyer.



I'm quite sure that you are "funshining" the wrong girl!!


----------



## Long in the tooth (18 Dec 2006)

Ah, let the fun begin.  So the Standard IS the Standard.

Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.


----------



## armyvern (18 Dec 2006)

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> Ah, let the fun begin.  So the Standard IS the Standard.
> 
> Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.


The standard is the _minimum_ standard. Everyone knows that. You're the one who'd have them still pass by doing one less than the minimum remember? I suggest that it is really yourself who needs to be careful what he wishes for.
Here:


> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/54653/post-497334.html#msg497334


and here:


> It's fine to exhort people to try harder, but if the reqr is 15 pushups, do we really want to start punting pers if they can 'only' do 14?


----------



## axeman (18 Dec 2006)

ff149   and GO!!!

329 Grievances? How many CF Firefighters are there? Did they all file grievances?
 as was stated earlier they are not all in the CF .EMPLOYED yes but not in .  there are civies , 651 FIREFIGHTERS. and TQ 5 HULL TECHS..
with the test now  theres a 3 month work up period for it your given a book and have to sign off the bookin the end before the test . failure to do so is a lacking on the indiviuals fault.


----------



## tannerthehammer (20 Dec 2006)

I'd like to think that there are people out there that could not pass the test capable of doing the job of a firefighter when push comes to shove, the same as some who could pass the test...Who knows maybe even better??? Just a thought...I don't believe firefighting is a purely physical thing...I can only assume it would be about making many snap decisions also...Just cuz you are a muscle head doesn't mean you are going to do a great job even though the physical aspect of firefighting is likely quite high...


----------



## Scott (20 Dec 2006)

A few of the tests I have had to do over my time in the job:

CPAT Info Basic explanation, click the links for more info.

Pack Test 

Recruiting page info on the trade in the CF: http://www.recruiting.forces.gc.ca/v3/engraph/jobs/jobs.aspx?id=651&bhcp=1

Note:


> FIRE FTRs must be physically strong and able to sustain physical effort for extended periods of time.


----------



## ff149 (20 Dec 2006)

As far as the greivences go, I don't know how they got that many. I am not sure if people put in a grievence once a year as this was a yearly test. I do know that this has been an ongoing issue since I remustered in 2001. 

For the 12 week work up period, that was a solution to one of the complaints saying the test was unsafe. Someone complained that there was no way of knowing if someone was having difficulty with the test (medically). So they came up with the idea of having a book that you would fill out 12 weeks prior to the test saying what you did for a work out everyday. The next thing that came from that was what would happen if you got injured working out when you where not at work. Would they be covered under insurance etc. 

I know they are doing (or in the process) of having a pre employment test (for the military people). It is a test that you would have to do prior to enrolling or remustering to the trade. It is still in the trial phase and may change slightly. 

Yes the fire side of the trade is very small, luckly we do not have a large number of fires. However we still need to be ready for it, that is why we had the test. It was more job related then the previous test they had. I don't think anyone was really saying it was not job related, they simply did not like the time limit or the results of failures. 

I have seen 165 lbs people fly through the course eating it up, and I have also seen 250 lbs muscle bound guys struggle with the course. A lot of it comes down to cardio.

Hope this answers some of the questions.


----------



## Teflon (21 Dec 2006)

tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> I'd like to think that there are people out there that could not pass the test capable of doing the job of a firefighter when push comes to shove, the same as some who could pass the test...Who knows maybe even better??? Just a thought...I don't believe firefighting is a purely physical thing...I can only assume it would be about making many snap decisions also...Just cuz you are a muscle head doesn't mean you are going to do a great job even though the physical aspect of firefighting is likely quite high...



But what good is the ability to make snap decisions if you can't do the job quickly due to physical limitations? As I have said before I would much rather have a fire fighter who could do his/her fitness test come rescue me then one who was close but still failed.  I know it's not very pc to descriminate against people who arn't up to a standard but the world is full of loosers who can't make the grade and sit and whine about how unfair things are. yes A fire fighter has to be able to make snap decisions but he/she must also be physically able to act on those decisions as well.


----------



## GO!!! (24 Dec 2006)

tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> I'd like to think that there are people out there that could not pass the test capable of doing the job of a firefighter when push comes to shove, the same as some who could pass the test...Who knows maybe even better??? Just a thought...I don't believe firefighting is a purely physical thing...I can only assume it would be about making many snap decisions also...Just cuz you are a muscle head doesn't mean you are going to do a great job even though the physical aspect of firefighting is likely quite high...



When "push comes to shove" the fitter guy will always win!

This is the same refrain I hear all the time from PT test failures. They are the only ones saying "soldiering is'nt only about being in shape.....look at so and so - he got 98 on the cooper's test but he's a pump...I shine in the field, not in the gym..." Fitness is attainable to every able bodied person - they just have to want it.

If you are going to do a job that requires fitness of body and mind, that is what it has to be - both, at the same time, with no exceptions. Dumb soldiers are'nt much good, but neither are fat and weak ones that have an IQ of 130.


----------



## sigtech (3 Jan 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> If you are going to do a job that requires fitness of body and mind, that is what it has to be - both, at the same time, with no exceptions. Dumb soldiers are'nt much good, but neither are fat and weak ones that have an IQ of 130.



Now come on Both have there uses..............

i.e. "never trust a skinny cook" huh huh

and well I know there are alot of smart guys that are grunts but most of them leave and become techs leaving the guy that is strong like truck smart like stick...........

The only thing is I want to adjust you can't really say "fat" weak is fine I have seen to many guys that are "fat" that are in the forces , firefighters police force etc that supprise the hell out of you. I don't know how many times I have seen a fat guy and thought well he won't be keeping up on this run ...... as he flys pass me on the run ..... don't you hate when that happens  :-\

All and all though if you can't pass the test you don't belong and the pass mark should be set at a point that even if a person "just" passes they will be able to do the job. Also keep it equal I don't care if you are a women or what if you are going to be a firefighter or a grunt or a cop you are doing the same job as the 6'5 monster standing beside you , so pass the same test.

Not very PC but let me tell you I have slugged my sorry azz threw some hellish runs ( I am short and can't run  :crybaby beside guys that are 6'0 and run for fun ( sick buggers) why because we are expected to it is part of the job. So if you can't do it get to the point either hit the road and get to the point were you are able or well Tim's are always looking for new blood, and hey you can now going to Afgan with them.


----------



## armyvern (3 Jan 2007)

sigtech said:
			
		

> Now come on Both have there uses..............


They certainly do.



			
				sigtech said:
			
		

> and well I know there are alot of smart guys that are grunts but most of them leave and become techs leaving the guy that is *strong like truck smart like stick*...........



Funny that you don't have a problem making an assinine statement like this (emphasis mine) but...



			
				sigtech said:
			
		

> The only thing is I want to adjust you can't really say "fat" weak is fine I have seen to many guys that are "fat" that are in the forces , firefighters police force etc that supprise the hell out of you. I don't know how many times I have seen a fat guy and thought well he won't be keeping up on this run ...... as he flys pass me on the run ..... don't you hate when that happens  :-\



You don't think the word "fat" is appropriate in some cases. Kind of like a double standard isn't it? I suggest a good look at your reflection and mindset in the mirror may be appropriate.


----------



## sigtech (3 Jan 2007)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> They certainly do.
> 
> Funny that you don't have a problem making an assinine statement like this (emphasis mine) but...
> 
> You don't think the word "fat" is appropriate in some cases. Kind of like a double standard isn't it? I suggest a good look at your reflection and mindset in the mirror may be appropriate.



I am sorry it was a asinine statement , I made a attempt at a little humour, at no time did I mean to offend. The statement comes from 8 years with the combat arms and working beside some super nice guys that not the smartest people in the world but would be the first person I would want to have covering my back. 

Now for Fat being appropriate...... my statement was meant that not all people that are over weight are weak and unable to complete PT tests. The statement wasn't directed at a person I.e you sir/madam are fat that would be inappropriate. 



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> If you are going to do a job that requires fitness of body and mind, that is what it has to be - both, at the same time, with no exceptions. *Dumb soldiers are'nt much good, but neither are fat and weak ones that have an IQ of 130.*



This statment was meant to point out to GO!!! that a fat and weak don't always go together, I to have believed that in the past and been proven wrong. One of my best friends could be considered rotund or husky yet that little short bugger out run most people.


----------



## GO!!! (3 Jan 2007)

Sigtech

Whew, fortunately, you took your powerful intellect elsewhere it was evidently being wasted in the Cbt Arms.  :

To keep you from splitting any more hairs, and  clarify my point, fat *OR* weak soldiers are of little use, even if they are as smart as you. Additionally, the fat guy who can lift a truck is of little use when he collapsed from exhaustion 200m up the mountain, just like the marathon runner who is unable to lift a heavy barrack box. Overall fitness is the key, and unbalanced soldiers are just as bad as obese/unfit ones.

Yes, yes, we all know one fat guy who can run marathons, smoke a pack a day, and eat Pizza morning, noon and nite, but that is the exception that proves the rule. Most obese soldiers have their work ethic and self control reflected in their waistline.


----------



## GUNS (3 Jan 2007)

+1 ushup:


----------



## battleaxe (3 Jan 2007)

tannerthehammer said:
			
		

> I'd like to think that there are people out there that could not pass the test capable of doing the job of a firefighter when push comes to shove, the same as some who could pass the test...Who knows maybe even better??? Just a thought...I don't believe firefighting is a purely physical thing...I can only assume it would be about making many snap decisions also...Just cuz you are a muscle head doesn't mean you are going to do a great job even though the physical aspect of firefighting is likely quite high...



Most (all) professions or trades have both physical and academic standards that must be met. 
I would think that firefighters who actually get into the trade and work actively in it have passed academic, theory, medical (first aid), and practical training standards..in addition to passing the physical standards. ff149 or Scott, please set me straight here if I'm too far off base.

Professional organizations are just as strict with academics as they are with physical requirements.  As long as there are people out there who can meet all the standards, both physical and academic, IMO, they should leave well enough alone.

There are a lot of very smart and strong people out there- I'd pick them to come rescue my children in an emergency, over someone who had to fight for special consideration, if I had the choice.

For those who cannot pass the physical requirements and are upset because firefighting is a lifelong career goal, they can either work very hard to rectify the situation or remain involved in a different capacity-disaster management, EMS, I don't know...just offering suggestions...but they should do something that they are physically able to do. They don't have to necessarily give up their lifelong dream completely -just modify it to something more realistic.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Scott (4 Jan 2007)

battleaxe said:
			
		

> Most (all) professions or trades have both physical and academic standards that must be met.
> I would think that firefighters who actually get into the trade and work actively in it have passed academic, theory, medical (first aid), and practical training standards..in addition to passing the physical standards. ff149 or Scott, please set me straight here if I'm too far off base.



In a word, yes. Some limitations may be overlooked with some TI, in my experience but your above thought seems to be the norm. Having said that, I must remind you that I am not in the CF or civvy DND role...

I started as municipal and moved into industrial/oilfield. I found the transition to be easy, but there were still things to learn and different specialties to focus on. I had to do more learning when I got into forestry and even more when I first flew offshore and none of them really related to each other. I have been a firefighter for eight years now, have seen some big ones on the rigs and bigger ones in the trees but still wouldn't dream of fighting an aircraft fire just as fellas like ff149 do, I am not trained for it - and that is just one example.

While working Helitack I had the chance to be partnered with a guy who had 25 years in. There was nothing about a forest fire's behavior or how to work around helicopters that he couldn't tell you. But 25 years had taken their toll on him and he preferred to let me carry the gear while he scouted or decided on placement - hell, worked great, I burned off excess energy and got to watch someone who really knew what they were doing get the job done. I learned alot from him, alot of the little tricks and tidbits that you never seem to get in courses. That being said, I also ha no doubt that if he _had to_ put the muscle to work he could.



> There are a lot of very smart and strong people out there- I'd pick them to come rescue my children in an emergency, over someone who had to fight for special consideration, if I had the choice.



Just like you wouldn't want me, the muttonhead, getting special consideration to perform surgery on those same children, riiiight?

There is a HELL of alot more that goes into being a firefighter today than there was 10 - 15 - 20 years ago. More academics, more specialized courses, new technologies that require smarts, new standards that require relearning, new ways of managing the unit. But there is still a base requirement for some level of physical fitness, depending on what you are doing. It will always be there, it is never going to go away and I have yet to come ac cross a fire that didn't take some amount of effort to control. Thing is, we don't train for the easy ones.


----------



## sigtech (4 Jan 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Sigtech
> 
> Whew, fortunately, you took your powerful intellect elsewhere it was evidently being wasted in the Cbt Arms.  :



Hey now let's retract the claws 

All and all most of us posting here agree in our own way. 

The PT test shouldn't be reduced or changed, one standard for the job and keep that standard high


----------



## old fart (4 Jan 2007)

sigtech said:
			
		

> "and well I know there are alot of smart guys that are grunts but most of them leave and become techs leaving the guy that is strong like truck smart like stick...........



What kind of a BS comment is this; obviously it has the weight of your experience behind it!  

Some of the brightest and best I have soldiered with over 28+ years (Reg) are career infantrymen, and by choice.

"Most" my  a_se.

Old fart out.

CHIMO-AIRBORNE-UBIQUE


----------



## ArmyRick (4 Jan 2007)

I can't beleive the PC of the original post on this thread...


----------



## Long in the tooth (4 Jan 2007)

I'll be a flamer and throw out the rediculous again.  The MO Capt can only do 13 pushups.  Punt?


----------



## GO!!! (5 Jan 2007)

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> I'll be a flamer and throw out the rediculous again.  The MO Capt can only do 13 pushups.  Punt?



Nope. 

He should be put on recorded warning, kept at his current pay rate (no yearly incentive) and given mandatory remedial trg, on his own time to meet the minimum standard.


----------



## ZipperHead (5 Jan 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Nope.
> 
> He should be put on recorded warning, *kept at his current pay rate (no yearly incentive)* and given mandatory remedial trg, on his own time to meet the minimum standard.



This concept (no giving people a financial reward for complacency: not AUTOMATICALLY increasing their incentive level) is something a former RSM of my Regt had brought forward as a means of making people earn their pay. Indeed, the system states that the incentives shouldn't be automatic, but based on performance. But what, pray tell, would we do with a person who has maxed out their incentives (i.e 4th incentive for all ranks but Capt, which has 10 levels)?!?! The answer we were given was relatively simple: reduction in rank, and when they start out again at their former rank, they are at the first pay level. Whether this would be enforceable (vested rights and other union-esque crap) is another issue, but hitting people where it hurts (their wallet) is usually incentive (there's that word again) enough to get them to perform at the minimum standard.

On a related note, molly-coddling these certain trades (MO, etc) because we are afraid of losing them is only giving them more power. As an example, here in Gagetown, "they" are trying to enforce the requirement to back into (or place your vehicle into) your parking space so that you can drive (not back) out of it. Pretty unenforceable, right?!!? I thought so, to, until the MP's started issuing warnings that stated (more or less) that you would lose the _*RIGHT*_ [Edit: I meant PRIVILEGE, but maybe my natural sense of sarcasm took me to the the opposite meaning than I intended) to enter the base with your vehicle. Well, didn't a (civilian) MO say "Well, if they don't let me bring my vehicle onto base [because he didn't want to go through the onerous task of backing his vehicle into his spot], I just won't come into work!!!". Yeah, that would fly. And the base clinic is less than a km from the main gate (and off-base parking). But, knowing how "we" molly-coddle these so very important people, they would likely let him come onto base with his car (whether or not he would comply with the regulation) because he is oh so valuable to the war effort. 

Because I am cynical, I think that it is usually easier to placate those that are willing to go through litigation or the grievance system, so they will keep standards low, or not enforce them. Hence, I suspect WOG (kinda ironic [Yet another edit: I keep forgetting the definition of irony ( _Irony: 1. Expression in which the intended meaning of the words is the direct opposite of their usual sense.  2. An event or result that is the opposite of what is expected_, so I actually meant "telling", I think] how that name becomes that acronym, no?!?!  ;D ) is right: they won't punt those that can't meet the standard, because we need every warm (yet sweaty, out of breath) body we can muster.

AL


----------



## xo31@711ret (5 Jan 2007)

Hmmm...Allan, I wonder which civvy MO yer talking about LOL; then again, the greater % of physicians are (were when I was there) civilains... ;D


----------



## GO!!! (5 Jan 2007)

*THREAD HIJACK*

Allan, are you stating that it is now a standing order in Gagetown that you must back your civilian vehicle into parking spaces on the base, by order of the powers that be? 

What led to that?


----------



## ZipperHead (5 Jan 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> *THREAD HIJACK*
> 
> Allan, are you stating that it is now a standing order in Gagetown that you must back your civilian vehicle into parking spaces on the base, by order of the powers that be?
> 
> What led to that?



Yes, this is indeed the case. I forget under whose authority this was implemented (so many commanders on this base.....), but it is intended as a safety/emergency issue (driving out of parking spaces being faster/safer than backing out in case of an emergency). The next time I'm on Base I will have a look see at the placards (placed in areas where civilians and the like would need to be told of this policy, such as Base Gym) to see under whose authority this was decreed.

Personally, I agree with this policy, as it is far safer than the "normal" civvy fashion in which people park their vehicles, but I thought the first time that I read that :"That is COMPLETELY unenforceable!!!". Obviously, somebody put some brainpower to use to come up with a means of enforcing it (removing the PRIVILEGE (I amended my post above) of parking on the base.). Time will tell if there are any teeth behind the bark on this particular SO.

AL


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jan 2007)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> *THREAD HIJACK*
> 
> Allan, are you stating that it is now a standing order in Gagetown that you must back your civilian vehicle into parking spaces on the base, by order of the powers that be?
> 
> What led to that?



GO!!!

That has been the policy in Gagetown since the 1980's.  Especially in the Winter, when many storms literally bury the Base, and cars freeze up.  It was a common sense thing, so that you could boust your car, or tow it out for the Snow Removal crews to do their thing.  

There was a policy at one time in the early '80's that the Base would 'Stand Down' if there was a Major Storm, but Canada AM put  a stop to that when they broadcast that a little snow storm had crippled the Base.  What had been an effective and efficient method of clearing the Base and getting it operational by allowing the Snow Removal Crews to get all the roads and parking lots cleared, and everyone having easy access to the Base the next day, now came to an end.  The next Storm to hit, was a 'normal working day'.   People's cars were stuck on the main roads, blocking entrances to parking lots, in ditches......basically everywhere but where they should have been.  Snow Removal Crews couldn't even clear the main road.  They couldn't access any of the parking lots, and it took over a week to get the Base into order again, where before it was done in under 24 hours.  Thank you Media. 

Gagetown has the policy for a good reason.  It is 'idiot' outsiders who put a wrench in the works when they comment on things they nothing about.

How many times have we heard that before?


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jan 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> GO!!!
> 
> That has been the policy in Gagetown since the 1980's.  Especially in the Winter, when many storms literally bury the Base, and cars freeze up.  It was a common sense thing, so that you could boust your car, or tow it out for the Snow Removal crews to do their thing.
> 
> ...



George, when i left sunny Gagetown in 2004 the policy of backing in was in place so thats nothing new.  As far as snow storms go, the base would have the local radio stations broadcast " all non-essential personel are not to report until 1300 to allow the base to be cleared of snow" so i doubt that the media had a lasting negative impact.

But i digress......we are way off topic


----------



## Meridian (6 Jan 2007)

I'm currently going to go ahead and side along with dapaterson's earlier comment -

The decision was ruled discriminatory because the adjudicator had only two options - rule to uphold the standard or declare it discriminatory.  In this case, the owness was on the employer (as it always is as per Canadian Common Law based on Charter Rights in this area) to -prove- that the standard was not arbitrary.

This does not mean that the CF/DND can not set a new even more stringent standard. It just means that whatever standard DND sets may not be arbitrary. From what I gather, it was more that DND did not prove the case for why the standard is xxxx in xxx minutes, but instead just decided to state that xxxx in xxx is the standard and thats what we feel.  

The Charter is a good thing; the problem is that many people have no clue how to apply it or argue with respect to it(including, it appears, often some lawyers and delegated officials). Since this is not an SCC ruling, this is by far not the end of anything. 

You show up to court to fight a speeding ticket unprepared and without the ability to explain your side, you'll lose, even if you weren't speeding.

The law isn't about what is right or wrong, its what you can -prove- is right or wrong.  DND needs to get better at proving the standards you all have spent pages arguing for.


----------

