Firefighters' fitness test ruled discriminatory

[Scott]

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]

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

 

[Parked4everuser]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Parked4everuser]

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]

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]

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

 

[gaspasser]

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.

 

[Parked4everuser]

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

+1

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

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]

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.  ???

 

[Parked4everuser]

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]

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]

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?

 

[Parked4everuser]

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]

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]

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.

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?