Firefighters' fitness test ruled discriminatory

[gaspasser]

+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]

>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]

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]

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!!!]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

What's the releae item?

 

[Shamrock]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[armyvern]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.