Firefighters Face Suspension

[bigboab]

Another good point from vidcc. They signed the contract so were obliged to follow the order. If they didn't like it then they should have left.

You'll remember boab, failure to follow a legally given order is not allowed.

I think the Union will broker some form of compromise and the punishments will be reduced. Possibly with those involved saying they will do it when instructed the next time.

Yes I agree that is the case. However in my day we would not have been asked to do this type of thing. I personally dont know if this was a good or a bad thing. My point in this thread was to show that IMO this PC thing has gone a wee bit too far. I have not changed that opinion and completely agree with Archbishop Mario Conti on this matter.

Fire service wrong to order staff to gay march - Archbishop Mario Conti The Firemaster of Strathclyde is right. Firefighters must do all they can to save lives and protect property for all groups in society. There can be no acceptance of bias in their fulfilment of duty.
But I believe Strathclyde Fire and Rescue was wrong to require firefighters to take part in – support – a gay pride march earlier this summer. Why? Not because homosexual persons should not be given fire-safety advice. On the contrary they (like every other citizen) should be offered every assistance by the Fire Brigade in becoming more aware of issues relating to fire safety.
But the best way to deliver that essential advice is not by participating in a high-spirited, carnivalesque procession, when marchers – many in fancy dress – are distracted and exuberant.
I understand that when volunteers were sought to “support” the parade not one firefighter came forward. Is it any wonder? They all felt legitimately uncomfortable about going into that atmosphere wearing their uniforms, (some were aware of a “kiss-a-fireman” campaign planned for the event) knowing full well that they would be subjected to cat-calls, inappropriate comments and, for some of them, gross insults to their religious beliefs.
And for the record, it needs to be stated that the men handed out leaflets in the vicinity of the march. What they would not do was participate, which in their eyes would have amounted to an acceptance and indeed celebration of the message of the parade – certainly not a core duty of firefighters.
If the fire service was only interested in getting the fire-safety message across to homosexual people would it not have been more productive to arrange talks, leave leaflets, or conduct visits to the LGBT centre in Glasgow, gay bars or similar centres in the area?
A comparison can be illuminating: effective fire-safety advice for members of the Orange Order would not be best delivered in the rarified atmosphere of a July 12 parade.
No, it seems to me that the real reason for the order to participate was not to offer life-saving advice to the individuals present – it was to enable the brigade as an institution to be seen as tolerant, “embracing diversity” and politically correct. The firefighters were caught in the middle – ordered to support the march as a means of demonstrating their employer’s commitment to “tolerance”.
But isn’t it a little ironic that what started out as an attempt to show the service’s tolerant attitudes has ended up as a PR disaster with the brigade showing intolerance of their own employees’ consciences and sensitivities?
03 September 2006

[Agrajag]

I'm not disagreeing with you boab, I don't think they should have been forced into attending and supporting a gay mardi gras either. However it's simply a fact that if it's in their contract of employment then they don't really have an excuse for not attending.

If they had genuine reasons not to do it, for example the "kiss a fireman" thing, which would be sexual harrasment, then through their Union they should have either asked to be left out, or demanded to be accompanied by a Police Officer.

Perhaps they tried these things, I don't know. However just not doing it simply isn't an acceptable option.

[bigboab]

I'm not disagreeing with you boab, I don't think they should have been forced into attending and supporting a gay mardi gras either. However it's simply a fact that if it's in their contract of employment then they don't really have an excuse for not attending.

If they had genuine reasons not to do it, for example the "kiss a fireman" thing, which would be sexual harrasment, then through their Union they should have either asked to be left out, or demanded to be accompanied by a Police Officer.

Perhaps they tried these things, I don't know. However just not doing it simply isn't an acceptable option.

I totally agree. I think this has just been a case of pigheadedness(spelling?) on both sides. You see it on every factory floor and every office. Usually a compromise is reached though.

[Agrajag]

I'm not disagreeing with you boab, I don't think they should have been forced into attending and supporting a gay mardi gras either. However it's simply a fact that if it's in their contract of employment then they don't really have an excuse for not attending.

If they had genuine reasons not to do it, for example the "kiss a fireman" thing, which would be sexual harrasment, then through their Union they should have either asked to be left out, or demanded to be accompanied by a Police Officer.

Perhaps they tried these things, I don't know. However just not doing it simply isn't an acceptable option.

I totally agree. I think this has just been a case of pigheadedness(spelling?) on both sides. You see it on every factory floor and every office. Usually a compromise is reached though.

For some reason I am reminded of "Carry On At Your Convenience"

[Skweeky]

Before I post a real reply...
What's PC?

[j2k4]

Before I post a real reply...
What's PC?

PC=Politically Correct

[Busyman™]

Before I post a real reply...
What's PC?

Politically correct many times is totally incorrect.

It's what makes me an African-American instead of simply black.

[Snee]

As in one of those thingies with possibly half-naked men, parading, dancing and getting drunk?

Yeah, that sounds great, having to stand in the middle of one of those.
It should be their civic duty. And if someone hits on them, that's a bonus.

...
But the best way to deliver that essential advice is not by participating in a high-spirited, carnivalesque procession, when marchers – many in fancy dress – are distracted and exuberant.
I understand that when volunteers were sought to “support” the parade not one firefighter came forward. Is it any wonder? They all felt legitimately uncomfortable about going into that atmosphere wearing their uniforms, (some were aware of a “kiss-a-fireman” campaign planned for the event) knowing full well that they would be subjected to cat-calls, inappropriate comments and, for some of them, gross insults to their religious beliefs.
And for the record, it needs to be stated that the men handed out leaflets in the vicinity of the march. What they would not do was participate, which in their eyes would have amounted to an acceptance and indeed celebration of the message of the parade – certainly not a core duty of firefighters.
If the fire service was only interested in getting the fire-safety message across to homosexual people would it not have been more productive to arrange talks, leave leaflets, or conduct visits to the LGBT centre in Glasgow, gay bars or similar centres in the area?
...

Hot damn! It's almost like I make sense sometimes.

This shouldn't have had to happen, and it's a right fuck-up on the part of their superiors.



EDit: and they did do something too, they just didn't participate in the march.

[Chip Monk]

If they handed out the leaflets, as part of their duty but did not participate in the march then surely it is the firefighters who have been wronged. Any action against them is grossly unfair if they did in fact carry out the duties required of them.