February/March 2003 Issue Number 44
 Is
a monthly electronic newsletter which links current events and issues
to the daily challenges faced by fire and emergency services managers.
Current topics in the areas of leadership development, workplace diversity,
change management, and conflict resolution will be discussed.
We
hope that you find the information here useful and provocative.
Let us know what you think! If you'd like to subscribe to the newsletter,
please enter your email address in the box below.
enter your email
address
10th
International Conference of Fire Service Women April 23-27, 2003.
Denver, CO. Contact info@wfsi.org
for more information.
FDIC
March 31-April 5, 2003. Indianapolis, IN. For more information,
go to www.pennwell.com
Love on the Job
Many
organizations fear office - or fire department - romances. They feel
that even tacit acceptance of intra-agency dating sets them up for
charges of sexual harassment. Some fire departments have gone so far
as to outlaw any kind of off-duty involvement between male and female
employees. But what are the real risks related to love on the job?
According
to a study done by Dennis Powers, professor at Southern Oregon University's
School of Business, work-related romance is much less dangerous than
most people think. His research shows that more than half of all office
romances end in long term commitments or marriage, a much better percentage
than from other approaches to dating. Among firefighters, over 30%
of women on the job are married to or in long term relationships with
other firefighters, and most of these relationships were formed as
a result of meeting at work.
Trying
to regulate social relations among workers off the job is tricky business,
and can sometimes lead to unintended outcomes. If male and female
firefighters are prohibited from cohabitating off-duty, will the same
rules apply to two men or two women on the job? If not, why not? If
dating among co-workers is against policy, where does that policy
begin and end? Does having a drink after the union meeting constitute
a date? What about a game of racquetball after a shift? "Forget
policies that say if you date, you're fired," advises Professor
Powers. "They don't work." Forcing people to sneak around
and lie about their personal lives has negative consequences for everyone.
The
best approach to relationships on the job, of any type, is to insure
that all parties involved understand the importance of professional
behavior at work. It is possible for two people who are dating to
treat each other in a purely professional manner while at work, the
same way that it is possible for two best friends to do so, or two
brothers. If behavior is inappropriate, then that is where remedial
action should be taken.
Consensual
relationships are completely different from coerced attention that
could be sexual harassment. All employees need to understand the difference
and feel empowered to speak up against any inappropriate behavior.
But the fact that two firefighters might become close friends and
want to continue a relationship off duty; this is entirely natural,
and is nothing new. More harm is done by overreaction than just sensible
recognition that such relationships are part of the reality of today's
working world.
Source:
FastCompany, December 2002
According the U.S. Census Bureau, Hispanics now comprise the largest
minority group in the United States, with a population of 37 million.
Black Americans currently number 36.2 million. However, these figures
do not take into account the fact that since Hispanic is largely a
language designation, Hispanics may be of a variety of racial backgrounds,
including black.
Source:
The New York Times, January 26, 2003
FMLA
Challenged
A case
that is currently being considered in the U.S. Supreme Court represents
a major challenge to the enforcement of the Family and Medical Leave
Act (FMLA) at the state level.
The case,
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs (01-1368) concerns a
state employee, William Hibbs, who was ultimately fired from his job
with the State of Nevada after taking what seemed by all standards
to be leave time allowed under the FMLA. The FMLA allows for up to
12 weeks of unpaid leave for employees who must care for a new baby
or ill or injured family member. In this case, Mr. Hibbs was caring
for his sick wife.
There
is little argument that Congress intended that the law, passed in
1993, apply to everyone equally. The question before the court is
whether Congress had the power to override what Nevada says are states'
rights. Several similar cases have already been decided by the Supreme
Court in the states' favor: Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, which
challenged the law regarding age discrimination; and Board of Trustees
of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, which challenged the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The current
case before the court is interesting in that it may force the court
to define the original intention of the FMLA. If the high court decides
that the law is simply a general type of employment protection, historical
precedent shows that the states have the advantage. However, under
the Supreme Court's equal protection doctrine, sex discrimination
is in a separate category from age and disability discrimination.
Policies that treat people differently on the basis of age, disability,
income or other factors are presumed to be constitutional if the government
presents a "rational basis" for their defense. On the other
hand, sex and race discrimination are presumed to be unconstitutional,
and the Supreme Court generally has deferred to Congress in relation
to laws in this area.
So the
question is: Is the FMLA a law that is primarily intended to remedy
sex discrimination in the workplace? The defense in this case says
yes; that although the FMLA benefits everyone, its main purpose is
to create a level playing field in the workplace by insuring that
duties of care at home are no longer "women's work," and
that women cannot be viewed differently from their male co-workers
when it comes to their need to attend to family matters.
Whatever
the outcome of this case, it underscores the fact that the law is
a fluid process, not cast in stone. Although a decision in favor of
the State of Nevada would only affect state employees, it would certainly
undercut the intention and weight of the FMLA. A decision is expected
later this year.
Source:
New York Times, January 12, 2003
|
