Disciplinary ActionYou Can't Make This Stuff Up
Milwaukee Firefighters to be Terminated for Vandalism
The Milwaukee Fire Department is moving forward with plans to terminate the five remaining firefighters involved with the Station 32 vandalism incident last September.
While the tenured employees have some kind of appeals process, I think the probationary firefighters may have been harshly treated by their termination.
Two newbies, who are subject to the orders of the supervisor who could make life hard on them if they didn't go along.
Net result they get terminated for the lack of a "Supervisor" in the first place.
If anything, I think it should be any Lieutenant or Captain who should be terminated, the rest demoted and the newbies re-instated, with the provision for a longer term of probation "without any new incident"..
Mike
It is really a tragic story in a sense. One of the probies was a decordated Milwaukee police officer who opted to change careers. Officially he was a probie – and I am sure he was acting in the role of a probie (ie. keep your mouth shut and do what we tell you kid). He did not participate in the vandalism but merely observed it.
Nevertheless because of the outrageousness of the conduct – and the city's desire to send a message that this kind of non-sense will not be tolerated – he has been terminated as well without any apparent recourse.
I find it interesting that Fox is always ready to report malfeasance by union employees, yet often takes a pass on reporting on misbehavior by elected types. One more small part of Fox's efforts to demonize public service unions?
On the other hand,what these guys did WAS inexcusable. It's not short-sheeting someone's bunk, it's crapping and pissing on their property. Not a childish prank, by any stretch.
And as for the cop-turned-firefighter, he had probably arrested others for "defeacting and urinating on the property of others," as that's a standard behavior for juvenile burglars.
Andrew
That is an interesting point – but a probie is not really in a position to tell a senior firefighter what he should or should not do. In fact doing so could spell trouble for the probie.
On the other hand, it reminds me of the question they ask at police department interviews: you are with your field training officer working a midnight to 8 shift and you respond to a break-in at a local convenience store. The bad guys have left, the door is broken and unable to be secured, and the owner is responding. While you and your FTO are in the store waiting for the owner, he goes to the cooler and gets himself a soda. He does not pay nor mention it to the store owner when he arrives. What will you do?"
If the probie was a police officer for the city before he became a firefighter and there was no lapse in employment, does he have an arguement in saying he was not a new employee and therefore not subject to the same probation?
Jeez, what a dilemma. Should you tell probies to keep customilarily quiet, BUT not at the expense of witnessing or participating in career-limiting behavior?
But wait, isn't speaking up (or worse) also… potentially career-limiting?
Better to be a probie with a rep than a probie with no job??
That would be my argument for sure – but I am not sure if it matters in this case.
No easy answers. Certainly if the probies participated to any degree in the vandalism – its a different story. But if their only crime was being in the station at the time that senior firefighters and officers did this – I think it is expecting too much to have expected probies to do much more than avoid involvement.
I must be from a different era. I see no issue with the termination of all involved, directly or indirectly. There's a process in place to deal with the reason that sparked this entire incident. Yet from top to bottom, firefighter's failed to follow that process. I'm not sure what universe they thought it was O.K. to vandalize Tax Payer & fellow employee property in such a repulsive manner, let alone keep your mouth shut about it. In a department where I worked, when we felt our Fire Chief was removed unjustly, so we gathered petitions and publicly recalled elected officials. We didn't delicate and urinate on anything, nor get retribution on those Firefighters who didn't believe in our cause. This entire incident however reflects poorly on the Fire Chief, who obviously runs an organization that has a serious leadership void.
Seems to me a probie would be within his rights (or perhaps even morally obligated) to say "are you SURE that's a good idea?" I would think one could argue that there were health and safety implications in their shenanigans, which would certainly justify at least a comment.
As to the orals board question, it would be theft if anyone else did it, and I'm sure as hell not going to cover up criminal activity. Not to mention that if he steals a soda, he'll probably pull other fast ones.