How to Bargain a Physical Fitness Program that Works
-- scroll to the bottom to view a 10-step bargaining blueprint!
Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life.
Animal House
O brave new world / That has such people in’t!
The Tempest
Implementation and the Need for Consensus
This essay deals with bargaining an effective fitness program. The bargaining is as important as the fitness. The process must be part of the product because while improving fitness requires only some simple structural changes, these changes are also big and run deep. Implementing them will require real leadership and the reconciliation of many factions because big change is always scary. Care should be taken, therefore, to get the footing right; as much or more care should be given to getting the incentives right. That means lots of thought, communication, and patience. That doesn’t mean stasis, just a reasonable pace. Less time/more speed and resistance increases; more time/less speed, and we risk losing both our way and an entire generation of firefighters. Please join the effort to substantively improve the fitness of our profession as a whole with due haste, for much rides on it and all stand to gain by doing so.
Why Fitness is Important
Improving skill acquisition and maintenance is one part of building a more cost-effective fire service, as is improving managerial ability. Now we’ll address another critical piece of the puzzle: physical fitness. Against all odds, there is no reason this should be controversial as improving fitness is good for all. But the odds are the odds, so considerable debate is likely – and welcome.
To begin, firefighting – emergency response in general – is an athletic, run-jump-dodge occupation, as ESPN has recognized . Physical fitness is a type of human capital, one as necessary to effective service as technical know-how. For this reason, no effort to improve the cost-effectiveness of emergency service delivery will be complete or successful if it does not address fitness. In other words, fitness is a job essential, and should be an industry priority because it makes life safer and better for the individual firefighter, his or her coworkers, and the public they serve over short and long terms. It also saves money and grief. Despite this we have yet to address fitness in a systematic way. In fact, for the most part we’ve done little but window-dressing and prescription because anything more substantive is met with stiff resistance.
Much of the resistance is due to understandable but narrow concerns about job security and personal liberty. That resistance can be overcome, but not successfully overpowered. An effective fitness program is within our grasp, but we must be smart in how we try to pick it up. Doing so is a four-step process. The first is strategic understanding. The second is to raise the fitness requirements for applicants and new hires. The third is to create a fitness incentive by forthrightly bargaining a bonus for superior fitness, and an objective scale with which to measure it. The fourth is to prevent backsliding by bargaining a disincentive to becoming unfit.
Five Essential Realizations
The first thing to realize about a fitness program is that to be effective, it must have job consequence. The next three things to realize immediately are that 2) the consequences don’t have to be negative, and 3) 100% compliance isn’t necessary because 4) time is on your side. Once these fundamental realizations are made, progress is possible. A fifth realization might help smooth the path toward change: improved fitness benefits everybody in real, measureable ways. For instance, avoiding forced spending on health care frees up dollars for desirable discretionary spending. This amounts a quantitative improvement in liberty and quality of life. There are intangible benefits too.
Why Job Consequence is Necessary
This is simple. If we all did what we should do, we wouldn’t need laws, much less diet and exercise plans. As already covered, firefighting is an inherently athletic activity, meaning those of us who are paid to do it are professional athletes. To perform to expectations (and earn our pay) we should all stay fit, hard work though that may be, especially over the long term. Should is one thing, do is another. The fact is that all too often we act out of convenience and a desire for short-term pleasure. As evidence, consider that more than two thousand years of preaching the Golden Rule haven’t resulted in its universal practice.
In the firehouse, it’s convenient to sit in recliner, preach about the need to stay fit, and watch somebody else tackle the Firefighter Challenge -- much more so than getting sweaty and adding to the laundry stack by hitting the weights and treadmill. It is pleasurable to enjoy good health and avoid heart problems as we age, but those intangible pleasures pale in comparison to a eating a bowl of ice cream right now. This is especially true when we bear no acute costs for slacking, i.e., when becoming unfit has no immediate, negative consequences. As a result of these human tendencies, too many of us are out of shape and overweight. Most of us would benefit from a spur to help us off the couch and onto the treadmill. That’s where job consequence enters the picture. Without it, we simply aren’t likely to do what we should. It’s a question of incentive.
What Job Consequence Entails.
Job consequence means only that decisions and actions lead to corresponding results. Make a good decision, and the expected reward follows. Make a poor one, and a pleasant outcome isn’t expected. The key word here is “expected” as in “expected value”, the economic term related to investment. We want firefighters to begin to look at fitness as an investment. As good managers, we want to meet their expectations regarding that investment because by doing so we create a basis for trust, which is the basis for leadership.
Another important concept here is “incentive”. As we’ve covered, an incentive should not be seen as a bribe for doing what you’re supposed to do. An incentive is anything that conditions behavior. To get folks to do what we want them to do – what they’re “supposed” to do – as good managers our job is to align their interests with our goals. That way, our people will want to do what we want them to do. They’ll want this for themselves, not because some rule says so. This minimizes monitoring and its costs, making the manager’s job easier and his performance more effective. In other words, building a smart incentive structure is efficient management because it removes obstacles to success – obstacles like a conflict between what is good for the individual and what it good for the organization.
When introducing a fitness program, the best, the only, way to begin is with the positive side of the equation. That means offering a bonus for superior fitness. This is simple economic psychology. If we say we value fitness, and are willing to put money behind our words, we become credible. The more credible we sound, the more likely we’ll be listened to. The more we’re listened to, the more likely we’ll be understood and our proposal accepted. Also, if we’re giving something, rather than trying to take something away, we’ll meet with less resistance which improves our odds of overcoming cultural inertia.
An important mistake to avoid is setting the bonus bar too low. An incentive should be offered for better-than-average performance, not some minimum standard. This doesn’t mean that the department must test everyone to establish standards for average and superior fitness. That will be seen as an attempt to target and embarrass the less-fit, and set off alarm bells. Worse, not only does mandatory participation allow for invidious comparisons between coworkers, if the larger part of the workforce is out of shape, it will set the bar too low. Instead, some validated standard must be agreed upon, and any voluntary contestant who exceeds the minimum by a certain, significant amount will earn a reward.
For example, the US Army has general fitness measures – push-ups, sit-ups, pull-ups, and run – that are well validated for age and gender. These scales set minimum standards for service, as well as standards for achievement deserving of recognition. Agree that such a standard will be used to reward a high level of fitness on a voluntary basis, and you have not only avoided a battle about testing the unfit, you’ve introduced an important objective measure into your contract.
Why Full Participation isn’t Necessary
The short answer is that to build momentum, you must first get the ball rolling. This means doing your homework, identifying target demographics, and enlisting them in your cause. The younger members of your department are most likely to be fit, so will most easily boost their performance to earn a fitness bonus. Make it worth their while to do so, and you create an advance guard. Over time, the older, least fit will retire out and more new, fit people will take their place. Eventually, the more-fit will outnumber the less-fit. After that point, negotiation of obligatory fitness measures becomes reasonable and easier.
Some might object that if participation is voluntary, only those who are likely to earn a fitness bonus will compete for it. That’s OK and here’s why. First, success breeds success. Give your people a chance to shine, and earn something more than appreciation. They should be proud, and so should you. A little positive energy can go a long way.
Second, success breeds success here because it generates two powerful emotions: trust and envy. Trust grows when promised rewards are delivered. They can only be delivered when goals are met, which is why you want likely winners to participate. You shouldn’t cringe at having to pay out a fitness bonus –you should be glad to, and disappointed that you’re not paying more. It’s literally an investment in your personnel, after all.
To console that inner accountant who might feel like he’s bribing people to do what’s expected of them, consider that if the expectation had been clear years ago, fitness levels wouldn’t be what they are today. You’re in the process of clarifying that expectation, so progress is being made. More importantly, you’ve done your homework (or you wouldn’t be to this point). And you’re getting value for your money.
Third, voluntary participation puts envy – aka Pride -- to work for you in a way that forced participation cannot. The fellow who thinks he’s as fit as his buddy, but either doesn’t compete or falls just short has an incentive to steal bragging rights from his bonus-getting buddy, if only by leveling the field. Another may not envy his buddy’s strength or wind as much as he envies the bonus. The motivation doesn’t matter, only the response. Some will rise to the challenge, some won’t.
Don’t fret about the ones who don’t participate. They weren’t your target and you weren’t likely to get them in any case. Write off those sunk costs and move on. Some may come around eventually, especially as fitness levels and enthusiasm grow. If that happens, enjoy an unexpected bonus. This isn’t harsh, just realistic. It doesn’t mean to write them off as human beings. Instead, it means you should accept their calculus: they don’t see that becoming more fitness is worth the effort -- yet.
Understand that if you force the marginally-fit and the unfit into an un-complementary comparison with their more-fit coworkers, any envy they might bear regarding either the additional compensation or physical ability of the more-fit will likely be expressed in corrosive, not positive, ways. It will also encourage the more-fit to look down on the others, turning what could have been an inviting hand up into derisive slap down. The most humane route, and the one most conducive to success, therefore, is to limit your efforts to those most likely to succeed. Your strong workers are already carrying your weak ones. Reward them for it, and maybe you’ll reap a windfall when a couple of the marginally weak decide to become marginally strong.
How Time is On Your Side
Bargaining a successful fitness program is all about time. Unless yours is a new department, or a newly-unionized one, the process requires a strategic approach and a long-term commitment. Be smart and start with the narrow end of the wedge by taking a look a departmental demographics and health history. Has there been an event that makes fitness a hot topic? If so, use it to your advantage. Do you expect a spate of retirements in a certain period? If so, hold off or tie fitness measures to seniority or retiree benefits. Consider a grandfather clause so that the older, less-fit bunch isn’t negatively affected. But if you go that route, make sure to get a sunset clause with lock-in bonus to shepherd them out to pasture.
Realize that while you don’t need 100% participation to get the show on the road, full participation is your long term goal. Make sure to keep time on your side by exercising the probationary period to its fullest. If a new hire signals that he’s a fitness sloth in the making, shed him like a winter coat on a hot day. By keeping only those who agree that staying fit is an essential job requirement, we’ll build in a lot fewer fitness-related problems, and turn a perennial weakness into a strength, figuratively and literally.
This may sound harsh, but is only effective screening and sound management. It sounds harsh only because its rare. One thing Labor and Management should be able to agree on is that everyone is better off when problem employees are avoided, the earlier the better. That keeps costs low for all involved, even the problem hire. Like the song says, sometimes you gotta be cruel to be kind – especially to proven, senior employees. Good screening rewards their loyalty and devotion to the department and the profession, while deficient screening is a slap in the face.
Time is on your side in another way too. If you provide sufficient incentive to get and stay fit, and actively manage your workforce, at some point you’ll have more fit firefighters than unfit ones. You’ll be paying more bonuses, but you’re getting value in return. More importantly, demographics start to swing in your favor for two reasons. First, as new majority, the fit can begin to speak out about the costs and professional irresponsibility of being out of shape. This puts peer pressure to work for everyone, but is most significant for management because self-policing lightens management’s load.
This shift in peer opinion probably won’t happen until the fit constitute a significant majority. Because the ranks of the fit are likely to contain the least senior members of the department change isn’t likely to come rapidly, but that’s OK. When it does, it’s cause for celebration because it signals that your workers have voluntarily adopted your goal for themselves. This is the aim of incentive-driven management, and is both humane and empowering.
Second, once a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio of fit to unfit is attained, it is in the economic interest of your firefighters to roll the bonus into base pay in order to boost pensions. If they don’t bring this to the bargaining table, management has every incentive as well as the responsibility to do so. After all, as good service-sector managers we should be concerned with the long-term well-being of our people. If they are going to be healthier and live longer, they should have the means to do so. Of course, this doesn’t come without cost. Not only will pension contributions need to increase, but to prevent backsliding the “stick” part of the carrot-stick combo must enter the incentive equation. Fortunately, there is way to introduce it that is fair to workers, especially the most senior.
Backsliding, Longevity Pay & Protection of Senior Workers.
Longevity pay schedules offer an excellent way to let workers self-police because it puts a price on behavior when tied to minimum fitness standards. Even better, it does so in an automatic, unemotional manner. Managers are freed from the problem of trying to shame resistant workers into getting fit – a sort of emotional bullying that is always demeaning and almost always counter-productive. Avoiding the traditional, formal disciplinary process has another benefit besides reducing stress for manager and worker alike: it levels the playing field among workers. For this reason alone it should be endorsed by Labor.
What do I mean by leveling the playing field? Consider the firefighter who tends to have a wide performance range: when he’s good, he’s great but when he’s bad, he’s rotten. Often times this is put down to exuberance or something like it. In essence, he’s cut slack for performing well in the hero tournament and for his fluency in with our low-skill culture. As a result, “progressive discipline” can result in a lot of threatening behavior from management, as they try to keep a perceived star worker while reigning in his excesses. This can result in the star getting many chances – one, then 2, 3, 5, 8, even 10 days off, with probationary periods and lots of managerial huff. With every escalation, the actual threat of job loss diminishes, undercutting managerial authority. I’ve seen similar situations. Management bends over backwards trying to balance competing demands, not least of which is budgetary pressure, and in doing so, hamstrings itself. When it recovers, it’s sore and looking for revenge. That’s good for no one, especially the worker.
Now consider the non-star population on the department. Many will make the observation that if they did something similar, they’d be fired. This suspicion is confirmed when an otherwise steady worker makes a bad decision. It can happen and does – I’ve seen this too. To back up previous threats and set a standard clear enough for even the golden boy to see, Management hammers this poor, generally reliable and compliant soul. The union rightly objects, and a fight ensues. Even if Management sees Labor’s point, it must fight to save face and maybe regain some of what was lost in bluster to the star.
Mad from this fight, win or lose, when the next candidate for discipline is the deserving slug, Management frequently reacts to Union insistence on due process with hostility, as if a demand for fair play means the union wants to protect a shared liability. The Union wants no such thing, but disgusted with both its member and managerial (mis)behavior, it replies in kind, perversely enjoying the self-destructive behavior of punishing Management with its own leniency (tolerance offered to the star is now forced for the slug) A toxic, sympathetic feedback loop is spawned, harming all on both sides, as well as the organization and public at large.
All this can be avoided if we move to a situation where behavior has a clear price. The problem with the all-too-common situations above is that the costs of behavior are neither clear nor consistent, so clarity must be found through labor-management conflict and conflict resolution. The same can be done with a lot less drama by reflecting on history and its pitfalls, then designing a path that avoids them. Why keep fighting the battles of the past if we don’t have to?
To move ahead, we have to think ahead. Bargain clear standards, agree on the price for failure, and empower workers to decide for themselves. If it’s worthwhile for them to conform, they’ll do so. This frees both Labor and Management of the need and cost of monitoring anything but compliance with an agreed-upon objective measure. If it’s not worthwhile to an employee to meet the standard, he pays the price and goes on his way, guilt and stress free. It’s been said that good management often amounts to getting out of your peoples’ way. That is certainly true here, as physical fitness can be easily and effectively measured.
To achieve this “stress-free” position, the first step is to bargain minimum fitness measures adjusted for age and gender. Don’t bother reinventing the wheel: use well-validated military standards because all we’re after is a measure of general fitness. Given the athletic nature of firefighting, no further job-relevancy is needed or desired, as it will only cloud measurement. Military fitness measures are suggested because to be credible, such standards need to be externally validated. Those used by our armed forces are not only validated for both age and gender, but they have stood the test of time. Both sides are encouraged to bargain any additional measures that seem reasonable and necessary, like a static hang to test grip strength. But this should be done jointly, with the advice of qualified medical and fitness professionals.
Next, link these measures to longevity pay. As long as the standards are met, the worker gets his longevity pay. The first time he fails to meet minimum standards, he loses his most recent longevity bump. When he gets back in shape and meets the standard, he gets his bonus back. This clearly prices behavior, and does so at a reasonable level that leaves base pay unaffected. Only the longevity bonus is put at risk. This may be new to the fire service, but pay-for-performance has long been taught in academia, and is well-tested in industry. It requires, however, careful attention to the incentives created, and is probably best limited to small increments of salary, as is the case with stepwise longevity pay.
To manage this (dis)incentive appropriately, while department-wide fitness testing can be annual, remedial testing should be available quarterly or semi-annually. This allows a firefighter who fell just short to avoid too great a penalty, and provides both the incentive and the time-frame for him to address the deficiency directly. If he had to wait until next year to try to get his bonus back, he might as well wait a few months before beginning to exercise. On the other hand, if he can retest the very next pay period, he needn’t worry about doing more than the bare minimum as the cost of failure will be low.
Quarterly remedial evaluations help make the price of becoming unfit economically significant while allowing the penalty to be minimized by immediate effort. It will also give less time for anyone on the margin to fall into unfitness, a prevention step which benefits all. The catch is that more frequent testing means higher costs, if only in time (opportunity costs). Semi-annual evaluations, on the other hand, would increase the price to the worker, as failure will result in more income foregone, while reducing testing costs for management. From a managerial standpoint, testing costs are negligible and best viewed as an investment in the workforce. The point is to get something in place, so letting the workers choose between quarterly or semi-annual evaluation is the preferred route.
If the firefighter doesn’t care about becoming fit, that’s OK. He will simply continue to lose longevity step after longevity step. A shrinking paycheck puts a price on his behavior: his lack of fitness imposes a cost on his department and coworkers; in return he is billed for it. If and when he decides that sub-par performance is too expensive, as soon as he attains the minimum standard, he recovers every lost longevity step. He need not work back up the scale. This rewards those who’ve long been unfit in a direct and meaningful way for a desirable change of behavior.
If, however, this firefighter chooses to remain unfit and pay the ever-growing fine, he can only do until he reaches entry pay. If he falls that low and still fails to meet minimum standards, he’s terminated. As this is done automatically and without prejudice, it’s accurate to say that he terminated himself. When all know that the rule is to meet the standard or leave, any firefighter who loses his job this way has fired himself. He’s said by his actions that he cares little for his own safety, that of his colleagues, and that of the public he’s obliged to protect so he shouldn’t be on job. It’s a public safety job, after all.
Tying longevity pay to minimum fitness standards protects senior workers because it gives them the greatest number of steps and the longest amount of time to fall before forcing them off the job. This means that those who may need the most time to get fit have the longest amount of time and the most to regain by doing so. Some may retire out before they could be fired through this process. That’s OK. It’s also OK to protect the most senior with a grandfather clause, knowing that they will need every retirement dollar. But the message should be clear to those just outside of that protected window: get minimally fit or your pension will suffer. Also, to prevent some very senior grandfathered workers from hanging around, any such clause should have a sunset.
This may seem hard, but it is humane. To the extent we tolerate a lack of fitness, we accept unnecessary cost, injury, maybe even death – consequences that are not necessarily borne by those who cause them. Such results are inhumane and immoral. We owe it to ourselves and our public to manage better, to minimize such costs, and force those who create them to bear most of their weight. Anything else would be both inefficient and unfair. Economists usually only pay attention to efficiency. Fairness, in the jargon, is about distribution, and usually seen as a happy coincidence or a side effect, not a policy goal on its own. Workers form unions, in part, because for a lot of good social policy reasons, they feel differently. Consequently, the next step is to address why its in Labor’s interest to accept and advance something its long held anathema: a physical fitness program with job consequence.
The Labor Side
So far, we’ve largely considered the managerial perspective on fitness. To the extent we’ve dealt with the labor side, we’ve kept to the interests Labor shares with Management, primarily safety. But as with municipal HR managers and a low-skill workforce, there is a perverse incentive for Union leaders when the majority of their members are unfit. As should be obvious, in this situation elected Union officers are compelled to argue for the benefit of the unfit – at least if they want to stay in office – because that’s where the votes are. This is a strong incentive to obstruct progress, regardless of how these officers feel about fitness individually. For this reason, the topic of fitness is generally regarded as a slippery slope best avoided. For the Union, the problem is that the longer we delay addressing fitness substantively, the steeper that slope becomes.
Unfortunately, recognition of this point is lacking. To hasten understanding, it might help to imagine the worst possible outcomes, so let’s put on our economic goggles and pretend to be Catbert, the evil HR manager. This may be unpleasant, but doing so is in keeping with the timeless strategic precept “Know thy enemy”, so qualifies as good sense. Before doing so, let’s consider the objection that the IAFF is very concerned about fitness, witness its partnership with the IAFC in developing fitness initiatives and programs.
From the perspective of skeptical HR manager, this participation is more subversive than substantive, hamstrung as it is by internal contradiction. On the one hand, the Union is trying to faithfully discharge its duty to look after the health and welfare of its member. Balanced against this is the duty to protect jobs, especially those of long-time dues-payers. These goals are not diametrically opposed: by improving the fitness of all workers, especially senior workers, the Union can accomplish both tasks. But success isn’t likely when all but the most junior have relaxed into the job and its slack fitness requirements, and are likely to resist change. To keep peace, the Union demands that fitness measures be job-relevant. This needlessly complicates the matter, slowing progress. After all, if the job is inherently athletic – and try arguing that its not – then any general measure of fitness is job-relevant. By insisting on “realistic” window dressing rather than pushing to adopt the well-validated scales employed by the military, the Union demonstrates its desire for improved fitness is lukewarm at best.
That in mind, how might a heartless bureaucrat from the personnel or city manager’s office view firefighters? What steps might such a soulless creature take to address fitness? Beginning gently, they might offer the front-page test: how would the Union feel about seeing its position reported on the front page of the local paper? Forget public perception or mediation-by-the-press – this is a thought experiment. How proud would individual firefighters and union leaders feel about opposing validated fitness measures when qualified medical professionals find that 3/4s of the department is overweight and 2/3 of those (i.e. 1/2 of the total workforce) are clinically obese? Those numbers aren’t pulled out of thin air – they belong to one department I am aware of, one that I’m willing to bet is representative. Whatever the case -- better or worse-- if that characterization isn’t appealing, think how it might play to the public or the arbitrator. In what light does it put both the department and the profession? How defensible is such a position, tactically and strategically?
The next step the HR weenies might take is more economically painful. These hard-hearts might assert that given these measures of substandard fitness, the fire department is driving up health care costs for the City generally. They would go on to demand concessions in the form of higher insurance rates for bargaining unit members. If the fire department does not require participation in a wellness-fitness program that includes daily warm-up and stretching, they also might contest every duty injury that’s classified as strain, sprain, trip, or fall. Their basis for doing so would be that such incidents account for the larger part of fire service lost-time injuries (by far). Therefore – citing commonality -- when there are industry examples showing that mandatory stretching significantly reduces the risk and size of such claims (if not their rate), the Union’s refusal to participate in such reasonable, validated preventive action relieves the City of any workers’ compensation obligation. The City would take this step reluctantly, but charged with the duty to spend tax dollars as wisely and frugally as possible, willful negligence on the part of the Union forces its hand.
Recent passage of federal health care legislation might put a City in the position to offer a Faustian bargain. See here, the City might say, we can go either of two routes – the choice belongs to the Union. The health care plan the Union has negotiated is a so-called “Cadillac plan”. That means it will be taxed highly in a few years. We can help the Union reduce its members’ tax exposure by having them pay more up front. This way both sides win: the City pays less to cover its firefighters, and the firefighters avoid an onerous tax. Or we negotiate a substantive wellness program with that includes mandatory stretching and validated, quantitative fitness measures with strong job consequences for failure. This will allow us to negotiate a better deal with our insurance carrier, which will reduce costs and (maybe) avoid the Cadillac label – a goal the City would be willing address creatively with the Union. This leaves the Union stuck on one prong or the other, with little prospect for either fitness bonuses or protections for senior workers. Damned if you, damned if you don’t.
Finally, with the economy as it is, any City faced with layoffs might do so according to seniority, but bring workers back only if they can pass a stringent fitness exam. Aggressive cities might go further, and citing measures like obesity and injury rates, impose fitness regimens (possibly draconian ones) unilaterally and lay off any who fail according to seniority. Their justification would be that if the budget demands that the City do its best to protect the public with fewer employees, they have the responsibility to use only those most fit for duty, as this provides the best protection to the public and their firefighters alike. True, doing so might be an unfair labor practice, but win or lose, it could be appealed on public policy basis. All this effort would not only drain union coffers but better position the City for future negotiations, not least by pointing out how Union resistance to a reasonable, externally-validated fitness initiative caused unnecessary expense during an economic downturn, causing further reductions in City services. Internally, it would also force a hardening by the City towards other unions, as dollars spent contesting the firefighters are unavailable for distribution elsewhere.
All through this City Administration never loses its hole card: it had to take these steps in order to faithfully discharge its duty (and fiduciary responsibility) to provide cost-effective, quality emergency service to the electorate. Politicians on the council will hear that, especially conservative ones. Liberals will want to avoid giving their rivals ammunition for a smear campaign by defending big-government gold-bricking and needless health-care spending. They also know that money not spent on the fire department can be spent elsewhere. For the most part, the same calculus will operate at higher levels of government once the word is out and the stakes are clear.
All this and probably more makes opposing fitness reform a loser for the Union, from any perspective, long or short term; strategic or tactical; economic, political, whatever. Therefore, it is undeniably in the Union’s best interest and the interests of its rank-and-file to be proactive regarding fitness. Anything else is ostrich behavior that fails union members and the public they serve. Our lack of fitness is a systemic problem plaguing the fire service, one demands a strategic solution. Let’s rise to the challenge, and be as good as our public expects and deserves.
Mandatory Safety Stretching: the Exception that Proves the Rule
In the last installment of this series on physical fitness, we’ll tackle a topic raised last time: mandatory, passive safety stretching. Yes, by making this obligatory, we violate our voluntary ideal, but we do so for a good reason: passive stretching has a fitness component, but its primary benefit is not injury reduction, not death reduction. Fitness and safety are inextricably linked – no denying that. But to oppose safety stretching on the grounds that fitness training should not be compulsory overstates the fitness element of such passive activity. We should be wiser than to fall for such duplicity. Leadership demands that we make way through foggy grey areas, and not let the anxiety of a fearful few dissuade us or persuade the rest of the troops to stand still. He who hesitates is lost.
While mandatory passive stretching to the point of individual discomfort violates our earlier insistence that all fitness activity be voluntary, the benefits of imposing it outweigh the costs. This is true not just because of our statistics regarding lost time injuries and industrial experience. If nothing else, this mandate underscores from the outset the fundamental responsibility of all firefighters to remain fit throughout their career.
Additionally, mandatory stretching creates a mild two-fold incentive for those opposed to fitness training to conform or get out. Long term, this bolsters good order in the same way breaking a horse to harness does. It does this informally, by a new demand for obedience during a small part of the working day, as well as through a very mild comparison to coworkers. Not being able to bend as far as another is much less embarrassing than coming up short in any test of strength. The only quantitative measurement involved in stretching is the time spent at it. Not only are cultural expectations of strength much more weighty than those regarding flexibility, the standards are much less clear, as the point of discomfort differs from day to day, individual to individual. Mandatory stretching also creates a formal incentive to compliance or flight by opening the flagrantly defiant to the negative job consequence of formal discipline.
If cultural flexibility standards weren’t so vague, the spectre of formal discipline would be enough kill mandatory stretching, and therefore fitness reform at the outset.
As it happens, vagueness saves the day in two ways. First, with no clear standard to meet, compliance means just showing up and following the lead stretcher. Second, it’s hard to say if passive stretching is fitness or safety training. Both sides can agree that its safety training, again for two reasons. First, it is primarily being done to reduce injury statistics like strains and sprains; any fitness gain is a coincidence of happy, unavoidable overlap. Second, the same results could be achieved by more active safety training, like using a high-rise pack to practice good lifting technique every morning, something justified by EMS statistics, where patients are frequently lifted.
Such camouflage and misdirection is in no one’s interest. It’s better for all if both sides are honest about what the activity is, and what its meant to achieve. The objection that workers might pull muscles during stretching is easily answered: we might pull muscles getting out of the dayroom easy chairs, but we’re not giving them up for yoga mats. More to the point, a firefighter is much more likely to pull a muscle by picking up a relatively heavy load of high-rise pack, even using good technique, than he or she is using similarly good technique during unloaded passive stretching. And who wants to be that guy, the one who objects to any fitness training, even passive stretching, because it might lead to injury, and hence a worker’s comp claim? Not only is pure couch-potato laziness, the math of experience is against that logic. Unfortunately, this sort of obstructive sophistry is all too common.
There are other benefits of mandatory stretching aside from injury prevention and good order too. A quick stretch at the back of the truck provides the officer time to evaluate and ready his crew for the day, and gives weight to the idea that our people really are our most important resource. They must be, as we’re a service industry. So we should give them priority of care, ahead of the rig and daily housework. This means trusting the off-going shift for a few minutes, but if we can’t do that, so much for our fine ideas of brotherhood and professionalism. Likewise, mandatory stretching also gives upper management the opportunity and responsibility to demonstrate its commitment to safety training. Those in white shirts may be desk-busy, but they must stretch to make words and deeds line up. Not only that, it gives them valuable face-time with the troops, and further contributes to good order because even the habitual griper is likely to tone it down a bit when the boss is around – and a bit is often the difference between success and failure.
In the industrial settings I am aware of, stretching is done at the start of an 8-hour shift. As the fire service typically works 24-hr shifts, I recommend stretching first thing in the morning, and then after the noon and evening meals. Knowing that stretching comes after not long (20-30) minutes after eating might help some to put down the fork and step away from the table too.
In the end, mandatory stretching is one necessary part of the solution to our quality-driven casualty problem. It is part of the stick, not the carrot, but few job casualties are deaths. Active strength and cardio-vascular fitness training is a carrot-heavy approach to reducing deaths across the board, but primarily those associated with chronic health conditions. Passive stretching is a small stick with which to address the much larger casualty issue of duty injury, and consistent with the principal of commonality, its one that’s been proven effective.
Conclusion
Every fire service stakeholder will benefit when we implement a fitness program that works, one with job consequences but is fair to workers is possible. Such a plan begins with incentives for superior performance, and ends with penalties for undesirable behavior. This empowers workers because it prices voluntary behavior. It protects the firefighter, the public, and the senior worker alike. In doing so, it reduces the need for managerial oversight. Everybody wins. This is just one way to crack the nut – there may be others – but it does crack it, and tries to divide the pieces as equitably as possible in doing so. The time is right to take this step. Oppose progress at your own risk.
To reduce the process to its essentials and speed implementation, a bare-bones, how-to outline for fire service managers follows.
By the Numbers: An Ethical Bargaining Outline in 10 Steps
1. Review civil service rules regarding applicant and new-hire fitness requirements
a. Strategically boost baseline fitness by raising these non-contractual standards as part of a coordinated effort.
b. Use Veteran’s Preference to recruit for fitness and psychological advantages. This also does right by our returning veterans.
c. Explain these actions, fully and forthrightly, to any inquiry.
2. Collect data to estimate the health insurance, workers compensation insurance, and pension savings due to increased fitness, as well as the costs of doing nothing.
a. Do this for the Dept as well as the individual.
b. Work with City financial staff and Union pension/widows & orphans fund officers alike.
3. Review data from annual physicals to assess departmental fitness level.
a. Identify the actual fitness condition of the department.
i. Don’t hide from or grow angry at disappointing numbers.
ii. Embrace them as the basis for growth & success.
b. Identify any danger zones (i.e. a 10# gain in the second year, etc.)
4. Review data regarding job-related injuries, health issues, and fitness demographics.
a. Identify danger zones (i.e., is there an age band that suffers injuries or health issues, etc) and the expected costs of those ailments, as well as a cost of being in that zone.
b. Identify any obvious age groups, weight groups, etc
c. Identify military veteran distributions -- vets have experienced working under fitness requirements, and should be less likely to oppose them.
i. Understand, however, that some left the military with no fondness for mandatory fitness. Use probation actively to screen these out.
5. Review timelines for contract negotiations, expected retirements, and applicant testing.
a. Look for zones when bargaining may coincide with a higher general fitness level.
b. With external, professional guidance, develop plans to positively address any identified danger zone causes.
i. To gain and keep momentum, develop an initial plan, then revise with Union input. Advise the Union of these intentions.
ii. Cooperate if cooperated with. If obstructed, educate and proceed in business-like fashion. Courtesy and firmness are both required.
6. Identify the earliest window of opportunity for initiating a coordinated fitness campaign, with target demographics.
7. Using that window, bargain forthrightly for a fitness bonus based on superior achievement as measured by an externally validated scale. Adjust job descriptions consistent with fitness goals and fair labor practice.
a. Participation in active strength-building should be voluntary.
b. Passive stretching to reduce strain injuries by warming up for the day should be mandatory.
c. Time, space, and equipment for fitness training must be made available.
d. Aim at younger employees who lack vacation by offering a paid day off for superior fitness.
e. Forthrightly means sharing your vision, the strategic plan to achieve it, and the data that support it. Transparency builds trust, and demonstrates how better fitness is in everyone’s interest, both needed for buy-in.
8. When at least 2/3s and maybe even 3/4s of personnel can easily meet the standard measures of fitness of the validated scale, bargain the old bonus into base pay in return for a penalty schedule for sub-par fitness.
a. A new incentive for superior fitness might be used to sweeten the pot, or bargained separately.
b. To put a clear price on misbehavior while protecting senior employees as much as possible, link fitness to longevity. This is a necessary because the idea is gain over time, not all at once.
c. A grandfather clause for employees with 10-15 years of service is not unreasonable. Get an accountant to put a dollar figure on it, as it subtracts from your projected savings. Don’t forget a sunset clause.
d. Don’t forget to address pension contributions. Increases can be made in stepwise fashion to minimize impact. Get actuarial support to make sure you neither shortchange the pension fund, nor overburden employees.
9. If necessary, arbitrate. The long-term health and safety of your employees and your citizens demands it. You have offered quid pro quo, and arbitration is likely to go in your favor if you can show you’ve been forthright because the only folks who won’t benefit from the change are those who’ve chosen to remain unfit, despite opportunity and incentive to improve.
a. In the event of a negative outcome, appeal on a public-policy basis.
b. Recognize these legal costs are an investment in the long-term well-being of both the firefighters and the public they serve.
c. Also, this is as humane a way as possible to reduce costs and improve product quality, for in a service industry your people are your product.
d. Noting b & c, stand firm. You are on the right side of history here, and the cost is worth the effort and its future benefits.
10. If layoffs are unavoidable, follow any seniority provision in your contract, but negotiate return to work contingent on passing the externally validated fitness measures you wish to implement for the reasons given above.
a. Refrain from unfair labor practices. Be patient, but not to the point of stasis.
b. Be prepared to battle over this, and hang tough. This should be a go-to-war issue, ideally with both Labor and Management on the same side, especially if improved workplace safety is a jointly-acknowledged goal.
c. Understand that the Union has an obligation to protect its members, and most of its members are unfit. Recognizing that up front helps to prevent demonizing the Union, and keep emotions in check.
d. Do not allow unfavorable demographics to get in the way of doing the right thing if efforts to cooperate have been refused. Responsible management has a positive duty to address this situation, as does the Union. Firefighters and their leaders on both sides of the table must recognize that we all gave up the right to become unfit when we took this athletic job.
e. Educate the Union of these facts. Act when the time is right for best effect. Do not quail. Too much is at stake.
