LG G6 review: Hands-on with LG’s bold, big-screen shot at perfection
I've just been reading this and I agree with this man's dismissal. But I bet others on here don't.
Like the firemen say he could have been redeployed or perhaps sent to 'fat camp'....
As an overweight person myself I sympathise with the bloke but if someone's trapped in a building it's better that the fireman is as fit as humanly possible for their own safety as well as increasing the chances of the person being rescued.
I assume and very much hope that fire authority had done all it could to avoid dismissing this man. Did they try sending him to see a doctor or someone to see if he could be helped to loose weight.
If the man could convince someone that he is clinically obese due to some sort of illness then I would have thought he could be classed as being disabled. If that is the case then are they allowed to dismiss him under the disability discrimination act?
There are many unanswered questions in this one, did they try to offer him some other job in the fire service? Surely there is some job they could have offered him that he could have done. What is to happen to his pension now that he is being sacked?
""to be able to perform all the potential requirements of a modern firefighter"
Does anyone actually claim there is something he can't do... or is it just an assumption there will be something he can't do?
Surely he's taking the place of a fit fireman, no matter what kind of sideways move he made?
As Cymro mentioned, "there are many unexplained questions in this one". After spending 22 years in the fire and rescue service, and possibly coming up to retirement qualification, I am quite sure a desk job could have been easily found.
Now whether anything was offered and rejected, possibly due to lower rates of pay and conditions, which might effect final retirement calculations, the report doesn't mention this. The report did state though: The Grampian Fire and Rescue Service were forced to act after a "very long and arduous process of support and consideration".
I wonder if the union as suggested taking this to an employment tribunal, before considering strike action!.
Fit that is to do the fire and rescue job.
With 22 years service he would have made an admirable instructor,or similar until due retirement date.
There is I suspect more to this than is being let on for any reason you can care to imagine.
I agree firefighters need to go into unsafe situations but they should not put either themselves or colleagues at risk as a result of avoidable personal conditions. Equally it is unfair to take the same pay as others going into risky situations if because of an avoidable condition a person is not sent.
As in the armed forces, an unfit (or overweight) person is a hazard to colleagues. In the event he did get into trouble in a fire situation who is going to get him out? If it is decided he cannot go into the situation because of his weight/size who is being put at risk instead of him?
What was the evidence that this man is not up to the job? Did he wobble when he walked, was he unable to run, could he no longer climb a ladder etc, or has this man been judged unfit because of an opinion by his employers? Fat people are not necessarily unfit.
We don't have the evidence, but I assume the Fire service does - it said the decision was based on safety considerations.
"Fat people are not necessarily unfit."
Yes they are, they're fat. Don't confuse being healthy with being fit - you can one without necessarily being the other.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.