TexasCHLforum.com

No worries, Keith, I don't think we're really all that far apart. I do think it's wiser to at least provide some facilities & accommodation for being in shape; but ultimately the individual officers have to fish or cut bait.

RHenriksen wrote:WHY, o why, are police not required to maintain an adequate level of physical fitness?

It has already been discussed, but stress can be a huge factor in the inability to maintain a decent weight.

Another reason going through my head is "Labor Union." Some departments or cities may not be able to get any sort of fitness requirement past the union.

flb_78 wrote:I they're good shots, they shouldn't have to run to chase a BG.

There was actually a court case over this. IIRC it was out of the DC Court of Appeals (sorry, I do not remember the citation and may have the court wrong). The case involved an officer who shot a suspect because he was in poor condition and could not continue to fight.

As is proper IMO, the court ruled that it was excessive force. Keeping fit is part of the job and the need was foreseeable, so not doing so was negligence and made the shooting a bad shoot. I used this in my classes to try to convince officers to stay fit.

srothstein wrote:

flb_78 wrote:I they're good shots, they shouldn't have to run to chase a BG.

There was actually a court case over this. IIRC it was out of the DC Court of Appeals (sorry, I do not remember the citation and may have the court wrong). The case involved an officer who shot a suspect because he was in poor condition and could not continue to fight.

As is proper IMO, the court ruled that it was excessive force. Keeping fit is part of the job and the need was foreseeable, so not doing so was negligence and made the shooting a bad shoot. I used this in my classes to try to convince officers to stay fit.

That's refreshing to hear. Assuming unions oppose ensuring their members are fit & caPable to do their job (which would seem to be a good way to improve their odds of being safe), I wonder how many negotiators are aware of that court decision?

Unions used to serve a noble purpose in the olden days but during my lifetime the purpose of unions has become to ensure job security and promotions for the lazy and the incompetent. Without unions, the competent industrious workers would get promoted on their own merit, and the worst employees would be replaced by new hires from outside the organization. That would be good for the organization's productivity and morale, and benefits the stockholders of corporations and the taxpayers who pay government salaries. Unions fight against this natural selection and promote the Marxist creed of from each according to his ability and to each according to his need. That's especially true for the unions preventing competition in government jobs.

As long as good cops allow their unions to protect Jabba's job, they look silly when they complain about donut jokes.

I generally think unions have outlived their usefulness in most cases. But I will be fair and give them some credit too. The reason they have to fight to protect the incompetent's job is to also protect the good guy's job. The current SAPOA president is a friend of mine, and I served on their board for two years when I was an officer. I know there were a few cases where we really wanted the officer fired, but had an obligation to protect him so we could protect the other officers. I also know that if employers kept good records, it is fairly easy to build a case against the incompetent. Too many times, the city would try to hang an officer who really deserved to be fired but would use some minor mistake or made up charge because they could not prove the real problem. This is almost always a lack of documentation.

In some cases, it is much like defending others' rights. The only way to protect my rights is to defend yours, even if I don't like what you are doing.

McDonalds and Wendys offer Salads for the past 3-5 years. I pay their paychecks and insurance so I want them in good shape. 30 push ups, 30 situps, 30 jumping jacks, 40 yard dash under 30 seconds and the 100 under a minute plus a 8 min mile. Tested every 90 days.

I know they are at 3 times the divorce rate and other family issues. We need to give them more off time.

Deltaboy wrote:McDonalds and Wendys offer Salads for the past 3-5 years. I pay their paychecks and insurance so I want them in good shape. 30 push ups, 30 situps, 30 jumping jacks, 40 yard dash under 30 seconds and the 100 under a minute plus a 8 min mile. Tested every 90 days.

I know they are at 3 times the divorce rate and other family issues. We need to give them more off time.

We might need to adjust those times a little. I could walk the 40 and 100 well under those times, but don't know if I could do an 8 minute any more. When I was running a couple years ago I think the best I got down to was about 9 minutes. That's twice what I ran in high school.

C-dub wrote:

Deltaboy wrote:McDonalds and Wendys offer Salads for the past 3-5 years. I pay their paychecks and insurance so I want them in good shape. 30 push ups, 30 situps, 30 jumping jacks, 40 yard dash under 30 seconds and the 100 under a minute plus a 8 min mile. Tested every 90 days.

I know they are at 3 times the divorce rate and other family issues. We need to give them more off time.

We might need to adjust those times a little. I could walk the 40 and 100 well under those times, but don't know if I could do an 8 minute any more. When I was running a couple years ago I think the best I got down to was about 9 minutes. That's twice what I ran in high school.

There's room for older officers on the force. Their wisdom and experience make up for the step or two they might lost over the years. We need them to be healthy and in shape - not necessarily college athletes for their entire career.

Another creative solution beyond paying for workout time or penalizing out-of-shape officers is to simply provide a financial incentive. . . e.g. 5-10% annual bonus for hitting certain fitness targets or body-shape characteristics. Even if it's just a few hundred bucks in a stipend, it would motivate a lot of officers to stay on a program of their own. It doesn't have to be a punitive solution.

That photo should be cropped and captioned "Too fat to be a fireman? Join us."

You can come up with all kinds of reasons, but it still comes down to personal responsibility. You only become morbidly obese by ingesting way more calories than you burn....it doesn't matter what job you are doing. The individual makes a choice when he overeats, lights a smoke, decides not to exercise, etc... The nature of the officer's job provides alot of down time when it's easy to grab a snack you don't really need. People make jokes about it, because it's so often true.... it certainly is in our county. At least half of the deputies in the police & sheriff's dept. here are just plain fat....bellies hanging down over their belts , and I'm talking about guys in their late 20's-40's...and it's even more prevalent in the EMT's around here...when not on a call, the ambulance units are usually parked at a local restaurant that specializes in "all you can eat" buffets for both breakfast and lunch and there will be 3 or 4 EMT's sitting at a table for hours in the mornings, just drinking coffee and eating while waiting for a call. The same place usually has 3 or 4 patrol cars parked their for lunch every day too with officers putting away several chicken fried steaks, mashed potatoes, gravy, rolls and fried okra. Don't get me wrong...I LOVE to eat and can put it away with anyone...but I don't make a habit of it. I eat out for lunch maybe one day a week, and the rest of the time I fix a sandwich, and some salad and fruit. I work out at least 4-5 days a week, and just like almost everyone in the private sector, its on my own time and nobody pays me to do it. If a job requires a certain degree of physical fitness to accomplish the required duties, and the employee gets so fat they cannot perform at a minumum expected level, then they need to be given a set time period to get to that level, and if they can't/won't do it, they should be terminated for cause. The idea of a union having to protect the job of "incompetents" for the sake of the good employees, is the very reason most employers have such a dislike for them.

Is this the box?