Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Yearly Fitness Test

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Calitown
    replied
    I can't think of any CA agency that would implement this, nor ever would.

    Leave a comment:


  • tanksoldier
    replied
    Originally posted by Iowa #1603 View Post
    The policy was enacted with union approval.
    No problems

    Or make some type of arraignments. read my above post for details as to how it WAS DONE
    Different states have different rules.

    In any state, proving that a certain level of physical fitness is an essential function of the job requiring termination of employees unable to meet the standard is difficult if those same employees were doing the job yesterday without that being an essential function... but now today it is.

    as for unions, we know they always have their members’ best interests at heart... which is why I have separate legal defense plan coverage,

    Last edited by tanksoldier; 09-28-2019, 07:44 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iowa #1603
    replied
    Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post

    the problem lies in imposing one where there hasn’t been one before.
    The policy was enacted with union approval.
    No problems

    .
    Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post
    if you’re going to make it a condition of employment you’d have to give paid time to train.
    Or make some type of arraignments. read my above post for details as to how it WAS DONE

    Leave a comment:


  • tanksoldier
    replied
    Since the "fitness" standard used is already in code to get hired as a cop there is no legal challenge for the officers hired under the rule.]
    the problem lies in imposing one where there hasn’t been one before

    know of 3 or 4 agencies that allow ON DUTY exercise in agency owned workout rooms where the officer would be 'available" on short notice if needed to perform regular duties (and I often hear them on the radio as stating they are "just getting dressed" and will be responding s
    .

    if you’re going to make it a condition of employment you’d have to give paid time to train.
    Last edited by tanksoldier; 09-24-2019, 09:14 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • orangebottle
    replied
    In theory, I feel some form of fitness standard for officers makes sense. And not just for the raw physical aspects of the job (running, lifting, etc.), but also for the documented long-term health benefits of being more fit. For example, regular exercise reduces stress, and less stress could ultimately have an impact on the terrible suicide rates within our ranks.

    But in reality, I recognize the incredible challenges -- financially, legally, and behaviorally -- to successfully implement such a program. If something like that did come to fruition in my agency, I would like to see adjustments for age/gender, and also modified standards for those whose job functions require less physical activity. So, say you're a sworn administrator whose full job is HR/recruiting, you'd have to meet a standard, but not something as stringent as a patrol officer.

    Leave a comment:


  • Iowa #1603
    replied
    Originally posted by tanksoldier View Post
    Fitness standards probably should be enforced, but it’s difficult to show that it’s an essential function of the job. Cops have been doing the job for decades without fitness standards so it’s tough to prove they are necessary.
    .

    I know a number of agencies in my area that have yearly fitness standards with yearly testing. It is written into their job rules and is an expectation for continued employment

    My state uses a Modified Cooper test as the standard for entrance to the state academy and those agencies that have yearly testing have the officers perform to their minimum age standard. Officers hired before the rule was enacted by those agencies are not exempt from meeting those standards but most of the agencies don't terminate if the standard is not met (other sanctions are used)

    Since the "fitness" standard used is already in code to get hired as a cop there is no legal challenge for the officers hired under the rule.

    I know of 3 or 4 agencies that allow ON DUTY exercise in agency owned workout rooms where the officer would be 'available" on short notice if needed to perform regular duties (and I often hear them on the radio as stating they are "just getting dressed" and will be responding shortly)

    Other agencies encourage off duty exercise with agency purchased fitness club membership and / or agency provided fitness rooms.

    A friend of mine chose to retire when his agency went to a fitness standard with termination as a sanction, as he knew he could not continue making the standard..................of course he was old enough to retire, had the required number of years of service AND there was a state retirement incentive (that I missed by 6 months )

    Leave a comment:


  • tanksoldier
    replied
    Fitness standards probably should be enforced, but it’s difficult to show that it’s an essential function of the job. Cops have been doing the job for decades without fitness standards so it’s tough to prove they are necessary.

    Also, if you are going to make it a requirement then you have to give each officer time on the clock to train... we’re already working massive overtime as it is.

    The most successful programs I’ve seen give an incentive for certain levels of fitness but aren’t mandatory.

    Leave a comment:


  • L-1
    replied
    KevinJ,

    There’s something I forgot to mention in my original post that complicates periodic fitness testing.

    You can’t just dream up tests such as sit ups, pull ups and run times. A Federal law called the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) comes into play. Because you are threatening employees with the loss of their jobs if they cannot pass your fitness test, you must first do a number of things. You must create a list of critical physical tasks someone must be capable of performing in order to perform the job in question. You must also demonstrate that these task have a valid relationship to the job. Finally, you must demonstrate that the periodic physical performance tests your administer truly measure an employee’s ability to perform these critical tasks.

    This is not easy to do and is not something that comes off the top of you head. It requires scientific and medical study of the position, identifying on average, what percentage of time is spent doing certain physical acts and the amount and type of physical demand that is involved. It is an expensive process that requires the expertise of outside agencies familiar with medical and employment law issues.

    Leave a comment:


  • COMoparfan392
    commented on 's reply
    "What may seem like a good idea in theory may be torn to shreds practicality and her older brother logistics"...

  • L-1
    commented on 's reply
    . .

  • COMoparfan392
    commented on 's reply
    Sounds about right.

  • L-1
    commented on 's reply
    You have to factor in the costs associated with testing. Each Division creates a team of testers and sets up testing somewhere within that Division. California is a huge state and Officers may travel hundreds of miles round trip to be tested, taking them out of service for the entire day. There are 250 working days per year in state service and we had 6,000 sworn at the time. Testing 6,000 people just one time is like losing 24 personnel years of service. Do it four times a year and you are losing 96 personnel years of service to testing. Two times a year loses you 48 personnel years of service for testing.

    Stop and consider how much it costs to fund a single position annually. I am talking not only about pay and visible benefits, but invisible benefits as well, such as employer's contribution to retirement, sick leave, vacation, military leave, worker's comp insurance and non-industrial disability leave just to name a few. Back then and for us, it was 50% off the officer's salary. Now, multiply that times 96, 48, or how ever many times you want to hold testing and convince the Legislature or whoever holds your purse strings to add it to your budget. You've got to be slicker than greased goose sh*t to pull that one off.

    Testing multiple times a year just isn't practical operationally or financially.

  • COMoparfan392
    commented on 's reply
    I'm curious if it was a shorter cycle, like every 4 or 6 months if it would have been more successful, instead of allowing people to get out of shape over the course of a year.
    Last edited by COMoparfan392; 09-13-2019, 04:14 PM.

  • L-1
    commented on 's reply
    Once a year.

  • COMoparfan392
    commented on 's reply
    What was the testing cycle? Every 6 months, once a year, or every few months?

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 5753 users online. 263 members and 5490 guests.

Most users ever online was 19,482 at 12:44 PM on 09-29-2011.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X