A narrow reading of the new rules and an inability to compromise led to this situation. Although I agree with the locker-sticker guy, is being stubborn over a simple flag really work job suspension?

Another example of the idiocy in "zero-tolerance" rules.

That is absolutely ridiculous. There is no reason that someone shouldn't be able to have a flag wherever the hell they want. This is America, after all. We're free to display our national pride wherever we want.

I think pretty much all the zero tolerance rules are ridiculous. I've not read of ONE that was sensibly applied everywhere.

Beyond that, I think the concept is anathema. Promote diversity, encourage acceptance, have zero tolerance rules. The same people who want these kinds of rules also insist that teaching kids about sex means the kids will have sex soon, but deny the bleed over thinking for negativism.

I do think the rule is stupid, but it's not like they are singling out the American flag (like they do in some places). They aren't allowed to have any stickers or decals on their lockers at all.

Thank you Hypersap. I was hoping that SOMEBODY understood and read the article.

The locker doesn't belong to him, it belongs to the firehouse.

The firehouse doesn't want stickers on their lockers.

He feels he can break the rules and they'll make an exception "Based on what sticker he uses".

They won't.

That's the whole story. Has nothing to do with the flag.

Believe it or not, most of us, if not all of us did read the article thank you very much. Most of us however understood that the problem is with zero-tolerance.

If you're so blind that you think Zero tolerance caused this problem you need to read the article again. Particularly the passage where it says the Cheif found out about him breaking the rules and TOLD him to fix it.

Didn't "Suspend him" without a chance. Didn't blindly follow a rule, just told him to fix it. When he refused, the Chief took action.

A firehouse is not a democracy, the chief is in charge. You don't get to choose which rules to follow and which rules you don't feel apply. If you want your flag flying, you need to take it to the higher-ups, not disobey the chief.

Sorry, you aren't a special snowflake Mr. Fireman. You need to follow the rules that every other fireman followed. You figured you could get around it, you couldn't.

blind?


Just because someone is given the chance to follow the rules of zero-tolerance doesn't mean that zero-tolerance doesn't exist.

Zero tolerance is why no stickers of any kind are allowed. One person put up a sticker that some were offended by. Instead of being able to tell the difference between a racist insulting sticker and a flag they just said no stickers. period.

That is the very definition of zero tolerance. It is what lazy people do when they don't want to be bothered making reasonable distinctions.

Did he break the rule? Yes. Should he be punished? Yes. However the punishment should bring to light the greater problem of zero tolerance.

You obviously don't understand the larger picture, so I'll just let you go on about snowflakes and democracy.

Zero tolerance has a bad rep but that's based on the incidents that we/media believe sound stupid.
In all cases where it has created a good environment we don't hear anything about it.

Zero tolerance in most cases is a good tool for those responsible and/or legally liable for incidents where a child or someone gets hurt. It expands into cases like this one to relieve the chief from wasting time making decisions about what sticker should be allowed, then possibly arguing that this one was good while that one wasn't. That would be stupid and possibly involve the decision makers bias.

Experience tells us that when there is no rule in place some people will do things that most people will consider improper or even dangerous.

I have no problem with the concept of zero tolerance. No knives at school, for instance, means exactly that. No Knives period. It doesn't allow knives with a one inch blade because they're small. It's very clear and it keeps potential incidents and lawsuits to a minimum. It certainly helps teachers avoid arguments with parents.

I'm sure the teachers, managers, priciples and all others responsible for a safe evironment/workplace appreciate the decision making removed from their shoulders.

You're assuming that the rule came about because someone got offended by a sticker. It sounded to me like the rule came about because the firehouses own the lockers and don't appreciate having to remove stickers and other markings every time someone switches places or moves on to another job.

Where I work, I don't own anything I don't bring in. Not my chair, not my desk, not my wall.

I'm allowed to hang things on the walls, and put things on the desk, because I have to be checked out when I leave. The property manager reviews my office to verify that the equipment I've been assigned is in the same condition (less reasonable wear and tear) as it was when it was assigned to me.

See where I'm going with this?

It doesn't take much to check out equipment and say 'no, you have to remove that sticker before you can leave the facility'. They have final paychecks, they can certainly withhold something of enough value to motivate compliance. A zero tolerance policy, when applied to ADULTS, is asinine and is NOT saving time or money. Instead of looking at the locker once--when it's vacated--they now have to look at it frequently, to determine if someone is violating the rule.

From the reports I saw the rule was put in place after someone put something on the locker that was viewed as racist. If that isn't the case then that changes things, but from what I understand that is the reason.

Is it racist or is it southern (confederate) pride? Some people (moron racist KKK) use it as a symbol of one thing, others simply use it as the 'flag of the south'.

Either way, it's a judgement call. It involves personal bias and interpretation. Perhaps the fire chief wouldn't view it as negative but the black fireman in the fire hall would be deeply offended by it. Isn't it just intelligent to say "No stickers" than say "No stickers which could be viewed as racist"?

You wouldn't be allowed to paint your walls or desk. You wouldn't be allowed to put stickers all over it, when they peel off they often leave that glue (backing?) all over the area where it used to be stuck. They aren't saying he can't have a flag inside his locker, they just don't want stickers all over the lockers.

It's not a matter of the flag, the flag is displayed all over the firehouse and even the chief is an ex-marine. It's a matter of stickers on property they don't own (lockers).

The glue can be removed, I know, I've done it.

Rules should encourage personal responsibility. Zero-tolerance rules fail to do so.

the rule said no stickers.

there are others that say no drinking on the clock.

no stabbing others with pick-end of firefighter's axe.

et cetera.

Really? You think putting a sticker on the locker is the equivalent of stabbing someone with an axe?

Stickers...the gateway crime.

Please. Putting a sticker on his locker in defiance of the rules does not mean he's going to come in hammered. It's absurd to even say.