# Fireman Suspended Over US Flag Decal



## Sasha (Oct 17, 2009)

*Fireman Suspended Over US Flag Decal*
Full Article Here: http://news.aol.com/article/chester...hester-city-firefighter-suspended-over/721665


> (Oct. 17) -- A Pennsylvania firefighter who put an American flag sticker on the front of his locker has been suspended without pay for refusing to take the Old Glory decal down.
> James Krapf, along with nearly a dozen other Chester, Pa. firefighters, were ordered to remove personal items from the outside of their lockers -- a violation of department policy, MyFoxPhilly.com reported.



My biggest problem is this: 


> "*The directive says 'everything*,' " Capt. John Barbato, vice president of the department's union, told the newspaper. "*I never would've thought the American flag would be included in that*."



Everything means...everything. If it had been a cross or a Mexican or middle eastern or Italian flag would he have felt the same?


----------



## DV_EMT (Oct 17, 2009)

wow....thats sad. It a shame what the US is becoming these days. Taking down an American flag from a locker. wow.


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 17, 2009)

DV_EMT said:


> wow....thats sad. It a shame what the US is becoming these days. Taking down an American flag from a locker. wow.



So you allow an American Flag sticker. How about a union sticker? Star of Life? Rod of Asclepius? College stickers? Where does it end? Furthermore, who pays for the damages if that sticker doesn't come cleanly off when the fire fighter is transferred or leaves?


----------



## DV_EMT (Oct 17, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> So you allow an American Flag sticker. How about a union sticker? Star of Life? Rod of Asclepius? College stickers? Where does it end? Furthermore, who pays for the damages if that sticker doesn't come cleanly off when the fire fighter is transferred or leaves?



look, its one thing if its only applicable to "one" person. But this is america. If they can't get it off.. then just charge the person responsible with the bill for replacement. but to suspend someone for displaying an AMERICAN flag... thats a pity.


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 17, 2009)

I'm sorry, I missed the part of the constitution that allowed employees to affix items to their employer's property. It sucks, but life isn't fair. Why not just put a sticker (or, better yet, a magnet) on the inside of the locker?


----------



## vquintessence (Oct 17, 2009)

DV_EMT said:


> look, its one thing if its only applicable to "one" person. But this is america. If they can't get it off.. then just charge the person responsible with the bill for replacement. but to suspend someone for displaying an AMERICAN flag... thats a pity.



Amen and all too rationale.  Lets all not pretend to become melodramatic about "but what if it was a(n) XYZ".  On one hand, Old Glory cannot possibly be misconstrued in the wildest, most perverse liberal mindset to be offensive.  So long as the material isn't offensive... why make a stink?  Mexican flag, sure.  Breast cancer awareness ribbon, sure.  Star of Life, sure.

On the other hand... and ultimately the decider to the news article, it IS POLICY to not have anything displayed on the locker.  Don't like it?  Tough... vote to change said policy.


----------



## wyoskibum (Oct 17, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> So you allow an American Flag sticker. How about a union sticker? Star of Life? Rod of Asclepius? College stickers? Where does it end? Furthermore, who pays for the damages if that sticker doesn't come cleanly off when the fire fighter is transferred or leaves?



Next thing you know there are wearing PLEDGE PINS on their uniforms!


----------



## MasterIntubator (Oct 17, 2009)

Sounds like this employee is rebelious and has a poor attitude for set-forth rules.  If I am employed, and have read and understood the directive ( and I had better since I signed the employment agreement )... there would be no question about anything placed on the locker. That firefighter made a conscious decision to be insubordinate.  Placing a sticker on a locker does not indicate your love for the country, there are many other ways to show it within the workplace policies. 
The fire service has no place for this attitude.


----------



## DV_EMT (Oct 17, 2009)

I'd like to point out that on the poll on the webpage, 76% out of 48,000 votes of people would be outraged. I sure as hell would be too, even moreso because the FD has displayed many other forms of the american flag throughout the firestation. Its berzerk that they (the fd) would display it, wear it, and represent it and then suspend someone (a fellow FF for that mater) for displaying it on the exterior of a locker... 


...and btw... some Isopropyl rubbing alcohol, and some goo gone can do the trick for removing a sticker... its not like its rocket science and/or a big deal.


----------



## karaya (Oct 17, 2009)

I'm as American as John Wayne and Chuck Norris in the same paper bag; but, if the rules say nothing goes on the outside of the locker, then that means NOTHING! It's a department rule and it should be followed. Now let's watch the media circus that will come of this.


----------



## Cory (Oct 17, 2009)

I think everyone is reading to much into this.

It could be an American flag, or a poster of a naked woman, when the department sys nothing goes on the outside of the locker, they hopefully mean it.

Why does the flag sticker get special privaliges? A STICKER OF A flag is not a flag, neither is a cheap miniature flag. And a REAL flag should be golrified by flying on a pole or being hung from somewhere, not taped to a locker. Why does he really need it on his locker in the first place? You can still be patrioitc and not have a flag on everything you own.

This is just a good example of people who go out of their way to complain about something so unimportant.


----------



## Lifeguards For Life (Oct 17, 2009)

while the policy seems about right, i am surprised it was actually enforced, regardless of the symbol in question


----------



## Dominion (Oct 18, 2009)

If it's against policy, it is against policy.  Maybe they could go about it other ways (IE it says stickers and technically a magnet is not a sticker).  However he broke policy and now has to pay whatever punishment is assigned to breaking that policy.


----------



## Sasha (Oct 18, 2009)

DV_EMT said:


> I'd like to point out that on the poll on the webpage, 76% out of 48,000 votes of people would be outraged. I sure as hell would be too, even moreso because the FD has displayed many other forms of the american flag throughout the firestation. Its berzerk that they (the fd) would display it, wear it, and represent it and then suspend someone (a fellow FF for that mater) for displaying it on the exterior of a locker...
> 
> 
> ...and btw... some Isopropyl rubbing alcohol, and some goo gone can do the trick for removing a sticker... its not like its rocket science and/or a big deal.



I'd like to point out, despite the poll, it is against policy. Where do you draw the line for exceptions? The policy says they cannot put stickers on their locker. The end. It does not say you cannot put stickers on your locker except for an American Flag, that's okay.

Patriotism does not make one exempt from policy.


----------



## DrParasite (Oct 18, 2009)

exactly.  the rules say not stickers, and he broke the rule.  put it on the inside of your locker, or comply with the rule and ask the chief for an exception to permit american flags.  

ditto for helmet stickers.  if policy says no, and you don't own the item in question, then you don't apply the stickers.  if you chose to, then you have no right to protest to consequences.


----------



## JCampbell (Oct 18, 2009)

Here's a comment on the subject: The locker does not belong to him. Ever hear the phrase "when you're in MY house, you play by MY rules? He broke the rules and now he has to sit in the corner, if he decides to continue breaking the rules, then he can't play there anymore. That's how it should be.

Now here's a comment OFF the subject: The American flag IMHO should be flown from a pole, worn on a uniform, or hung indoors in the proper manner. A sticker, magnet, shirt, bandanna, swimsuit,etc... is more than a little disgraceful to our nations flag.


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 18, 2009)

So... no American Flag thong?


----------



## JCampbell (Oct 18, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> So... no American Flag thong?



I guess I would have to evaluate that on a case-by-case basis...please send all potential cases to my PM inbox


----------



## nemedic (Oct 18, 2009)

wyoskibum said:


> Next thing you know there are wearing PLEDGE PINS on their uniforms!



Hell, and after that, the chief will have no choice but to place them on double secret probation!


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 18, 2009)

JCampbell said:


> I guess I would have to evaluate that on a case-by-case basis...please send all potential cases to my PM inbox



I'll send you a picture if I ever buy one. While I'd prefer not to go running through another man's dreams, I'll be happy to run through anyone's nightmares. h34r:


----------



## mycrofft (Oct 19, 2009)

*Fire dept is a paramilitary organization. Locker belongs to FD.*

You break the rules, you tangle with the Chief.


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 19, 2009)

Since the flag thong has some interest, if someone else wants to spend the $20 (I imagine shipping is extra), I'll model it for the forum.


----------



## Jon (Oct 19, 2009)

This is kinda local to me. It's been in local news, and all over my friend's facebook pages.

I'm torn. Because it is the flag, it seems stupid and wrong. If it were _*anything else*_ (except for perhaps a union logo), there wouldn't be any case to be had here.
However, the rules are in place because postings on the outside of the locker got out of hand and became offensive. The department said NOTHING on the outside of the locker.

Perhaps a middle ground can be reached? Generic Fire-related stickers are OK, if on an approved list?

It'll be intresting to see what develops.


----------



## DrParasite (Oct 19, 2009)

Jon said:


> Perhaps a middle ground can be reached? Generic Fire-related stickers are OK, if on an approved list?


I agree with you, 100%.  

however that doesn't excuse violating the decree that the chief has handed down.  comply with the rule or face punishment.  simple, easy, clear as day.

Try to negotiate with management to allow other stuff, but until that happens, follow the rules.


----------



## HotelCo (Oct 19, 2009)

Nothing on the lockers means just that NOTHING on the lockers.


----------



## mycrofft (Oct 19, 2009)

*Shoulda used a magnet. Or brought a flag duffle.*

Lockers are an interesting legal issue. Our local schools have adapted by building sdchools with no lockers and sealing or removing old ones. Now kids trudge around with thirty lb packs or just don't carry the books anyways...which ususally works out ok anyway.

I suspect the lockers in the FD are also subject to no-notice search if such a provision was posted and use of a locker is not mandatory except for FD property such as tools and uniforms.

This is an example of the hairsplitting (as we have seen in other posts and in Congress () where the object of the protestor is to confound authority, not to gain any appreciable benefit. This is the sort of personality that considers policies and protocols as "suggestions" and not rules or standards, unless it is to their advantage.
("Paging Ferris Beuhler....").


----------



## Aidey (Oct 19, 2009)

HotelCo said:


> Nothing on the lockers means just that NOTHING on the lockers.



This is what I am apt to say. The FF made an assumption that a flag would be ok, and he was wrong, because his superiors really meant nothing when they said it. 

If he thinks the policy should be changed, there are proper channels to go through to do that rather than being insubordinate and throwing a huge hissy fit.


----------



## emt1994 (Oct 20, 2009)

Thats terrible the flag is a staple its just terrible that youcant even be proud to be american everyone has to complain about something but to suspend the guy he should have been told you have 48 hours to remove it or your out  Then he would have known they were not kidding and removed it and been ok. but unions are strict thats a shame.


----------



## Jon (Oct 20, 2009)

DrParasite said:


> I agree with you, 100%.
> 
> however that doesn't excuse violating the decree that the chief has handed down.  comply with the rule or face punishment.  simple, easy, clear as day.
> 
> Try to negotiate with management to allow other stuff, but until that happens, follow the rules.



They negotiated. I don't have a news article, but the flag will
stay, the FF's been reinstated, and will get back pay for the day and a half he was suspended.

Given the public outcry over the weekend, I can't see them having any other option. There was a protest in front of the main fire station - lots of folks - local volunteers, concerned citizens, and some motorcyclists.


----------



## Aidey (Oct 20, 2009)

emt1994 said:


> Thats terrible the flag is a staple its just terrible that youcant even be proud to be american everyone has to complain about something but to suspend the guy he should have been told you have 48 hours to remove it or your out  Then he would have known they were not kidding and removed it and been ok. but unions are strict thats a shame.



This has nothing to do with being proud to be an American. The fact is that the department said no decorations on the outside of lockers, period. That the decoration was an American flag is inconsequential. This rule had been in place for over a year when this incident occurred. The FF made an assumption that he would be exempt from the rule because it was the American flag and he was wrong. From the article the FD did issue a warning that he needed to remove it, it was only after he refused that they suspended him. 

Here is an update http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/101909_Firefighter_In_Flag_Sticker_Flap_Reinstated


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 20, 2009)

Jon said:


> They negotiated. I don't have a news article, but the flag will
> stay, the FF's been reinstated, and will get back pay for the day and a half he was suspended.
> 
> Given the public outcry over the weekend, I can't see them having any other option. There was a protest in front of the main fire station - lots of folks - local volunteers, concerned citizens, and some motorcyclists.



So "no stickers, period" has become "no stickers but American flags." Anyone want to guess what the next exemption is since we've started down this road?


----------



## triemal04 (Oct 20, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> So "no stickers, period" has become "no stickers but American flags." Anyone want to guess what the next exemption is since we've started down this road?


Maybe a sticker of the Russian flag...or Nigerian...French...rainbow decal...who knows.  

Or did you mean something else?


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 20, 2009)

Anything. What's going to happen when someone posts the flag of their heritage? Imagine the outrage if a fire fighter from Mexico puts the Mexican flag up? Or China and Chinese flag?

Union stickers, which will lead to political stickers, which will lead to stickers in general. It's much easier to enforce a full ban on stickers than to fairly enforce a partial ban.


----------



## DrParasite (Oct 20, 2009)

Jon said:


> They negotiated. I don't have a news article, but the flag will
> stay, the FF's been reinstated, and will get back pay for the day and a half he was suspended.
> 
> Given the public outcry over the weekend, I can't see them having any other option. There was a protest in front of the main fire station - lots of folks - local volunteers, concerned citizens, and some motorcyclists.


not for nothing, but I think that shows incredible weakness on the side of the chief.

not that they allowed the flag.  not that he was reinstated.  and not that they negotiated.

he received pay for the day and a half he was suspended.  it sets the precedent that if you don't like a rule.  don't follow it. if you get suspended, work to overturn the rule, and you should get paid for all the time you lost because you didn't follow the rule.

but i am glad that the rule was modified.

btw, I like bunnies.  my family has raised them for years.  does that mean i can put a playboy bunny on my locker?  or a swastika?  or a mexican flag with a circle and line through it (to show any immigration)?  or any other potentially offensive thing you can think of.


----------



## traumaangel26 (Oct 22, 2009)

The question I have is did anyone ask the FF why he put the flag on the outside of his locker?  He might of had a personal reason as to why he did it and it did not matter what the punishment was.  He might have family overseas serving our county and he was supporting them.


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 22, 2009)

traumaangel26 said:


> The question I have is did anyone ask the FF why he put the flag on the outside of his locker?  He might of had a personal reason as to why he did it and it did not matter what the punishment was.  He might have family overseas serving our county and he was supporting them.




That is immaterial. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and if the rule is "Nothing, regardless of why" then the rule is nothing. If you allow the flag because of family members, then can someone else put a cross/Star of David/crescent moon/FSM/etc on their locker because of the good intentions?


----------



## atropine (Oct 22, 2009)

Sounds like a stupid policy, but sure glad the union stepped in. Really it's only a sticker of the american flag no less, sounds like this department is running just fine with no other issues that are facing other departments if they have time to make a fuss about a sticker, I mean they didn't think of the over time they would have to shove while this guys was suspended I mean really.


----------



## Rob123 (Oct 22, 2009)

*Everything=Everything*

A policy is a policy. In this case there's no gray area.

As a member of Middle Management (of a Non-EMS Corporation) for too many years, I have seen many staff members push the envelope regarding all sorts of policies including dress code, language/behavior and the old "no defacing company property" policy.

There have always been select employees that truly enjoy playing in the gray area of select policies such as "no extreme hair styles" . As a Manager, I admit they are always the hardest to deal with.  We all should agree that pink hair is extreme but where exactly is the line drawn.

In this case, the policy is clear.  *Everything=Everything
*


----------



## AlphaButch (Oct 23, 2009)

The flag decal was there before the policy was put into place. The policy was made for a reason. The firefighters were ordered to remove everything from the front of their lockers, and this one chose to disobey the order. 

I feel he shouldn't have been reimbursed for his suspension. He wasn't suspended for having the decal on his locker. He was suspended for disobeying an order from his chief. This isn't an order that was illegal or injurious.

I feel that he should have sought to have the policy amended if he felt that strongly about it.

I'm also glad that the policy was amended.


----------



## usafmedic45 (Oct 26, 2009)

Sasha said:


> I'd like to point out, despite the poll, it is against policy. Where do you draw the line for exceptions? The policy says they cannot put stickers on their locker. The end. It does not say you cannot put stickers on your locker except for an American Flag, that's okay.
> 
> Patriotism does not make one exempt from policy.


This from the same woman who said that it's OK to violate regulations/laws if it's the moral thing to do or if the homeless guy looks really hungry.... :lol:

However, I agree:  nothing means nothing regardless of the chest thumping attitude of "patriots" and this is coming from someone who has put his life at risk to protect this country.


----------



## Sasha (Oct 26, 2009)

usafmedic45 said:


> This from the same woman who said that it's OK to violate regulations/laws if it's the moral thing to do or if the homeless guy looks really hungry.... :lol:
> 
> However, I agree:  nothing means nothing regardless of the chest thumping attitude of "patriots" and this is coming from someone who has put his life at risk to protect this country.



No one will suffer from not having a sticker on their locker like someone will suffer from not having food. And for the record, I wasn't aware of any laws that prevented it at the time and was upset that there was a policy against it. But once I found out did i go and blatantly violate it? No, I actually talked to the supervisor about it later, and had a better understanding of their policy.


----------



## firecoins (Oct 26, 2009)

JPINFV said:


> Anything. What's going to happen when someone posts the flag of their heritage? Imagine the outrage if a fire fighter from Mexico puts the Mexican flag up? Or China and Chinese flag?
> 
> Union stickers, which will lead to political stickers, which will lead to stickers in general. It's much easier to enforce a full ban on stickers than to fairly enforce a partial ban.



its a sticker eat sticker world


----------



## JPINFV (Oct 26, 2009)

firecoins said:


> its a sticker eat sticker world



Well... some people have to be against partial sticker ban-ortion. 
h34r:


----------



## firecoins (Oct 26, 2009)

i think it should left up to the mother


----------



## usafmedic45 (Oct 28, 2009)

> And for the record, I wasn't aware of any laws that prevented it at the time and was upset that there was a policy against it.



LOL Ever heard the phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"?  Also I was referring to your getting so upset when you found out it was against the law to feed the homeless, etc.   BTW, I'm glad you've decided to not break the law about feeding and giving money to human detritus even if you disagree with it.



> No one will suffer from not having a sticker on their locker like someone will suffer from not having food.



People also suffer because of the crime associated with the homeless, they serve as potential disease reservoirs, they cause traffic problems and drive down property values.  I think people around them suffer far more than they do but let's not go there because I don't want to have to make you claim I'm a cold, unfeeling sonofa***** for not caring about some panhandlers.


----------



## Sasha (Oct 28, 2009)

I have heard of the phrase and think it's a load of BS.

Yes I was upset, I still don't like it.

And stop hijacking this thread for your propoganda.


----------



## reaper (Oct 28, 2009)

usafmedic45 said:


> LOL Ever heard the phrase "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"?  Also I was referring to your getting so upset when you found out it was against the law to feed the homeless, etc.   BTW, I'm glad you've decided to not break the law about feeding and giving money to human detritus even if you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> 
> People also suffer because of the crime associated with the homeless, they serve as potential disease reservoirs, they cause traffic problems and drive down property values.  I think people around them suffer far more than they do but let's not go there because I don't want to have to make you claim I'm a cold, unfeeling sonofa***** for not caring about some panhandlers.



Of course, because all homeless are degenerate drunks! Glad you don't work around here!


----------



## usafmedic45 (Oct 29, 2009)

Hey....I know a lot of degenerate drunks and that's an insult to lump them in with the homeless! LOL 

BTW, I know a small portion of the homeless are decent folks who aren't criminals but a higher proportion of them are criminals and their presence does detract from an area.  It's not a character judgment so much as a statement of fact.  



> I have heard of the phrase and think it's a load of BS.



When it's blatantly obvious ("common sense") it's not BS.  Other good examples include: 
-Jaywalking
-Drunk driving in non-"car" or "truck" vehicles (riding lawnmower anyone?)
-BASE jumping off any building, bridge, etc you want

Of course, you also don't believe in holding people accountable for their actions if they have any half-*** excuse so I guess I should not expect you to agree to any other legal standard either.


----------

