Was hazing a bad thing?

[AnthonyM83]

Personally I feel like this kinda hazing is more about asserting the superiority and rank of those already established rather than helping a new person become an effective member of the team. That may be just me though.

Agreed. Not sure what good the abuse of not letting someone use the recliner for a year is going to do other than make him do the same to the next newbie.

[Dustdevil]

I understand the skills-based "hazing," if you can even really call it that, but I'm not really a fan of forcing newbies to do all of the scut work and whatnot. I don't understand how it teaches people to "be a part of the team" by making one newbie do all of the work nobody else wants to do. Is that teamwork?

When given the opportunity, I try to lead by example. If I want the newbie to clean between the lugnuts, he will do it correctly because he saw me do it myself last time.

Personally I feel like this kinda hazing is more about asserting the superiority and rank of those already established rather than helping a new person become an effective member of the team. That may be just me though.

Absolutely correct, as usual. :thumbright:

I would tolerate NONE of that. First offence, three days unpaid suspension. Second offence, sacked. It is not up to you to decide when you will be part of the team and when you will not. If I ever walk in on one of my people doing all the work alone, he better tell me he told the other guy to go take a break because he wanted some time alone or something. Otherwise, the guy not working is sacked.

[Lone Star]

I understand the skills-based "hazing," if you can even really call it that, but I'm not really a fan of forcing newbies to do all of the scut work and whatnot. I don't understand how it teaches people to "be a part of the team" by making one newbie do all of the work nobody else wants to do. Is that teamwork?

When given the opportunity, I try to lead by example. If I want the newbie to clean between the lugnuts, he will do it correctly because he saw me do it myself last time.

Personally I feel like this kinda hazing is more about asserting the superiority and rank of those already established rather than helping a new person become an effective member of the team. That may be just me though.

Well said!

I have to agree the 'not sitting in the recliner for a year' thing is just a pompus display of seniority, and teaches nothing, and breeds alot of unnecessary discord among the 'team'.

I don't have anyone do anything that I am not willing to do myself, and if the new member sees me doing it, then it won't be viewed as 'punishment' or 'bullshit make work'.

I think that rather than bagging on someone because they slipped up, take them aside, point out the mistakes and help them learn from it, as opposed to turning it into an 'ass jumping episode'.

As for making the new person do all the scut work, while the rest of the crew sits on their asses, if I see something like that....you're automatically done! If the person working alone tells me its by their choice, thats a different matter, or if the other person is on restricted duty......but to just make that 'new guy/gal' do all the shit work....aint happening in MY house!

[p3medic]

Fiznat stated it perfectly, "lead by example". I learned the same thing in the army, and it applies everywhere. Our new recruits learn from seeing, and then doing.

[spenac]

Hazing to me brings up images of taping newbie to the flag pole naked. That does no good. As to not sitting in best chair any newbie should out of respect let everyone else sit first then take a seat from whats left. In my new job which I am an EMS vet compared to most I still do that even though some of the people have only just gotten card and hired prior to me. It is me showing respect to those that have been there longer. The cleaning of dishes again normally new guy cleans as the more experienced usually do the cooking. If new guy goes out on a limb and cooks then somebody else does dishes. I like the education received when newbie takes ambulance apart and puts it back up. Usually I sit with new person so I can answer questions as they may not understand when we need something or how the brand we use works. Biggest thing I say is while the new guy does a few extra chores they are also treated respectfully and as part of the team. I like sending new guy out thinking they are going to scrub ambulance by themselves then wait a minute or two and without a word start cleaning with them. If they ask why I'm there helping with their chores I tell them thats what partners do. Surprisingly how quickly they start becoming part of team.

[paraloco]

MedicAR, here's my 2 cents. No HR Dept. is going to tolerate harassment of any kind anymore. Yes, at one time,(before the proliferation of lawsuits, empowerment, etc.) you could treat a newbie like dirt. It was expected. If the person had the fortitude to be the kind of co-worker you wanted around when the spit hit the fan, they'd take the abuse. But another factor came into play (I saw it). The abuse/harassment was not handed down indiscriminately. A guy with connections/boss's relative/member of a protected group gets hired. The rank & file see them get treated differently, ie. like a human being worthy of respect. That rankled. If someone did make the mistake of trampling on the wrong newbie, they got stomped on by HR. Discrimination can be a good thing. We want our bomber pilots to be discriminatory in their target selection. But all employees have to be treated the same. Any lawyer or HR professional would tell you that. HR folks have a career path, a lot of them know each other, they communicate on listservs like this one. There's not gonna be alot of contours in that terrain. The harassment issue is also a safety issue. Its fairly frequently that we hear of workplace shootings in the news. Hmm, what could cause someone to be bitter? Feeling picked on, 'disempowered' maybe? Eliminating harassment was a step to curb that phenomenon. I my workplace, discrimination that is reported gets a standard procedure, which means it gets dealt with at the convenience of management. Harassment gets an immediate investigation from HR, and they ain't playin'.

[paramedicmike]

As others have noted:

promotion of teamwork and a sense of team "spirit"? Yes. Absolutely.

Hazing? Aside from it being increasingly illegal, abso-effin-lutely not.

However, we seem to be stuck on this idea of hazing. I think the OP cleared the air considerably by recognizing and stating that "hazing" wasn't the best word to describe what it was he was thinking.

I don't think it should be something like singling out the newbies, though. There are responsibilities of the entire crew that need to be addressed by everyone. If the older guys are so lazy that they can't do their share then out they go.

Besides, how are you going to address the guys who may be new to your organization but who've been around for a while? Are you going to treat them the same way you're going to treat a fresh faced rookie? If the answer is, "Yes because that's how all crew members are treated." that's one thing. If the answer is, "No. You're still new so you get treated like every other rookie." well, we're going to have a nice long talk.

-be safe

[MedicAR]

When given the opportunity, I try to lead by example. If I want the newbie to clean between the lugnuts, he will do it correctly because he saw me do it myself last time.

Works great on paper, but most new hires won't even see you do it unless forced, and they're not forced anymore. That's where the recliner thing comes in. I understand where it could be viewed as a superiority thing, but part of it too is making the new hires find something to do. They are simply disconnected and won't do the side work when shown, much less if you expect them to learn from example.

[MedicAR]

Absolutely correct, as usual. :thumbright:

I would tolerate NONE of that. First offence, three days unpaid suspension. Second offence, sacked. It is not up to you to decide when you will be part of the team and when you will not. If I ever walk in on one of my people doing all the work alone, he better tell me he told the other guy to go take a break because he wanted some time alone or something. Otherwise, the guy not working is sacked.

It's not like that at all. I think you're all taking it too broadly, which is my fault for the way I put it out there. It's not a lazy thing or superiority thing. The senior crew member still works and pulls their fair share. There is merit in doing the menial tasks.

For example, we share quarters in a hospital for one of our stations. We have to know where certain items are in order to do our job, such as the dumpster. Our city has some bizarre ordinances about hiding the dumpster from sight, so it's important to not only teach the new hires where it is, but make sure they remember it too because it's not obvious. I had three huge bags of garbage in the bay one morning, so I mentioned that it needed to go out before they off-going crew left. They said it had piled up because no one knew where the dumpster was! That much trash is a minimum of three shifts, and in reality, probably twice that. Looking back at the schedule, no vets had been there in that time frame. Only crews with six months (yes, that's months) or less. They get the information in orientation, but there's no reenforcement at all. Plus, there's no penalty if things aren't done.

[DwayneEMTP]

Yeah, I can't imagine having to spend time around anyone that believes treating new people with disrespect is a good thing. It's the tiny penis mentality passed down through the generations, that surprisingly, you don't see in many of the really macho professions.

I spent my younger years on a working cattle ranch. Pretty macho environment, no hazing. People are expected to carry their weight, and if they don't, they're gone. Pretty simple system. This is not to be confused with not knowing their job. If they fall behind out of ignorance, that is seen as the crew's failure...Out of laziness?...Too much time to invest in creating character before you can instruct in duties. Same experience on livestock farms, cash crop farming, animal training. All pretty macho, yet none get their rocks off treating new folks badly. The feeling seems to be that if you're not qualified to integrate a new person into a productive position on your team, perhaps you're not qualified to be in that position.

If 'hazing' (understanding that we all seem to be on the same page that violance or humiliation is not to be tolerated) is to work, it needs a well defined behavior plan. It needs a way to be ended based on merit. A one year time limit is just a bunch of idiots getting their jollies picking on the defenseless.

That being said, vetting isn't always a bad thing. We see it here often. How often do we see Dust tell someone that seems to show promise something to the effect "What are you talking about? That is a ridiculous statement!?" (though said much more eloquently of course).

Does that statement make them comfortable? Usually not. It rocks them back on their heels, forcing them to think, and then to make the decision to either step up to the plate and shine, or whine and fall on their face. When I see this happen I often want to send a PM saying something like "You may not see it now, but he's just given you a huge compliment. Dust doesn't push those he expects to fail. He sees something in you that made him believe you should be and are qualified to be operating at a higher, more intelligent level and is investing himself in guiding you there!" But of course that would defeat the purpose of the "nudge".

Using pressure to guide is a good thing if that pressure is planned, and will show the character/weaknesses/strengths of a person so that those can be addressed in a logical, progressive manner.

Making the new kid shine Bubba the 400# veteran's boots for a year doesn't seem to fit the bill.

You know, there was a great article in JEMS (I think) describing one fire districts decisions to quit doing things the traditional way, which was failing, and use an approach that made more sense logically and intuitively, but much more important provided quantifiable results based on skills, intelligence and attitude, with attitude being the focus of the entire training/probation period. Private EMS should be very afraid of this type of attitude if they plan to continue to compete with fire for these services. (I wanted to say private EMS should feel challenged by this, but that doesn't seem to be a realistic expectation at this time.)

Yikes, I guess I got to rambling...

Anyway, unplanned/unmonitored hazing is bad. Planned/quantifiable vetting is good.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Have a great day all.

Dwayne