A few weeks ago I read the articles about how Portland police officers are granted disability leave at a frequency far higher than police officers in other cities, particularly for job-induced stress. I didn’t see in the articles any mention of what police officers do when they’re on disability leave, though the story in the preceding link said that one officer has been on paid leave for 14 years due to stress from a sexual harassment case, and does not have to return to work until her doctor pronounces her fit for duty.
It occurred to me that the City could reasonably provide some non-stressed duty for officers who have filed a disability claim: desk work, perhaps, or a secondment to another city bureau. Surely there are jobs to be done.
Comments
5 responses
Once again, I am not entirely sure whether you are yanking your readers’ collective chain. Are you seriously suggesting that someone given medical leave of absence for job related stress should be required to work at a job you happen to think won’t stress them? Or that anyone other than a medical practitioner is qualified to return someone to work from such leave?
I’m well aware that stress leave is frequently gamed, and if that practice is your target then fire at will; but there are plenty of genuine cases (particularly in the police force; the very *idea* that a gun was part of my uniform would reduce *me* to a jangling tangle of nerves) and I think you might do well to aim with greater precision.
In re the above post, I see nothing wrong with suggesting that stress leave can be better served by finding another avenue for service. If an officer has (understandably) felt undue stress after certain activities innate to police work, a short paid leave and then a return to “gentler” situations seems logical and fair.
In the world of private industry that happens all the time. I have worked in intense deadline situations where if I did not deliver, my job was in jeopardy. There was no stress leave, although losing my job would have been devastating.
I would additionally suggest that if wearing a gun is a stressor, one should not aspire to police work. I have extreme respect for police work (owing that it serves the public interest), but there is no mystery about what one is getting into when s/he embarks on this career.
And 14 years of leave, could that be months? I’ll say here and now that I have been roundly harrassed without recourse in jobs. One job I left … there was no need to spend 14 months, and certainly not years, recovering from the trauma.
Pamela, the article reported the officer’s leave as being 14 years, not 14 months — hard for me to believe also.
Sennoma, the question I was pondering was whether, when an officer claims disability, the city review board must decide whether (a) the officer is disabled, and can stay home on full pay, or (b) the officer is not disabled, and must return to work or leave the force. It seems to me that the city should have available a choice (c): the officer is partially disabled and does not need to accept (say) patrol duty, but can readily handle a desk job in the police force, or perhaps another city job, during the period of disability.
I have no connection to the board that reviews disability claims and I’m not saying that any particular officer is gaming the system, but the newspapers occasionally report that an officer who has just been accused of doing something infra dig. promptly files a stress disability claim relating to an incident from years before. And I am seriously offended by the city paying a disability claim to an officer who was in prison, though I understand that the city’s plugged that hole.
14 YEARS….I swear that could only happen in Oregon. Sorry…but, really that is just nuts!
> It seems to me that the city should have
> available a choice (c): the officer is
> partially disabled and does not need to
> accept (say) patrol duty, but can readily
> handle a desk job in the police force, or
> perhaps another city job, during the period
> of disability.
That seems entirely reasonable, with only the caveat that medical opinion should have the final say as to which of the options (a)-(c) obtains in each particular case. I assume that applications for disability leave already have to be accompanied by medical proof of disability, so that caveat is nothing new. It’s also true that a different job may actually be healthier for many candidates for such leave than would sitting around at home with nothing to do.
I’m sorry if I misread your tone earlier.