Harrasment in public..Hydro One fires "jerk" for reporter prank

[Humphrey Bogart]

Now hold on.... where did Eaglelord17 say he thinks "the only way..."?

In Winnipeg, the anti-littering bylaw states that spitting is only allowed "in a waste receptacle". If the "jerk" of this post had spit onto the sidewalk, in front of a video news reporter ("oh my Gawd!") and laughed about it... would we be discussing it here? Spitting is so commonplace, but still not allowed by law.

Was it not a reporter that labelled Winnipeg the most racist city in Canada? The city with more cultural programs, cultural arts and mixed schools than the rest of Canada per capita?  Winnipeg Racism

ME

I think you're grasping at straws with this post my friend.  Anyways, there isn't a point in trying to justify what they did because what they did was inappropriate and I'm pretty sure everyone here can agree with that.

What I think the disagreement is about is the level of attention different people are giving this.  That's where the argument is.       

 

[mariomike]

Now hold on.... where did Eaglelord17 say he thinks "the only way..."?

My post was a question ( ? ), not a statement.

In Winnipeg, the anti-littering bylaw states that spitting is only allowed "in a waste receptacle".

Not sure how we arrived at spitting on the sidewalk in Winnipeg, but it's not the only place with a law against it:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=spitting+on+the+sidewalk&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=jXheVeH8F-aM8QeK7IHYDA&gws_rd=ssl#rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&q=%22spitting+on+the+sidewalk%22

Was it not a reporter that labelled Winnipeg the most racist city in Canada?

I've never said anything good or bad about Winnipeg.  Other than its airport, all I know about Winnipeg what I read in the Winnipeg Sun:
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2014/07/23/winnipeg-still-violent-crime-capital-of-canada

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Not sure how we arrived at spitting on the sidewalk in Winnipeg

I am not certain either but the fact that we have given this incident more attention than we gave the beheading of a Jordanian fighter pilot makes me ask the question, is this website a place to discuss military affairs, or is it the National Enquirer? 

 

[mariomike]

I am not certain either but the fact that we have given this incident more attention than we gave the beheading of a Jordanian fighter pilot makes me ask the question, is this website a place to discuss military affairs, or is it the National Enquirer?

Not for me to decide who can post what, but Radio Chatter does say, "Off topic discussions not relating to the Canadian Army."

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Not for me to decide who can post what, but Radio Chatter does say, "Off topic discussions not relating to the Canadian Army."

Touche salesman!  I was just pointing out the irony that we are somehow more offended by this incident, or at least we appear to be, than someone getting burned alive in a cage while being videotaped.  Hence my comment above that I have more important things to worry about getting mad about.  With that being said, I am going to exit stage right 

 

[mariomike]

Touche salesman!  I was just pointing out the irony that we are somehow more offended by this incident, or at least we appear to be, than someone getting burned alive in a cage while being videotaped.  Hence my comment above that I have more important things to worry about getting mad about.  With that being said, I am going to exit stage right 

Me too, my show is on! 

 

[Loachman]

in a society where we claim to have freedom of speech.

One does indeed have freedom of speech - along with the freedom to enjoy the consequences of one's speech.

 

[ModlrMike]

One does indeed have freedom of speech - along with the freedom to enjoy the consequences of one's speech.

Which renders the speech anything but free.

We have limitations on our speech; which we have agreed by majority are reasonable in our society.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

One could argue laws were broken.

As she's a paid worker, in an extended workplace, under Ontario law as defined by the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), she was exposed to sexual harassment and it could be argued, workplace violence.

[snipped]

HYDRO ONE CODE OF BUSINESS CONDUCT

Harassment

We treat employees and persons whom we do business with dignity and respect. Hydro One does not tolerate harassment or discrimination.

Harassment is a form of discrimination which involves unwelcome and offensive comments, conduct, gestures or contact based on or related to prohibited grounds covered by the Human Rights Act. Harassment occurs when the behaviour concerned:
- is likely to be offensive, embarrassing or humiliating;

[/snipped]

The reporter is, extremely likely, to be a person who does business with Hydro One. The person of interest was trained in the company policy, as required by the OHSA and should have been aware of his actions. The offender broke the law. Hydro One responded, within their company policy, by terminating his employment.

That's the nuts and bolts. If the reporter took this to a HR tribunal, she would very likely win. Alternately, she could make a complaint to the Ministry of Labour who, after an investigation, might possibly, charge Hydro One for failing in their duty to do everything reasonable to protect the health and safety of a worker. However, Hydro One followed the rules and fired him.

That's the cut and dry legal side of things, as they stand.

You can now continue to discuss the morality of a civilized society.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

And just so there is no doubt in anyone's mind..................I know who RG is and you can take the factual part of his post to the bank.
Nuff said......

 

[OldSolduer]

One does indeed have freedom of speech - along with the freedom to enjoy the consequences of one's speech.

Freedom of speech also guarantees that someone, somewhere will make an a$$ out of themselves.

Better to remain silent and thought a fool......than to speak up and remove all doubt. Some people should follow this pearl of wisdom  exclusively.

 

[Eaglelord17]

One could argue laws were broken.

As she's a paid worker, in an extended workplace, under Ontario law as defined by the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), she was exposed to sexual harassment and it could be argued, workplace violence.

The reporter is, extremely likely, to be a person who does business with Hydro One. The person of interest was trained in the company policy, as required by the OHSA and should have been aware of his actions. The offender broke the law. Hydro One responded, within their company policy, by terminating his employment.

That's the nuts and bolts. If the reporter took this to a HR tribunal, she would very likely win. Alternately, she could make a complaint to the Ministry of Labour who, after an investigation, might possibly, charge Hydro One for failing in their duty to do everything reasonable to protect the health and safety of a worker. However, Hydro One followed the rules and fired him.

That's the cut and dry legal side of things, as they stand.

You can now continue to discuss the morality of a civilized society.

However is it really harassment when (only the guy who got fired, who also didn't yell the phrase) a person walks up to you (this case being the reporter) and asks your opinion and you give your answer?

I am out for this debate, as it seems to have hit the point where it is circling the drain.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I am out for this debate, as it seems to have hit the point where it is circling the drain.

 

[Remius]

Lol.  I was just thinking the same thing...

 

[mariomike]

May 22, 2015

"Welcome to the creeping corporate takeover of our private lives."
http://www.macleans.ca/work/jobs/hes-fired-whos-next/

A few excerpts:

"Gone are the days when only misbehaving senior executives were seen as prominent enough to tarnish a firm’s image."

"Fired for posting photos of, and appreciative comments about, Stanley Cup riots, even though he didn’t participate himself."

“But Ghomeshi was a star. What’s riveting about this case is that the guy’s an ordinary schlub. A lot of people will be looking at him and thinking, ‘My god, that could be me.’ ”

"Couple that with a fast-encroaching corporate culture, in which employers view workers as full-time brand ambassadors, and life for almost all employees could be seen as an endless sequence of career hazards. For every mindless remark made over a pub table, there’s a smartphone nearby to videotape it. For every ill-considered tweet, there’s an army of outraged recipients ready to flip it to the boss."

"...because of a Facebook photo mocking the “Silence and Respect” sign at Arlington National Cemetery (she posed miming a scream while holding up her middle finger)"

"a long continuum of sacrificial firings driven by online outrage"

 

[Fishbone Jones]

However is it really harassment when (only the guy who got fired, who also didn't yell the phrase) a person walks up to you (this case being the reporter) and asks your opinion and you give your answer?

I am out for this debate, as it seems to have hit the point where it is circling the drain.

You, conveniently, left out the corporate policy excerpt I also posted, in your quote.

Harassment

We treat employees and persons whom we do business with dignity and respect. Hydro One does not tolerate harassment or discrimination.

Harassment is a form of discrimination which involves unwelcome and offensive comments, conduct, gestures or contact based on or related to prohibited grounds covered by the Human Rights Act. Harassment occurs when the behaviour concerned:
- is likely to be offensive, embarrassing or humiliating;


Any single one of those highlighted criteria can be used on its own. It does not have to meet the conditions of all three to trigger a reaction of Hydro One for breech of their policy.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

You, conveniently, left out the corporate policy excerpt I also posted, in your quote.

We treat employees and persons whom we do business with dignity and respect. Hydro One does not tolerate harassment or discrimination.
...
Any single one of those highlighted criteria can be used on its own. It does not have to meet the conditions of all three to trigger a reaction of Hydro One for breech of their policy.

This, I think is where Macleans wishes to get to.

We, in the CF are totally used to the concept that we are and remain subject of the code of service discipline 24/7, 365 (and a quarter) days a year. But, as I keep reminding some of my corporate client when they want to come up with truly intrusive "rules" for their employees, slavery for the rest of civil society has been abolished. Companies/Corporations do not own employees.

So why should a Corporate "policy" have ANY binding effect on an employee that is NOT at work, NOT involved in any of the corporation's business and NOT in a setting where he is dealing with a client in a client service situation (to claim that the reporter is a Hydro-One customer because she is consuming electricity at home and has an account is disingenuous in the highest here).

If your away from work deportment DIRECTLY affects your employer (i.e. they can demonstrably show that they have lost business or have had their financial bottom line affected and the employer therefore suffered quantifiable damages) then they have contractual rights under the contract. But I doubt here that anyone cancelled their power contract with Hydro-One or suddenly decide to go for another provider as a result of this. The "good name in public relations" of an employer cannot enter into the equation without creating a situation where corporations (the dullest and most opposed to advancement of anything through provocative speech -or for standing up for anything lest it affects their sales) become de facto censors in an environment where this censorship will clearly narrow the limits of free speech.

Don't get me wrong here, I think the guy is a total idiot (but that is not a crime) and that the current "meme" of people forcing their way into ENG's field of view and yelling "FHITP" is the most infantile thing I have ever seen in my life , and I am not getting any younger.

[On a personal note here: I was not aware of this meme until the Canadiens/Tampa Bay series game five in Montreal. Our local CTV has a segment for its sports newscast before every game where the CTV reporter interviews three other local sports journalists from the paper medias in the hallway of the Bell Center. Obviously, people with Canadiens or Tampa Bay jerseys walk by behind them, and some turn around, make victory signs, point at their team jerseys, etc. as you would expect. On that night, all journalists - host and guest - were male and one guy walk right behind them and yelled the now infamous phrase. I just froze, turned to my son and asked him "Did I just hear what I think I heard - he said …". My son confirmed my hearing and told me that it was the current fad on the internet.    I am beginning to think there is no hope for humanity. 

(And BTW, in the present case, I would not even know this guy was with Hydro-One if I hadn't been told. He certainly is not wearing any Hydro-One gear, nor did he say "I am with Hydro-One and my view is …" or words to that effect. The guy acted like an Ass but someone who recognizes him filed in the fact he was an Hydro-One Manager after the fact and separately. Perhaps we should ask that person for his/her motives in the outing)

 

[Fishbone Jones]

He may have been off duty, but the reporter wasn't. She's a paid worker in an extended workplace and is entitled to protection under the OHSA.

So let's stop talking about this jerks rights and start talking about the reporters rights.

 

[larry Strong]

Works for politicians as well......

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/05/22/alberta-premier-elect-notley-suspends-mla-elect-drever-after-homophobic-post-comes-to-light

Shared with the usual caveats...

Alberta Premier-elect Notley suspends MLA-elect Drever after homophobic post comes to light

Premier-designate Rachel Notley has suspended MLA-elect Deborah Drever from Alberta's NDP caucus after yet another unflattering photograph surfaced on social media.

Notley on Friday reviewed the photograph — one which mocks former Premier Jim Prentice and former PC MLA Ric McIver and has the homophobic remark "Gay boyz"  underneath — that the Calgary-Bow MLA-elect posted on her Instagram account.

Notley on Friday suspended the 26-year-old Drever from the NDP caucus. Drever will sit in the Legislature as an independent.

“I apologize to all Albertans for the homophobic statements contained in this image, which are completely contrary to the views of our party and our future government. I hope Ms. Drever will take to heart our conversation earlier this week about her responsibility to speak out clearly on issues of violence against women, and homophobia,” Notley said.

“If she does so as part of her duties to her constituents, I’ll review this matter in the coming year and consider whether she has a future in our caucus.”

Earlier this week, Drever apologized for a heavy metal rock album cover in which she was depicted as a victim of sexual violence. Notley as a result had accepted Drever’s apology and asked her to reach out to groups that work with vulnerable young women to further public education.

Cheers
Larry

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

He may have been off duty, but the reporter wasn't. She's a paid worker in an extended workplace and is entitled to protection under the OHSA.

So let's stop talking about this jerks rights and start talking about the reporters rights.

OK, lets talk about the reporter rights: In the circumstances she was in, she had the right to the protection of the criminal code and of any applicable municipal By-laws. That's it that's all.

Did she have a right to any protection under the OHSA? No, not from Hydro-One she didn't; not from Toronto FC she didn't; not from the owner of BMO field she didn't.

Her rights under the OHSA only bind her own employer and any person retaining the services of her employer. That's it and that's all.

Under OHSA or any similar legislation, If the employer conclude that a journalist (female or male) is in danger or will be exposed to improper treatment in any area where they send the journalists, they can do two things: Not send the journalist or provide the journalist with security apparatus appropriate to the circumstances. But they have no right to against the source of the "danger" other than those existing for the population at large.

Can a cop sent out to arrest criminal ask that the criminal be "enjoined" from using a gun? No. Can he ask his own employer for a bullet proof vest, a gun and back up? Yes.

Can an ambulance driver sent to a winter accident scene ask for the municipality to be ordered to clear snow and ice from his path? No. Can she ask for his ambulance company to provide her with chains for her tires? Yes.

There is BTW no such thing as the whole world being an "extended workplace" just because one of your employee works there. The whole City of Toronto is not Metro Police's "extended work place". Under OHSA, extended workplace is a remote workplace, other than the regular/owned/rented one of the employer, where the employer has control over the actual situation. The usual example is the place where a construction crew works. It's not the construction company's facility but it is a facility where the employer can and must deploy all the usual worksite safety measures.

So let's stop stretching non applicable concept of "workplace safety" here just to support a pet theory on employees (of Hydro-One) contractual obligations to their employers.

And, BTW, this guy was not "off-duty". You and I, in the military may be "off-duty"; a flight attendant traveling on her company's airline but not part of the crew may be "off-duty", but ordinary employees in an ordinary setting are NOT off-duty. The butcher at your local food store is or any other such employee is either at work or not at work, but not off'duty, a term that applies, IMO, to only those that work in fields where we owe a personal protection or safety service to others who are not our "clients", such as cops, fireman, soldiers, airline flight crew, doctors para-medics, etc.