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



## opcougar (13 May 2015)

How social media brought workplace harassment rules into play for men who lewdly heckled reporter 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto-tv-reporter-fights-back-against-obscene-on-the-job-hecklers/article24390881/

But wait, what happened to Gord......

CityNews' top news anchor is Gord Martineau.

This Gord Martineau.

https://youtu.be/riOPZILwwH8?t=3m40s
Hilarious showing of hypocrisy.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 May 2015)

Mr Simoes learned a valuable lesson: free speech may not have limits, but it does have consequences.

Still, I don't see how a video from 2008 relates to these current events.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 May 2015)

He deserved getting fired.


----------



## CombatDoc (13 May 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> He deserved getting fired.


They both deserve getting fired. Good on Ms Hunt for confronting these two.


----------



## mariomike (13 May 2015)

"Mayor John Tory said if a City of Toronto employee did that kind of thing he would want them fired."
http://www.citynews.ca/2015/05/13/mayor-tory-speaks-out-against-fhritp-vulgarities/

In Ontario, the "Millhaven Test" ( 1967 ) seems to be what the arbitrators still use: 

(i) the conduct of the grievor harms the Company’s reputation or product;
(ii) the grievor’s behaviour renders the employee unable to perform his duties satisfactorily;
(iii) the grievor’s behaviour leads to refusal, reluctance or inability of the other employees to work with him;
(iv) the grievor has been guilty of a serious breach of the Criminal Code and thus rendering his conduct injurious to the general reputation of the Company and its employees;
(v) places difficulty in the way of the Company properly carrying out its function of efficiently managing its works and efficiently directing its working forces.

"In upholding the termination, the arbitrator noted that any one of the above factors, if severe enough, may warrant discipline or discharge."
http://www.ontarioemployerlaw.com/2015/01/21/terminated-for-tweeting-a-tale-of-two-toronto-firefighters/


Does Hydro One have the right to fire TFC fan Shawn Simoes?
Employment law experts weigh in on the FHRITP incident at Sunday’s Toronto FC game.
A Sunshine List employee is losing his job after a vulgar televised incident at Sunday’s Toronto FC game – sparking debate over whether someone should be fired for what they do away from the office. 
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/13/does-hydro-one-have-the-right-to-fire-tfc-fan-shawn-simoes.html


----------



## vonGarvin (13 May 2015)

I guess the message has gone from "I may not like what he is saying, but I will defend to the death their right to say it" to "I don't like what he's saying.  Though it has zero bearing whatsoever on me or my life, I want him fired, his livelihood taken away, and too bad for him if he's not in a union."

I fear for us all: we are all subject to the various trends and Free Speech has gone from "say anything unless it's harmful or illegal, such as inciting hatred" to "Don't you DARE say anything that *I* don't like".

I hope he sues, and for the sake of us all, I hope he wins.


----------



## larry Strong (13 May 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I guess the message has gone from "I may not like what he is saying, but I will defend to the death their right to say it" to "I don't like what he's saying.  Though it has zero bearing whatsoever on me or my life, I want him fired, his livelihood taken away, and too bad for him if he's not in a union."
> 
> I fear for us all: we are all subject to the various trends and Free Speech has gone from "say anything unless it's harmful or illegal, such as inciting hatred" to "Don't you DARE say anything that *I* don't like".
> 
> I hope he sues, and for the sake of us all, I hope he wins.



Apparently employment lawyers disagree...

Howard Levitt, who specializes in employment law, told CTV's Canada AM that the termination is an example of how social media is changing employment.

"It sends a message that what you do in what you think is your private life, has everything to do with whether you’re going to keep your job or not," 


Shared  with the usual caveats.....

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/fhritp-outbursts-can-easily-cost-your-job-lawyer-1.2371690



> 'FHRITP' outbursts can easily cost your job: lawyer
> 
> Canadian politicians, employment lawyers and the public have all weighed on a viral video that has cost a man his job.
> 
> ...



In my opinion, the concept of personal responsibility has gone out the window. Good on Hydro One in my books.



Cheers
Larry


----------



## ModlrMike (13 May 2015)

Of course the real secret is that we don't have freedom of speech. We have license of speech. Breach the license and face the consequences.

I would submit that there's no society on earth that has true freedom of speech. Governments everywhere have put varying degrees of limits on speech. Even the US with it's much vaunted First Amendment has limitations on free speech.


----------



## mariomike (13 May 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I guess the message has gone from "I may not like what he is saying, but I will defend to the death their right to say it" to "I don't like what he's saying.  Though it has zero bearing whatsoever on me or my life, I want him fired, his livelihood taken away, and too bad for him if he's not in a union."



There is no guarantee a union would represent a member in such a case.

“Interestingly the unions don’t have to take cases. The union could decide it doesn’t believe in this cause and doesn’t want to be associated with this person. The person may be left without a remedy.”
Employment law expert Howard Levitt

"My guess is the union’s not going to touch this just based on the public backlash.”
Labour lawyer Andrew Langille. 

Toronto Star May 13 2015


----------



## Old Sweat (13 May 2015)

For whatever it is worth, he is an engineer. Therefore he is a member of a self-regulating profession, like doctors, dentists and lawyers. This means his actions, statements and, of course, performance of his duties are subject to scrutiny by the regulating board of his professional group. I may be talking out of my butt, but I suspect above all the rest of the crap that has overtaken his young life, he may very well have to justify his retention as a practicing member of the profession.

Note: I am not sure of how and why the PEng thing works, but he seems to have skated over the line of what is acceptable for a practicing engineer.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 May 2015)

Playing devils advocate a bit, I'm surprised he was fired and I can see him getting his job back if the union gets involved.

People say a hell of a lot worse stuff online every second. Racist, anti-gay, death threats etc... I've seen it happen quite a few times where someone says something online and people run screaming to the persons employer to get them fired.  I'm not sure how different it is simply because it's in person.

Should this woman's job be next on the chopping block?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FL6r6JBlOHQ

"online trials" and online bullying seem to be all the rage.


----------



## armyvern (13 May 2015)

Glad he got fired being a public servant and all.  Imagine the hostile work environment the women who worked for him would be feeling each and every day were he still around to supervise them.  I'd just want to gag all the time even having to look at his mug each day.  Not acceptable.

As a female, if he wants to behave in such a manner publicly, all the power to him, but I'd be finding it pretty darn uncomfortable to have to work next to him each day exactly because of those same publicly made sentiments --- because you know how contemptible and disrespectful of women he is.

This female-host-bomb "joke" has been going on for quite some time now; it's disgusting and the fact that he even began to think it was acceptable tells me his mama didn't raise him right; bet she's really proud of him these days.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 May 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I guess the message has gone from "I may not like what he is saying, but I will defend to the death their right to say it" to "I don't like what he's saying.  Though it has zero bearing whatsoever on me or my life, I want him fired, his livelihood taken away, and too bad for him if he's not in a union."
> 
> I fear for us all: we are all subject to the various trends and Free Speech has gone from "say anything unless it's harmful or illegal, such as inciting hatred" to "Don't you DARE say anything that *I* don't like".
> 
> I hope he sues, and for the sake of us all, I hope he wins.



I beg to differ. This dude should have known better. He is educated...we think....and is a member of a profession. 

If one of our soldiers had said that to a female reporter.....what would you say then?


----------



## armyvern (13 May 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> If one of our soldiers had said that to a female reporter.....what would you say then?



Yep, he should have known better.

Well, I'd immediately issue the caution.  

My thoughts are that everyone has the right to free-speech, and they also benefit of the right to deal with the consequences of such.  Want to act/talk like a broken tool, then banishment from the toolbox is absolutely acceptable.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 May 2015)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yep, he should have known better.
> 
> Well, I'd immediately issue the caution.
> 
> My thoughts are that everyone has the right to free-speech, and they also benefit of the right to deal with the consequences of such.  Want to act/talk like a broken tool, then banishment from the toolbox is absolutely acceptable.



Sec 129 of the NDA would suit this. And an administrative action as well....RW at a minimum.

Besides, this statement this jerk made was so close to encouraging rape.....maybe a shot in the chops would be in order as well.


----------



## MedCorps (13 May 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> If one of our soldiers had said that to a female reporter.....what would you say then?



This is an interesting question. The one thing I am sure is that we would not fire him. 

So what would be do?  Nothing?  A stern talking to by the chain of command? Administrative measure? If so, how severe? IC, RW, C&P?  NDA Charge? If so, what? An electable offense? Does NDA 129 cover this?  

MC


----------



## armyvern (13 May 2015)

MedCorps said:
			
		

> This is an interesting question. The one thing I am sure is that we would not fire him.
> 
> So what would be do?  Nothing?  A stern talking to by the chain of command? Administrative measure? If so, how severe? IC, RW, C&P?  NDA Charge? If so, what? An electable offense? Does NDA 129 cover this?
> 
> MC



What this guy did is clearly sexual harassment; he _could_ end up punted if he were CAF too. And "yes" - a 129 covers it and it is electable and of that I have direct experience. 
Anyway, none of us know his work-history --- it is entirely possible that something akin to your para 2 has already occurred with this fine specimen of a 'gentleman' in his actual workplace owing to something of this nature.  I have no idea, but I do know that if he is comfortable with, and feels it is OK, to actually do/say such a thing in the public realm while being filmed to a reporter - just because she's female - that he's just probably pretty much overall "comfortable" with such behaviour in non-filmed occasions too.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 May 2015)

I bet his behaviour is worse in non filmed moments. 





			
				MedCorps said:
			
		

> This is an interesting question. The one thing I am sure is that we would not fire him.
> 
> So what would be do?  Nothing?  A stern talking to by the chain of command? Administrative measure? If so, how severe? IC, RW, C&P?  NDA Charge? If so, what? An electable offense? Does NDA 129 cover this?
> 
> MC



Charge, I'd say 129 for sure. If he were found guilty the punishment could be severe in order to deter others from behaving like this jerk did.
If a CAF member did this and was identified, I do believe DMCA could perform an AR on him.


----------



## armyvern (13 May 2015)

MedCorps said:
			
		

> This is an interesting question. The one thing I am sure is that we would not fire him.
> 
> So what would be do?  Nothing?  A stern talking to by the chain of command? Administrative measure? If so, how severe? IC, RW, C&P?  NDA Charge? If so, what? An electable offense? Does NDA 129 cover this?
> 
> MC


Court Martial Results



> (c)                A person found guilty of an offence under section 129 of the National Defence Act is liable to dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service.  This offence is objectively serious.  However, it must be noted that the facts surrounding the commission of the offence or of the offences are at the lower end of gravity for similar matters, not that this constitutes any excuse to the improper behaviour; and



Give it a read.  Note that the possibility of dismissal exists.


----------



## MedCorps (14 May 2015)

Interesting read.  The 129 dismissal did not occur in this case, which is more serious then the case we are talking about IMHO. See the Colonel Dutil's comment on the 129 below in the mitigating circumstances as to why dismissal was not on the cards for this charge. 

So the case: 

We have PO2 Rayment who not only made an inappropriate comment to Cpl Goodwin in contravention  Defence Administrative Orders and Directives 5012-0 *but also* touched her. 

Mitigation: He was in a position of trust and authority with the victim of his harassment (not a random reporter on the street). 

He was in a deployed environment.  

And the judges comment.. A person found guilty of an offence under section 129 of the National Defence Act is liable to dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service.  This offence is objectively serious.  However, it must be noted that *the facts surrounding the commission of the offence or of the offences are at the lower end of gravity for similar matters*, not that this constitutes any excuse to the improper behaviour.

He gets a reprimand and $1000 fine. 

We could substitute aggravating circumstances of being a dork on national TV while a CF member, but we still do not get touching (which is more severe IMHO), no position of authority over the victim and not deployed.  

Again, I think it would be interesting to see how this would turn out if this guy was a CF member (although I hope we never see it in the CF). My opinion is, if this was used as case precedence he would get maybe a similar outcome or lesser not more. 

MC


----------



## armyvern (14 May 2015)

MedCorps said:
			
		

> Interesting read.  The 129 dismissal did not occur in this case, which is more serious then the case we are talking about IMHO. See the Colonel Dutil's comment on the 129 below in the mitigating circumstances as to why dismissal was not on the cards for this charge.
> 
> So the case:
> 
> ...



Fixed your above for you.   

Note that the judge noted it was his first offence.  There's some good studies on the CM site --- with more severe outcomes than the one I linked.  It just happens to be the one I am familiar with and thus easy for me to google.

Like I said, who knows what, if anything, was already on file in this guys workplace. Perhaps this "public" gaff was just the straw that broke the camels back.  Oh well.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 May 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I guess the message has gone from "I may not like what he is saying, but I will defend to the death their right to say it" to "I don't like what he's saying.  Though it has zero bearing whatsoever on me or my life, I want him fired, his livelihood taken away, and too bad for him if he's not in a union."
> 
> I fear for us all: we are all subject to the various trends and Free Speech has gone from "say anything unless it's harmful or illegal, such as inciting hatred" to "Don't you DARE say anything that *I* don't like".
> 
> I hope he sues, and for the sake of us all, I hope he wins.




I'm with you 110% Dave, I'm sure Ms. Hunt loves all the hits her twitter account is getting on this  : some people will do anything for a story.  I am not condoning what these guys said but the media are scum.  A professional reporter would/should have walked away.    

What I saw was a couple of drunk guys running their mouths off.  People are so petty nowadays, it's ridiculous.  I'm so sick and tired of listening to all the self-righteous, holier than thou, talking heads.  







This whole social media shaming is the modern day equivalent to pillory IMO... perhaps we aren't as "civilized" as we think we are?



			
				Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I beg to differ. This dude should have known better. He is educated...we think....and is a member of a profession.
> 
> If one of our soldiers had said that to a female reporter.....what would you say then?



People say and do dumb crap sometimes, doesn't mean they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.  I've said and done some pretty stupid things in my life and haven't had my livelihood taken away because of it.  We know nothing about this guy other than he said something really stupid and crass to a reporter and now we are already making him walk the plank.  Note, it wasn't even on live tv but the News channel released it after the fact..... hmmm wonder why they would do such a thing  :  surely not for more views?  

Would you feel so good about your decision to fire him if he had a child who he now can't support because he is out of job?


----------



## Sigs Pig (14 May 2015)

I too am with Technoviking and you, RoyalDrew.
Internet Pillory

Stay cool
ME


----------



## OldSolduer (14 May 2015)

Sigs Pig said:
			
		

> I too am with Technoviking and you, RoyalDrew.
> Internet Pillory
> 
> Stay cool
> ME



Again I beg to differ. This was a deliberate verbal attack on a woman that encouraged sexual violence. This was no slip of tongue. This was thought out and executed. He deserves what he got.


----------



## Valhrafn (14 May 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Again I beg to differ. This was a deliberate verbal attack on a woman that encouraged sexual violence. This was no slip of tongue. This was thought out and executed. He deserves what he got.


I would have to agree with you. This type of behaviour is disgusting and has no place in society.

Also, for those questioning what would happen in the CF, I remember signing legal documents for my interview that prohibited any racism and sexism...it's a no-tolerance policy...
Oh and not too long ago...http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/04/30/corrosive-sexualized-culture-in-canadas-military-report


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 May 2015)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> What this guy did is clearly sexual harassment; he _could_ end up punted if he were CAF too. And "yes" - a 129 covers it and it is electable and of that I have direct experience.



Actually it's not sexual harassment, it's disturbing the peace.  

Sexual Harassment isn't a criminal code offence, rather it is litigated under civil law i.e. federal/provincial legislation, human rights codes, and/or labour legislation or policies

Sexual harassment generally has three major characteristics:

the behaviour is unwanted and unwelcome,
the behaviour is sexual or related to the sex of the person,
the behaviour occurs where one person has more formal power or authority than the other (like a teacher or a boss) or more informal power (like an older student or co-worker).  

Key part highlighted for you.  They definitely hit the first two but it would be pretty tough to prove the last one.   

I would lawyer up if I were these guys



			
				MedCorps said:
			
		

> Interesting read.  The 129 dismissal did not occur in this case, which is more serious then the case we are talking about IMHO. See the Colonel Dutil's comment on the 129 below in the mitigating circumstances as to why dismissal was not on the cards for this charge.
> 
> So the case:
> 
> ...



EDIT:

If buddy was in the military you could charge under 129 but he would most likely be allowed to elect for a summary trial (rank dependent of course).  I seriously doubt you would be able to kick him out as a result of summary trial proceedings.  More than likely he would receive a fine and some other minor punishment.  He would also be placed on administrative measures, most likely IC or maybe even RW.  I seriously doubt he would be put on C&P.

For the record, I think these guys acted like idiots but I'm not about to launch the lynch mob on them.  I think Hydro One probably doesn't have just cause to fire him but believe that the positive PR they are receiving outweighs the potential legal reprecussions.  More than likely, he will take them to court and they will settle.  

Moral of the story, friends don't let friends talk to reporters.


----------



## mariomike (14 May 2015)

Valhrafn said:
			
		

> Also, for those questioning what would happen in the CF,



Interesting to read the varying opinions.

The department I was a member of would tolerate almost anything, *unless you became a public disgrace*. 

They might find you another job behind the scenes ( if you were not too toxic for the other employees ), or in another classification. But, the amount of public indignation this generated would most likely end your career as an operational paramedic in the city. And good luck trying to get hired by any of the out-of-town municipalities after being let go by Metro.

Even TFS is starting to crack down:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onla/doc/2014/2014canlii76886/2014canlii76886.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQALbWF0dCBib3dtYW4AAAAAAQ


----------



## ModlrMike (14 May 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I seriously doubt you would be able to kick him out as a result of summary trial proceedings.  More than likely he would receive a fine and some other minor punishment.  He would also be placed on administrative measures, most likely IC or maybe even RW.  I seriously doubt he would be put on C&P.



Given the current climate, I wouldn't be so sure of that.


----------



## opcougar (14 May 2015)

Scandinavian countries????? They are way more civilized than most



			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Of course the real secret is that we don't have freedom of speech. We have license of speech. Breach the license and face the consequences.
> 
> *I would submit that there's no society on earth that has true freedom of speech.* Governments everywhere have put varying degrees of limits on speech. Even the US with it's much vaunted First Amendment has limitations on free speech.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 May 2015)

MedCorps said:
			
		

> This is an interesting question. The one thing I am sure is that we would not fire him.
> 
> So what would be do?  Nothing?  A stern talking to by the chain of command? Administrative measure? If so, how severe? IC, RW, C&P?  NDA Charge? If so, what? An electable offense? Does NDA 129 cover this?
> 
> MC



Possibly-QR&O 19.14


> 19.14 - IMPROPER COMMENTS
> 
> 
> (2) No officer or non-commissioned member shall do or say anything that:
> ...


----------



## Ex-Pat FlagWagger (14 May 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> For whatever it is worth, he is an engineer. Therefore he is a member of a self-regulating profession, like doctors, dentists and lawyers. This means his actions, statements and, of course, performance of his duties are subject to scrutiny by the regulating board of his professional group. I may be talking out of my butt, but I suspect above all the rest of the crap that has overtaken his young life, he may very well have to justify his retention as a practicing member of the profession.
> 
> Note: I am not sure of how and why the PEng thing works, but he seems to have skated over the line of what is acceptable for a practicing engineer.



He is actually not a licensed engineer - it seems that a reporter found his actual job title too long and shortened it to "engineer" for reasons of brevity.

As regards the PEO, the complaints process covers professional competence  and conduct/behaviour. Harassing reporters would likely fall under this category.


----------



## opcougar (14 May 2015)

Additionally, he studied "business" at Wilfried Laurier in KW. He works for hydro one in a position of systems engineer management, so he is isn't really an engineer by studies or professionally unless he is has the P.Eng designation.

It's illegal to call yourself an "engineer" like most regulated professions, when you aren't one, which is akin to imitating a mbr of the CAF like Mr Gervais on remembrance day



			
				Ex-Pat FlagWagger said:
			
		

> He is actually not a licensed engineer - it seems that a reporter found his actual job title too long and shortened it to "engineer" for reasons of brevity.
> 
> As regards the PEO, the complaints process covers professional competence  and conduct/behaviour. Harassing reporters would likely fall under this category.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 May 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Interesting to read the varying opinions.
> 
> The department I was a member of would tolerate almost anything, *unless you became a public disgrace*.
> 
> ...



Again, an organization can let you go, with or without just cause; however, if it's without just cause and that's proven in civil court, they should expect to pay you out and the payout will not be an unsubstantial sum.

What Hydro One did is against the advice most lawyers would give them; however, they probably think the PR bonus outweighs the potential legal ramifications.  This will be taken to court and will most likely be settled with a payout to Mr Simoes who will win.


----------



## armyvern (14 May 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Actually it's not sexual harassment, it's disturbing the peace.
> 
> Sexual Harassment isn't a criminal code offence, rather it is litigated under civil law i.e. federal/provincial legislation, human rights codes, and/or labour legislation or policies
> 
> ...



Hmmmm, me thinks you'd better watch the video again. Also note that it says "generally".  Also note that a construction worker whistleing at a woman walking down the street is also sexually harrassing her.  I'm sure if some dude pulled off the above filmed incident on your wife and it upset her, your response wouldn't be, "no worries, it's just a guy thing so learn to like it and put up with it".


Note the "generally" bit of number 3.  I can assure you that a woman can be sexually harassed by someone other than a teacher or boss (thus *NOT* meeting standard 3) or authority figure - just as a man can be.  Vern shakes head slowly and walks away.   :


----------



## opcougar (14 May 2015)

Ack. I think so too, with the amount of lawyers coming out of the woodwork to give their 2cents. However, you can expect the public to be the ones having to pay back any legal costs, in the form of inflated hydro one charges...as if it isn't high enough as is  :



			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Again, an organization can let you go, with or without just cause; however, if it's without just cause and that's proven in civil court, they should expect to pay you out and the payout will not be an unsubstantial sum.
> 
> What Hydro One did is against the advice most lawyers would give them; however, they probably think the PR bonus outweighs the potential legal ramifications.  This will be taken to court and will most likely be settled with a payout to Mr Simoes who will win.


----------



## opcougar (14 May 2015)

So can a male / man. I am sure you are aware of the recent (most in the US) female teachers that have been convicted for having sexual encounters with male students. Again, I personally don't condone any form of harassment be it gender, sexual or race.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Hmmmm, me thinks you'd better watch the video again. Also note that it says "generally".  Also note that a construction worker whistleing at a woman walking down the street is also sexually harrassing her.  I'm sure if some dude pulled off the above filmed incident on your wife and it upset her, your response wouldn't be, "no worries, it's just a guy thing so learn to like it and put up with it".
> 
> 
> Note the "generally" bit of number 3.  *I can assure you that a woman can be sexually harassed by someone other than a teacher or boss* (thus *NOT* meeting standard 3) or authority figure - just as a man can be.  Vern shakes head slowly and walks away.   :


----------



## captloadie (14 May 2015)

Oh, if I was a member of the media, I wonder what kind of story I could spin by reading this forum. Combine the comments from the sexual harassment thread with the comments on this one and voila "*Military Members Still Don't Get it* or maybe *CAF Members Make Excuses for Sexual Harassment*

We all say or do stupid things in our lives, true. But when we are confronted we can choose to accept responsibility, sincerely apologize if required, and accept any repercussions. Or we can be like the clowns on the video and say meh, everybodies doing it.

And to those blaming the reporter, screw you. You come off as the same sort who would blame a rape victim because the way they dressed. Listen to the reporter's interviews after the incident. All she wanted to do was stand up for herself. She didn't seek out the guy's identity or place of work. She didn't get him fired. His facebook friends did that.


----------



## exgunnertdo (14 May 2015)

captloadie said:
			
		

> We all say or do stupid things in our lives, true. But when we are confronted we can choose to accept responsibility, sincerely apologize if required, and accept any repercussions. Or we can be like the clowns on the video and say meh, everybodies doing it.
> 
> And to those blaming the reporter, screw you. You come off as the same sort who would blame a rape victim because the way they dressed. Listen to the reporter's interviews after the incident. All she wanted to do was stand up for herself. She didn't seek out the guy's identity or place of work. She didn't get him fired. His facebook friends did that.



Thank you, that's exactly my thoughts.  It's people walking away and not saying anything that allow tools like this to keep saying things like this. 

This incident could fit under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The OHRC covers five “social” areas: services, goods and facilities; occupancy of accommodation (housing); contracts; employment; and membership in vocational associations such as trade unions. She was working, he wasn't. 

But, Bill 168 came in a few years ago and I am often seeing reference to it in places where members of the public have to be reminded that workers are entitled to a workplace free from violence and harassment (buses, doctors offices, etc). I don't know specifics, but it would appear that Bill 168 has some teeth to prevent members of the general public from harassing people in their workplace.

OHRC says - 





> Section 10 of the Code defines harassment as “engaging in a course of vexatious[8] comment or conduct that is known or ought to be known to be unwelcome.” Using this definition, more than one event must take place for there to be a violation of the Code.[9] However, depending on the circumstances, one incident could be significant or substantial enough to be sexual harassment.



It was one incident...maybe, depending on how you look at it. Or, it was one incident, and when he was called on it, he continued the harassment. Now it's a pattern. Or, you can argue a pattern because it's been going on in the media for a while. While it might be the first time he has participated in this, he has seen/heard of it and has tacitly been participating. 

But I could also argue that this one incident was "significant or substantial" enough that he should have known it was sexual harassment. The "more than one event" test, IMO, is more for the racy jokes, pin up pictures, kind of stuff. "Oh, I didn't realize it was offensive." Or someone asks someone else for drinks after work, flirting, etc. After your told it's unwelcome, and you keep doing it, it's harassment.

Did he deserve to lose his job? Maybe he has a history (I can't imagine someone who talks the way he talks has NEVER said anything inappropriate before).  Would I (as a female) want to work with/for this guy? No, after seeing his true colours on camera, I would have a hard time respecting him and believing that he respects my rights.


----------



## observor 69 (14 May 2015)

For those who think this is just one of those things," get over it", listen to this interview with a CBC Toronto reporter. The experience of female reporters has it's own particular context.

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/Toronto/ID/2667105674/


----------



## opcougar (14 May 2015)

I think it's fair to say base don some of the subliminal comments in this thread, and those that I have read elsewhere, that the buffoons / nincompoops that see the incident / misogynistic comments that happened to Ms Hunt as "just a thing / comical", are the same type of people that wouldn't have a problem with racial slurs being directed at minorities, and to the extreme think a cop shooting a minority in the back 8 times is just.  :

Again...this kind of stupidity is not limited to some males, there are girls / women who are just as bad especially when it comes to matters revolving around race. I have heard some nasty things come out of women's mouth, and my only explanation will be due to where they grew up, their parents, stereotypes in the media and pure stupidity and level of education.


----------



## armyvern (14 May 2015)

opcougar said:
			
		

> So can a male / man. I am sure you are aware of the recent (most in the US) female teachers that have been convicted for having sexual encounters with male students. Again, I personally don't condone any form of harassment be it gender, sexual or race.




Given the yellowed bit, I'm guessing you missed this tidbit of my post that I have quoted for you immediately below. You even quoted the darn thing in your post to me.  Sigh.  *** Brilliant observation:



> ... - *just as a man can be*.  Vern shakes head slowly and walks away.



Vern repeats last action.


----------



## opcougar (14 May 2015)

Not as productive as the baltimore riot story of the mother beating the living day lights out of her son on live TV


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 May 2015)

opcougar said:
			
		

> and to the extreme think a cop shooting a minority in the back 8 times is just.  :



There are times when a cop shooting someone, even unarmed, in the back 8 times is perfectly legal. 


Your posts have a very agent provocateur feel to them.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 May 2015)

And from Calgary . . . . . 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/fhritp-calgary-police-charge-man-with-stunting-for-shouting-vulgar-phrase-1.3074905

FHRITP: Calgary police charge man with stunting for shouting vulgar phrase
Investigating officer says man was apologetic, embarrassed

CBC News Posted: May 14, 2015 3:26 PM MT| Last Updated: May 14, 2015 3:53 PM MT

Calgary police have charged a man who they believe yelled a vulgar phrase at a CBC reporter while she was doing an interview in April.

Meghan Grant was working on a story about bad behaviour along the Red Mile — a strip of 17th Avenue that is popular among Flames fans during the NHL playoffs — when someone pulled up behind the camera in a truck and yelled "f--k her right in the p---y."

Reporters, including many CBC journalists, have become the targets of this vulgar phenomenon during live taping over the past few months. 

The man accused of yelling at Grant was issued a summons: a fine of $402, or he can choose to go to trial to fight the ticket.

He was charged under the Alberta Traffic Safety Act for stunting. 

Stunting is under the "prohibited operation of vehicles" section, and is described as performing or engaging in any stunt or other activity that is likely to distract, startle or interfere with users of the roadway.

The investigating officer said the man was apologetic and embarrassed, although he has not apologized to the reporter. 

He was the passenger in the truck at the time of the alleged offence.


----------



## mariomike (16 May 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> For whatever it is worth, he is an engineer. Therefore he is a member of a self-regulating profession, like doctors, dentists and lawyers. This means his actions, statements and, of course, performance of his duties are subject to scrutiny by the regulating board of his professional group. I may be talking out of my butt, but I suspect above all the rest of the crap that has overtaken his young life, he may very well have to justify his retention as a practicing member of the profession.
> 
> Note: I am not sure of how and why the PEng thing works, but he seems to have skated over the line of what is acceptable for a practicing engineer.



"Ontario engineers concerned about fired FHRITP Hydro One job title
The group that licenses engineers in Ontario wants you to know the man fired by Hydro One for his role in the FHRITP scandal was not, in fact, an engineer."
http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/1370515/ontario-engineers-concerned-about-fired-fhritp-hydro-one-job-title/

"FHRITP-linked man fired from job apologizes to CityNews reporter Shauna Hunt"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/fhritp-linked-man-fired-from-job-apologizes-to-citynews-reporter-shauna-hunt-1.3077022


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 May 2015)

Hearing horror stories coming out of the wood work from reporters confronted by this evil phenomenon is quite moving.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (16 May 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "Ontario engineers concerned about fired FHRITP Hydro One job title
> The group that licenses engineers in Ontario wants you to know the man fired by Hydro One for his role in the FHRITP scandal was not, in fact, an engineer."
> http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/1370515/ontario-engineers-concerned-about-fired-fhritp-hydro-one-job-title/



It's only logical they don't want him being mistakenly associated with their profession.


----------



## mariomike (16 May 2015)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> It's only logical they don't want him being mistakenly associated with their profession.



A good thing he wasn't identified as a Combat Engineer!


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (16 May 2015)

Not to make excuses for this guy but what he said is an internet meme that can be looked up on Youtube. I've seen about five dozen videos where guys hijack a newscasters story and yell out what he did, either in the background or directly into a microphone. I don't *think* he meant it to be offensive to women, just as a dumb meme


----------



## dangerboy (16 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Not to make excuses for this guy but what he said is an internet meme that can be looked up on Youtube. I've seen about five dozen videos where guys hijack a newscasters story and yell out what he did, either in the background or directly into a microphone. I don't *think* he meant it to be offensive to women, just as a dumb meme



I don't see how anyone can not think that what he said would be offensive to any women, it is a pretty offensive thing to say to a person especial while they are being filmed.


----------



## mariomike (16 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Not to make excuses for this guy but what he said is an internet meme that can be looked up on Youtube. I've seen about five dozen videos where guys hijack a newscasters story and yell out what he did, either in the background or directly into a microphone. I don't *think* he meant it to be offensive to women, just as a dumb meme



A lot depends on what line of work you are in. They've let co-workers of mine go for inappropriate ( non-criminal ) off-duty behavior.
I've read a few of the arbitrations that upheld the dismissals: 

"Certain jobs require a high level of skill and a high level of trust from both employers and the public. For employees working in those types of positions, it’s possible that off-duty behaviour can call into question that trust, if it demonstrates poor judgment. And if an employer no longer has confidence that an employee has the judgment to perform a job of high skill and responsibility, the result could be dismissal."


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (16 May 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> A lot depends on what line of work you are in. They've let co-workers of mine go for inappropriate ( non-criminal ) off-duty behavior.
> I've read a few of the arbitrations that upheld the dismissals:
> 
> "Certain jobs require a high level of skill and a high level of trust from both employers and the public. For employees working in those types of positions, it’s possible that off-duty behaviour can call into question that trust, if it demonstrates poor judgment. And if an employer no longer has confidence that an employee has the judgment to perform a job of high skill and responsibility, the result could be dismissal."



The guy got what was coming to him, no doubt. With him being a high profile Hydro One employee who made Toronto's Sunshine list he probably should have known better. Regardless of whether he meant it or not, it was offensive and he was dealt with.


----------



## mariomike (16 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> The guy got what was coming to him, no doubt. With him being a high profile Hydro One employee who made Toronto's Sunshine list he probably should have known better. Regardless of whether he meant it or not, it was offensive and he was dealt with.



It might not be over yet. If he is a member of a union, they may grieve it. I know guys who got canned, but got the union got them their jobs back, or transferred.

Globe and Mail:
“Just because they have one guy say something offensive, as offensive as it is, I mean, people are still going to pay their Hydro bills.”

"If the employee is in a union, he could grieve his dismissal in the hopes an arbitrator would order him reinstated or award him a severance payment."


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (16 May 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> It might not be over yet. If he is a member of a union , they may grieve it. I know guys who got canned, but got the union got them their jobs back, or transferred.
> 
> “Just because they have one guy say something offensive, as offensive as it is, I mean, people are still going to pay their Hydro bills.”
> 
> "If the employee is in a union, he could grieve his dismissal in the hopes an arbitrator would order him reinstated or award him a severance payment."



The reality is this will blow over and he will be forgotten in a week or so. If Hydro One wants to save face and rehire him they'll do it when the attention dies down, which it will


----------



## mariomike (16 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> The reality is this will blow over and he will be forgotten in a week or so.



Rob Ford was always good for a story ( to divert attention from others who may not want it. ) The media in this town will be in a bit of a dry spell while he is on the canvas.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (17 May 2015)

Personally as someone else has said I am a big fan of 'I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. Yes it is offensive to some, but they happen to think it is some sort of joke. Even though I don't find this funny I find a good joke usually offends someone. If we have to start justifying our sense of humour, we might as well start to justify our sense of taste, and sexual preferences. Personally I have had things which I consider more offensive yelled at me (stuff like baby killer etc.) and nothing comes of it.

The key thing about this is (after watching a couple videos to understand what I am looking at) that it is not directed at the reporter themselves. I saw some where the reporter was male, I saw some where it was females who were yelling it. They are more doing it because there is a rolling camera rather than anything else. I can also understand how it is getting old for the reporters as this has been happening for a while now.

In conclusion what he did was in bad taste, but a few things considered, one being he never actually it himself, and the second thing is that it isn't worth his job over something as petty as this. I have seen people do significantly worse in the military (and other jobs) and nothing happens as a result (even in cases where it should).


----------



## George Wallace (17 May 2015)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Personally as someone else has said I am a big fan of 'I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. Yes it is offensive to some, but they happen to think it is some sort of joke. Even though I don't find this funny I find a good joke usually offends someone. If we have to start justifying our sense of humour, we might as well start to justify our sense of taste, and sexual preferences. Personally I have had things which I consider more offensive yelled at me (stuff like baby killer etc.) and nothing comes of it.



I agree with your statement that "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." has some validity, but it also has limits.  I will disagree with your comments on what is a joke/humour.  There IS a LINE that can be crossed where a joke/humour is no longer a joke/humour.  Think of the cretins who pour gasoline over homeless people and light them on fire for a joke.  It may be a joke to them, but not the homeless person, nor the Law.  There are definite lines where a joke/humour becomes NOT a joke/humour.  



			
				Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> In conclusion what he did was in bad taste, but a few things considered, one being he never actually it himself, and the second thing is that it isn't worth his job over something as petty as this. I have seen people do significantly worse in the military (and other jobs) and nothing happens as a result (even in cases where it should).



It was indeed in bad tastes and something that a MATURE adult should know better not to do.  As for losing his job, that is up to his employer and the standards and reputation that they keep to decide; especially if it is a person holding a high paying and perhaps influential position in their organization.  What you spin off to about the military (and other jobs) is a red herring.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 May 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I agree with your statement that "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." has some validity, but it also has limits.  I will disagree with your comments on what is a joke/humour.  There IS a LINE that can be crossed where a joke/humour is no longer a joke/humour.  Think of the cretins who pour gasoline over homeless people and light them on fire for a joke.  It may be a joke to them, but not the homeless person, nor the Law.  There are definite lines where a joke/humour becomes NOT a joke/humour.



Not a great example George because if you poor gasoline over a homeless person and light them on fire, you are going to jail because you assaulted them at a minimum and are potentially going away for attempted murder as well.

Criminally speaking, these guys broke no laws otherwise the police would have charged them.  The only thing these guys are guilty of is making some people angry over what they said, not a crime in and of itself.


----------



## George Wallace (17 May 2015)

Point I was trying to make, was that what may be a joke to you, may not be to someone else.  In the case I posted, as an extreme example, the cretins thinking it was a joke when they did it, had crossed that Line where it was not a joke and it was a criminal offence.    Where these morons did not go to such an extreme, they did cross into the gray area of the line in their continuing their abuse.  It could be considered Verbal Assault if it goes too far.  Not being a Lawyer, the question would be "Where does an instance of Verbal Assault become a chargeable offence?"   These guys did not just hurl the insult and walk away, but continued to discuss and hurl more profanities.

I have sat back and watched this all unfold, holding only the opinion that these guys only displayed their immaturity on national and international media, on film forever, showing what kind of idiots they are.  Not necessarily a reputation one would like to have presented any time in the future.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 May 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Point I was trying to make, was that what may be a joke to you, may not be to someone else.  In the case I posted, as an extreme example, the cretins thinking it was a joke when they did it, had crossed that Line where it was not a joke and it was a criminal offence.    Where these morons did not go to such an extreme, they did cross into the gray area of the line in their continuing their abuse.  It could be considered Verbal Assault if it goes too far.  Not being a Lawyer, the question would be "Where does an instance of Verbal Assault become a chargeable offence?"   These guys did not just hurl the insult and walk away, but continued to discuss and hurl more profanities.



It would have become an offence if the reporter had walked away and they followed her and continued to do it. Because she approached them and continued to press them with questions, it's not harassment as far as the criminal code goes.  

Was what they did distasteful?  IMO yes
Was it Harassment?  Nope and those calling it harassment are letting emotions get the better of them.

The law, regardless of what some have said here, is very clear.  

I suppose this is the reason we pay lawyers so much and the standard required to become one is so high, if we entrusted every jack and Jill to interpret the law, we'd be screwed.


----------



## George Wallace (17 May 2015)

Actually, the guy who was fired from Ontario Hydro came and 'inserted' himself into the interview the reporter was having with the original 'offender'.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 May 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually, the guy who was fired from Ontario Hydro came and 'inserted' himself into the interview the reporter was having with the original 'offender'.



Saying you find something funny is not harassment George, linking the two together is a pretty weak argument.  Also, your argument that he "inserted" himself into a conversation when she approached the group is a pretty weak argument to make.  Again, this is why we aren't lawyers.

The police decided not to charge anyone.  Can we put this to rest and just say it's not harassment because if it was they would have charged someone.

EDIT:

Sometimes you're on the right side of the law but the wrong side of public opinion, that's why lawyers and police are so unpopular nowadays.


----------



## mariomike (17 May 2015)

Millhaven test likely to be ‘influential’ moving forward
An Ontario arbitrator’s recent move to expand the reach of employee off-duty conduct by extending a branch of a well-known legal test for justifying termination represents an inevitable step forward – but one that must be taken with caution, says Toronto employment lawyer Arthur Zeilikman.
http://www.advocatedaily.com/millhaven-test-likely-to-be-influential-moving-forward.html

A lot has to do with what line of work you are in. Some occupations are held to higher standards of off-duty conduct than others.

eg: The City of Toronto would likely hold a Paramedic to a higher standard of off-duty conduct than a Refuse Crane Operator or Welder. Same employer, but different responsibilities to the public.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 May 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> eg: The City of Toronto would likely hold a Paramedic to a higher standard of off-duty conduct than a Refuse Crane Operator or Welder. Same employer, but different responsibilities to the public.




Ironically the guy who lost his job is probably being harassed on social media, email and phone calls home.


----------



## George Wallace (17 May 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Ironically the guy who lost his job is probably being harassed on social media, email and phone calls home.



Harassed or Humiliated?  These guys were stupid enough to do something immature and stupid "on film" to be distributed to and remembered by many on a wide variety of media.  

"If you wouldn't say it/do it in front of your mother, don't say it/do it in front of a camera."


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 May 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Harassed or Humiliated?  These guys were stupid enough to do something immature and stupid "on film" to be distributed to and remembered by many on a wide variety of media.
> 
> "If you wouldn't say it/do it in front of your mother, don't say it/do it in front of a camera."



Harassed.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 May 2015)

For the record ....


> Toronto television station CityNews says the man fired over hurling sexually explicit remarks at reporter Shauna Hunt last weekend has apologized for his actions.
> 
> (....)
> 
> ...


----------



## Sigs Pig (17 May 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Harassed.



And here we are "full circle", back to the Subject of this thread.... "Harassment in public...." only, the guy is being harassed.

Stay cool
ME


----------



## TCBF (17 May 2015)

- Having retired from the military and worked for two civilian companies since then, I have observed the following:

1. Drug/alcohol/DNA testing works.

2. Companies will let a person go if they hazard the bottom line for any reason.

3. A qualification is only as useful as the personality that holds it. An inability to apply a professional qualification using logic, common sense and good judgement renders that qualification useless. Any sign of a malignancy in personality or character is a red flag. 

4. Contrary to all of the moaning and dripping of associations, co-workers are seldom sorry to see the idiot go.

As I loved to say back when I was in: "One of the best things you can do for a good soldier is to get rid of a bad one."


----------



## TCBF (17 May 2015)

- Oh, and I think the reporter and her cameraman should find his mom. maybe bring a first aid kit in case she actually is 'dying of laughter.

- Perhaps she is. If the reporter asks her "Is that how you raised your son?" and the answer is not in the negative, we may have another case of: The apple does not fall far from the tree, and neither does the nut.


----------



## TCBF (19 May 2015)

- Well, this was all over the CBC news tonight as female journalists are saying that this is more common than we thought. Now, when I went to high school waaaaaay back in the last century, had I said such a thing in public to a female student I would have been physically tuned by my peers.

- So, let us do some scenario training: you are the husband or brother of a female journalist and standing ten feet away when she is verbally assaulted by one of those cumbubbles. Question: How many teeth will be left in his mouth when you are done with him?


----------



## mariomike (20 May 2015)

As long as that video is out there, good luck on future job applications with any major employers.



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> - So, let us do some scenario training: you are the husband or brother of a female journalist and standing ten feet away when she is verbally assaulted by one of those cumbubbles.



I had to look that word up on Urban Dictionary!


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 May 2015)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> Personally as someone else has said I am a big fan of 'I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. Yes it is offensive to some, but they happen to think it is some sort of joke. Even though I don't find this funny I find a good joke usually offends someone. If we have to start justifying our sense of humour, we might as well start to justify our sense of taste, and sexual preferences. Personally I have had things which I consider more offensive yelled at me (stuff like baby killer etc.) and nothing comes of it.
> 
> The key thing about this is (after watching a couple videos to understand what I am looking at) that it is not directed at the reporter themselves. I saw some where the reporter was male, I saw some where it was females who were yelling it. They are more doing it because there is a rolling camera rather than anything else. I can also understand how it is getting old for the reporters as this has been happening for a while now.
> 
> In conclusion what he did was in bad taste, but a few things considered, one being he never actually it himself, and the second thing is that it isn't worth his job over something as petty as this. I have seen people do significantly worse in the military (and other jobs) and nothing happens as a result (even in cases where it should).



Sometimes boys will be boys, sometimes boys will be assholes.  The boys who do this are assholes.  If you wouldn't yell it at your sister or mother, why yell it at a perfect stranger?


----------



## George Wallace (20 May 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Sometimes boys will be boys, sometimes boys will be assholes.  The boys who do this are assholes.  If you wouldn't yell it at your sister or mother, why yell it at a perfect stranger?



As we see, their one minute of fame has led to a long term case of infamy.


----------



## mariomike (20 May 2015)

CBC
May 19, 2015

"How far have we really come as a society, if female journalists are targeted for sexist attacks?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwhZzVd_jIo


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (20 May 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> CBC
> May 19, 2015
> 
> "How far have we really come as a society, if female journalists are targeted for sexist attacks?"
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwhZzVd_jIo



I think this is taking it too far and may also be a case of one generation not understanding meme's. If you look on Youtube which has hours of news bloopers where guys like the aforementioned HydroOne employee bomb live news crews all the time, regardless of sex or race. Its just a dumb, juvenile meme where I doubt offending women is the goal. Again, I'm not making excuses for people like this but they are blowing this story out of proportion and now serves another agenda.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (20 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> I think this is taking it too far and may also be a case of one generation not understanding meme's. If you look on Youtube which has hours of news bloopers where guys like the aforementioned HydroOne employee bomb live news crews all the time, regardless of sex or race. Its just a dumb, juvenile meme where I doubt offending women is the goal. Again, I'm not making excuses for people like this but they are blowing this story out of proportion and now serves another agenda.



Just because a more recent generation gave "public dumb-assery" a title doesn't make it acceptable.  And it is not generational.  I knew dumb-asses when I was in my teens, and my twenties, and my thirties, and my forties, and my fifties - huh, now that I'm sixty maybe I should stop associating with dumb-asses.  The only thing that changed is the spread of social media.  While you may think it is just "juvenile" behaviour, it is not being done by juveniles but adults.  HydroOne dumb-ass (and the majority of the other dumb-asses who also prescribe to this behaviour) is not a juvenile.  You know what, the majority of us who did dumb-ass things in our youth grew up.  Maybe being held accountable for his actions, like an adult, gives him a hint on how to behave as a responsible adult.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 May 2015)

[tangent]

Are We Getting Dumber? Or Is Stupidity Just More Visible Online? 

[/tangent]


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (20 May 2015)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Just because a more recent generation gave "public dumb-assery" a title doesn't make it acceptable.  And it is not generational.  I knew dumb-asses when I was in my teens, and my twenties, and my thirties, and my forties, and my fifties - huh, now that I'm sixty maybe I should stop associating with dumb-asses.  The only thing that changed is the spread of social media.  While you may think it is just "juvenile" behaviour, it is not being done by juveniles but adults.  HydroOne dumb-*** (and the majority of the other dumb-asses who also prescribe to this behaviour) is not a juvenile.  You know what, the majority of us who did dumb-*** things in our youth grew up.  Maybe being held accountable for his actions, like an adult, gives him a hint on how to behave as a responsible adult.



Fair enough but but it was juvenile; he did a childish thing only he got caught doing it. What he said moreso than what he did I hear in bars and restaurants in Toronto all the time by men (and women) my age (28) and older. His behavior, I would say, is drunken buffoonery more than anything else. There's a time and a place for this sort of behavior and given the environment he was in which is a sporting event where alcohol is being served I wouldn't expect anything better. She didn't interview him outside of HydroOne on a Monday


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 May 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> [tangent]
> 
> Are We Getting Dumber? Or Is Stupidity Just More Visible Online?
> 
> [/tangent]


A buddy of mine who has a lot broader grasp of the human condition than I do (he runs a bar) says we've always been, and continue to be stupid, but now, there's a WHOLE lot more easy-to-use tools to let a WHOLE lot more of the world see just how stupid one can be.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (20 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Fair enough but but it was juvenile; he did a childish thing only he got caught doing it. What he said moreso than what he did I hear in bars and restaurants in Toronto all the time by men (and women) my age (28) and older. His behavior, I would say, is drunken buffoonery more than anything else. There's a time and a place for this sort of behavior and given the environment he was in which is a sporting event where alcohol is being served I wouldn't expect anything better. She didn't interview him outside of HydroOne on a Monday



No, she interviewed him after the match, in public.  So you think he was drunk and that excuses his behaviour.

http://bmofield.com/about/alcohol-policy/





> Alcohol Policy
> At BMO Field, our goal is to promote responsible alcohol service and enhance fan safety and enjoyment. Staff in our facility have been trained in responsible alcohol management.
> 
> Rules and Regulations Governing Alcohol Management at BMO Field
> ...



Though I'm sure that the preceding policy is boilerplate and the primary consideration of their alcohol service outlets is to maximize profits, intoxication (especially public intoxication) is not a defence - it fact it could be an additional offence.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (20 May 2015)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> No, she interviewed him after the match, in public.  So you think he was drunk and that excuses his behaviour.
> 
> http://bmofield.com/about/alcohol-policy/
> Though I'm sure that the preceding policy is boilerplate and the primary consideration of their alcohol service outlets is to maximize profits, intoxication (especially public intoxication) is not a defence - it fact it could be an additional offence.



Its not an excuse just the reality. My issue with this whole story is the twisting of an otherwise idiotic and disrespectful behavior of someone into something that its not. I watched the video and in my opinion he doesn't go out of his way to insult a woman because she is a woman he's just acting like a intoxicated moron. I don't find it sexist in any way and I am looking at it in the context of a stupid meme, not an attack against women. Does he deserve punishment for his behavior? Sure, he's been publicly flogged. And fired by his company.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Its not an excuse just the reality. My issue with this whole story is the twisting of an otherwise idiotic and disrespectful behavior of someone into something that its not. I watched the video and in my opinion he doesn't go out of his way to insult a woman because she is a woman he's just acting like a intoxicated moron. I don't find it sexist in any way and I am looking at it in the context of a stupid meme, not an attack against women. Does he deserve punishment for his behavior? Sure, he's been publicly flogged. And fired by his company.



 :ditto:

I don't know how many times I need to say this in this thread for it to register in peoples heads.... the man has done nothing wrong criminally speaking.  If he had, the police most certainly would have charged him.  

He acted like a twit but being a twit doesn't make you guilty of a crime.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (20 May 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> :ditto:
> 
> I don't know how many times I need to say this in this thread for it to register in peoples heads.... the man has done nothing wrong criminally speaking.  If he had, the police most certainly would have charged him.
> 
> He acted like a twit but being a twit doesn't make you guilty of a crime.



Whats worse still is he is being used as part of an agenda where he is in a long line of men who have it out for women. They refuse to accept the fact he's just an idiot who did an idiotic thing while intoxicated. The only difference here is that there was a television crew there to film it and now thats it gone viral it made people suddenly react. This man has been punished enough; I think the public has grown tired of wagging their finger at him so give him back his job and move on to the next absurd thing


----------



## larry Strong (20 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Whats worse still is he is being used as part of an agenda where he is in a long line of men who have it out for women. They refuse to accept the fact he's just an idiot who did an idiotic thing while intoxicated. The only difference here is that there was a television crew there to film it and now thats it gone viral it made people suddenly react. This man has been punished enough; I think the public has grown tired of wagging their finger at him _*so give him back his job and move on *_to the next absurd thing



Frack that!!!! This strikes me as the 





> modern


 way of dealing with people in the same vein as when they pilloried people in the past for behavior not to the standards of society......life's a bitch........



Cheers
Larry


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (20 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Whats worse still is he is being used as part of an agenda where he is in a long line of men who have it out for women. They refuse to accept the fact he's just an idiot who did an idiotic thing while intoxicated. The only difference here is that there was a television crew there to film it and now thats it gone viral it made people suddenly react. This man has been punished enough; I think the public has grown tired of wagging their finger at him so give him back his job and move on to the next absurd thing



The best way to not be "part of an agenda" is to not go on TV and act like the stereotype of the agenda. This guy deserved exactly what he got if for nothing else than being stupid enough to not only A) yell what he did into the camera but B) because he stuck around to be interviewed. How did he think that this would end? People would respect his bravery?


----------



## OldSolduer (21 May 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> :ditto:
> 
> I don't know how many times I need to say this in this thread for it to register in peoples heads.... the man has done nothing wrong criminally speaking.  If he had, the police most certainly would have charged him.
> 
> He acted like a twit but being a twit doesn't make you guilty of a crime.



Agreed, but if he had directed at my wife or daughter, I'd be the one in jail for assault.

He deserves everything he gets.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 May 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> If he had, the police most certainly would have charged him.


HAHAHAHA......good one..............oh wait,...you MEANT that??


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 May 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> .... if he had directed at my wife or daughter, I'd be the one in jail for assault ....


For the WIN!


----------



## observor 69 (21 May 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> HAHAHAHA......good one..............oh wait,...you MEANT that??



This is the one for the WIN. 

Thanks Bruce.


----------



## mariomike (21 May 2015)

June 1, 2015 Cover story: "He’s fired. Who’s next?"
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/cover-story-preview-hes-fired-whos-next/

"The courts have long upheld the firing of workers whose actions tarnish their employers’ reputations."


----------



## c_canuk (21 May 2015)

From what I understand, the man who yelled the offensive comment was not the one fired.

I thought the one fired mainly said he thought it was funny. 

I get that people find this to be an attack on the reporter, but really it was a stupid stunt to take advantage of a live camera to annoy. An act (iirc) that this man didn't even commit though he did endorse. He didn't even approach the reporter to state his opinion; the reporter approached him and interviewed him for his opinion.

Finding her irritation to this abuse amusing is certainly cretinous behaviour, however, is it so bad that he deserved to lose his job? 

Keep in mind, he's now a burden on society. He's not likely to be hired for a while, so now he's drawing on EI, potentially other costly social services, and he's going to tie up the courts and cause the expenditure of a lot more public funds. 

His children are now being raised in the resulting scorched earth environment, which will increase their likelihood of being and bringing more burden on society. What if after a year’s unemployment he decides it’s over for him and takes his own life? He’s likely under siege from a barrage of the offended mob at this point. 

Wouldn't the best thing for all here, to be some education, public apology, demotion and community service? 

Perhaps consider that if he were to lose everything, he’s more likely to feel set upon and cement his indignation to his treatment and society, rather than encourage him to reform.

Was his comment so egregious he needs to be utterly destroyed along with his dependants?


----------



## Remius (21 May 2015)

First off, he (they) put himself in that situation and essentially encouraged his identification as a Hydro one employee.  Hydro one is well within its rights to dismiss him based on his violation of their code of conduct that clearly states that he could in fact be terminated for that kind of behaviour.  (who knows if this guy might have already been under the gun)

However on the flip side, it probably would have been a better course of action to have let things simmer down somewhat first and see what all parties involved would do.  He issued an apology to the reporter in question who seems to have accepted it as a genuine apology.  Resolving these things at the lowest level should be the way to go.

We don't always know all the background facts.  Take Frank Gervais.  despite people being out for blood, his employer took a classy, professional approach to his situation.  But like I said.  maybe there was more to this termination...


----------



## exgunnertdo (21 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> I think this is taking it too far and may also be a case of one generation not understanding meme's. If you look on Youtube which has hours of news bloopers where guys like the aforementioned HydroOne employee bomb live news crews all the time, regardless of sex or race. Its just a dumb, juvenile meme where I doubt offending women is the goal. Again, I'm not making excuses for people like this but they are blowing this story out of proportion and now serves another agenda.



This is the attitude that lets "dumb, juvenile memes" continue. People aren't supposed to be offended or feel threatened because it's "dumb and juvenile?"  

I don't know if the CBC piece linked is the same one I heard (can't get Youtube right now), but the one I heard, journalists were being deliberately, personally harassed. Not just a dumb meme being yelled. #FHRITP becomes "no biggie" because it's just a "dumb meme", reporters are supposed to "shake it off" and "ignore it", and then when there's no reaction, the taunts get meaner, more specific, and more vulgar. And the guys doing the harassing probably were really entertained by how upset they could make the woman. The goal of these IS to upset the reporter, throw her off her game, mess with her mind. That's harassment. If they simply wanted to be funny, they could yell something that wasn't sexual and was actually funny. 

I also read a case (in Ontario) where a 10 year old girl was a victim of some pretty nasty sexual bullying (read the link, I'm not going to post the nastiness the boy said). I'm sure the boys didn't really mean it and probably thought it was funny ( : and got great amusement out of upsetting a little girl. So that makes it no big deal? 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/karyn-pickles/sexual-bullying_b_7277210.html

I'm sure that boy would think that #FHRITP would be HILARIOUS too. 

It's not just a stupid meme, stop downplaying it as a misunderstood joke.

As to whether he deserved to be fired, I don't know, I'm not an employment lawyer, but I am a woman with a 12 year old daughter. It's not funny.


----------



## armyvern (21 May 2015)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Finding her irritation to this abuse amusing is certainly cretinous behaviour, however, is it so bad that he deserved to lose his job?
> 
> ...



Seems to be another "modern" thing ...

Way to go in turning the offender into the "victim".   :

I'm more into personal accountability for one's actions and words.  Freedom of speech is all well and good, but if YOU say it, then YOU get to own it. Don't place the blame of future happenings caused by YOUR words/actions onto the actual victim.

Wonder if he'd have been man enough to say it in a room full of women ... or even just me. Talk about "inciting a riot" with one's words (also limited by free-speech laws).

No one said what he did was illegal, but all the men who are seemingly writing this off as 'harmless' 'men being men' need to give their heads a great big shake.  Neither his conduct nor his words are acceptable and by allowing this to "slide by the wayside", you serve only to encourage the next guy and set the standard that this IS acceptable and normal behaviour.  Believe you me, it is not.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (21 May 2015)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> This is the attitude that lets "dumb, juvenile memes" continue. People aren't supposed to be offended or feel threatened because it's "dumb and juvenile?"
> 
> I don't know if the CBC piece linked is the same one I heard (can't get Youtube right now), but the one I heard, journalists were being deliberately, personally harassed. Not just a dumb meme being yelled. #FHRITP becomes "no biggie" because it's just a "dumb meme", reporters are supposed to "shake it off" and "ignore it", and then when there's no reaction, the taunts get meaner, more specific, and more vulgar. And the guys doing the harassing probably were really entertained by how upset they could make the woman. The goal of these IS to upset the reporter, throw her off her game, mess with her mind. That's harassment. If they simply wanted to be funny, they could yell something that wasn't sexual and was actually funny.
> 
> ...



There's a difference between bullying and what happened to this reporter. I'm not condoning what was done nor what has been done in the past but to turn this into a "anti woman", "sexually motivated whatever" is nonsense. What behavior are we expecting to change here? Should we do studies, re educate people starting in grade school on how not to be... what, exactly? Idiots will be idiots, and this idiot was called out on television.


----------



## mariomike (21 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> What behavior are we expecting to change here?



To watch ones words?


----------



## OldSolduer (21 May 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> To watch ones words?



Engage brain before opening mouth would be a good start.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (21 May 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Engage brain before opening mouth would be a good start.



She didn't interview someone in front of a monastery or the UN; she interviewed people as they were in front of a stadium where a football match was taking place where alcohol is served. If you feel good judgement and the best behavior of humans are expected to be on full display here I don't know what planet you live on


----------



## armyvern (21 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> She didn't interview someone in front of a monastery or the UN; she interviewed people as they were in front of a stadium where a football match was taking place where alcohol is served. If you feel good judgement and the best behavior of humans are expected to be on full display here I don't know what planet you live on



And HE acted like a totally sexist and inappropriate idiot; and, now HE is paying the price that HIS words and actions caused.

Get over it already would 'ya?


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 May 2015)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And HE acted like a totally sexist and inappropriate idiot; and, now HE is paying the price that HIS words and *HIS* actions caused.
> 
> Get over it already would 'ya?



FTFY


----------



## Eaglelord17 (21 May 2015)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And HE acted like a totally sexist and inappropriate idiot; and, now HE is paying the price that HIS words and actions caused.
> 
> Get over it already would 'ya?



You are clearly not understanding the thing which the other person yelled (and he defended). Youtube it, if you look at a little bit of the best of 2014/15 video (I think that was what it was called) you will see it is not a thing that is sex based. There are times when it is a women yelling it, there are times where the reporter is male. You are twisting the intention/not understanding the intention of the people who do this. 

Some people choose to make this a social justice issue where frankly there isn't one. The only social crime in this case is defending what he found funny. 

I am done with this thread, I have made clear my opinion on the matter, and now this was just clarifying so others can try understand the situation.


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2015)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> You are clearly not understanding the thing which the other person yelled (and he defended). Youtube it, if you look at a little bit of the best of 2014/15 video (I think that was what it was called) you will see it is not a thing that is sex based. There are times when it is a women yelling it, there are times where the reporter is male. You are twisting the intention/not understanding the intention of the people who do this.



It's inapproppriate behaviour no matter who yells it, no matter what they have or have not been drinking.

The intention of the people who do this is to harass and bother other people, and maybe get a little attention for their otherwise pathetic life.


----------



## armyvern (21 May 2015)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> You are clearly not understanding the thing which the other person yelled (and he defended). Youtube it, if you look at a little bit of the best of 2014/15 video (I think that was what it was called) you will see it is not a thing that is sex based. There are times when it is a women yelling it, there are times where the reporter is male. You are twisting the intention/not understanding the intention of the people who do this.
> 
> Some people choose to make this a social justice issue where frankly there isn't one. The only social crime in this case is defending what he found funny.
> 
> I am done with this thread, I have made clear my opinion on the matter, and now this was just clarifying so others can try understand the situation.



Can you just please, please, _please_ stop making excuses for this asshat?  Mother of Gawd people.   :

If you're serving, you should also get used to the idea of ceasing to make excuses/justification for asshat behaviour such as this ... refer to recently released report and it's follow-up recommendations by the CDS.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> She didn't interview someone in front of a monastery or the UN; she interviewed people as they were in front of a stadium where a football match was taking place where alcohol is served. If you feel good judgement and the best behavior of humans are expected to be on full display here I don't know what planet you live on



I don't give a rats ass where he was. He's an idiot that failed to engage his brain. It's been said before but what would you think if this was directed at your daughter


----------



## Strike (21 May 2015)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> You are clearly not understanding the thing which the other person yelled (and he defended). Youtube it, if you look at a little bit of the best of 2014/15 video (I think that was what it was called) you will see it is not a thing that is sex based. There are times when it is a women yelling it, there are times where the reporter is male. You are twisting the intention/not understanding the intention of the people who do this.
> 
> Some people choose to make this a social justice issue where frankly there isn't one. The only social crime in this case is defending what he found funny.
> 
> I am done with this thread, I have made clear my opinion on the matter, and now this was just clarifying so others can try understand the situation.



I think you need to read the Deschamps report my dear.

It doesn't matter where, when or who started the trend.  Talk like that in a public setting, no matter what state you are in, is completely inappropriate.  If he was sitting with his friends drinking and acting crude and rude, that is one thing, but when a reporter starts asking questions, acting like a ass hat in public and justifying his actions because he MAY have had a few drinks is unacceptable.


----------



## Messorius (21 May 2015)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> You are clearly not understanding the thing which the other person yelled (and he defended). Youtube it, if you look at a little bit of the best of 2014/15 video (I think that was what it was called) you will see it is not a thing that is sex based. There are times when it is a women yelling it, there are times where the reporter is male. You are twisting the intention/not understanding the intention of the people who do this.
> 
> Some people choose to make this a social justice issue where frankly there isn't one. The only social crime in this case is defending what he found funny.
> 
> I am done with this thread, I have made clear my opinion on the matter, and now this was just clarifying so others can try understand the situation.



Seriously? You can't put horses**t in the oven and call it cupcakes.  Intent is not magic.


----------



## Remius (21 May 2015)

And intention is absolutely meaningless.  Perception is everything.

Hopefully this will be a lesson to others but given some of the comments here I doubt it.


----------



## exgunnertdo (21 May 2015)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> If you're serving, you should also get used to the idea of ceasing to make excuses/justification for idiot behaviour such as this ... refer to recently released report and it's follow-up recommendations by the CDS.



This...a million times...this.

It's NOT funny (no matter how many jerks think it's funny). Normal, adult people who respect others' ability to get their job done should not think this is funny.

It's not sex based? How is that NOT sex based? What other meaning does that phrase have?  A man yelling it to a male reporter, or a woman yelling it, does not mean it's a harmless joke and take the sexual reference out of the phrase.


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2015)

Here's a plan:  If you think it's harmless, next time you're on parade run out in front of the CO and RSM and yell it out.  See what happens to you.


Oh, you might need this: Defence Counsel Services



> Information: Duty Telephone Numbers
> 
> For legal advice on your right to counsel on arrest or interrogation by the police:
> 1-613-292-2137
> ...


----------



## Loachman (21 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Again, I'm not making excuses for people like this



It certainly comes across that way.

What those "men" did is indefensible.

Loss of job may be harsh, but, as has been said, that is up to the employer.

Hopefully, an effective example has been set for similar idiot-wannabes.

I struggle, however, to be so optimistic.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (21 May 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Here's a plan:  If you think it's harmless, next time you're on parade run out in front of the CO and RSM and yell it out.  See what happens to you.



When did I ever say I supported there actions? I don't even find it humorous, just childish and moronic. Unlike these people in the video I handle my liqueur well and also consider what I say, at least in public. My issue is when someone says something that maybe the dissenting opinion (in this case buddy defending/trying to defend what someone else said, well intoxicated) and loses there job over it. That is both harsh and excessive especially in a society where we claim to have freedom of speech. If he had committed a crime I 100% would agree with the decision but the fact is he didn't.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 May 2015)

...and the employer has the freedom to fire employees who act in a manner counter to the values of the organizations.  I'm sure the guy will eventually find employment with an organization that accepts his conduct; just perhaps not with the same salary as he had before.

I shake my head at the apologists who think that the source of the trend being an internet meme somehow makes the behaviour understandable and such that we should accept such behaviour.  Where then would those who think so, draw the line as to whena meme becomes unacceptable to repeat in real life?


----------



## mariomike (21 May 2015)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> If he had committed a crime I 100% would agree with the decision but the fact is he didn't.



You think the only way an employee could/should be fired is if s/he is convicted of a crime?


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (21 May 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...and the employer has the freedom to fire employees who act in a manner counter to the values of the organizations.  I'm sure the guy will eventually find employment with an organization that accepts his conduct; just perhaps not with the same salary as he had before.
> 
> I shake my head at the apologists who think that the source of the trend being an internet meme somehow makes the behaviour understandable and such that we should accept such behaviour.  Where then would those who think so, draw the line as to whena meme becomes unacceptable to repeat in real life?



Not acceptable but rather trying to frame this in a context of being part of a meme which is meant to be uploaded to Youtube as part of a goof, not some agenda to attack and harass women. This'll be my final post on this thread as most people here aren't getting that this "behavior" is not surprising given the context; a public sporting event where alcohol is served. Now imagine if camera crews are in downtown Toronto on a weekend filming everyone, what would you judge people to be then? Would you still point the finger at their rude, idiotic behavior and want everyone who behaves badly to be reprimanded? I imagine everyone from Bay Street workers to retail managers to construction workers will be losing their jobs if they had a camera shoved in their face too. But hey! Bad behavior is acceptable as long as their is no one to see it, right? Give me a break


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 May 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...and the employer has the freedom to fire employees who act in a manner counter to the values of the organizations.  I'm sure the guy will eventually find employment with an organization that accepts his conduct; just perhaps not with the same salary as he had before.



Absolutely they have the right; however, this person also has the right to take them to court over their termination being potentially unjust.  Will see how this plays out in court if it goes there.  My guess is the company will settle with Mr. Simoes before it gets to that point.  



> I shake my head at the apologists who think that the source of the trend being an internet meme somehow makes the behaviour understandable and such that we should accept such behaviour.  Where then would those who think so, draw the line as to whena meme becomes unacceptable to repeat in real life?



I don't see anyone saying the behaviour was acceptable so I'm not sure where you get that?  I think where the discrepancy lies is the level to which some people are offended by these comments.  

Myself, I took it as a bunch of drunk guys running their mouths off who were stupid enough to do it to a reporter who videotaped them.  Boorish and Uncouth?  Absolutely; however, their comments were no different then the crap you would hear in any men's dressing room of the local ice hockey beer league.   

Lesson learned, if you're going to run your mouth off, don't do it to a reporter.    

As for how offended everyone is by this?  You're well within your right to feel offended but that doesn't mean that everyone else has to be.          

Far more important things for me to get upset about then what Shawn Simoes blurted out on camera to a CityTV News Reporter.


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2015)

Yes, far more important things to worry about:

Royal Military College head apologizes for cadets' behaviour at harassment seminars

"...cadets at the four Saturday talks she delivered at the military college in Kingston, Ont. were the most hostile audiences she'd had in a career of speaking about sexual assault prevention."


----------



## mariomike (21 May 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> My guess is the company will settle with Mr. Simoes before it gets to that point.



Based on what employment law experts are saying, I'm not so sure:
http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/1368194/does-hydro-one-have-the-right-to-fire-tfc-fan-shawn-simoes/


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 May 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Based on what employment law experts are saying, I'm not so sure:
> http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/1368194/does-hydro-one-have-the-right-to-fire-tfc-fan-shawn-simoes/



Don't believe everything you see on TV 

Especially when we have "experts" like Michael Drapeau pushing issues... we all know how loved he is on this board ;D


----------



## Sigs Pig (21 May 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> You think the only way an employee could/should be fired is if s/he is convicted of a crime?


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


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 May 2015)

Sigs Pig said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (21 May 2015)

Sigs Pig said:
			
		

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



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



			
				Sigs Pig said:
			
		

> 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



			
				Sigs Pig said:
			
		

> 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 (21 May 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> 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 (21 May 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> 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 (21 May 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> 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 (21 May 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> 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 (21 May 2015)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> 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 (21 May 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> 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 (21 May 2015)

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 (21 May 2015)

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 (22 May 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> 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 (22 May 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (22 May 2015)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

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


----------



## Remius (22 May 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

>



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


----------



## mariomike (22 May 2015)

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 (22 May 2015)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> 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 (22 May 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> 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 (22 May 2015)

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 (22 May 2015)

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.
> 
> ...



Cheers
Larry


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 May 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (22 May 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

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



He may have been a jerk, but under Canadian law he is still entitled to all the rights the rest of us (including murders, rapists and other criminals) are entitled too.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 May 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



Thank you!  Finally someone who gets it!  



			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> 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
> 
> ...



She kicked him out of her Caucus Larry, completely unrelated to this.  The MLA is suspended from the NDP caucus, not from the legislature.  

This is the equivalent of telling someone they can't sit at your table anymore, not that they don't have a seat.  The person in question is still and MLA and will still sit in the legislature.


----------



## Remius (22 May 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> He may have been a jerk, but under Canadian law he is still entitled to all the rights the rest of us (including murders, rapists and other criminals) are entitled too.



Which one of those rights that he shares with them  has been violated?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (22 May 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Which one of those rights that he shares with them  has been violated?



A poor choice of words when I including criminals, but what I meant was that under the CA 1982 Canadian citizens are awarded the following rights:

 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

Fundamental freedoms 

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;


----------



## mariomike (22 May 2015)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Works for politicians as well......



Not all of them apparently. Our former mayor's conduct was "questionable". He's still on the City payroll as a councillor. 



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> 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.



In Toronto, we asked for winter tires, but the City still does not equip ambulances with them. ( Unless they had a change of mind after I retired, but I doubt it. ) We carry shovels.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> 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.



Although we had prescribed hours of duty, for the purpose of liability coverage, off-duty City of Toronto Paramedics are considered on-duty and deemed to be acting on behalf of the City of Toronto any time they render assistance to an ill or injured person(s) in Ontario.


----------



## Remius (22 May 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> A poor choice of words when I including criminals, but what I meant was that under the CA 1982 Canadian citizens are awarded the following rights:
> 
> 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
> 
> ...



I'm not sure how that right was violated either.  Keeping in mind that that freedom is not absolute in Canada.  But... He freely expressed his opinion and belief and now he is free to deal with the consequences.  He hasn't been jailed or anything.  And nothing prevented him from saying it.  

Just because we enjoy a certain freedom of speech and expression does not mean we can say what we want whenever or however we want to without consequence.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (22 May 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how that right was violated either.  Keeping in mind that that freedom is not absolute in Canada.  But... He freely expressed his opinion and belief and now he is free to deal with the consequences.  He hasn't been jailed or anything.  And nothing prevented him from saying it.
> 
> Just because we enjoy a certain freedom of speech and expression does not mean we can say what we want whenever or however we want to without consequence.



You are right, here in Canada under the CA 1982 we don't not have an absolute right to freedoms, and they can be curtailed, but only _by a court of law!_.


----------



## Remius (22 May 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> You are right, here in Canada under the CA 1982 we don't not have an absolute right to freedoms, and they can be curtailed, but only _by a court of law!_.



Right.  And no one stopped him from saying what he said.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (22 May 2015)

Fundamental Freedoms as outlined in the Charter only protects citizens from Government action to punish citizens for expressing themselves etc.

Your Fundamental Freedoms do not protect you from action by: a private organization or business, another private citizen, or any other non-governmental entity. That is why you can be fired for using your Freedom of Expression.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 May 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...



So, a whole lot of rhetoric to say that a worker is not protected, while punched in and away from the workplace proper, with the employers permission?

If that's the gist, you're wrong.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 May 2015)

It isn't, and I am not.

Read carefully again.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 May 2015)

So is Hydro 1 going to fire all the executives and senior managers that caused the massive over billing because it brought the firm into disrepute? good for the Goose, good for the Gander, right?


----------



## TCBF (26 May 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> So is Hydro 1 going to fire all the executives and senior managers that caused the massive over billing because it brought the firm into disrepute? good for the Goose, good for the Gander, right?



- Their corruption was polite, and tastefully done without publicly insulting women.


----------



## kratz (26 May 2015)

I was thanked and walked to the door before being handed my bill(s).  
/ :sarcasm:


----------



## armyvern (26 May 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Not all of them apparently. Our former mayor's conduct was "questionable". He's still on the City payroll as a councillor.
> ...



Ahhh, but they are *elected* officials.  There's ways to remove elected officials from the office to which they've been elected, but that's up to the constituents to begin rolling that particular ball.


----------



## mariomike (26 May 2015)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Ahhh, but they are *elected* officials.  There's ways to remove elected officials from the office to which they've been elected, but that's up to the constituents to begin rolling that particular ball.



Yes.

That fact was pointed out during a dismissal arbitration for off-duty "Conduct unbecoming a practicing Paramedic":
"As observed by City counsel, the Mayor and members of Council are not employees of the City and their conduct, whatever that may or may not include, is not before me."


----------



## opcougar (27 May 2015)

This guy is obviously NOT going to get his job back, and nobody is going to be offering him one anytime soon. However, Lawyers should be able to secure him a substantial golden handshake, with them taking a % of course.


----------



## mariomike (27 May 2015)

opcougar said:
			
		

> This guy is obviously NOT going to get his job back, and nobody is going to be offering him one anytime soon. However, Lawyers should be able to secure him a substantial golden handshake, with them taking a % of course.



I'm not an employment lawyer, but my understanding ( based on what they said in this story )
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/13/does-hydro-one-have-the-right-to-fire-tfc-fan-shawn-simoes.html

is in the case of a unionized employee, there needs to be "just cause" for dismissal. If there is, you get nothing.

If there is not "just cause", terminated employees are entitled to Severance Pay.

There is a calculator for non-unionized employees:
http://www.severancepaycalculator.com/?gclid=Cj0KEQjw1pWrBRDuv-rhstiX6KwBEiQA5V9ZoQK8T5qnaGept5S_MkUs6gg32y4_cG6FupkJpwDcMs8aAvCt8P8HAQ

From the story, it is unknown if there is a union involved in this case.


----------



## opcougar (27 May 2015)

Hydro one is yet to provide a "just cause" reason for firing this jerk (yes I am calling him that), and instead to based their decision on social media justice. 

Whatever the outcome, it's Hydro customers that will suffer the most from hiked monthly bills.



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> I'm not an employment lawyer, but my understanding ( based on what I have read )
> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/13/does-hydro-one-have-the-right-to-fire-tfc-fan-shawn-simoes.html
> 
> is in the case of a unionized employee, there needs to be "just cause" for dismissal. If there is, you get nothing.
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2015)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Hydro one is yet to provide a "just cause" reason for firing this jerk (yes I am calling him that), and instead to based their decision on social media justice.



I have no idea where you have been hiding, but they did state the reason that they "were firing this jerk".




			
				opcougar said:
			
		

> Whatever the outcome, it's Hydro customers that will suffer the most from hiked monthly bills.



 ???

How in the world did you deduce that?


----------



## mariomike (27 May 2015)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Hydro one is yet to provide a "just cause" reason for firing this jerk (yes I am calling him that), and instead to based their decision on social media justice.



“In the case of a unionized employee, there needs to be just cause. I would say that going on television and making sexist comments about a reporter would meet that bar in all likelihood.”
Labour lawyer Andrew Langille ( from the article posted ). 



			
				opcougar said:
			
		

> Whatever the outcome, it's Hydro customers that will suffer the most from hiked monthly bills.



You are assuming he is entitled to severance pay. If he is, and not represented by a union, the calculator* will help you estimate the impact it is likely to have on your hydro bill:
http://www.severancepaycalculator.com/

* © 2013 Samfiru Tumarkin LLP, Barristers & Solicitors. All rights reserved.


----------



## opcougar (27 May 2015)

How in the world are you not seeing that if it goes to court, then lawyers are involved, which translates to someone has to pay for the fees and any awards. Hydro one if found guilty of unjust, will then try to recoup that costs somehow. Not that they've ever needed a reason to hike their prices in the first place

Get it now?



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I have no idea where you have been hiding, but they did state the reason that they "were firing this jerk".
> 
> 
> ???
> ...


----------



## Remius (27 May 2015)

You do realise that Hydro One likely has in house legal counsel and that court cases (of which there are likely a few) are already budgeted and forecasted for?  And even more likely, a case like this would probably be settled in arbitration before it ever went to court.

Costs for case like this would be insignificant.


----------



## mariomike (27 May 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> And even more likely, a case like this would probably be settled in arbitration before it ever went to court.



It would only go to arbitration if he was represented by a union. We don't know if he is. It would also depend if the union was willing to represent him.

If he _is_ a member of a union, their silence is deafening.

These are the opinions of two labour law experts quoted in the article:

“Interestingly the unions don’t have to take cases. The union could decide it doesn’t believe in this cause and doesn’t want to be associated with this person. The person may be left without a remedy.”

“The question would be: would the union feel that it’s worth it to proceed to a grievance over the termination? They might agree with the employer’s reasoning on this, that it would damage the overall public perception of the employer. On the other hand, they may say that the guy has a good track record with the employer, this was an isolated incident, and they may be willing to go to bat for him. I think it could go either way. My guess is the union’s not going to touch this just based on the public backlash.”


----------



## opcougar (27 May 2015)

Ahahaha...how fitting, and talk about using distraction to screw people. No wonder Hydro One wants people to be preoccupied with stories about some SOB being fired yelling obscenities when their billing system is so poorly managed. Wonder if the CEO should be fired??

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle24587387/



> Hydro One issued faulty bills to more than 100,000 customers: ombudsman
> 
> Hydro One issued faulty bills to more than 100,000 customers, then mishandled the problem and tried to cover it up, a new report says.
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2015)

opcougar said:
			
		

> Ahahaha...how fitting, and talk about using distraction to screw people. No wonder Hydro One wants people to be preoccupied with stories about some SOB being fired yelling obscenities when their billing system is so poorly managed. Wonder if the CEO should be fired??



Ahahaha...how fitting, and talk about using distraction to derail a topic.  We already have posts elsewhere on Hydro One Billing issues.


----------



## opcougar (28 May 2015)

Speaking of harassment in public, seems the social media crew don't mind this rapper spouting his misogynistic views in public. Good on John Tory taking the stance though.



> Toronto Mayor John Tory (open John Tory's policard) says he disapproves of Action Bronson’s offensive lyrics, but he will support North by Northeast’s stance on whether to go ahead with a free concert next month by the controversial American rapper.



http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/music/2015/05/27/petition-asks-nxne-to-axe-free-action-bronson-show.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Aug 2015)

Here we go again ....


> *Complaint filed with RCMP after CBC reporter kissed by stranger on camera*
> 
> Another television reporter doing a live report received a jarring distraction after a man kissed her on the cheek.
> 
> ...


 :facepalm:


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (9 Aug 2015)

Oh boy. Isn't that considered sexual assault when someone kisses you without permission?


----------



## mariomike (9 Aug 2015)

Update,

Canadian Business
Aug 6, 2015  Jessica McDiarmid 

"Simoes has filed a grievance with his union and the case will go to arbitration."
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/leadership/when-to-fire-a-bad-apple/


----------



## dimsum (10 Aug 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Oh boy. Isn't that considered sexual assault when someone kisses you without permission?



Probably.

As a changing "sign of the times", technically this picture would now be sexual assault these days according to how it happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square#/media/File:Legendary_kiss_V%E2%80%93J_day_in_Times_Square_Alfred_Eisenstaedt.jpg


----------



## mariomike (10 Aug 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> As a changing "sign of the times", technically this picture would now be sexual assault these days according to how it happened:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square#/media/File:Legendary_kiss_V%E2%80%93J_day_in_Times_Square_Alfred_Eisenstaedt.jpg



Perhaps even seventy years ago? Photos of men "stealing a kiss" from strangers on the street are not typical of the era. 

I suspect a higher than usual level of  "conduct unbecoming" by servicemen was tolerated on V-J Day. 

Besides, to this day, there is uncertainty as to the identity of either individual. For such an iconic photo, perhaps that is the way it should be.  

Hard to imagine photos of what female reporters of today are being subjected to ever generating nostalgia such as this:

"Unconditional Surrender"
https://www.google.ca/search?q=unconditional+surrender+sculpture&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMI0Zrtg4ifxwIVCRo-Ch0TNgZZ&biw=1536&bih=788


----------



## mariomike (2 Nov 2015)

Rehired Hydro One staffer ‘made amends’ for FHRITP incident, union says
http://globalnews.ca/news/2313080/exclusive-hydro-one-rehires-man-fired-after-fhritp-incident/

TORONTO — The Hydro One employee fired for defending the sexist heckling of a female TV reporter has been rehired after a labour arbitrator determined he made “extensive efforts… to make amends for his conduct.”


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Nov 2015)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Rehired Hydro One staffer ‘made amends’ for FHRITP incident, union says
> http://globalnews.ca/news/2313080/exclusive-hydro-one-rehires-man-fired-after-fhritp-incident/
> 
> TORONTO — The Hydro One employee fired for defending the sexist heckling of a female TV reporter has been rehired after a labour arbitrator determined he made “extensive efforts… to make amends for his conduct.”



Everyone had their pitchforks out for me saying he wasn't going to stay terminated.

 does this mean I get to say ... "I told you so"


----------



## Tibbson (2 Nov 2015)

Another fine example of "trial by Twitter".  While I don't condone what he did I never did feel it was worth firing him for it in the first place.  Its not as if he was wearing a Hydro One uniform or driving by in one of their vehicles.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Nov 2015)

I don't even think he said the offending statement did he? Just defended his buddy who did it?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (2 Nov 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I don't even think he said the offending statement did he? Just defended his buddy who did it?



That is my understanding of it. In fact I am not 100% sure it was his buddy who said it, rather just someone who beat their group to the punch line and they happened to be around for the questioning.


----------



## mariomike (3 Nov 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> Its not as if he was wearing a Hydro One uniform or driving by in one of their vehicles.



The arbitrator may take the employee's profession into account. An "assistant network management engineer" may not have as much contact with the public as certain other professions.

Dismissals for non-criminal, off-duty, not in uniform, not on City property, not in a City vehicle, were upheld by arbitrators where I used to work.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Nov 2015)

A real twitter death sentence would have been putting his x-mas lights up before 12 NOV.


----------



## mariomike (27 Apr 2016)

Not much has changed, 

Apr 27, 2016 

CityNews' Anna Vlachos considers charges after latest FHRITP incident
http://www.citynews.ca/2016/04/27/citynews-anna-vlachos-considers-charges-after-latest-fhritp-incident/
As Vlachos, who is six months pregnant, spoke to viewers, a young man walked in front of the camera and slurred “FHRITP.”


----------



## mariomike (23 Jul 2016)

Jul 22, 2016 

Heckling of Vancouver TV reporter leads to police investigation
http://www.680news.com/2016/07/22/heckling-of-vancouver-tv-reporter-leads-to-police-investigation-2/

Also sort of Pokémon Go related,
MacDonald was reporting on a group of Pokemon Go players that had gathered in Robson Square when a man stepped beside her and uttered a vulgarity while appearing to record the episode with his cellphone.

Also reported in HuffPost BC as, "Unholy Douchebag Interrupts CTV Vancouver Report With 'FHRITP' Prank".  ;D 

( I don't think FHRITP is funny. I don't know why anyone would. But, I thought the "Unholy Douchebag" headline was.   )


----------



## mariomike (31 Aug 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The CAF is hardly unique for having certain situations in which someone will lose their job if it's reasonably believed they engaged in certain conduct.



Eg: The FHRITP incident at the CNE,

Harrasment in public..Hydro One fires "jerk" for reporter prank  
https://army.ca/forums/threads/119361.150
8 pages.

Hydro One eventually re-hired him because,

A) He was in a union. 

B) His job at Hydro One was not "client facing". His job responsibilities were internal. ie: He did not represent Hydro One to the public on a day-to-day basis. 

For jobs that involve a high level of public trust, even if in a union,



> Canadian HR Reporter
> 
> Certain jobs require a high level of skill and a high level of trust from both employers and the public. For employees working in those types of positions, it’s possible that off-duty behaviour can call into question that trust, if it demonstrates poor judgment. And if an employer no longer has confidence that an employee has the judgment to perform a job of high skill and responsibility, the result could be dismissal.
> https://www.hrreporter.com/columnist/employment-law/archive/2013/04/22/professional-conduct-outside-of-profession/


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (31 Aug 2019)

The Union part has nothing to do with it except he had representation, and I'll bet if he had grtabbed her genitals and said "you know you liked it", the result would have been different.


----------



## mariomike (31 Aug 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The Union part has nothing to do with it except he had representation,





> Global News
> 
> Why was Hydro One worker in FHRITP incident rehired?
> 
> ...



* Ontario Labour Lawyer Danny Kastner
http://www.kastnerlaw.ca/danny-kastner
"He has expertise in employment law, labour law and civil litigation, with a focus on human rights, professional discipline and defamation. 
In a broad range of sensitive workplace matters, Danny also acts as an independent investigator.
Danny is a past Chair of the Labour and Employment Section of the Ontario Bar Association. He also serves as a Board Member for the Industrial Accident Victims’ Group of Ontario."


----------



## brihard (31 Aug 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Eg: The FHRITP incident at the CNE,
> 
> Harrasment in public..Hydro One fires "jerk" for reporter prank
> https://army.ca/forums/threads/119361.150
> ...



Yeah, but he didn't do it at work or in an extension of the workplace (e.g., work Christmas party). He was fired for off duty conduct in public not impacting directly on the workplace or someone in it. Try yelling 'FHRITP' at a company teleconference.


----------



## mariomike (31 Aug 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> He was fired for off duty conduct in public not impacting directly on the workplace or someone in it.



He didn't say FHRITP. Someone else did. 

Shawn defended it on City-TV News. There was no mention or identification of his employer.

People recognized him and identified his employer. When that public connection was made, they fired him.

Professional conduct outside of profession ( in Ontario ) was discussed here,
https://www.hrreporter.com/columnist/employment-law/archive/2013/04/22/professional-conduct-outside-of-profession/
"How far should high standards of professional conduct apply when employees are off duty?"

Where I worked, some members also committed off-duty career suicide on social media. 

The union took these cases to arbitration. Sometimes the arbitrator's ruling was favourable to the employee. Sometimes it wasn't.

No union. No arbitration.

"The Arbitration Board, or single arbitrator, as the case may be, shall hear and determine the grievance and shall issue a decision, and the decision shall be binding upon the Union, the City and upon any employee affected by it."


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Sep 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> He didn't say FHRITP. Someone else did.
> 
> Shawn defended it on City-TV News. There was no mention or identification of his employer.
> 
> ...



bingo, no union= no arbitration. 
However, something we have been doing for a number of years now with employee contracts is putting mediation clauses into individual contracts of employment, and also very strong protection of privacy as well as personal reputation interests.  Edit: we have also sometimes put these terms into consulting contracts.


----------



## mariomike (4 Sep 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> bingo, no union= no arbitration.
> However, something we have been doing for a number of years now with employee contracts is putting mediation clauses into individual contracts of employment, and also very strong protection of privacy as well as personal reputation interests.  Edit: we have also sometimes put these terms into consulting contracts.



That sounds like a good idea.

My limited understanding of labour law is that unionized employees do not have the right to sue their employer in court if they are fired or demoted.

Unionized employees have no legal right to take their grievance to arbitration. Whether to accept or proceed with an employee's grievance is entirely up to the union. The employee can not insist the union proceed with it. 

Even if the union decides to take the dismissal to arbitration, the arbitrator's decision is final. ie: The arbitrator may take the side of the employer.

In this case there was no harassment of fellow employees, and the employee does not deal directly with the public. So, I was not surprised the union took his grievance to a successful arbitration.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Sep 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The Union part has nothing to do with it except he had representation, and I'll bet if he had grtabbed her genitals and said "you know you liked it", the result would have been different.



Not really. Like the PM says, "She just experienced it differently."


----------

