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

[armyvern]

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]

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

 

[Jarnhamar]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Blackadder1916]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 

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]

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]

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]

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.