http://www.torontosun.com/2015/05/12/hydro-one-firing-tfc-fan-after-vulgar-comment
Background: There was a soccer match in Toronto (that I attended). After the game, a female TV station reporter was doing a post-gamer with fans, when some fans started saying "fuck her right in the pussy" which, apparently is a meme these days. She accosted them for it, and then one guy in an Arsenal shirt decided to ramble on. This went viral and today his company, a corporation called Hydro One, fired him.
While the guy was an idiot and was obviously disrespecting the woman and her profession, and quite obviously, his company has a sexual harrasment policy, should he lose his job over it, given that it happened outside his place of work, he wasn't working, and it had nothing to do with his job.
Thoughts?
A man who hurled a vulgar comment and swore at a CityNews reporter outside of a Toronto FC game is being fired by Hydro One.
The company confirmed Shawn Simoes is in the process of being terminated from his position as an assistant network management engineer/officer.
"Hydro One is taking steps to terminate one of its employees for violating its code of conduct," said the company's director of communications Daffyd Roderick told the Toronto Sun Tuesday. "Respect for all people is ingrained in our values. We're committed to a work environment where harassment of any kind is met with zero tolerance and a swift response."
Roderick would not specify how long Simoes was employed at Hydro One, as that is "a personnel issue."
Two days after reporter Shauna Hunt turned her mic on obnoxious Toronto FC supporters, MLSE revealed Tuesday morning they're hunting down the fans involved.
City News reporter Hunt -- tired of being harassed on the job -- barked back when an unidentified TFC fan yelled "f--- her right in the p----" into her mic outside BMO Field.
Mobile users click here to watch the video
In the aftermath, Hunt asked another man now identified as Simoes, "What if your mom saw you?"
"My mom would die laughing," he replied with a bellowing laugh.
Simoes also said Hunt was lucky she did not have a "vibrator" in her ear.
According to public documents, Simoes made the 2014 Sunshine List with a salary of roughly $106,510 with $709.10 in taxable benefits.
Ontario ombudsman Andre Marin weighed in on Twitter.
"Public servants should b held to a higher std at all times. Engaging in a very public act of sex harass't deserves quick sanction," he tweeted.
Ontario Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli said that regardless of where this individual works, this behaviour is "absolutely unacceptable.
"Freedom of the press means freedom to be able to communicate in a reasonable manner," Chiarelli said. "And if that is brought to my attention, and we can identify who that individual is, certainly we'd take that back to the office and take some kind of action." The Ontario government is currently the sole owner of Hydro One, and it comes under the oversight of the energy minister.
Simoes is listed as a midfielder on the Ontario Hydro Soccer League and is a former player on the Golden Hawks soccer team at Wilfred Laurier University. According to an online article from WLU, he tried out for TFC in 2006.
When contacted Tuesday, Hunt said, "Going into this, our intention was not to vilify those two guys, they just happened to be the example of what hundreds of guys have been shouting at City(News) and all over the city for the past two years now," she said. "We just wanted to shed light on the bigger issue — that it's not OK to yell the P-word at me or any reporter. It's unacceptable and that was the stance we were taking.
"It was happening everywhere I turned and this is the result."
The Toronto Sun has tried to contact the men involved — including a man who wore a TFC jersey and sunglasses who told Hunt he and his friends had been waiting to make the vulgar statement on live TV — but as of yet, have been unable to reach them.
If his employer no longer wants to employ him then yeah I guess.
WEll, in this country anyway, employer needs "just cause" to fire someone. He can sue for wrongful dismissal.
Then I suppose it depends on the wording of the employee conduct code.
I think it's fundamentally sound if business relationships are voluntary.
Quote from: Josephus on May 12, 2015, 04:29:05 PM
WEll, in this country anyway, employer needs "just cause" to fire someone. He can sue for wrongful dismissal.
Being an asshole should be a fireable offense.
I have to think that Hydro One is unionized, so it depends on their collective agreement.
My take is that this might not be "just cause", but beyond that - sure, well within their rights to let the guy go. He maybe/probably should get payment in lieu of notice, but he should still be canned.
Quote from: Josephus on May 12, 2015, 04:29:05 PM
WEll, in this country anyway, employer needs "just cause" to fire someone. He can sue for wrongful dismissal.
Sure but your question was whether this guy should lose his job.
Whether he has any legal recourse is another question which, as already pointed out, will turn on the terms of his employment contract or of the collective bargaining agreement if he is unionized.
I'm having a bit of trouble with the "well within their rights" bit.
If I get drunk on a Saturday night (or any other night), do something stupid like say tell the bartender, "hey nice tits" and she posts it on Facebook. Does my company have the right to fire me? Let's assume that my job is low visibility profile, say, a clerk.
Quote from: Josephus on May 12, 2015, 04:43:48 PM
I'm having a bit of trouble with the "well within their rights" bit.
If I get drunk on a Saturday night (or any other night), do something stupid like say tell the bartender, "hey nice tits" and she posts it on Facebook. Does my company have the right to fire me? Let's assume that my job is low visibility profile, say, a clerk.
Your employer has the ability to fire you at any time, for any reason.*
They'll probably have to give you proper notice (or payment in lieu of), but that's it.
*Well, they can't fire you for prohibited grounds under the HRC - so they can't fire you for your race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc. But it's a narrow exception.
Quote from: Josephus on May 12, 2015, 04:43:48 PM
I'm having a bit of trouble with the "well within their rights" bit.
If I get drunk on a Saturday night (or any other night), do something stupid like say tell the bartender, "hey nice tits" and she posts it on Facebook. Does my company have the right to fire me? Let's assume that my job is low visibility profile, say, a clerk.
An employer has the "right" to terminate any non unionized employee they wish without cause. They just need to give working notice or pay in lieu. I think what you are arguing is that they didn't have cause which is a separate issue.
Quote from: Josephus on May 12, 2015, 04:43:48 PM
I'm having a bit of trouble with the "well within their rights" bit.
If I get drunk on a Saturday night (or any other night), do something stupid like say tell the bartender, "hey nice tits" and she posts it on Facebook. Does my company have the right to fire me? Let's assume that my job is low visibility profile, say, a clerk.
There's a huge difference between being drunk and stupid and being drunk, stupid and an asshole all while being on tv.
The question you mean to be asking is whether it's morally defensible to fire you.
The published claim is that he;s being fired for violating the Code of Conduct. However, it isn't something that actually falls within Hydro's published code of conduct, which is here:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hydroone.com%2FCareers%2FDocuments%2FCode_of_Business_Conduct.pdf&ei=TnZSVcycD8z_yQTZoIHoAg&usg=AFQjCNHDxtn88UHWrGmWBt6hGPwmPSgxWg&bvm=bv.92885102,d.aWw
See p. 11, "harrassment". It all has to do with harrassment in the workplace.
My take - assuming he's not unionized - he'll probably get notice. Of course a company can fire someone for being an asshole or embarrasing them, but it looks like they will be on the hook for notice.
Anything about conduct harming the company's image?
The statement, which I know is a meme, is still rather sexually aggressive and demeaning.
Are you doing everything possible to promote a safe harassment free workplace for women if you let this sort of person continue there? Putting it another way, if in a couple years time he is accused of sexual harassment, could this increase the exposure of the company if this is entered into evidence?
Quote from: Malthus on May 12, 2015, 05:01:56 PM
The published claim is that he;s being fired for violating the Code of Conduct. However, it isn't something that actually falls within Hydro's published code of conduct, which is here:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hydroone.com%2FCareers%2FDocuments%2FCode_of_Business_Conduct.pdf&ei=TnZSVcycD8z_yQTZoIHoAg&usg=AFQjCNHDxtn88UHWrGmWBt6hGPwmPSgxWg&bvm=bv.92885102,d.aWw
See p. 11, "harrassment". It all has to do with harrassment in the workplace.
My take - assuming he's not unionized - he'll probably get notice. Of course a company can fire someone for being an asshole or embarrasing them, but it looks like they will be on the hook for notice.
I am not so sure. A company can claim cause if the actions of the employee outside the workplace could result in reputational damage. And this looks to be at least an arguable case.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2015, 05:18:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 12, 2015, 05:01:56 PM
The published claim is that he;s being fired for violating the Code of Conduct. However, it isn't something that actually falls within Hydro's published code of conduct, which is here:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hydroone.com%2FCareers%2FDocuments%2FCode_of_Business_Conduct.pdf&ei=TnZSVcycD8z_yQTZoIHoAg&usg=AFQjCNHDxtn88UHWrGmWBt6hGPwmPSgxWg&bvm=bv.92885102,d.aWw
See p. 11, "harrassment". It all has to do with harrassment in the workplace.
My take - assuming he's not unionized - he'll probably get notice. Of course a company can fire someone for being an asshole or embarrasing them, but it looks like they will be on the hook for notice.
I am not so sure. A company can claim cause if the actions of the employee outside the workplace could result in reputational damage. And this looks to be at least an arguable case.
Possibly - depending on whether the employee was identified as an employee at the time of the incident, or identified as a result of the incident by the employer. A company can hardly "out" an employee itself, and then claim reputational damage as "just cause" for an identification it made itself.
I'm merely stating that the reason the employer actually gave in the article - that its code of conduct was violated - is very arguably wrong; the Code seems to only anticipater work-related harrassment.
Let's rephrase my original intent to this.
Do you think this guy's being hard done by?
Nope. Karmic justice.
I'm just glad there was no youtube when I was 20 and stupid.
EDIT: I'll retract this statement since youtube really had nothing to do with this, and there was news television back when I was 20, although social media had a lot to do with the consequences of this story
Quote from: Josephus on May 12, 2015, 05:45:23 PM
Let's rephrase my original intent to this.
Do you think this guy's being hard done by?
No, actions have consequences even when inebriated.
Quote from: Josephus on May 12, 2015, 05:47:59 PM
I'm just glad there was no youtube when I was 20 and stupid.
EDIT: I'll retract this statement since youtube really had nothing to do with this, and there was news television back when I was 20, although social media had a lot to do with the consequences of this story
Yes, that is the take home message that young people really have to understand. Being stupid on social media can have significant consequences and social media is everywhere.
The world is a very different place from when you and I were young.
edit: and in answer to your question about him being hard done by. If I found out one of my employees did that I would have to be convinced it was completely out of character in order to persuade me to keep him around.
Cal will hire him.
I would, but I have a NO CANUCK policy.
Quote from: Josephus on May 12, 2015, 05:45:23 PM
Let's rephrase my original intent to this.
Do you think this guy's being hard done by?
Let me put it this way: The guy's an asshole, so I don't care if he loses his job.
OTOH, do I think there is good cause to fire him? No, because his actions in this incident had nothing to do with his job--it would be way more than sufficient to be good cause if he had done the same thing at work, but that's not the case. Then again, as others have stated, employers don't need good cause to fire someone; barring contractual provisions to the contrary, an employer can legally fire any employee at any time for any reason other than discrimination.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2015, 05:02:46 PM
Anything about conduct harming the company's image?
That's what I'd think were the best grounds for firing.
Anyway, fire the bastard.
Quote from: Norgy on May 12, 2015, 06:58:02 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 12, 2015, 05:02:46 PM
Anything about conduct harming the company's image?
That's what I'd think were the best grounds for firing.
Anyway, fire the bastard.
This coming from a guy with an avatar showing a young woman and the word Fellatio ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2015, 06:23:29 PMIf I found out one of my employees did that I would have to be convinced it was completely out of character in order to persuade me to keep him around.
I think I would be the same way. I might sit the person down and have a chat. But this guy works in a large corporate environment. People who fired him probably never met him.
Perhaps a good rule of thumb might be, if someone does something that merits a smack in the gob, he should be fired for it.
Since we're talking about what I think should happen, he should be fired from his job at the state-owned power plant and relegated to subsisting upon his guaranteed income.
Quote from: Josephus on May 12, 2015, 05:45:23 PM
Let's rephrase my original intent to this.
Do you think this guy's being hard done by?
No. A grown man acting like he did is just bizarre.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 12, 2015, 06:23:29 PM
Yes, that is the take home message that young people really have to understand. Being stupid on social media can have significant consequences and social media is everywhere.
The world is a very different place from when you and I were young.
As I have said repeatedly, I don't think the current situation is tenable though - the problem is that people like you are now in a position of power and indeed they are scared and surprised by this new world, which makes their reactions unreasonable. Personally, I think a new equilibrium will need to be developed, where (eventually) everybody has silly, incriminating shit on their Facebook, so this will stop mattering any more - or, alternatively, in 20 years, when today's teenagers become political leaders and CEOs, we will be ruled by Mormons, as they will be the only ones who did not do anything stupid on Facebook in their youth.
I am fairly sure which reality I'd rather prefer.
Quote from: dps on May 12, 2015, 06:50:20 PM
Then again, as others have stated, employers don't need good cause to fire someone.
That's quite a contentious, controversial statement, presented as an assertion, with no justification given. I suspect most people in the Western world would disagree with you (given that most Western countries have laws that say otherwise).
On the one hand, I tend to think much of the "internet shaming" trend is going overboard (e.g. that case not long ago regarding the young lady who Tweeted a pretty poor-taste joke before a flight, and had the internet pitchfork crowd calling for her termination before she landed)...and on the other hand, I have no pity for this particular case of overly boorish behavior getting this dude canned.
You are quite right, Tonitrus. Once again, Clickhole offers the most accurate commentary:
QuoteJustice At Last! When This Girl Was Cyberbullied By A Classmate, The Internet Came Together And Got Her Bully To Commit Suicide!
http://www.clickhole.com/article/justice-last-when-girl-was-cyberbullied-classmate--2219
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 12:58:39 AM
Quote from: dps on May 12, 2015, 06:50:20 PM
Then again, as others have stated, employers don't need good cause to fire someone.
That's quite a contentious, controversial statement, presented as an assertion, with no justification given. I suspect most people in the Western world would disagree with you (given that most Western countries have laws that say otherwise).
Would "failure to synergistically adapt to the workplace's cohesion and support the office's team concept" work as a cause? Because that could easily get the "guy that is good enough at his job, but nobody there likes him" fired.
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 12:56:33 AM
As I have said repeatedly, I don't think the current situation is tenable though - the problem is that people like you are now in a position of power and indeed they are scared and surprised by this new world, which makes their reactions unreasonable. Personally, I think a new equilibrium will need to be developed, where (eventually) everybody has silly, incriminating shit on their Facebook, so this will stop mattering any more - or, alternatively, in 20 years, when today's teenagers become political leaders and CEOs, we will be ruled by Mormons, as they will be the only ones who did not do anything stupid on Facebook in their youth.
I am fairly sure which reality I'd rather prefer.
I have faith that our future leaders will be as good as our current ones at keeping the skeletons in the closet.
You are going to end up with a very high level of unemployment if all obnoxious wankers are fired.
That's what the recycling tanks are for. :)
If it had happened before he got the job he'd never have got so far as an interview, so yes, sack the cockwomble. I believe several of the Chelsea fans who were identified on CCTV preventing a black man getting on the Paris Metro lost their jobs.
After a light Google I found someone who came for an interview as a military technology reporter was an anti-war protester. Not a cultural fit, I'd say.
I'm wondering which of the two offences he commited are the most egregious :
(1) He is an Arsenal supporter.
(2) He used the term "fuck her in the pussy" instead of the correct "ask for anal".
:hmm:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 13, 2015, 04:09:33 AM
I'm wondering which of the two offences he commited are the most egregious :
(1) He is an Arsenal supporter.
:mad:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 13, 2015, 01:23:35 AM
You are going to end up with a very high level of unemployment if all obnoxious wankers are fired.
Maybe though it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to avoid planning to go on television to say vile things.
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2015, 04:36:57 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 13, 2015, 01:23:35 AM
You are going to end up with a very high level of unemployment if all obnoxious wankers are fired.
Maybe though it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to avoid planning to go on television to say vile things.
Well, yes. I say a lot of things that could probably get me sacked in private, but I've never been idiotic enough to say them on national media.
Mind you, as I left work last night, my colleague asked "Are you coming?" to which I replied, "No, I'm just standing awkwardly."
:D
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 13, 2015, 04:09:33 AM
I'm wondering which of the two offences he commited are the most egregious :
(1) He is an Arsenal supporter.
(2) He used the term "fuck her in the pussy" instead of the correct "ask for anal".
:hmm:
I think you should be on the jury here, RH. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2015, 04:36:57 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 13, 2015, 01:23:35 AM
You are going to end up with a very high level of unemployment if all obnoxious wankers are fired.
Maybe though it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to avoid planning to go on television to say vile things.
That sounds fair enough, but with the proliferation of electronic devices and social media whether we are on television or not itself becomes a blurry area. It is possible that etiquette simply has not yet caught up and people need to understand that :hmm:
He's at the limit of course, his behaviour was grossly offensive; but I wouldn't want to see the likes of my crappy joke a few posts up or B's comment to her colleague demonised.
I have a real life example of a friend posting something insensitive and quite offensive on Facebook. It escalated quite quickly and he's receiving threats etc.
This guy (in the piece at the beginning) has easily poured his credibility down the toilet and made himself unemployable elsewhere.
I want to appear on TV news wearing only an open bathrobe and a smile.
Nope.
Quote from: Norgy on May 13, 2015, 05:36:50 AM
I have a real life example of a friend posting something insensitive and quite offensive on Facebook. It escalated quite quickly and he's receiving threats etc.
Seriously man. You never say anything controversial on facebook. That is where you say 'happy birthday!' and 'boy your kid is cute'
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2015, 07:49:30 AM
Quote from: Norgy on May 13, 2015, 05:36:50 AM
I have a real life example of a friend posting something insensitive and quite offensive on Facebook. It escalated quite quickly and he's receiving threats etc.
Seriously man. You never say anything controversial on facebook. That is where you say 'happy birthday!' and 'boy your kid is cute'
I wish my gay cousin would learn not to overshare on facebook.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 13, 2015, 04:09:33 AM
I'm wondering which of the two offences he commited are the most egregious :
(1) He is an Arsenal supporter.
(2) He used the term "fuck her in the pussy" instead of the correct "ask for anal".
:hmm:
He actually never said fuck her in the pussy. That was another guy. He basically said, she should have a vibrator in her ear, or something.
Quote from: Brazen on May 13, 2015, 04:48:36 AM
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2015, 04:36:57 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 13, 2015, 01:23:35 AM
You are going to end up with a very high level of unemployment if all obnoxious wankers are fired.
Maybe though it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to avoid planning to go on television to say vile things.
Well, yes. I say a lot of things that could probably get me sacked in private, but I've never been idiotic enough to say them on national media.
Mind you, as I left work last night, my colleague asked "Are you coming?" to which I replied, "No, I'm just standing awkwardly."
But nowadays you don't have to say anything on national media. Some 12 year old with a cheap phone can be filming you.
Quote from: Valmy on May 13, 2015, 07:49:30 AM
'boy your kid is cute'
That could mean you are a pedo, though.
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 08:12:21 AM
But nowadays you don't have to say anything on national media. Some 12 year old with a cheap phone can be filming you.
Andy Warhol got it wrong: in the future, everyone will be the target of an internet mob for 15 minutes for something dumb, obnoxious or insensitive they have said or done that got recorded by someone. They just better hope that during that 15 minutes, they aren't fired, arrested or stoned by vigilantes. :D
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2015, 08:26:11 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 08:12:21 AM
But nowadays you don't have to say anything on national media. Some 12 year old with a cheap phone can be filming you.
Andy Warhol got it wrong: in the future, everyone will be the target of an internet mob for 15 minutes for something dumb, obnoxious or insensitive they have said or done that got recorded by someone. They just better hope that during that 15 minutes, they aren't fired, arrested or stoned by vigilantes. :D
Yeah as I said, my expectation is that this will eventually become a non-issue because everybody will be implicated.
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 08:57:04 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2015, 08:26:11 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 08:12:21 AM
But nowadays you don't have to say anything on national media. Some 12 year old with a cheap phone can be filming you.
Andy Warhol got it wrong: in the future, everyone will be the target of an internet mob for 15 minutes for something dumb, obnoxious or insensitive they have said or done that got recorded by someone. They just better hope that during that 15 minutes, they aren't fired, arrested or stoned by vigilantes. :D
Yeah as I said, my expectation is that this will eventually become a non-issue because everybody will be implicated.
"Implicated" isn't the same as 'gone viral'. Person A may have done the exact same obnoxious stunt as person B, and both captured on media; but for whatever reason, person A's stunt catches attention, but not person B's.
"Everyone is guilty so anyone can pay,
I'm just surprised it doesn't happen every bloody day" - New Model Army ;)
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2015, 08:26:11 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 08:12:21 AM
But nowadays you don't have to say anything on national media. Some 12 year old with a cheap phone can be filming you.
Andy Warhol got it wrong: in the future, everyone will be the target of an internet mob for 15 minutes for something dumb, obnoxious or insensitive they have said or done that got recorded by someone. They just better hope that during that 15 minutes, they aren't fired, arrested or stoned by vigilantes. :D
:lol:
As I've said earlier, I am so glad I was stupid and twenty in a time we werent' recording everything.
Now I'm 48 and stupid, but nobody's bothering to film me. :D
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 10:16:15 AM
As I've said earlier, I am so glad I was stupid and twenty in a time we werent' recording everything.
Now I'm 48 and stupid, but nobody's bothering to film me. :D
No one bothers to film me either and I'm still in my 20s. -_-
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 12:58:39 AM
Quote from: dps on May 12, 2015, 06:50:20 PM
Then again, as others have stated, employers don't need good cause to fire someone.
That's quite a contentious, controversial statement, presented as an assertion, with no justification given. I suspect most people in the Western world would disagree with you (given that most Western countries have laws that say otherwise).
Marti, are you trying to be sarcastic or do you really not understand employment law?
http://business.financialpost.com/executive/management-hr/firing-employee-got-hydro-one-a-lot-of-publicity-if-its-for-cause-thats-a-bonus
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 12:27:32 PM
http://business.financialpost.com/executive/management-hr/firing-employee-got-hydro-one-a-lot-of-publicity-if-its-for-cause-thats-a-bonus
Heh, very true.
QuoteIf this employee is young, has not been employed long and holds a junior position, what will it cost Hydro One to fire him without cause. Probably only two or three months' severance — a small price to pay for the hundreds of thousands of dollars of free, positive advertising the power company has just captured.
It doesn't really matter if they have to pay this guy notice, which I think they likely would - the publicity boost was probably worth it.
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2015, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 12:27:32 PM
http://business.financialpost.com/executive/management-hr/firing-employee-got-hydro-one-a-lot-of-publicity-if-its-for-cause-thats-a-bonus
Heh, very true.
QuoteIf this employee is young, has not been employed long and holds a junior position, what will it cost Hydro One to fire him without cause. Probably only two or three months' severance — a small price to pay for the hundreds of thousands of dollars of free, positive advertising the power company has just captured.
It doesn't really matter if they have to pay this guy notice, which I think they likely would - the publicity boost was probably worth it.
I would add to Howard's analysis that not only did they get some great free advertising but they also avoided a huge reputational risk if they didn't deal with this. Unlike the CBC.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2015, 12:45:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2015, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 12:27:32 PM
http://business.financialpost.com/executive/management-hr/firing-employee-got-hydro-one-a-lot-of-publicity-if-its-for-cause-thats-a-bonus
Heh, very true.
QuoteIf this employee is young, has not been employed long and holds a junior position, what will it cost Hydro One to fire him without cause. Probably only two or three months' severance — a small price to pay for the hundreds of thousands of dollars of free, positive advertising the power company has just captured.
It doesn't really matter if they have to pay this guy notice, which I think they likely would - the publicity boost was probably worth it.
I would add to Howard's analysis that not only did they get some great free advertising but they also avoided a huge reputational risk if they didn't deal with this. Unlike the CBC.
I don't think it's all that analogous - Gomeshi was a media star, this guy was some sort of midlevel backroom computer dude. Also, the accusations in the CBC case were a lot more serious than public boorishness.
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2015, 12:52:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2015, 12:45:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2015, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 12:27:32 PM
http://business.financialpost.com/executive/management-hr/firing-employee-got-hydro-one-a-lot-of-publicity-if-its-for-cause-thats-a-bonus
Heh, very true.
QuoteIf this employee is young, has not been employed long and holds a junior position, what will it cost Hydro One to fire him without cause. Probably only two or three months' severance — a small price to pay for the hundreds of thousands of dollars of free, positive advertising the power company has just captured.
It doesn't really matter if they have to pay this guy notice, which I think they likely would - the publicity boost was probably worth it.
I would add to Howard's analysis that not only did they get some great free advertising but they also avoided a huge reputational risk if they didn't deal with this. Unlike the CBC.
I don't think it's all that analogous - Gomeshi was a media star, this guy was some sort of midlevel backroom computer dude. Also, the accusations in the CBC case were a lot more serious than public boorishness.
This guy was identified in a stupid act that went viral. I agree that what Gomeshi is alleged to have done is a lot more serious. But are you suggesting that if Hydro had done nothing they would have received no criticism?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2015, 12:55:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2015, 12:52:15 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2015, 12:45:19 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2015, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 12:27:32 PM
http://business.financialpost.com/executive/management-hr/firing-employee-got-hydro-one-a-lot-of-publicity-if-its-for-cause-thats-a-bonus
Heh, very true.
QuoteIf this employee is young, has not been employed long and holds a junior position, what will it cost Hydro One to fire him without cause. Probably only two or three months' severance — a small price to pay for the hundreds of thousands of dollars of free, positive advertising the power company has just captured.
It doesn't really matter if they have to pay this guy notice, which I think they likely would - the publicity boost was probably worth it.
I would add to Howard's analysis that not only did they get some great free advertising but they also avoided a huge reputational risk if they didn't deal with this. Unlike the CBC.
I don't think it's all that analogous - Gomeshi was a media star, this guy was some sort of midlevel backroom computer dude. Also, the accusations in the CBC case were a lot more serious than public boorishness.
This guy was identified in a stupid act that went viral. I agree that what Gomeshi is alleged to have done is a lot more serious. But are you suggesting that if Hydro had done nothing they would have received no criticism?
I dunno. Apparently, there were others at the game doing the same thing, and all that their employers are doing is releasing statements dissassociating themselves from the employees' comments, and saying they would "address it".
From the artcle:
QuoteCognex Corp., which employs the man in the TFC jersey, released a statement Tuesday afternoon but would not confirm his identity.
"While the individual was attending the event on his own time and was not at a Cognex activity, the views expressed are totally inconsistent with Cognex's values, and we find such comments reprehensible," company spokesman Sarah Laskowski said, adding they "will be addressing it."
If Hydro had done that - rather than summarily firing the guy - would there have been a ton of bad publicity and a serious reputational risk? I guess the experiment is - is this Cognex Corp. seeing a ton of bad publicity?
Here is a fairly good article from the CBC about the risk of termination for actions unrelated to employment duties. The key thing is the reputational risk to the employer.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/firing-of-shawn-simoes-for-off-duty-fhritp-video-reflects-employment-trend-1.3071919
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2015, 01:01:19 PM
If Hydro had done that - rather than summarily firing the guy - would there have been a ton of bad publicity and a serious reputational risk? I guess the experiment is - is this Cognex Corp. seeing a ton of bad publicity?
The difference is everyone knows who the public company is and the public generally interacts with that entity on a regular basis. Do people even know what Cognex Corp does?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2015, 01:04:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2015, 01:01:19 PM
If Hydro had done that - rather than summarily firing the guy - would there have been a ton of bad publicity and a serious reputational risk? I guess the experiment is - is this Cognex Corp. seeing a ton of bad publicity?
The difference is everyone knows who the public company is and the public generally interacts with that entity on a regular basis. Do people even know what Cognex Corp does?
Fair enough - but in my opinion, had the employer simply issued a statement like that of Cognex Corp., any "reputational damage" would have been minimal or non-existant. While people are scrambling to congratulate Hydro for firing this guy (particularly provincial Liberal politicians - there is nothing they like better than a government-owned utility displaying socially positive behaviour :D ), I don't think there would be any fallout or demand that 'simply dissociating yourself and promising discipline isn't enough - thou must immediately fire the guy'.
Though of course, having done it once, there may well be in the future - particularly if it is a Hydro Exec caught doing something nasty (naturally, the provincial Libs will not be taking this lesson to heart as far as they themselves go! :lol: )
What is the Hydro One corporation's business?
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 01:15:22 PM
What is the Hydro One corporation's business?
They are the government-owned electrical utility in this province.
Adding spice to the mix is that the guy to be fired was just senior enough to be making over 100K, which amounts are publicly published.
Then I fail to see how this would be a huge reputational damage not to fire this guy - it's not like this is a consumer company operating in a highly competitive brand-sensitive environment. I don't see how people would suddenly stop getting electricity because the company continues to employ this guy.
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 01:19:55 PM
Then I fail to see how this would be a huge reputational damage not to fire this guy - it's not like this is a consumer company operating in a highly competitive brand-focused environment. I don't see how people would suddenly stop getting electricity because the company continues to employ this guy.
You are using the wrong analogy (shocking as that may be to some). The reputational risk isn't market driven. It is the fact that it is a public company. Something you might not know is that the board of public companies is largely appointed by the government. Do you see a potential risk now?
Not really. Then the decision to fire him was not in any way motivated by the company's interest - it was motivated by the board's attempt to protect their asses. That's even worse, really.
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 01:19:55 PM
Then I fail to see how this would be a huge reputational damage not to fire this guy - it's not like this is a consumer company operating in a highly competitive brand-sensitive environment. I don't see how people would suddenly stop getting electricity because the company continues to employ this guy.
More like 'hate the government, and the governing party the Liberals, that much more', presumably. Which may explain why the Libs are applauding so very loudly this guy getting fired.
Though in reality, I doubt it would have been much of a story at all if Hydro just did what the other company did.
Also, it plugs into a considerable amount of public anger about overpaid public servants (though this guy isn't really a "public servant"), particularly of the midlevel-professional type. Every Joe Sixpack who grumbles at tax-time and on paying his utility bill is likely to feel a lot of schadenfreude over some dude earning over 100K at the power company who loses it all in such a moronic manner, which makes this more "newsworthy" than it might otherwise have been.
Malthus, I can appreciate how this is "how things work", especially as ugly stuff like politics is involved. What I object to are CC's apparent assertions that this vile example of politics destroying a guy's life is somehow desirable, ethical and preferred result.
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 01:28:17 PM
Malthus, I can appreciate how this is "how things work", especially as ugly stuff like politics is involved. What I object to are CC's apparent assertions that this vile example of politics destroying a guy's life is somehow desirable, ethical and preferred result.
Getting canned hardly destroys one's life.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2015, 01:04:36 PM
Do people even know what Cognex Corp does?
I do! I do!
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2015, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 01:28:17 PM
Malthus, I can appreciate how this is "how things work", especially as ugly stuff like politics is involved. What I object to are CC's apparent assertions that this vile example of politics destroying a guy's life is somehow desirable, ethical and preferred result.
Getting canned hardly destroys one's life.
With his name being publicised, he will have a very hard time finding another job.
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 01:28:17 PM
Malthus, I can appreciate how this is "how things work", especially as ugly stuff like politics is involved. What I object to are CC's apparent assertions that this vile example of politics destroying a guy's life is somehow desirable, ethical and preferred result.
I think he's more looking at it in a professional capacity, than a policy one. I happen to disagree with him that there is much reputational risk, though. OTOH, there powers that be have definitely reaped a benefit from doing things this way - which I agree with you sticks in the craw.
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2015, 01:31:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 01:28:17 PM
Malthus, I can appreciate how this is "how things work", especially as ugly stuff like politics is involved. What I object to are CC's apparent assertions that this vile example of politics destroying a guy's life is somehow desirable, ethical and preferred result.
I think he's more looking at it in a professional capacity, than a policy one. I happen to disagree with him that there is much reputational risk, though.
Call it the Ghomeshi effect. Employers don't want to be caught on the wrong side of any media story that involves sexual harassment.
Quote from: Josephus on May 12, 2015, 05:47:59 PM
I'm just glad there was no youtube when I was 20 and stupid.
EDIT: I'll retract this statement since youtube really had nothing to do with this, and there was news television back when I was 20, although social media had a lot to do with the consequences of this story
:yes: Two incidents in high school of saying something stupid without thinking right at the height of the PC craze (where I actually didn't make the connections being asserted by administration) resulting in near-misses with court appearances mean I'd have to agree with you on that.
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 01:19:55 PM
Then I fail to see how this would be a huge reputational damage not to fire this guy - it's not like this is a consumer company operating in a highly competitive brand-sensitive environment. I don't see how people would suddenly stop getting electricity because the company continues to employ this guy.
Actually, I'd argue that the company's lower public profile means this guy did even more reputational damage. It's easier to drown out bad press with a media blitz of good than it is to stay quiet until bad press surfaces.
What happens outside work should stay outside work.
Alas that is really not the way the world is going.
Anyone read about IBM's Watson? :ph34r:
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 01:19:55 PM
Then I fail to see how this would be a huge reputational damage not to fire this guy - it's not like this is a consumer company operating in a highly competitive brand-sensitive environment. I don't see how people would suddenly stop getting electricity because the company continues to employ this guy.
This argument seems to me more applicable to a civil trial for money damages than to a termination case.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 13, 2015, 02:02:50 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 01:19:55 PM
Then I fail to see how this would be a huge reputational damage not to fire this guy - it's not like this is a consumer company operating in a highly competitive brand-sensitive environment. I don't see how people would suddenly stop getting electricity because the company continues to employ this guy.
Actually, I'd argue that the company's lower public profile means this guy did even more reputational damage. It's easier to drown out bad press with a media blitz of good than it is to stay quiet until bad press surfaces.
Hydro One is a very high profile company in Ontario.
Fun fact for the non-Canadians: there they call transmission lines "the Hydro."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2015, 02:12:34 PM
Fun fact for the non-Canadians: there they call transmission lines "the Hydro."
:hmm:
"Hydro lines" in Ontario.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2015, 02:12:34 PM
Fun fact for the non-Canadians: there they call transmission lines "the Hydro."
Only true in places with hydro power though. So not Alberta.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2015, 02:12:34 PM
Fun fact for the non-Canadians: there they call transmission lines "the Hydro."
Who does that?
We generate most of our electrical power from hydro and we call them transmission or electrical lines.
A denim outfit is called a "Canadian Tuxedo".
I hear they call blowjobs warm Zambonis.
Gotta cup the Timbits when getting a Warm Zamboni.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 13, 2015, 02:31:21 PM
Gotta cup the Timbits when getting a Warm Zamboni.
Random anecdote:
Timmy was getting his new soccer jersey the other day, then was talking with his grandparents via Facetime.
They asked him "Does your jersey have your name on it?"
Timmy replies "yeah - they all do!".
Because, of course, the jerseys are sponsored by Tim Hortons.
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2015, 02:14:41 PM
:hmm:
"Hydro lines" in Ontario.
When I visited my bud in Toronto we golfed on a course that had power lines running over it. I distinctly remember him saying "if your ball hits the Hydro you get it a free drop." But maybe that was just him.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2015, 02:47:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2015, 02:14:41 PM
:hmm:
"Hydro lines" in Ontario.
When I visited my bud in Toronto we golfed on a course that had power lines running over it. I distinctly remember him saying "if your ball hits the Hydro you get it a free drop." But maybe that was just him.
I've never hear "the hydro" for that. "Hydro lines" is the expression folks up here use.
I think this may be confined to Ontario, though.
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2015, 02:51:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2015, 02:47:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2015, 02:14:41 PM
:hmm:
"Hydro lines" in Ontario.
When I visited my bud in Toronto we golfed on a course that had power lines running over it. I distinctly remember him saying "if your ball hits the Hydro you get it a free drop." But maybe that was just him.
I've never hear "the hydro" for that. "Hydro lines" is the expression folks up here use.
I think this may be confined to Ontario, though.
Manitoba too. "Hydro" was just synonymous with electricity or power.
I don't recall it ever being "the hydro" however, just hydro.
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2015, 03:04:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2015, 02:51:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2015, 02:47:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 13, 2015, 02:14:41 PM
:hmm:
"Hydro lines" in Ontario.
When I visited my bud in Toronto we golfed on a course that had power lines running over it. I distinctly remember him saying "if your ball hits the Hydro you get it a free drop." But maybe that was just him.
I've never hear "the hydro" for that. "Hydro lines" is the expression folks up here use.
I think this may be confined to Ontario, though.
Manitoba too. "Hydro" was just synonymous with electricity or power.
I don't recall it ever being "the hydro" however, just hydro.
Same. An electrical bill is normally referred to here as a hydro bill because it comes from BC Hydro.
I don't hear people calling the power lines in neighourhoods "hydro lines" or "the hydro".
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2015, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 01:28:17 PM
Malthus, I can appreciate how this is "how things work", especially as ugly stuff like politics is involved. What I object to are CC's apparent assertions that this vile example of politics destroying a guy's life is somehow desirable, ethical and preferred result.
Getting canned hardly destroys one's life.
It does for many people.
Maybe in Quebec they say "Le hydro" :D
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 03:15:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2015, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 01:28:17 PM
Malthus, I can appreciate how this is "how things work", especially as ugly stuff like politics is involved. What I object to are CC's apparent assertions that this vile example of politics destroying a guy's life is somehow desirable, ethical and preferred result.
Getting canned hardly destroys one's life.
It does for many people.
A person making 100k?
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2015, 03:18:26 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 03:15:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2015, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 01:28:17 PM
Malthus, I can appreciate how this is "how things work", especially as ugly stuff like politics is involved. What I object to are CC's apparent assertions that this vile example of politics destroying a guy's life is somehow desirable, ethical and preferred result.
Getting canned hardly destroys one's life.
It does for many people.
A person making 100k?
Probably especially for someone making 100k. He probably has a significant mortgage based on that income level. He will probably have a very difficult time finding another job at that same income level.
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 03:15:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2015, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 01:28:17 PM
Malthus, I can appreciate how this is "how things work", especially as ugly stuff like politics is involved. What I object to are CC's apparent assertions that this vile example of politics destroying a guy's life is somehow desirable, ethical and preferred result.
Getting canned hardly destroys one's life.
It does for many people.
It's like nobody even remembers CDM. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2015, 03:46:58 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 03:15:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2015, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 01:28:17 PM
Malthus, I can appreciate how this is "how things work", especially as ugly stuff like politics is involved. What I object to are CC's apparent assertions that this vile example of politics destroying a guy's life is somehow desirable, ethical and preferred result.
Getting canned hardly destroys one's life.
It does for many people.
It's like nobody even remembers CDM. :(
Those one per centers live on their own planet.....worried about not being able to afford a nanny if minimum wage goes up. ;)
http://www.playbuzz.com/debbiemorgan10/how-many-canadian-slang-words-do-you-know
I think everybody should try gay sex.
It is better than heterosex, and you don't get pregnant!
Quote from: Syt on May 13, 2015, 03:56:30 PM
http://www.playbuzz.com/debbiemorgan10/how-many-canadian-slang-words-do-you-know
17/20
Two many questions with only two options.
Guessed right on "2'6 and mickey." What's that? Or they?
Thanks to Max for "parkade."
Quote from: Siege on May 13, 2015, 04:01:38 PM
I think everybody should try gay sex.
It is better than heterosex, and you don't get pregnant!
katmai shouldn't try gay sex.
Quote from: Syt on May 13, 2015, 03:56:30 PM
http://www.playbuzz.com/debbiemorgan10/how-many-canadian-slang-words-do-you-know
19/20
And I want to argue the one it says I got wrong. A keener encompasses both being a brown noser and a butt kisser. :mad:
Quote from: Syt on May 13, 2015, 03:56:30 PM
http://www.playbuzz.com/debbiemorgan10/how-many-canadian-slang-words-do-you-know
Didn't know Bunnyhub or Hack a dart. The rest everyone should know. :)
Quote from: Siege on May 13, 2015, 04:01:38 PM
I think everybody should try gay sex.
It is better than heterosex, and you don't get pregnant!
You should probably take a pregnancy test, just to be sure. How long has it been since your last period?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2015, 04:08:17 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 13, 2015, 03:56:30 PM
http://www.playbuzz.com/debbiemorgan10/how-many-canadian-slang-words-do-you-know
Didn't know Bunnyhub or Hack a dart. The rest everyone should know. :)
Bunnyhug is a Saskatchewan thing. I don't know about the "hack" part, but I have definitely heard a cigarette being called a dart before. (e.g. I'm going outside for a quick dart)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2015, 04:03:54 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 13, 2015, 03:56:30 PM
http://www.playbuzz.com/debbiemorgan10/how-many-canadian-slang-words-do-you-know
17/20
Two many questions with only two options.
Guessed right on "2'6 and mickey." What's that? Or they?
Thanks to Max for "parkade."
a 26er is the ounces in bottle of alcohol. It could be any kind. A mickey is a smaller container. You buy a mickey to smuggle into concerts. You buy a 26er to take to a party.
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2015, 04:10:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2015, 04:08:17 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 13, 2015, 03:56:30 PM
http://www.playbuzz.com/debbiemorgan10/how-many-canadian-slang-words-do-you-know
Didn't know Bunnyhub or Hack a dart. The rest everyone should know. :)
Bunnyhug is a Saskatchewan thing. I don't know about the "hack" part, but I have definitely heard a cigarette being called a dart before. (e.g. I'm going outside for a quick dart)
Ah ok, I have heard people say they are going to hack a cig, so I guess hack a dart is the next evolution of the language. :D
15/20. Too many Canadians talking their jibber jabber on Languish. :(
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 03:55:12 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on May 13, 2015, 03:46:58 PM
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 03:15:10 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2015, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 01:28:17 PM
Malthus, I can appreciate how this is "how things work", especially as ugly stuff like politics is involved. What I object to are CC's apparent assertions that this vile example of politics destroying a guy's life is somehow desirable, ethical and preferred result.
Getting canned hardly destroys one's life.
It does for many people.
It's like nobody even remembers CDM. :(
Those one per centers live on their own planet.....worried about not being able to afford a nanny if minimum wage goes up. ;)
:ultra:
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 03:18:23 PM
Maybe in Quebec they say "Le hydro" :D
That would be L'hydro . Silent h no aspired h in this case. ;)
Just say Hydro-Québec, without article, to stay on the safe side. :D
17/20
2. Never heard of it.
3. Heard these terms but no idea what they mean.
5. Those are all the same thing. Also never heard this term.
6. None of these. It's a couch.
7. That's a really bad definition. It's short for "decoy", ie to trick someone into responding to something you're not doing.
11. Never heard of it.
14. I heard this one once, from a guy from BC
16. Never heard it.
19. No idea
How is "eavestrough" short for "decoy"?
I will put 3 and 16 down to your religious upbringing but there is no excuse for not knowing what a Nanaimo bar is. You are to formerly being Canadian what Marti is to being a lawyer :P
@ Wiggins, he got the numbers mixed up, he meant 9. And he is right about that one. A Deke is more like faking right and going left or the reverse.
Americans use deke too.
I got the one about nanaimo bars because I saw it in this quiz recently.
http://www.sporcle.com/games/knope2012/canadian-cuisine-eh (http://www.sporcle.com/games/knope2012/canadian-cuisine-eh)
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2015, 05:29:54 PM
:hmm:
It helps if you've played, or even watched, at least one sport in your life.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2015, 01:23:54 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 13, 2015, 01:19:55 PM
Then I fail to see how this would be a huge reputational damage not to fire this guy - it's not like this is a consumer company operating in a highly competitive brand-focused environment. I don't see how people would suddenly stop getting electricity because the company continues to employ this guy.
You are using the wrong analogy (shocking as that may be to some). The reputational risk isn't market driven. It is the fact that it is a public company. Something you might not know is that the board of public companies is largely appointed by the government. Do you see a potential risk now?
I don't see a reputational risk--the reputations of public utilities are so bad there's really nothing that could drive them lower.
Some terms I've used without realizing they were Canuckisms, e.g. keener and eavestrough. :hmm:
I only got 17. :blush:
I blame my immigrant status though.
I got 15/20 (And that is just that some, like the eavestrough, are easy enough for an intelligent person to deduce) but probably knew 6-7 beforehand.
Quote from: Camerus on May 13, 2015, 06:56:58 PM
Some terms I've used without realizing they were Canuckisms, e.g. keener and eavestrough. :hmm:
Never heard of those.
The only ones I've heard or seen non-Canadians use are brewsky, toboggan and chinook.
Wait, so the guy who got fired is the guy who says it to the journalist at the beginning of the video or the one who later explains the "meme" to her?
The second/latter dude.
Edit: Viewing the video again, there are three dudes. The dude #1 does the initial vulgar interuption, then quickly vanishes. Reporter turns on dude #2, who was just standing there (as I understand, she had overhead them planning to do the same thing), then dude #3 explains/supports the vulgar interjection(the "vibrator in the ear" dude)...and that is the dude who is most notably identified and fired from his job.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2015, 05:35:41 PM
Quote from: garbon on May 13, 2015, 05:29:54 PM
:hmm:
It helps if you've played, or even watched, at least one sport in your life.
AYSO, baby! Besides, I did break my arm playing baseball. ^_^
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 08:50:07 PM
I only got 17. :blush:
I blame my immigrant status though.
Many of them are regional use only ("bunny hug"? WTF? Also, in Toronto, no-one uses "parkade"); some are simply wrong ("Brown noser" = all of the above)
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 14, 2015, 12:53:32 AM
The second/latter dude.
Edit: Viewing the video again, there are three dudes. The dude #1 does the initial vulgar interuption, then quickly vanishes. Reporter turns on dude #2, who was just standing there (as I understand, she had overhead them planning to do the same thing), then dude #3 explains/supports the vulgar interjection(the "vibrator in the ear" dude)...and that is the dude who is most notably identified and fired from his job.
Then I don't really think the guy should have been fired. Sure, he acts like a douchebag but then drunk sports fan are douchebags and he probably thought he is being funny/cocky. He was not self-identifying as an employee of his company or giving any indication of his affiliation with the company - it's just a bunch of vindictive cunts who identified him as such afterwards. It would have sufficient to discipline him internally and "remind him of the company's media policy" or some such.
16/20
I had a tough time with the ones non-hockey related. Or not related to cities with hockey teams.
The test called me Don Cherry, Canada's Hitler.
Quote from: Malthus on May 14, 2015, 08:09:52 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 08:50:07 PM
I only got 17. :blush:
I blame my immigrant status though.
Many of them are regional use only ("bunny hug"? WTF? Also, in Toronto, no-one uses "parkade"); some are simply wrong ("Brown noser" = all of the above)
Yes, got both those wrong. Parkade? We just say "underground parking"
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 14, 2015, 12:53:32 AM
The second/latter dude.
Edit: Viewing the video again, there are three dudes. The dude #1 does the initial vulgar interuption, then quickly vanishes. Reporter turns on dude #2, who was just standing there (as I understand, she had overhead them planning to do the same thing), then dude #3 explains/supports the vulgar interjection(the "vibrator in the ear" dude)...and that is the dude who is most notably identified and fired from his job.
Yes. The first guy is still being looked for. The second guy, in the sunglasses, has been outed, but, as of yet, not fired. The guy fired is the guy in the yellow arsenal shirt going on about how women seem to have vibrators in their ears in England.
Some experts weigh in on the topic:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/13/does-hydro-one-have-the-right-to-fire-tfc-fan-shawn-simoes.html
Quote from: Josephus on May 14, 2015, 08:59:03 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 14, 2015, 12:53:32 AM
The second/latter dude.
Edit: Viewing the video again, there are three dudes. The dude #1 does the initial vulgar interuption, then quickly vanishes. Reporter turns on dude #2, who was just standing there (as I understand, she had overhead them planning to do the same thing), then dude #3 explains/supports the vulgar interjection(the "vibrator in the ear" dude)...and that is the dude who is most notably identified and fired from his job.
Yes. The first guy is still being looked for. The second guy, in the sunglasses, has been outed, but, as of yet, not fired. The guy fired is the guy in the yellow arsenal shirt going on about how women seem to have vibrators in their ears in England.
Oh sorry. I thought they fired the guy in the sunglasses. I don't think he should be fired.
Quote from: Josephus on May 14, 2015, 08:59:59 AM
Some experts weigh in on the topic:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/13/does-hydro-one-have-the-right-to-fire-tfc-fan-shawn-simoes.html
That's interesting, thanks.
I find it particularly of interest (perhaps even bizarre) that an employee's rights seem to depend on whether he is a member of a union or not. Here (and I believe in most EU member states), the rules for firing an employee are the same for union and non-union members (with the exception of union leaders who get special job protection), but furthermore while a union is authorised to negotiate a better deal with the employer on behalf of employees, once they do so, the terms of the deal apply to all employees, not just members of the union. Giving special rights to union members would be seen as discrimination of the worst kind (in fact our anti-discrimination regulations expressly ban discrimination because of membership in a union or lack thereof).
:lol: A union that gets people a better deal? If I were union I would still live like a coolie.
Quote from: Martinus on May 14, 2015, 09:43:41 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 14, 2015, 08:59:59 AM
Some experts weigh in on the topic:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/13/does-hydro-one-have-the-right-to-fire-tfc-fan-shawn-simoes.html
That's interesting, thanks.
I find it particularly of interest (perhaps even bizarre) that an employee's rights seem to depend on whether he is a member of a union or not.
Lol, That was pointed out by at least three people at the beginning of this thread. And then you said they were wrong ;)
I think the trend of publicly demolishing people who by luck happened to have their worst moments publicized is extremely bad. Did the company have the right to fire the guy? Who cares, it was a despicable thing to do regardless, like all other acts committed by members of the mindless mob.
Quote from: DGuller on May 14, 2015, 11:23:50 AM
it was a despicable thing to do regardless, like all other acts committed by members of the mindless mob.
Enough about the guy who was fired. What about the decision to fire him ;)
Quote from: DGuller on May 14, 2015, 11:23:50 AM
I think the trend of publicly demolishing people who by luck happened to have their worst moments publicized is extremely bad. Did the company have the right to fire the guy? Who cares, it was a despicable thing to do regardless, like all other acts committed by members of the mindless mob.
"Just happened to?" He stuck his face in front of a TV camera.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 14, 2015, 11:27:19 AM
Quote from: DGuller on May 14, 2015, 11:23:50 AM
I think the trend of publicly demolishing people who by luck happened to have their worst moments publicized is extremely bad. Did the company have the right to fire the guy? Who cares, it was a despicable thing to do regardless, like all other acts committed by members of the mindless mob.
"Just happened to?" He stuck his face in front of a TV camera.
This.
I have sympathy for someone who posts something stupid on Twitter or Facebook where they expect nothing will come of it, only for it to go viral.
But that's not what happened here.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 12, 2015, 06:36:44 PM
Cal will hire him.
No. They were never married at any point.
Finally watched the video. Yellow shirt dude is a dickwad. Give him the shaft. Sunglass dude is conflicted at least.
Quote from: Josephus on May 14, 2015, 08:57:54 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 14, 2015, 08:09:52 AM
Quote from: Josephus on May 13, 2015, 08:50:07 PM
I only got 17. :blush:
I blame my immigrant status though.
Many of them are regional use only ("bunny hug"? WTF? Also, in Toronto, no-one uses "parkade"); some are simply wrong ("Brown noser" = all of the above)
Yes, got both those wrong. Parkade? We just say "underground parking"
Yea actually the question was wrong about that one too. A parkade is a independent structure. Underground parking is just underground parking.
Quote from: DGuller on May 14, 2015, 11:23:50 AM
I think the trend of publicly demolishing people who by luck happened to have their worst moments publicized is extremely bad. Did the company have the right to fire the guy? Who cares, it was a despicable thing to do regardless, like all other acts committed by members of the mindless mob.
This.
Let's hear more from the gay lawyer from Poland, who is afraid to to reveal his own sexuality, complaining about "vindictive cunts" in Canada, because some people -imagine!- are really offended by sexism and public harrassment.
Yeah, that would be the guy I would want representing me in a grievance.
Sask drops his cloak and fires a plasma torpedo.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 14, 2015, 07:24:01 PM
Sask drops his cloak and fires a plasma torpedo.
First sighting in what, 3 years?
Quote from: saskganesh on May 14, 2015, 07:08:38 PM
Let's hear more from the gay lawyer from Poland, who is afraid to to reveal his own sexuality, complaining about "vindictive cunts" in Canada, because some people -imagine!- are really offended by sexism and public harrassment.
Yeah, that would be the guy I would want representing me in a grievance.
Yowza
Quote from: Barrister on May 14, 2015, 08:47:57 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 14, 2015, 07:08:38 PM
Let's hear more from the gay lawyer from Poland, who is afraid to to reveal his own sexuality, complaining about "vindictive cunts" in Canada, because some people -imagine!- are really offended by sexism and public harrassment.
Yeah, that would be the guy I would want representing me in a grievance.
Yowza
(https://mistercomfypants.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/star-trek-114-balance-of-terror-03.png?w=450&h=337)
Mart: delete my browsing history!
Quote from: dps on May 14, 2015, 08:01:20 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 14, 2015, 07:24:01 PM
Sask drops his cloak and fires a plasma torpedo.
First sighting in what, 3 years?
He had a cameo in the Canada thread not long ago
I have that thread on ignore. NHL thread too.
Malthus's francophobia was too much to take. :sleep:
Great drive by posting Sask :hug:
Quote from: saskganesh on May 14, 2015, 07:08:38 PM
Let's hear more from the gay lawyer from Poland, who is afraid to to reveal his own sexuality, complaining about "vindictive cunts" in Canada, because some people -imagine!- are really offended by sexism and public harrassment.
Yeah, that would be the guy I would want representing me in a grievance.
I don't think you could afford me. :console:
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 14, 2015, 07:24:01 PM
Sask drops his cloak and fires a plasma torpedo.
He is also funnily inaccurate. His post consists of two personal attacks, which miss the mark (one is that I am closeted - which hasn't been true for years; another is that he would not want me represent him in a grievance - which is fine as this is not my line of work), followed by an "argument" that I am calling people who are "offended by sexism and harassment" "vindictive cunts."
Which obviously is not what they just did - the "vindictive cunts" in this case saw some anonymous random guy do some stupid but ultimately harmless stuff on tv (what happened to the "sticks and stones" saying?) and then tracked him down, identified him and got him fired from his job in what amounts to an internet lynch mob. That fits my definition of "vindictive cunts" very nicely.
All he did was to say something comparable in offensiveness to stuff most of us routinely say on this board (including sask's attack on me which is clearly homophobic and thus offensive) - his case is only different because he was drunk, exercised poor judgement and got taped and broadcasted on public tv.
Besides, shouldn't intent matter? The guy in sunglasses explains it quite well, imho.
This is a meme. Like "ask for anal" or "show us your tits", it is meant as a joke, where the comedic element is caused by saying something that is, out of context of the meme, over-the-top offensive. It is juvenile and inappropriate, yes, but unlike actual sexual harassment, it is not meant to maliciously humiliate the addressee - in fact, the addressee of this meme is entirely irrelevant (as the guy in sunglasses explains).
This is like the astrophysicist guy with the naked women shirt - essentially, a cognitive dissonance is caused by a "dude" coming out of his small "bro" circle with something that the "bro circle" finds hilariously funny - and having a face-on collision with the outside world of "vindictive cunts" and being completely flattened by it. I am not saying the guy was smart - what both of these guys did was quite unthoughtful and dumb, but I don't believe it was malicious.
This is quite different from, say, someone consciously supporting causes that are malicious and harmful, like the KKK or one of those anti-gay hate groups.
If we strip it down to the essentials, what you're left with is "yes it's offensive, but other people do it too."
Marti, you told your workplace?!
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 15, 2015, 07:50:25 AM
Marti, you told your workplace?!
My boss and a bunch of my coworkers know and met my boyfriend. I didn't put an announcement on the office intranet though.
Quote from: Martinus on May 15, 2015, 08:02:39 AM
I didn't put an announcement on the office intranet though.
Weak. :P
Quote from: Martinus on May 15, 2015, 08:02:39 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 15, 2015, 07:50:25 AM
Marti, you told your workplace?!
My boss and a bunch of my coworkers know and met my boyfriend. I didn't put an announcement on the office intranet though.
Gay.
Quote from: Martinus on May 15, 2015, 12:38:34 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 14, 2015, 07:24:01 PM
Sask drops his cloak and fires a plasma torpedo.
He is also funnily inaccurate. His post consists of two personal attacks, which miss the mark (one is that I am closeted - which hasn't been true for years; another is that he would not want me represent him in a grievance - which is fine as this is not my line of work), followed by an "argument" that I am calling people who are "offended by sexism and harassment" "vindictive cunts."
Which obviously is not what they just did - the "vindictive cunts" in this case saw some anonymous random guy do some stupid but ultimately harmless stuff on tv (what happened to the "sticks and stones" saying?) and then tracked him down, identified him and got him fired from his job in what amounts to an internet lynch mob. That fits my definition of "vindictive cunts" very nicely.
All he did was to say something comparable in offensiveness to stuff most of us routinely say on this board (including sask's attack on me which is clearly homophobic and thus offensive) - his case is only different because he was drunk, exercised poor judgement and got taped and broadcasted on public tv.
This guy wasn't tracked down by anyone - the company identified who he was and that he would be let go.
Incidentally, I am not sure whether this has not actually worked against me. Poland is still quite a homophobic country.
Quote from: Martinus on May 15, 2015, 12:55:06 AM
Besides, shouldn't intent matter? The guy in sunglasses explains it quite well, imho.
This is a meme. Like "ask for anal" or "show us your tits", it is meant as a joke, where the comedic element is caused by saying something that is, out of context of the meme, over-the-top offensive. It is juvenile and inappropriate, yes, but unlike actual sexual harassment, it is not meant to maliciously humiliate the addressee - in fact, the addressee of this meme is entirely irrelevant (as the guy in sunglasses explains).
This is like the astrophysicist guy with the naked women shirt - essentially, a cognitive dissonance is caused by a "dude" coming out of his small "bro" circle with something that the "bro circle" finds hilariously funny - and having a face-on collision with the outside world of "vindictive cunts" and being completely flattened by it. I am not saying the guy was smart - what both of these guys did was quite unthoughtful and dumb, but I don't believe it was malicious.
This is quite different from, say, someone consciously supporting causes that are malicious and harmful, like the KKK or one of those anti-gay hate groups.
How is interrupting a female reporter doing her job and yelling "fuck her right in the pussy" anything but humiliating to the addressee?
The fact that it is a "meme" is completely irrelevant. All that a meme is is copying what others have done. A meme can be positive, neutral, or negative.
Quote from: Martinus on May 15, 2015, 08:02:39 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 15, 2015, 07:50:25 AM
Marti, you told your workplace?!
My boss and a bunch of my coworkers know and met my boyfriend. I didn't put an announcement on the office intranet though.
Alright. I agree with your not in the closet comment then.
Quote from: Martinus on May 14, 2015, 09:43:41 AM
Here (and I believe in most EU member states), the rules for firing an employee are the same for union and non-union members (with the exception of union leaders who get special job protection), but furthermore while a union is authorised to negotiate a better deal with the employer on behalf of employees, once they do so, the terms of the deal apply to all employees, not just members of the union. Giving special rights to union members would be seen as discrimination of the worst kind (in fact our anti-discrimination regulations expressly ban discrimination because of membership in a union or lack thereof).
Germany must be the exception you refer to then, because unions here can certainly negotiate different rules for their members. Employers very rarely agree to that though.
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2015, 09:26:03 AM
This guy wasn't tracked down by anyone - the company identified who he was and that he would be let go.
If this is the case, though, it may work against them if he seeks notice. CC and I had a discussion upthread about just cause for causing reputational damage - may be harder to argue if it was the company itself that identifed him.
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2015, 09:30:51 AM
The fact that it is a "meme" is completely irrelevant. All that a meme is is copying what others have done. A meme can be positive, neutral, or negative.
They should have tried that defense at Nurenburg. :P
Languish needs more Sask
If there is one thing Languish does *not* need more, it's Canadians.
Quote from: Martinus on May 15, 2015, 10:21:33 AM
If there is one thing Languish does *not* need more, it's Canadians.
(https://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/i-disagree-kitteh-copy.jpg?w=329)
Quote from: Malthus on May 15, 2015, 09:35:48 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2015, 09:26:03 AM
This guy wasn't tracked down by anyone - the company identified who he was and that he would be let go.
If this is the case, though, it may work against them if he seeks notice. CC and I had a discussion upthread about just cause for causing reputational damage - may be harder to argue if it was the company itself that identifed him.
I was thinking that too.....if Hydro never mentioned anything, no one would have known where he works
Quote from: Martinus on May 15, 2015, 10:21:33 AM
If there is one thing Languish does *not* need more, it's Canadians.
It ain't easy being #1, we know.
Quote from: Martinus on May 15, 2015, 10:21:33 AM
If there is one thing Languish does *not* need more, it's Canadians lawyers
Quote from: Josephus on May 15, 2015, 10:34:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on May 15, 2015, 09:35:48 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2015, 09:26:03 AM
This guy wasn't tracked down by anyone - the company identified who he was and that he would be let go.
If this is the case, though, it may work against them if he seeks notice. CC and I had a discussion upthread about just cause for causing reputational damage - may be harder to argue if it was the company itself that identifed him.
I was thinking that too.....if Hydro never mentioned anything, no one would have known where he works
I think his firing has less to do with what the general public might think and a lot more to do with his co-workers who would be able to identify him. I agree with you and Malthus that the public only found out about where he worked because he was fired. We also don't know whether he was fired for cause. The fact that there has been no law suit filed makes me think severance was paid or at least that the negotiations are ongoing. But whatever the dealings between them, he sure gave his employer a good reason to want to fire him even if they didn't have cause to terminate. The employer likely made the judgment that they did not want someone like that in their work place.
Related incident in Calgary sees the jackass charged with stunting (he was in a truck when he yelled the offending phrase):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/fhritp-calgary-police-charge-man-with-stunting-for-shouting-vulgar-phrase-1.3074905
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 15, 2015, 09:36:57 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 15, 2015, 09:30:51 AM
The fact that it is a "meme" is completely irrelevant. All that a meme is is copying what others have done. A meme can be positive, neutral, or negative.
They should have tried that defense at Nurenburg. :P
:lol:
Quote from: Syt on May 15, 2015, 10:42:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 15, 2015, 10:21:33 AM
If there is one thing Languish does *not* need more, it's Canadians lawyers
How about we split the difference and agree that one among BB, Malthus and CC needs to be purged. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 15, 2015, 01:45:22 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 15, 2015, 10:42:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 15, 2015, 10:21:33 AM
If there is one thing Languish does *not* need more, it's Canadians lawyers
How about we split the difference and agree that one among BB, Malthus and CC needs to be purged. :hmm:
This. :P
Quote from: Martinus on May 15, 2015, 12:18:29 AM
Quote from: saskganesh on May 14, 2015, 07:08:38 PM
Let's hear more from the gay lawyer from Poland, who is afraid to to reveal his own sexuality, complaining about "vindictive cunts" in Canada, because some people -imagine!- are really offended by sexism and public harrassment.
Yeah, that would be the guy I would want representing me in a grievance.
I don't think you could afford me. :console:
That's the point. I don't think anyone could afford to have a lawyer like you to represent them.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 15, 2015, 01:45:22 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 15, 2015, 10:42:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 15, 2015, 10:21:33 AM
If there is one thing Languish does *not* need more, it's Canadians lawyers
How about we split the difference and agree that one among BB, Malthus and CC needs to be purged. :hmm:
Clearly Malthus, CC and myself are the very epitomy of languish, it's very soul. You'd never survive without the Canadian Lawyers Cabal.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 15, 2015, 01:45:22 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 15, 2015, 10:42:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 15, 2015, 10:21:33 AM
If there is one thing Languish does *not* need more, it's Canadians lawyers
How about we split the difference and agree that one among BB, Malthus and CC needs to be purged. :hmm:
We can split them, all three of them, right down the middle, top to bottom. And then purge one of the halves.
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 15, 2015, 02:51:06 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 15, 2015, 01:45:22 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 15, 2015, 10:42:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 15, 2015, 10:21:33 AM
If there is one thing Languish does *not* need more, it's Canadians lawyers
How about we split the difference and agree that one among BB, Malthus and CC needs to be purged. :hmm:
We can split them, all three of them, right down the middle, top to bottom. And then purge one of the halves.
If you are gonna mix and match halves, please do not try to match a half of me with CC - he's like two feet taller than a human. :P
:hmm: I had not thought of that, I was just gonna harvest some organs, make a few lampshades and feed the dogs. But I like the ide of a Frankencandalawyer Monster.
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 15, 2015, 03:20:51 PM
:hmm: I had not thought of that, I was just gonna harvest some organs, make a few lampshades and feed the dogs. But I like the ide of a Frankencandalawyer Monster.
Be careful -- the billing rates of a Frankencandalawyer Monster are
cumulative. :)
They will argue internally in a way they do on Languish, and then bill you for 10+ hours of "considering". :P
And paid in souls no less.
Quote from: Malthus on May 15, 2015, 03:57:13 PM
Quote from: lustindarkness on May 15, 2015, 03:20:51 PM
:hmm: I had not thought of that, I was just gonna harvest some organs, make a few lampshades and feed the dogs. But I like the ide of a Frankencandalawyer Monster.
Be careful -- the billing rates of a Frankencandalawyer Monster are cumulative. :)
:lol:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 15, 2015, 01:45:22 PM
Quote from: Syt on May 15, 2015, 10:42:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 15, 2015, 10:21:33 AM
If there is one thing Languish does *not* need more, it's Canadians lawyers
How about we split the difference and agree that one among BB, Malthus and CC needs to be purged. :hmm:
Are we voting?