Oopsies! Someone left the mic on

[Huntingwhale]

LOL workplace harassment. Now I've seen it all.

By and large, this is the worst/dumbest ''news'' to come out of this Flames' season. This thread needs to be locked and deleted. Because someone decided to post it on CP, now it's in a bunch of threads, a stupid Yahoo article was written on it (likely from someone who heard about it on CP), and someone will likely be disciplined over something literally the majority of us were thinking and post about at our very own workplaces during work hours.

Now the CP detectives are trying to ''investigate'' who it might be, and for what? To have the smug satisfaction of knowing who said it? Who cares?!?!?

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by VANFLAMESFAN

Amazing how some people are so quick to being okay with people losing their jobs. these guys have families to feed, have mortgages to pay. They aren't multi millionaires, the furthest thing from it. But they make a mistake like saying something stupid, and they should just lose all of that? Have you ever been fired for cause? It can be tough to find work, but its still okay to fire a guy because he basically called a hockey player stupid?

Harsh. Sickening actually.

Then I guess nobody should ever lose their jobs. They have families to provide for.

I guess the folks in Calgary have no idea what that's like right now.

[Weitz]

Geez worse things are said in my workplace every single day. People have such thin skin.

[rotten42]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

If you tell your coworker that the cleaners are lazy and do a crap job - that is not harassment (though you may want to qualify them being lazy as 'they seem lazy because I never see them work and stuff doesn't seem to be getting cleaned'). You are making a comment about their work performance (or lack thereof). If you go on to say that these cleaners are crappy people in real life, then you cross that line. You could definitely be disciplined for it.

If "Mr Flames" simply stated: "I think that was a stupid penalty for Hamilton to make", that would be fine in my books. Annoying, but fine. That's not harassment. Unfortunately, he went on to personally attack Hamilton by calling him 'stupid and dumb'. That's the line he crossed, and he crossed it at the workplace talking to other employees, while being recorded and (unfortunately for all parties) being aired live. He basically got caught red-handed harassing Hamilton.

Now, listen to Garrett and Ball. Especially Ball. He felt 'uncomfortable'. He made sure not to add to that conversation, or even encourage it.

Think of it this way. Most people think of harassment as being sexual harassment. If you have an attractive coworker, and you pull another coworker aside and comment on that coworker's body, telling that coworker the many sweet sweet hours of love you would like to perform with her, that's harassment even if she doesn't hear a single word. Other coworkers might feel uncomfortable hearing it, and that is definitely harassment. That's how it works in the workplace. Commenting on personal attributes or making a personal attack in the workplace (or during workplace sponsored events) can land you in a meeting with HR even if that employee never hears it.

Rick Ball definitely felt uncomfortable there. That is why workplace harassment policies have grown beyond just being a direct confrontation. You can be guilty of harassment by making harassing remarks against a person, and harassing remarks are of a personal nature usually.

"Hamilton is a stupid and/or dumb person off the ice" is a disparaging remark about Dougie as a person, not a worker, and therefore it is most definitely covered under harassment.

It is not a matter of 'Dougie should and probably is more thick-skinned than to let that comment bother him'. That comment should never have been made. Mr. Flames going for a beer and commenting off-hand about Dougie being stupid? Ok, still a lousy thing to say about someone, but that's not workplace harassment. Make that comment at work, that's workplace harassment.

Taken from Canada's Harassment guide https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-bo...employees.html:

Criteria that I think applies in this case:


Examples:


Why "Mr. Flames" doesn't deserve to be fired:


Keep in mind that the organization might have a more strict harassment policy than these guidelines.

This is why I think "Mr Flames" should be reprimanded (written warning placed in his employee file) and apologize (since he has to work with Dougie after all in some way or another). This way, if "Mr Flames" continues making disparaging PERSONAL remarks about other employees, then further action will be taken. You can't simply ignore workplace harassment, or things just get worse. You can't fire him either, unless his file already contains other instances of such (or worse) behavior.

It isn't much ado about nothing, but it isn't something that Mr. Flames should be outed for publicly so we can all pick up a rock and stone him to death for either. He will get a talking to most definitely, probably a written note in his file, and encouraged to apologize. That's it. Don't need to crucify him, but it shouldn't just be ignored either.

Wow...this is some special snow flake crap. Suspect we have a SJW here. Let's just see Hamilton take this up and see how the rest of the players in the league view him.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by robaur

doesn't off-ice intelligence in some way shape or form indicate on-ice intelligence?

serious question.

I give you Kevin Westgarth (Princeton) and George Parros (Princeton as well). Ivy league schools do not give athletic scholarships, so you bet that both these guys did well in school and are super smart.

They did not, however, exhibit the highest IQ on the ice. They could have at least been defensive stalwarts if they did, rather than just face-punchers. So yep, intelligence on the ice may not translate off the ice, and vice versa.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

If you tell your coworker that the cleaners are lazy and do a crap job - that is not harassment (though you may want to qualify them being lazy as 'they seem lazy because I never see them work and stuff doesn't seem to be getting cleaned'). You are making a comment about their work performance (or lack thereof). If you go on to say that these cleaners are crappy people in real life, then you cross that line. You could definitely be disciplined for it.

If "Mr Flames" simply stated: "I think that was a stupid penalty for Hamilton to make", that would be fine in my books. Annoying, but fine. That's not harassment. Unfortunately, he went on to personally attack Hamilton by calling him 'stupid and dumb'. That's the line he crossed, and he crossed it at the workplace talking to other employees, while being recorded and (unfortunately for all parties) being aired live. He basically got caught red-handed harassing Hamilton.

Now, listen to Garrett and Ball. Especially Ball. He felt 'uncomfortable'. He made sure not to add to that conversation, or even encourage it.

Think of it this way. Most people think of harassment as being sexual harassment. If you have an attractive coworker, and you pull another coworker aside and comment on that coworker's body, telling that coworker the many sweet sweet hours of love you would like to perform with her, that's harassment even if she doesn't hear a single word. Other coworkers might feel uncomfortable hearing it, and that is definitely harassment. That's how it works in the workplace. Commenting on personal attributes or making a personal attack in the workplace (or during workplace sponsored events) can land you in a meeting with HR even if that employee never hears it.

Rick Ball definitely felt uncomfortable there. That is why workplace harassment policies have grown beyond just being a direct confrontation. You can be guilty of harassment by making harassing remarks against a person, and harassing remarks are of a personal nature usually.

"Hamilton is a stupid and/or dumb person off the ice" is a disparaging remark about Dougie as a person, not a worker, and therefore it is most definitely covered under harassment.

It is not a matter of 'Dougie should and probably is more thick-skinned than to let that comment bother him'. That comment should never have been made. Mr. Flames going for a beer and commenting off-hand about Dougie being stupid? Ok, still a lousy thing to say about someone, but that's not workplace harassment. Make that comment at work, that's workplace harassment.

Taken from Canada's Harassment guide https://www.canada.ca/en/treasury-bo...employees.html:

Criteria that I think applies in this case:


Examples:


Why "Mr. Flames" doesn't deserve to be fired:


Keep in mind that the organization might have a more strict harassment policy than these guidelines.

This is why I think "Mr Flames" should be reprimanded (written warning placed in his employee file) and apologize (since he has to work with Dougie after all in some way or another). This way, if "Mr Flames" continues making disparaging PERSONAL remarks about other employees, then further action will be taken. You can't simply ignore workplace harassment, or things just get worse. You can't fire him either, unless his file already contains other instances of such (or worse) behavior.

It isn't much ado about nothing, but it isn't something that Mr. Flames should be outed for publicly so we can all pick up a rock and stone him to death for either. He will get a talking to most definitely, probably a written note in his file, and encouraged to apologize. That's it. Don't need to crucify him, but it shouldn't just be ignored either.

Admittedly I only glanced through this, but this is beyond ridiculous. If every time a professional athlete is called stupid they file for workplace harassment, the league would fold.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Geez worse things are said in my workplace every single day. People have such thin skin.

Send an email to your CEO calling her a brainless idiot, and quickly respond by saying you didn't mean to send it to her. Let me know how that works out.

This guy's comments were made available to everyone in Canada with access to CBC's website. He made these comments while working for his employer inside of a broadcast booth. As a result of his actions, Ball and Garrett have been needlessly dragged into all of this.

That absolutely deserves punishment.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Slava

Admittedly I only glanced through this, but this is beyond ridiculous. If every time a professional athlete is called stupid they file for workplace harassment, the league would fold.

Why on earth do you comment on something you don't read?

[TheIronMaiden]

Sportsnet technicians calling anyone out for being bad at their job is just ironic

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Rick Ball definitely felt uncomfortable there. That is why workplace harassment policies have grown beyond just being a direct confrontation. You can be guilty of harassment by making harassing remarks against a person, and harassing remarks are of a personal nature usually.

"Hamilton is a stupid and/or dumb person off the ice" is a disparaging remark about Dougie as a person, not a worker, and therefore it is most definitely covered under harassment.

While you are probably right about the technicalities, its kind of alarming that organizations go to such lengths in their HR policies to make sure no one ever feels offended or uncomfortable ever, in any situation, in any circumstances (threats are clearly different). How soon until every single person's sensitivities are taken into consideration and you virtually can't say anything at work without fear of reprimand? These policies don't take into account the fact that people are humans, not robots. The world doesn't owe it to you not to feel offended on occasion. People are losing their ability to deal with things as adults and instead start clamoring for some form of justice for every instance of controversy. They probably aren't even really offended. Its just mob justice.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Why on earth do you comment on something you don't read?

I got the general point and just wasn't bothering with all of the links. It's great that you think that someone was called stupid and as a result was harassed in the workplace. It's just that you can't seriously believe this. Because I don't think that you could possibly be that naïve, I can't be bothered to read walls of text with links desperately trying to make that connection.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Why on earth do you comment on something you don't read?

If you don't accept responses from people who don't read your posts to their full extent, you aren't going to get many people responding to you.

Not everything requires a master's thesis.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Send an email to your CEO calling her a brainless idiot, and quickly respond by saying you didn't mean to send it to her. Let me know how that works out.

This guy's comments were made available to everyone in Canada with access to CBC's website. He made these comments while working for his employer inside of a broadcast booth. As a result of his actions, Ball and Garrett have been needlessly dragged into all of this.

That absolutely deserves punishment.

No it doesn't.

He called some one an idiot. Give me a break.

I'm pretty sure if my CEO heard me call him an idiot behind his back I would not be fired. You're over reacting.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by rotten42

Wow...this is some special snow flake crap. Suspect we have a SJW here. Let's just see Hamilton take this up and see how the rest of the players in the league view him.

SJW? Really? That's rich.

Comment on something social, and suddenly you are just pushed aside as a SJW? Get a life. I took the time to actually point to Canada's harassment guidelines, just to explain how it crossed a line.

Nah, just call it snow flake crap and call me a SJW. Seriously? That's pretty dumb..

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If you don't accept responses from people who don't read your posts to their full extent, you aren't going to get many people responding to you.

Not everything requires a master's thesis.

The guy was looking for an explanation that was already in the post he was replying to. That's just lazy.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by polak

No it doesn't.

He called some one an idiot. Give me a break.

I'm pretty sure if my CEO heard me call him an idiot behind his back I would not be fired. You're over reacting.

Go do it so we can find out for sure.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If you don't accept responses from people who don't read your posts to their full extent, you aren't going to get many people responding to you.

Not everything requires a master's thesis.

No, it doesn't, and that was not my intention. However, there was back and forth and I went on to explain it further. It wasn't just one long post out of nowhere, and I took the trouble to point to Canada's harassment guide. It wasn't a matter of not accepting someone's response (in this case, Estrada's). It was a conversation, with his last post ending on more or less a question.

I don't care if someone ignores my post, but I just find it funny that they take the time to comment on it without reading it. What's the point of doing so?

[polak]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

SJW? Really? That's rich.

Comment on something social, and suddenly you are just pushed aside as a SJW? Get a life. I took the time to actually point to Canada's harassment guidelines, just to explain how it crossed a line.

Nah, just call it snow flake crap and call me a SJW. Seriously? That's pretty dumb..

Does it get anymore SJW than taking the time to actually look up and reference Canada's harassment guidelines because someone called a hockey player dumb in an off the record conversation after said hockey player took a dumb penalty?

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by polak

No it doesn't.

He called some one an idiot. Give me a break.

I'm pretty sure if my CEO heard me call him an idiot behind his back I would not be fired. You're over reacting.

Except:

1. Millions of people had access to this stream.
2. Typically when you say something behind somebody's back, it doesn't make it okay. Typically you say those things behind their back because you don't want them to hear.

The fact that the Flames heard this, along with millions of other people, changes everything.

You can talk about your bosses or other employees behind their back all you want. But you do so realizing the risk involved.

If you get caught, your intentions of avoiding being heard don't allow you to avoid the consequences of what you said.

[Calgary4LIfe]

I got the general point and just wasn't bothering with all of the links. It's great that you think that someone was called stupid and as a result was harassed in the workplace. It's just that you can't seriously believe this. Because I don't think that you could possibly be that naïve, I can't be bothered to read walls of text with links desperately trying to make that connection.

But it is harassment at the workplace, and it is by definition exactly that. Surely you can not be so naive as to think you can make any personal comment you like about a coworker with impunity, do you? Have you taken any workplace harassment courses? All employees were mandated to attend one course within their first month of employment at a past job.

Nice touch by adding the 'desperately' making my post seem foolish though. If you don't want to read someone's post because it is too long, don't read it. Simple. Don't comment on it either though. Why waste that time? I don't get it.