Gender neutrality and political correctness discussion

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by flameswin

What? They don't shout out the acronym, haha. You think these people are walking up to reporters and literally yelling out "F H R I T P!!!!!!"?

I am sheltered. I thought it was just some lame subversive thing guys were saying without any idea of the meaning. I assumed that acronym-speak was common place nowadays.

[troutman]

There could be a reality show where these "men" have to explain to their mothers what they were doing. The mother from Baltimore should be on the panel.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

What do you mean "how far a company can enforce" it? A company can fire a worker because they wore a blue shirt last Tuesday. Of course they can enforce a code of conduct outside the workplace.

Has there been case law to back up the claim that once signed, an employment CoC applies at all aspects of an employee's life at all times?

If you want it to, you'd wind up firing your entire company.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by troutman

http://www.panmacmillan.com/book/jon...publiclyshamed

For the past three years, Jon Ronson has travelled the world meeting recipients of high-profile public shamings. The shamed are people like us - people who, say, made a joke on social media that came out badly, or made a mistake at work. Once their transgression is revealed, collective outrage circles with the force of a hurricane and the next thing they know they're being torn apart by an angry mob, jeered at, demonized, sometimes even fired from their job.

A great renaissance of public shaming is sweeping our land. Justice has been democratized. The silent majority are getting a voice. But what are we doing with our voice? We are mercilessly finding people's faults. We are defining the boundaries of normality by ruining the lives of those outside it. We are using shame as a form of social control.

Simultaneously powerful and hilarious in the way only Jon Ronson can be, So You've Been Publicly Shamed is a deeply honest book about modern life, full of eye-opening truths about the escalating war on human flaws - and the very scary part we all play in it.

This is why I'm torn on the issue. There is something really ugly about the hurricanes of public shaming that are being whipped up on social media. The self-righteousness, the savage pack mentality, how disproportionate the life-ruining shaming can be.

On the other hand, we are exposed to increasing levels of incivility - people making repugnant and ugly comments in public under the guise of jokes. People used to be dressed down in public for that kind of behavior. Older men would tell younger men to mind their mouths, or grab them by their collars and give them a shake. Now, everyone is afraid to challenge strangers in public, so the only place we can call out obnoxious behavior is from the safe distance of social media.

The shaming is disproportionate. But it's born from a frustration at the lack of standards of civil behavior in public places, and by the growing anger at the 'bro' culture of grown men who act like 17-year-olds. I don't understand exactly why society has developed this way, but it seems like a lot of 32-year-old men today are simply 17-year-olds with more money. The civilizing process of adulthood has stalled altogether.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

That's actually another pet peeve. "Soldiers died in wars to protect your freedom to X". Well, no, I mean, I don't think that was the reason. I don't think for example that I have freedom of speech in Canada because some legendary war heroes took Vimy Ridge.

Or that freedom of speech also means freedom from consequences or accountability. Shawn Simoes is still free to say the things he said. That hasn't changed.

I am also willing to bet that if people at his work place liked him and were inclined to, they would not have taken this extreme measure. It was probably a culmination of things where this was the final straw.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

^Oh sure that's a completely separate issue but I find that one's easy to rebut quickly.

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Has there been case law to back up the claim that once signed, an employment CoC applies at all aspects of an employee's life at all times?

What does this mean, though? The consequence of breaking a policy like this is you get fired... are you suggesting that they can't do that?

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

^Oh sure that's a completely separate issue but I find that one's easy to rebut quickly.

What does this mean, though? The consequence of breaking a policy like this is you get fired... are you suggesting that they can't do that?

I'm not denying that a potential consequence of breaking a company CoC in the workplace is termination.

You're suggesting that that same CoC should apply 24/7/365 and even if you violate some part of it when you're not on company business or representing the company, you should be fired with cause.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Well, when you get into termination for CAUSE, that's a whole other issue. I don't even know if violation of workplace policies generally is determinative, whether you're at work or not. My understanding is that you have engaged in misconduct that is fundamentally at odds with the employment relationship (like stealing or a conflict of interest or criminal activities) in order for someone to terminate you for cause. I imagine this guy got severance in lieu of reasonable notice and was sent on his way.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

I'm not denying that a potential consequence of breaking a company CoC in the workplace is termination.

You're suggesting that that same CoC should apply 24/7/365 and even if you violate some part of it when you're not on company business or representing the company, you should be fired with cause.

I wouldn't say 24/7/365 necessarily, assuming that a lot of that time is spent in private, but being a high paying salaried position (not an hourly "clock punching" job), they likely have high standards of conduct when it comes to public behavior.

Something like this could very well create a poisonous atmosphere in the work place. I can't imagine that female colleagues at Hydro One would feel great about working next to someone who obviously thinks they are a joke to him.

[CliffFletcher]

I'm starting to think a lot of people no longer understand the distinction between private behaviour and public behaviour. When there are other people around, strangers who you don't know, you should regulate your behavior more closely than when you are in a private place with people who you know.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by bubbsy

it's easy to say the guys an idiot and that he deserved whatever he had coming, but at the same time, it's also important to realize folks make stupid mistakes that they should definitely be held accountable for, but shouldn't have to suffer for the remainder of their life for. if it takes this guy a year or 2 to finally find employment, due to a dumbass move done likely under the influence, is it fair?

I actually think it isn't. That being said, maybe this is the new age of justice. Everything you do is likely being tracked or caught through video, etc, and can be exposed to the world's social networks and travel like wild fire.

Hopefully that becomes an even bigger reminder and incentive to behave yourself, and the world becomes a better world for it?

If this is the case, none of us will be employed again. We all say stupid stuff and I'm assuming many of us have said sexist things in the past... Luckily no one was around to hear/video it

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Cappy

If this is the case, none of us will be employed again. We all say stupid stuff and I'm assuming many of us have said sexist things in the past... Luckily no one was around to hear/video it

In this case it wasn't just unfortunate that someone was around to record the stupidity. This guy wanted the attention fully aware that he was going to be seen my many people in the public. He wanted to be seen and heard.

I heard a lawyer on the radio discuss this matter yesterday, and he said once the person's name became public, an employer can fire that person if it can tarnish the work place. In this case, the person is believed to supervise staff, many of whom are females. The lawyer thinks it is a pretty cut and dry case and he doesn't even think that the union will want to touch this one.

He compared it to this story from a couple of years ago:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/employe...-teen-1.999334

[troutman]

FHRITP phenomenon: CBC journalists share 'mortifying' experiences

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/fhritp...nces-1.3072191

"You are not advancing an organic movement. You are copying what one guy set up as a spoof. We can see your face and hear your voice and so can your girlfriend, your sister, your mother, your daughter," Dunlop wrote.

"It's not funny. It makes women feel uncomfortable. You make women feel uncomfortable."

[polak]

"Insert Penis into Vagina!"

Would that be better?

[Wormius]

Sigh.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by polak

"Insert Penis into Vagina!"

Would that be better?

Better than what?

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

In this case it wasn't just unfortunate that someone was around to record the stupidity. This guy wanted the attention fully aware that he was going to be seen my many people in the public. He wanted to be seen and heard.

I heard a lawyer on the radio discuss this matter yesterday, and he said once the person's name became public, an employer can fire that person if it can tarnish the work place. In this case, the person is believed to supervise staff, many of whom are females. The lawyer thinks it is a pretty cut and dry case and he doesn't even think that the union will want to touch this one.

He compared it to this story from a couple of years ago:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/employe...-teen-1.999334

Which lawyer? cause I don't think it's cut and dry at all. Granted we don't have the full picture of the story or the code of conduct but man this story raises so many issues and many employment lawyer's i have talked to would gladly take this case. Even if the Union doesn't help, he can hire a lawyer and go after both company and union.

EDIT: I am not arguing that this guy is innocent or the Company was legally wrong in justifying termination for cause, but this is not a cut and dry area and there is room to argue for the employee. BUT, it is important to realize that any lawyer commenting on this case does not know the full story and cannot base a termination on the facts that have been presented.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by polak

"Insert Penis into Vagina!"

Would that be better?

Keeping one's mouth shut would be ideal.

[shermanator]

polak gonna polak...

[polak]

'twas a joke.

calm your pecs.