Calgary man out of a job after racist tirade caught on video.

[dino7c]

If you can't fire a guy for that what can you fire him for? does he have to kill somebody? As a business owner I wouldn't want this guy anywhere near my business or brand

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Let's be even clearer: the company had the right to fire him even if they weren't embarrassed. They could fire him because he said he didn't like the Dougie Hamilton trade and it would be perfectly fine. Unless there's a collective agreement in place, it's all at will employment, folks.

EDIT: Makarov beat me.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Like I said. A job is not an inalienable right

I never said it was, and I'm not saying they're not within their rights to fire him. Doesn't mean I agree with it though.

[Minnie]

One of the other passengers in the cab, that were dropped off ahead of him, was his boss.

I guess if he thinks they didn't have grounds to fire him, he can take it up with the pertinent authorities.

[To Be Quite Honest]

This guy should have been suspended and forced to go for therapy before losing his job. If he declines the option to change then axe him.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

This guy should have been suspended and forced to go for therapy before losing his job. If he declines the option to change then axe him.

This is a great middle ground. Good call.

[Makarov]

There's therapy for racism?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest;5375161[B

]This guy should have been suspended and forced to go for therapy before losing his job[/B]. If he declines the option to change then axe him.

Oh god, that's even worse.

[CaptainCrunch]

This is the new reality where camera's are everywhere and your public conduct effects your professional and private life.

People need to start treating themselves as Joe Blow Inc, because frankly if you do something that's completely a dick move, or something that's publicly condemnable its going up on the Internet and once its there and no matter how hard you work to get rid of you its tied around your neck forever.

When you go for a job interview now if they like you they're going to google you, because the stuff that you have on linkedin, is the safe stuff, but the stuff that you have on instagram "Ha Ha skipped work today to get loaded", or facebook, "OMG I hate Chinese people, represent", or youtube "Drunken night at christmas party leads to vomit bath" is going to be discovered, and when your in a competitive situation, against someone with the same kind of required skill set, but doesn't have a past history on the internet, guess who's not getting a job at XYZ Gadgets incorporated.

You pretty much are what the internet says that you are.

I'm always shocked at how easy people find things and distribute them, especially when it comes to work mates, or personal friends. Within 5 minutes of a video going up of you doing something stupid, or malicious, your whole inner and outer circle is going to know about it.

Second of all, if the company that you work for is paying for an event and paying for booze and paying your cab fare, that doesn't mean you're obligated to drink it all, and then go and act like a ###### bag in the cab home. That cab ride is linked to your company, and when you get into a cab with a paid for by ZTC Sex Toys inc, that ride home is linked to that company and you are basically still on the clock and a representative of that company. Its no different from a person flying home from a business trip who gets bombed on the flight and pee's on the university student next to him.

You're representing the organization that you're with.

Frankly I don't feel sorry for this guy. To me the phrase "In Vino Veritas" is one of the great truths in our society. Booze lowers our walls and shows our true selves.

He's probably going to lose a lot and its going to be a hard lesson. But this guy clearly knew there was a camera in the cab.

We live in a society where every person with a camera, or phone or whatever, or any ride in a cab or a train or whatever is there to destroy you.

[Ne7en]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

This guy should have been suspended and forced to go for therapy before losing his job. If he declines the option to change then axe him.

You do realize he assaulted the cab driver?

I'm surprised with the level of tolerance by some posters. This is racism.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Makarov

There's therapy for racism?

"Cultural sensitivity training".

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Makarov

There's therapy for racism?

Oooo a new market of therapy to corner!

Dooshbag Therapy.

I would love to hear a judge hammer that down. "I sentence you to 100 hours of Dooshbag Therapy on the grounds that you, sir, are a doosh."

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

This guy should have been suspended and forced to go for therapy before losing his job. If he declines the option to change then axe him.

Why?

Wouldn't it be easier, and quicker to find someone else to do his job? Instead of suspending him, and having to find someone else to take on the work load, or bringing in a temporary worker and training him. Its not required for the company to take those steps. If he wants to take therapy fine, he can pay for it and do it on his own time, but for every hour that this guy isn't doing his job there's a cost involved.

Its not like therapy is going to change this guys notions in a day or two.

What if the company had a lot of employee's that would be resentful of what he's said?

[ernie]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Let's be even clearer: the company had the right to fire him even if they weren't embarrassed. They could fire him because he said he didn't like the Dougie Hamilton trade and it would be perfectly fine. Unless there's a collective agreement in place, it's all at will employment, folks.

EDIT: Makarov beat me.

In practical terms "at will" does not typically mean you can fire a person for any reason. Companies will go out of their way to document why you are terminating someone even if it is an "at will" company on paper. They will document poor performance etc . It avoids lawsuits which are costlier than some paperwork build up because anything that implies they don't actually follow at will are often easy to find. A simple statement or e-mail from a manager that says "keep doing this good job and we'll always find a place for you", this or a variation of it happens all the time in every company, gives the employee a case against the company. That statement says they don't follow at will. Given many managers who make hiring decisions are not well versed in what you can and cannot say it does indeed happen all the time. "At will" provides the employer with some protection but the better protection is documenting why the dismissal is taking place and why it is necessary. Even in cases of a massive round of layoffs...even more so given a company has to be very careful they are doing it in a fair and non-discriminatory fashion.

I'm of course ignores discriminatory practices which a person can not lose a job over (of course).

[JonDuke]

wrong thread

[Sr. Mints]

The dial on my Sympathy-o-meter hasn't even budged on Greg the racist's behalf.

But I also don't like this trend. What's next, firing people who wear orange on St. Patrick's Day, after a barrage of Twitter shaming and someone drags their personal life and employer into it?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Sr. Mints

The dial on my Sympathy-o-meter hasn't even budged on Greg the racist's behalf.

But I also don't like this trend. What's next, firing people who wear orange on St. Patrick's Day, after a barrage of Twitter shaming and someone drags their personal life and employer into it?

Yes, the next logical step to firing a racist who assaulted a taxi cab driver, during a ride paid for by the company after a company party, is firing people who wear orange on St. Patrick's Day.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by ernie

In practical terms "at will" does not typically mean you can fire a person for any reason. Companies will go out of their way to document why you are terminating someone even if it is an "at will" company on paper. They will document poor performance etc . It avoids lawsuits which are costlier than some paperwork build up because anything that implies they don't actually follow at will are often easy to find. A simple statement or e-mail from a manager that says "keep doing this good job and we'll always find a place for you", this or a variation of it happens all the time in every company, gives the employee a case against the company. That statement says they don't follow at will. Given many managers who make hiring decisions are not well versed in what you can and cannot say it does indeed happen all the time. "At will" provides the employer with some protection but the better protection is documenting why the dismissal is taking place and why it is necessary. Even in cases of a massive round of layoffs...even more so given a company has to be very careful they are doing it in a fair and non-discriminatory fashion.

I'm of course ignores discriminatory practices which a person can not lose a job over (of course).

None of this is really very accurate. For example, absent a "just cause" clause, a person can indeed be dismissed from employment even if it amounts to discrimination. As far as I know, no provincial Human Rights Code grants the authority to return a successful applicant to their former position. The only remedy available is an award of damages.

[sketchyt]

Originally Posted by ken0042

“He punched the camera in my chest and I just opened the car and left,” said Qayyum.

That is where I am basing the assault part of the case. It seems that crossed the line between insults, and more towards "sticks and stones."

He's been fired (justly, IMO). He paid for the broken camera. Police are investigating the "assault". I hope he's found guilty because it sure looks that way. However, there's still a large part of the story that's still about public vengeance that I don't like. Most people seem to be more angry about the tirade itself.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Why?

Wouldn't it be easier, and quicker to find someone else to do his job? Instead of suspending him, and having to find someone else to take on the work load, or bringing in a temporary worker and training him. Its not required for the company to take those steps. If he wants to take therapy fine, he can pay for it and do it on his own time, but for every hour that this guy isn't doing his job there's a cost involved.

Its not like therapy is going to change this guys notions in a day or two.

What if the company had a lot of employee's that would be resentful of what he's said?

There are many reasons for therapy and the only time someone would actually go under this circumstance is threat of job loss. (I'm on my phone right now and it's a pain to text so I hope this is making sense.)
The guy also has a family, I assume, and by firing him outright there is little chance of change and much more for resentment which can be passed on to the children. By offering redemption we can turn this into a positive story. In fact, society will always do better with positive reinforcement over negative.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk