Oopsies! Someone left the mic on

[MelBridgeman]

fake outrage

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I'm not an HR expert but for it to be workplace harassment wouldn't Hamilton have to be a RSN employee?

No, he wouldn't have to be employed by the same company.

For instance, a company can contract out certain jobs to another company (or companies), but they are all bound to the same workplace harassment policy. For instance, if you are working in an office, the cleaners are most likely not part of your company's payroll. Try and harass them, and you would most certainly be sitting with an HR rep.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

No, he wouldn't have to be employed by the same company.

For instance, a company can contract out certain jobs to another company (or companies), but they are all bound to the same workplace harassment policy. For instance, if you are working in an office, the cleaners are most likely not part of your company's payroll. Try and harass them, and you would most certainly be sitting with an HR rep.

But they weren't talking directly to Hamilton. It was a three way conversation and Hamilton wasn't present. Are you saying that if I say to another employee at work that the cleaners are lazy and do a crap job that could be employee harassment? Seems very unlikely anyone could be disciplined for that.

[bigrangy]

Regardless of the fallout, this is good bulletin board material for the coach and the team.

When you own announcers have given up on you that better light a hell of a fire.

[FlamesAddiction]

I think it`s funny if anything. Although "The Third Guy" does make it sound pretty personal against Hamilton.

Personally, I think the third guy was a manifestation of all of our frustration that was so strong, it physically spawned in the broadcasting booth. In a way, we are all the "third person".

[Otto29]

I thought it did sound like Millions but probably not. The fact remains that he was not wrong. The story need to just go away

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

If you were at work and people overheard you referring to a client (which is what the Flames are to Rogers), would you expect to keep your job? Probably not. Personally I am not outraged, or offended, nor do I really disagree with what was said. But if you are at work, you have to be professional and you are responsible for your actions. If he loses his job, that is on him.

Rogers pays the Flames/NHL. They aren't a client.

[jeffman]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think it`s funny if anything. Although "The Third Guy" does make it sound pretty personal against Hamilton.

Personally, I think the third guy was a manifestation of all of our frustration that was so strong, it physically spawned in the broadcasting booth. In a way, we are all the "third person".

Deep brah

[V]

This video is from one of the streams you can get off of Reddit. I always figured someone would get caught saying something stupid, because on that stream the Mike is always live during commercial breaks, and it doesn't sound like the guys who are miked up know it.

[Reign of Fire]

Team needs to just use this as motivation...that is all.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

2) This was not questioning a person's competence or decision making on the job. This was a personal attack insinuating someone is dumb.

The comment was clearly about Hamilton's decision-making on the ice. How would some broadcast technician know anything about Hamilton's intelligence off the ice? You think they play chess or discuss foreign policy together? It's no different from me (and I'm sure hundreds of other members of the audience on Saturday) yelling at the TV that Hamilton was a ****ing idiot.

People interpreting the comment as being about Hamilton's intelligence off the ice are just looking for something to be outraged about.

[Flabbibulin]

Originally Posted by Backlunds_socks

Fan960 said very clearly its someone who works off the air.

This is a concept most people are just not going to grasp... regardless of how many times it is repeated. No, it absolutely 100% has to be an on-air personality, because no way anyone else is involved in the production behind the scenes.

[Otto29]

My guess is the stats guy. People who know and do stats know a team inside out which probably earned him the nickname "Mr. Flames"

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The comment was clearly about Hamilton's decision-making on the ice.

Sorry, this is just not correct.

The guy clearly makes it personal.

Unknown: Does he have a ####ing brain? He doesn't. He's stupid.
Garrett: I don't know him that well.
Unknown: Well he's not an intelligent guy.

Garrett says he doesn't know Dougie, so he can't comment on his intelligence. The guy responds by telling Garrett (implying that he knows him) that he's not an intelligent guy.

In any profession, this likely costs you your job. Intentional or not.

And I think it should cost him his job. You are in the broadcast booth representing your employer, even if it's after hours. I can't talk like this after work in the lobby or whatever and expect to avoid punishment.

[robaur]

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

serious question.

[FanIn80]

If you rewind the tape and listen very closely, you can hear a fourth guy talking in the background from a grassy knoll. I think that's the guy we need to find.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

But they weren't talking directly to Hamilton. It was a three way conversation and Hamilton wasn't present. Are you saying that if I say to another employee at work that the cleaners are lazy and do a crap job that could be employee harassment? Seems very unlikely anyone could be disciplined for that.

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:

• The complainant was offended or harmed, including the feeling of being demeaned, belittled, personally humiliated or embarrassed, intimidated or threatened; Pretty sure Dougie is probably embarrassed, even if it isn't true.
• The respondent knew or reasonably ought to have known that such behaviour would cause offence or harm; Of course Mr Flames should know calling someone stupid or dumb is offensive.
• The behaviour occurred in the workplace or at any location or any event related to work, including while on travel status, at a conference where attendance is sponsored by the employer, at employer sponsored training activities/information sessions and at employer sponsored events, including social events; and Safe to say this happened at work, right?

Examples:

Discrediting the person by spreading malicious gossip or rumours, ridiculing him/her, humiliating him/her, calling into question his/her convictions or his/her private life, shouting abuse at him/her. Mr Flames saying "Dougie is stupid" is spreading a rumor, and the party does not have to be present for that rumor to be spread, right?

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

A single or isolated incident such as an inappropriate remark or having an abrupt manner. If this was his only offence to date, a conversation and a note in the file is all that is really needed. You can't (and shouldn't) fire someone just because of one outburst.

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.

[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.

[442scotty]

I say enough already.... Close the thread and let it be

[Ashasx]

As a result of Mr. Flames' comments, Ball and Garrett's names have also been dragged through the mud, even though they acted quite professionally in that situation. Take a look at Wyshynski's article.

There's a reason why you just don't talk like this at the workplace.