Originally Posted by JamesM (Post 11653816)

And vice versa. I'd like to see woman stop harassing men. There is no room for harassment in any place let alone the work place.

Originally Posted by JonboyE (Post 11652928)

It is just a wild guess, but I don't think JamesM has met ExKiwilass in real life.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 11652809)

It's not about what we think he meant, it's about what the the reporter thinks he meant. If she met him alone in Greenhill's dark alley, her thoughts may be very different than meeting him in this rowdy public context with her security man next to her. That's the point. But I don't know what she thought, I have never met her.

Originally Posted by JuneSpring (Post 11654055)

I must add that online, ExKiwilass has never appeared to me a "victim". She is forthright and direct - nothing wrong with a strong woman, although some men can't take that very well. :confused:

Originally Posted by JuneSpring (Post 11654079)

Longer term reader/lurker ;)

Originally Posted by Oakvillian (Post 11653706)

I am once again at a loss to understand your point here.

A company decided it did not want to have, on staff, somebody who felt it acceptable, appropriate, or amusing, to say what was said in public. The employee was filmed by a TV camera crew in a public place. Even if one agreed with your premise that an employee's private off-hours behaviour should have no impact on their continued employment, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in teh plaza outside a football stadium.

Why do you feel that companies (in this case a government owned arms-length agency, but it would apply equally to a corporation in the private sector) are ill-equipped to judge who they want to employ or who they want to terminate? What else, actually, needs "assessing" here? Who else other than the company is better placed to make this judgement? If the reason for dismissal does not break anti-discrimination legislation, and does not amount to a breach of other employment law (in which case the employee presumably has recourse through the courts anyway) then why should that company be beholden to anybody else's values?

Originally Posted by JuneSpring (Post 11654062)

Shard, no offence, but you seem like a classic case of someone who over-
intellectualizes matters. "I don't know what she thought" "If this" "If that" "Group Think". It impairs your sensitivity, perhaps.

.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 11654186)

Obviously a minority view on this highly conformist forum. Let's leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 11654186)

My point is that I don't think companies should be policing their employees' out of work behaviour. If matters are serious, I want them judged in a court of law, not a company HR department; if matters are not serious, I think there are alternative remedies to vindictive power through job loss. Obviously a minority view on this highly conformist forum. Let's leave it at that.

Originally Posted by JuneSpring (Post 11654079)

Longer term reader/lurker ;)

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 11654186)

Obviously a minority view on this highly conformist forum.

Originally Posted by JuneSpring (Post 11654794)

New or old can tell you are a bitter, spiteful critic.

HTH.

Originally Posted by Tirytory (Post 11655004)

Ooh you don't deny it?;)

Now whose flounced?

Originally Posted by JuneSpring (Post 11655270)

Are you 4 years old, Tirytory?

You seem to think that anyone should care what you or Novocastrian actually think. Please feel free to make up whatever ideas you want about anyone and stick to those, but don't expect me, for one, to care or God forbid, "convince" you otherwise.

Some very sad and misguided people on this forum.

Originally Posted by JuneSpring (Post 11655404)

Only old timers post a lot :lol: I don't know whether to laugh or grimace anymore. *untwists knickers*

Originally Posted by JuneSpring (Post 11655435)

another time Mark (with a k)

.

Originally Posted by JuneSpring (Post 11655435)

You sure are obsessive. To end this, I confess that I was nibblewak and also sweetpie and another time Mark (with a k)

Good? I'm old here, been here for centuries, posted for the last decade to be honest. Satisfied? Done.

Originally Posted by JuneSpring (Post 11655435)

You sure are obsessive. To end this, I confess that I was nibblewak and also sweetpie and another time Mark (with a k)

Good? I'm old here, been here for centuries, posted for the last decade to be honest. Satisfied? Done.

Originally Posted by Tirytory (Post 11655460)

I have no idea who those names are and neither do I care. I thought I made that pretty clear with my last post. I guess not:confused:

Originally Posted by Novocastrian (Post 11655493)

No, you weren't.

You see, I invented digital computing one Sunday evening and then the internet while on holiday in Geneva.

Originally Posted by JamesM (Post 11655618)

What did you do on the eighth day?

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 11654186)

My point is that I don't think companies should be policing their employees' out of work behaviour. If matters are serious, I want them judged in a court of law, not a company HR department; if matters are not serious, I think there are alternative remedies to vindictive power through job loss. Obviously a minority view on this highly conformist forum. Let's leave it at that.

Originally Posted by Former Lancastrian (Post 11785128)

UPDATE ; The hydro worker who got fired has now been reinstated after going to arbitration.
Hydro One rehires man fired after FHRITP incident - Toronto - CBC News

Mmmm did they have justification for firing him in the first place or did they envisage paying the guy a shit load of money if found to be in the wrong?

Originally Posted by JamesM (Post 11785138)

He is lucky to work in a unionised environment. It protects his job and gives him a ludicrous salary.

Nothing further to add to the matter. It's in the past. It hasn't happened again and it is time to move on.