« The Alberta and UK elections: how to deal with insurgencies and how not to | Main | Have you seen the latest Mad Max film? »

May 14, 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


This response to poor behavior outside the workplace reminds me of the guy in Vancouver who was caught on camera kicking a dog. While I do not condone mistreatment of animals, the man was forced to resign from his job, plead guilty to one count of animal cruelty resulting in a $5K fine and a ban on owning an animal for 3 years.

The similarities in these cases is that both guys were caught on video.

The fact that ones career could be destroyed for stupidity outside the workplace is quite alarming when you consider that if both these guys were in Unions, you can bet they would be protected from losing their jobs. Just consider all the teachers under reprimand for things that would see them investigated by police, let alone fired.

I would dare to suggest the same folks that want to see dog kickers and drunken losers fired for being idiots outside the workplace, would wish to protect or white wash questionable behaviors inside the unionized workplace.

Take these 2 incidents and combine with the hysterical claims of islamaphobia, homophobia, fillintheblank-phobia, racism etc, that is occurring all over North America these days in order to quell free speech, you can definitely see that dark times are coming.

Does this type of idiotic behavior deserve to be punished. Sure. But the loss of the ability to earn a living and to support your family is overkill. Community service, outreach, a few speeches at some schools, etc, would go much further to changing a persons attitude while also showing others that such behavior is unacceptable.


The dog-kicking example is a good one. There is no excuse for cruelty to animals. Charging him with cruelty to animals and fining him upon conviction is a good outcome. Firing him is insane. Unless he worked in an animal clinic or a zoo, it had nothing to do with his job.

You know there are programs set up by the John Howard Society and others to provide employment to ex-cons. The idea is that if ex-cons are given a chance at getting a meaningful job, they are less likely to reoffend.

But I guess it is just a matter of proportion. Making sure a convicted murderer or rapist has a meaningful job in society is one thing, but an obnoxious soccer fan, come on!


When I heard about the guy getting fired, my first thought was that "a good lawyer should be able to get the guy's job back." And I 'm still thinking that will (and should) happen. Not because I agree with what he did at all, (he was obviously a drunken boor on that occasion at least), but simply because, as you say, an employer should not have that kind of control over activity totally unrelated to his employment.
The left is defending Elizabeth May and saying there's no need for her to resign. Her comments were more offensive than this guy's. And she made them in a quasi-public forum and in her official capacity as an MP and leader of the Green Party. Always, always double standards for the left.


Not sure I agree with this one.
There are a lot of differences between this event and the communism example. For one, there is no government system going on here. Indeed no government involvement at all. This is, for the purposes of this argument, a private company. While the arguments used by the media for this idiot's firing are incorrect, I think the company fired him for the right reasons. Very few employers want to have somebody like this as an employee, and if I happen upon one of my employees behaving in such a way, no matter who's time it is on, I will want him out.

I like to compare things to what would have happened in the 50s. In the 50s there would not have been a printed "code of conduct" that employees would have to sign. It wasn't nessessary. There was an unwritten code of conduct that everybody followed. If this guy would have been discovered by his boss behaving in such a way, he would have been out on his ass even faster. The other difference being that there was no social media to spread such behaviour around on a video, but they did have the rumour mill, which was probably almost as effective, at least in the local area where this guy lives.

The real problem here, I think, is the current lack of a universal code of conduct that our parents had. Even I remember being rescued from my drunken self, by my friends, who told me to calm down and be quiet when I was getting out of hand. This guy's friends did nothing to discourage his behaviour, in fact he actually came to the defense of his friend who he should have been dragging away from the camera.


Freedom of speech and the related concept, tolerance, are not just about what the government can and cannot do. When private companies get big, they begin to take on the powers of a government. Let alone, Hydro One, which is provincially owned monopoly.


I still don't see how this situation would have unfolded differently in the 50s, public company or not. I just can't imagine Ward Cleaver keeping whatever job he had, after his boss saw him behave this way. I can't even imagine Eddie Haskel behaving so badly. Clearly the unwritten code of behaviour was far superior to whatever we have now.


I wasn't talking about the 50's, but rather the 70's.

The comments to this entry are closed.

e-mail address

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 02/2008

Blogging Tories

  • Blogging Tories