Having children a new right for accommodation in the workplace? What do you think??

[CDNBear]

I do believe in equal rights...

Your continued commentary on a litany of topics, confirms otherwise.

she has an equal right to go look for work elsewhere if her employer is not pleasing to her.

Other employees were accommodated.

She wasn't.

If they didn't give her a reason to deny her request how did this case come about?

She wasn't originally given a reason. But when it became obvious to her that other were given accommodating shifts that didn't penalize them, she pressed fro answers.

Her employer then told her they just weren't going to because they saw having a child as a lifestyle choice.

So she was being penalized for having a child.

That's contrary to the Charter.

How would she know it was because of childcare issues.

What the hell are you babbling about?

Is the whole thing speculation?

No, that's the basis of most of your assumptions.

The employer can accommodate or not as they please outside the scope of the contract.

No they can not when it is not based on equal terms.

Like I said, you don't like equality.

That is the joy of being the boss. Remember the golden rule....he who has the gold makes the rules.

Ya, you didn't think so when two idiots got turfed for being disrespectful at the Tomb of the Unknown.

Maybe if your logic was consistent you would be so entertaining.

I love women, especially strong, independent women who play submissive in the bedroom ;-)

I don't think you do.

 

[Tonington]

It's a different world today Cap't (and has been headed that way since the 80s). Back in the day when you got a job you kept your mouth and worked as hard as you could so the boss wouldn't replace you. The employer made the decisions. There was no such thing as "discrimination" - It beats me why people persist in working at a job they don't like.

Because you had a job and you kept your mouth shut apparently, or at least that's what your generation did apparently...seriously, where are you getting this from now that she didn't like her job?

This thread is filled with reading comprehension problems and outright failures in logic.

If your employer isn't willing to offer concessions to all employees, then they should not offer them to any. This is pretty easy stuff to grasp, or should be. The management created this problem by working outside of stated roles and protocols. It's their own fault by poor management. So when you say to Employee A that they can have the conditions that you will not offer to Employee B, and the reasoning is not related to job performance or any valid HR policies, then the management have been stupid enough to walk into exactly this kind of legal battle.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Other employees were accommodated.

So what? I get things from my boss others don't and they may get things I don't, that's life.

She wasn't.

See above.

She wasn't originally given a reason.

They don't need to give a reason.

But when it became obvious to her that other were given accommodating shifts that didn't penalize them, she pressed fro answers.

Obviously because she thought nobody in the world should get anything she couldn't have. She should grow up.

Her employer then told her they just weren't going to because they saw having a child as a lifestyle choice.

There is the mistake, they should have just said no as is their right and shut-up about any reason.

So she was being penalized for having a child.

No she wasn't. She still had a job AND they offered her static shifts....just not the shifts she demanded. They offered her some accommodation which she ACCEPTED.

That's contrary to the Charter.

Firing her for having a kid would be contrary to labour law. I just re-read the Charter and it doesn't mention anything about forcing your boss to accommodate the shifts you want for ANY reason. In fact the only time it mentions employment is here...
Rights to move and gain livelihood

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

No they can not when it is not based on equal terms.

The only equal terms here are that every employee needs to work the shifts they are assigned or seek another job. This BS of the employees dictating to the employer needs to go.

Like I said, you don't like equality.

I don't care if it's a him or her that is black or white or martian when it comes to employing someone. That is equality. Employees demanding that the requirements of the job be changed for their personal benefit is not equality.

Ya, you didn't think so when two idiots got turfed for being disrespectful at the Tomb of the Unknown.

As far as I'm concerned what people do during off hours is no business of the employer. That trip was part of the job so their actions were subject to discipline. I stand by my position on that subject. If a person is off duty, even on a business trip, their employer has no right to monitor or moderate their actions.

 

[karrie]

I say they can. .

Well, I'm glad she's got the HRC, and the federal courts, deciding this and not you. If you read the findings, there's a ton there that reinforces my opinion

 

[JLM]

Too much complication in the work place these days, it should be a two fold transaction...........you do what the boss wants, he pays you! Can it get any simpler than that?

 

[karrie]

Too much complication in the work place these days, it should be a two fold transaction...........you do what the boss wants, he pays you! Can it get any simpler than that?

There's a time and a place for that thinking.

When there is a product to be turned out, or a set customer service hour, the boss tells you the goal and the times, and you show up, supply the product, or you lose your job. But, then there are 24 hour shift jobs. And any manager on any of these sorts of positions that I've seen throughout my life (gas plants, lumber mills), spends much of their time negotiating schedules. Always have, always will.

 

[gerryh]

There's a time and a place for that thinking.

When there is a product to be turned out, or a set customer service hour, the boss tells you the goal and the times, and you show up, supply the product, or you lose your job. But, then there are 24 hour shift jobs. And any manager on any of these sorts of positions that I've seen throughout my life (gas plants, lumber mills), spends much of their time negotiating schedules. Always have, always will.

and the tighter the labour market, as in low unemployment rate, the more power the employee has and the more concessions an employer needs to make to keep the top performers.

 

[PoliticalNick]

and the tighter the labour market, as in low unemployment rate, the more power the employee has and the more concessions an employer needs to make to keep the top performers.

She is a federal employee at the airport.....they can train monkeys to do her job and they will work the shifts they are assigned.

There's a time and a place for that thinking.

You bet....its called a job. JLM is right. The boss tells you what to do and when, you do it and get paid. End of story.

 

[karrie]

She is a federal employee at the airport.....they can train monkeys to do her job and they will work the shifts they are assigned.


You bet....its called a job. JLM is right. The boss tells you what to do and when, you do it and get paid. End of story.

Most job positions don't have 'bosses'. They don't 'own' their staff. They manage their staff. They manage schedules, they manage jobs, they manage output, that's their job.

 

[PoliticalNick]

Most job positions don't have 'bosses'. They don't 'own' their staff. They manage their staff. They manage schedules, they manage jobs, they manage output, that's their job.

You really buy into that new age crap huh? I'm old school, I do whatever my boss tells me when he's paying my wage. I don't dictate to him when I will work or what I will do.

 

[karrie]

You really buy into that new age crap huh? I'm old school, I do whatever my boss tells me when he's paying my wage. I don't dictate to him when I will work or what I will do.

I know people who manage and own businesses. I see what works, what doesn't, end of story.

Bend over for an owner all you want, most people won't. Especially in economies like Alberta's. And especially when the guy making arbitrary decisions about your career is just another employee like you.

Hubby may make the big bucks managing, he may hold the final say, but the key to running a crew is knowing that you rely on them to meet your goals, as much as the rely on you to make their money. The only time you penalize or fire someone, is if they stand directly in the way of the goal. You don't penalize someone (ie., demote them to part time), for trying to work with you on their schedule.

 

[CDNBear]

So what?

See, I knew you had a problem with equality. Who knew it was misogynistic.

Obviously because she thought nobody in the world should get anything she couldn't have. She should grow up.

I'm saving that one for when you start whining about First Nations rights.

You'll likely cry when I feed you your own words, but it's you own fault. Your logical inconsistency is just to much fun to point out and mock.

No she wasn't.

The Federal Courts see it differently, lol. And given your ignorance of the law, they win hands down all the time, lol.

I just re-read the Charter and it doesn't mention anything about forcing your boss to accommodate the shifts you want for ANY reason.

LOL.

I stand by my position on that subject.

And you're still wrong, lol.

 

[captain morgan]

So why are taxpayers coughing up for sudsidized daycare?

Makes one wonder if those that don't use the subsidized daycare are owed a rebate?

In the end, there is nothing that stipulates a 'right' to have an employer accommodate them for any lifestyle or life choice reason... If Customs were willing, great, but that their individual decision to make on a case by case basis.

I can't wait for one of the employees at Customs to demand that the company make scheduling concessions such that they can make happy hour at their favorite bar every Thursday and Friday afternoon.... A lifestyle decision to be sure; hell, it might even lead to starting a family

 

[CDNBear]

In the end, there is nothing that stipulates a 'right' to have an employer accommodate them for any lifestyle or life choice reason...

Apart from persons with disabilities, you are correct.

But when an employer makes accommodations for some, but refuses to for others, and bases that on an arbitrary opinion of life style choice, they open themselves up for what we have here.

The HRC and the Federal Court made the right ruling based on the law and the employers written and unwritten policies.

 

[captain morgan]

Apart from persons with disabilities, you are correct.

But when an employer makes accommodations for some, but refuses to for others, and bases that on an arbitrary opinion of life style choice, they open themselves up for what we have here.

The HRC and the Federal Court made the right ruling based on the law and the employers written and unwritten policies.

Fair enough.

Ultimately, we all believe that it is in the company's best interests to make these accommodations fro both themselves and the employee base - that is not a question in my mind. In terms of company policy, those are a guideline at best and really carry no significant weight in a legal sense (unless they are a direct expression of the existing laws - ie. you won't show up to work drunk and operate heavy equipment, etc)

What concerns me is that the HRC used 'discrimination' as both the sword and the shield in this analysis/ruling. My view is that they have now opened-up a large hole in the entire system that will allow for a variety of discrimination charges be entertained in the Courts.

I used a silly example of happy-hour for a reason. Despite it being entirely unrelated to having a child, it does share important similarities to the example in the OP.... It's an individual choice and it is a legal activity that reflects a lifestyle.

That said, as silly as the example is; would the Courts be compelled to provide similar support in a discrimination charge as they provided for the new Mom?.. Who knows, but the identical mechanisms exist

 

[CDNBear]

What concerns me is that the HRC used 'discrimination' as both the sword and the shield in this analysis/ruling.

And the Federal Courts back it up, as they should have, because discrimination is exactly what it was.

My view is that they have now opened-up a large hole in the entire system that will allow for a variety of discrimination charges be entertained in the Courts.

I don't think so. It may force companies to reexamine their policies and look for details that are discriminatory in nature.

 

[SLM]

Staff having children is not something that's new in society. But having run the childcare gauntlet in the past I can say that the struggle to find childcare available hours that matched the work schedules that employer's wanted was a daunting task. More people are required to work longer hours, odd shifts, and whatnot than they used to in the past. Childcare services that are provided have not as yet caught up to this. So yes, until everyone catches up and is on the same page in society, we may need to be a little accommodating. I don't know if this has been brought up but has anyone noticed how certain services like banks, medical services, dentists, etc are moving outside of their traditional hours of operation? Why do you think that is?

 

[captain morgan]

And the Federal Courts back it up, as they should have, because discrimination is exactly what it was.

I don't think so. It may force companies to reexamine their policies and look for details that are discriminatory in nature.

We'll have to wait and see if there's any fall out on this... If one really wanted to stir the pot at that particular Customs office, all you need to do is have a few single individuals request the same shifts that have been delivered to the new Mom and when the employer can't accommodate them, well, it's unequal and therefore discriminatory (as they don't have children).

In effect, what the HRC and the Fed Courts have done is prioritize one situation over others... (btw - I do realize that it makes sense, BUT, in branding it 'discrimination' the door is now wide open).

That's all I'm really saying here

 

[CDNBear]

In effect, what the HRC and the Fed Courts have done is prioritize one situation over others...

No they didn't. They did the exact opposite. They equalized them.

What the CBA had done was prioritize other situations over one.

 

[captain morgan]

No they didn't. They did the exact opposite. They equalized them.

What the CBA had done was prioritize other situations over one.

Well, if that's the case, it would seem that the CBA would be almost forced to require that ALL employees to accept rotations in the shifts such that everyone was treated (absolutely) equally regardless of home-related issues, seniority, etc in order to not discriminate against anyone.

In not accommodating anyone, all folks are treated equally

Kinda kills the results that the new mom was looking for