Yep. And if that were the case, she wouldn't have had a case.
But since some pigs were more equal than others, here we are.
Yes it would, but that's not their policy.
Having children a new right for accommodation in the workplace? What do you think??
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
But since some pigs were more equal than others, here we are.
Fair enough... Chances are that the HRC can use this event to investigate all businesses to uncover any preferential treatment of employees across the nation.
I can hardly wait
I can hardly wait
Yeah - so do I
A good reason to expand gvt?
... And i think that with the contraction of the various HRCs across Canada, maybe this is a way that these gvt-sponsored lynch mobs can get back in the game
I dictate what I will and won't do all the time. But we have several inter connected companies and my boss is an idiot. He forgets sometimes which company I work for and sometimes comes up with really wild ideas. Part of my job IS to say no to his dumber brain farts.
Of course if an employee can generate influence and pull it off, all the power to him. It's the ones who can't and whine that bother me!
From this piece....
“[E]ven a reasonable request should not, if denied, automatically morph into claims of a rights violation,” he wrote, “rectifiable only by the power of the law.”
If someone took and demoted me because my children are a 'choice', while upholding someone else's 'right' to religion and maintaining and accommodating their full time status (religion is not a choice but children are?) I would haul the whole thing to court as well. Would you not Colpy, honestly?
How backwards is society when family is considered optional?
Most media have had on this case. And then they're falling into the trap of verifying themselves off one another.
I'm taking my employer to HRC. He has recently given another staff member many days off to care for his wife with cancer but when I asked for days off to go skiing (my lifestyle choice in winter) he refused because skiing was my choice. I think with the precedent set I have a good case.
Now I wouldn't actually do this because it is against my principles but theoretically I could and should win a discrimination case.
We already understand that you can not grasp the principle at work here, there's no need to look even more foolish by highlighting it.
Theoretically you should be able to understand the ruling, but here we are.
it amazes me that some 'here', think an employee hasn't the right, and should feel too unimportant as
an employee, to ask for something fair to him/her from the employer.
sounds like my grandfather back in the 30's and 40's, when 'that' was the case, and employers stepped
all over their workers without any thought, and a worker wouldn't dare ask for anything for themselves
for fear of being fired.
its nice in this day and age, that workers and employers are working in an atmosphere that has some
feelings of consideration for the employee, and dialogue is open and anyone can ask and inquire about
whatever they want.
If the employer cannot accomodate the request, that should be for everyone or no one, and should be
done, not because of the power of the boss, but because the company just cannot find a way to do it.
an employee, to ask for something fair to him/her from the employer.
sounds like my grandfather back in the 30's and 40's, when 'that' was the case, and employers stepped
all over their workers without any thought, and a worker wouldn't dare ask for anything for themselves
for fear of being fired.
its nice in this day and age, that workers and employers are working in an atmosphere that has some
feelings of consideration for the employee, and dialogue is open and anyone can ask and inquire about
whatever they want.
If the employer cannot accomodate the request, that should be for everyone or no one, and should be
done, not because of the power of the boss, but because the company just cannot find a way to do it.
To achieve fairness on both sides I think it should be established right at the getgo what the responsibilities and benefits are to avoid any surprises/disappointments later.
It is the same principle. I want time off for my lifestyle choice of skiing every weekend. My coworker wants time off for his lifestyle choice of caring for his wife. Equality, based on this ruling, would be we both get it even though the reasons are different.
Theoretically you should f*ck off and die quietly somewhere, but here you are, nothing interesting or important to say, same old material, same old bullsh*t.
The employee has the right to ask....the employer has the right to say no. I don't get why people don't understand that.
Again, it's already quite clear you don't understand the ruling.
You can stop embarrassing yourself at any time.
Although the same old, me pointing out the fact that you don't grasp the ruling or the case in whole, is not BS, it's just a matter of fact.
I feel bad for you that it upsets you so much. Unfortunately I get a sick pleasure out of pointing it out ad nauseum.
Everyone understands that.
It's you that fails to grasp that when an employer makes accommodations to some, he has to make them to all, or none at all.
It was established. They are a union shop with a CBA. The employer doesn't have to do anything outside of that. Their big mistake was stepping outside the contract for anyone....trying to be considerate at all. If they just stuck to the CBA and written policy and opted harda$$ with everyone there wouldn't be a case here. I'm not sure why they didn't do that because you could be damn sure the employees wouldn't do anything outside the CBA.
And it was discriminatory.
Huh?
How do you know it was outside the contract?
Why is accommodating employees a mistake?
Huh?
If they stuck to the CBA (Canada Border Services)?
What the hell does that mean?
Have I upset you so much, by pointing out that you don't understand the ruling, that your all emotional now and unable to communicate properly?
You're going to have to translate that too.
Last edited: