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

[PoliticalNick]

CBA = Collective Bargaining Agreement. Every union has one dumba$$. It is their employment contract and lays out quite clearly what their responsibilities & benefits are. The employer should just stick to the terms of the contract, no exceptions ever, and that is what employers will most likely do after this ruling and who can blame them.

How do I know it was outside the contract? If it was in the contract she wouldn't have to go to the HRC and the courts to get it. An 'unwritten' policy, by its very nature, would not be in the contract. You really are stupid arent you?

 

[talloola]

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.

As I mentioned before, saying no, just because they can, and because they are wielding their power,
isn't a good reason, and should be questioned, and of course if a company cannot find a way to fit
the inquiry into their schedule, (for everyone, not one or two), then it can't be done, understandable.
Employees aren't there to be bullied and pushed around, and neither is the company, good dialogue
makes a good working relationship.
New situations arise throughout the years, and companies have to address those situations as they
come about, as well as employees.
Establishing a day-care schedule with a working schedule isn't easy, and the company, now days know
that all too well, it is the way of the world with families, and having children isn't a life style,
it is life.
It would be nice if moms could stay home, but the cost of raising a family now is just far too high
for almost everyone, with exception of a few, so 'all' have to figure it out, companies and employees,
and if they can work it out, that will create a very good working relationship, and happy workers,
who will want to stay, and are 'able' to stay.

 

[CDNBear]

CBA = Collective Bargaining Agreement. Every union has one dumba$$.

LOL, congrats, you finally got one, lol.

It is their employment contract and lays out quite clearly what their responsibilities & benefits are. The employer should just stick to the terms of the contract, no exceptions ever, and that is what employers will most likely do after this ruling and who can blame them.

Show me where it's either in or isn't in the CBA.

Maybe you should stop making things up to look smart, or justify your idiotic uneducated position.

 

[PoliticalNick]

As I mentioned before, saying no, just because they can, and because they are wielding their power,
isn't a good reason.....

It's the only reason they need....because they can! You might not agree with it but if the contract says they can say no they are entitled to say no.

 

[CDNBear]

It's the only reason they need....because they can! You might not agree with it but if the contract says they can say no they are entitled to say no.

That's only true if it's in the contract.

You're only making it up that it's in the contract CBA employees have.

Just another idiotic act in a long line of your idiotic acts.

 

[talloola]

It's the only reason they need....because they can! You might not agree with it but if the contract says they can say no they are entitled to say no.

sure they can, but doesn't mean that it's a smart way to run a business, and a good manager/owner will
see that.
it is rigid to wield power for no reason but because it is the 'rule', so if the management chooses
to do that, they will lose good employees and good workers, and they will have employees who are
sheep, and will say yes to the boss very quickly, but will also leave when they get a chance because
they will find a company where they can work their life schedule for their family into their work
schedule, simple.
And employees who can see that the company cannot alter their schedule, it is impossible, will have to
make the decision to stay or go, also simple.
Life has moved along, people aren't afraid to speak up, and employees aren't as quick to step on their
necks, just because they can, and that brings about good relationships in the workplace.

 

[PoliticalNick]

That's only true if it's in the contract.

You're only making it up that it's in the contract CBA employees have.

Just another idiotic act in a long line of your idiotic acts.

I didn't say it was specific to the CBA of CBSA (at least get your acronyms right). I said if the contract allows an employer (meaning any employer) to say no that is all they need.

When it comes to this case the ruling refers to an 'unwritten' policy. That means, by the very nature of 'unwritten', it does not form part of the contract. Too tough for you to be able to deduce that Sherlock?

 

[CDNBear]

I didn't say it was specific to the CBA of CBSA (at least get your acronyms right). I said if the contract allows an employer (meaning any employer) to say no that is all they need.

Liar.

Here's just one post in which you make the claim succinctly and clearly...

It is their employment contract and lays out quite clearly what their responsibilities & benefits are. The employer should just stick to the terms of the contract, no exceptions ever, and that is what employers will most likely do after this ruling and who can blame them.

And I'll address your edit where you again clearly indicate that it's in their contract, now, since you added it after I replied. How unethical of you.

How do I know it was outside the contract? If it was in the contract she wouldn't have to go to the HRC and the courts to get it.

Wrong, as usual.

You really are stupid arent you?

And yet I keep proving you wrong, lol.

That doesn't say much for you.

When it comes to this case the ruling refers to an 'unwritten' policy. That means, by the very nature of 'unwritten', it does not form part of the contract.

"Management, citing pre-existing policy, refused."

Oh how I love to point out your errors.

Too tough for you to be able to deduce that Sherlock?

I prefer the facts, as apposed to the make believe you use.

 

[Liberalman]

In other countries they have children in the workplace you know in they call them sweatshops or child labour and eventually the employers here will get these children in their daycare centres to do the company's work but they will call it play time and it will pay for itself.

 

[karrie]

It's the only reason they need....because they can! You might not agree with it but if the contract says they can say no they are entitled to say no.

lol. If hubby's manager asked why he was causing discord amongst his staff (hubby manages 30+ men and women), and his answer was 'why sir, because I can!', I guarantee hubby's manager would fire him in a heart beat.

 

[taxslave]

lol. If hubby's manager asked why he was causing discord amongst his staff (hubby manages 30+ men and women), and his answer was 'why sir, because I can!', I guarantee hubby's manager would fire him in a heart beat.

And then there are companies like Interfor that expect their managers to do just that. Only big company I ever seen that would go out of their way to make the union file a grievance. There are also a few logging contractors around that quitting or getting fired does not affect your EI claim. One of the worst offenders is now in bankruptcy.

 

[SLM]

And then there are companies like Interfor that expect their managers to do just that. Only big company I ever seen that would go out of their way to make the union file a grievance. There are also a few logging contractors around that quitting or getting fired does not affect your EI claim. One of the worst offenders is now in bankruptcy.

So it sounds to me as if continuing down the path towards making employer/employee relationships more and more adversarial is ultimately bad for business in the end. Perhaps listening to and working with employees to make reasonable accommodations that work for the majority may be rather beneficial after all.

Because you know that in the context of the OP, this cannot be an isolated issue. In fact I'd bet real money that it isn't. But there are as many employees who will 'go along to get along', and likely struggle as they do so, as there are managers who seem to think that if it's not written down in a black and white 'rule' it cannot be discussed. Seems kind of short sighted to me.

Drawing a line in the sand, really never a good idea in these situations.