You think the bureaucracy is bad in the U.S.? This will make you shake your head.

Originally posted by habfan1968
Seems to me this is a little trumped up to get some cash on the way out the door of her last job.

You don't think McD's could provide some high-powered talent at a Human Rights tribunal? Think again. I've worked accommodation cases and trust me, some of the most respected employers can be real schmucks when it comes to workers' rights. You don't just waltz through a hearing, either.

There are allergies that take years to build up...then wham! I'd take this one at face value...it's not like the one who sued McD's because her coffee was hot.

My last two cents.

Union labor and suing companies for reasons like this will be the down fall of this country, sure there are other factors, but we as a people can control these reasons. A ruling like this, as ambiguous as this opens the door to many law suits and business in Canada cannot sustain the type of onslaught that will come. Just because McD's is large does not mean they can afford to pay a lawsuit so let's side with the complainant, the decision sets a precedent that other cases will be judged by in the future. Most McD's are franchises, they cost around half a milion CDN to buy into and now the franchisee has to pay this suit off. OH well we just have to lay off a couple of employees to make up the capital. you may say they can afford it because they make so much profit, first we don't that and second if they are making a profit , that is why they are in business to start with.

Although yes, this woman may have had grounds for some of her issues, the HRT in Canada, at both a Federal and provincial level have become the Thought Police.

Article 13 of the Human Rights Act is basicqally the discrimanation part of the Act.

www.chrc-ccdp.ca...

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Interpretation

(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.

Now, that in of itself is not a bad thing. A good thing really. But the way that this section has been abused by the Tribunals across the country is insane.

An interesting tidbit for you.

As a result, the Canadian Human Rights Commission is stunningly effective: In its 31 years of existence, not a single complaint brought before it has been dismissed. That's right: Everyone is guilty before God and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

But that’s only half the story. With the legal hurdles cleared, the national commission wasn’t alone in being empowered — the regional Human Rights Commissions and their corresponding tribunals were too. There’s a labyrinthine series of these kangaroo courts in Canada; there are also the provincial human-rights commissions and their corresponding tribunals, each with its own differing laws.

article.nationalreview.com...

That figure isn't actually completely accurate. They dropped th Stein case. So a no decision in that one.

Then, lets look at Ezra Levant. A Canadian conservative writer, journalist and the only person in Canada who had the courage to print the now infamous Danish Cartoons in his now defunct magazine, The Western Standard. He lost that magazine because he had to fight a battle in the Human Rights Commission kangaroo courts over those cartoons.

Here's a great article on the HRC's.

www.nationalpost.com...

Oh and here's the kicker about these farcical courts.

If you file the complaint, you don't pay for anything. The taxpayers pick up the tab for iot all. BUT. If you are the one that the complaint is filed against, you are on the hook for every penny of your defence and there is no restitution for you if you win your case.

Many people have gone bankrupt trying to defend themselves to these Commissions. Most just plead guilty because they know that to fight the charge, they could be ruined for life, even if they clear their name.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

It would be good to get the name of the judge

There are no judges. It is a panel that renders the decisions in most cases. The people that sit on these panels are mostly lawyers or bureaucrats. The area a quasi judicial system. They have become a joke amongst people that follow such things.

Read this as well.

www.theinterim.com...

It is an article that quotes one of the founders of the CHRC, Alan Borovoy who's says...

they are contributing to the erosion of respect in human rights circles for the importance of free speech.

Nobody ever thought the commissions would have anything to do with expressions of opinion or the dissemination of news reports.

I could rant for hours on these jokes of a court and the people that populate them.



[edit on 5-6-2009 by GAOTU789]

[edit on 6-6-2009 by GAOTU789]

What if a McDonald's employee's religious beliefs mandate that all food prepared must be spat on before being served?

Does the Canadian bureaucracy have the ability to force McDonald's to accommodate this person as well?

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by habfan1968
Seems to me this is a little trumped up to get some cash on the way out the door of her last job.

You don't think McD's could provide some high-powered talent at a Human Rights tribunal? Think again. I've worked accommodation cases and trust me, some of the most respected employers can be real schmucks when it comes to workers' rights. You don't just waltz through a hearing, either.

There are allergies that take years to build up...then wham! I'd take this one at face value...it's not like the one who sued McD's because her coffee was hot.

I still do not see why she was not wearing gloves while she was at work?
Defend her if you must but please help me understand why she was not wearing gloves. What metal allergy causes you not to be able to wash your hands?

I'll tell you right now. I worked at a McDonald's for 3 horrible days in my High School years.

Why only 3 days you ask? Because the conditions were so unsanitary.

Leader in hygienic foods my butt.

Originally posted by Walkswithfish
What if a McDonald's employee's religious beliefs mandate that all food prepared must be spat on before being served?
Does the Canadian bureaucracy have the ability to force McDonald's to accommodate this person as well?

I will humbly suggest that if that were ok, then the washing of the hands for cleanliness wouldn't be an issue, either. Public health trumps human rights...otherwise there'd be no discussion, right?

As to the handwashing issue, the Doctor said:

On July 14, 2004, Dr. Kitson again, said that Ms. Datt could not do any job requiring frequent hand-washing...that in his opinion: …Beena cannot return to any job that involves soap and water exposure, or the constant wearing of rubber or other waterproof gloves. As far as I can imagine, this eliminates the restaurant or food preparation industries. She is willing to try one more return to work to demonstrate this, but there is no doubt in my mind her hands would disintegrate within a week and we’d be back at the beginning”. www.lancasterhouse.com...

She'd been there 23 years and proved she wanted to go back. McD's failed the test and got whacked for it. Looks good on them.

Originally posted by marg6043
Thanks GreyMagic, now Stellar, still rather than complain about her "condition" I still think that she could have been able to wear gloves to handle food whenever it was required.

Hi Marg,

Fact is she did do that and when the skin condition flared up she worked as she could before the pain got unbearable at which time she went on temporary leave and treatment. This happened a few times until finally the doctors she were consulting came to the conclusion that there wasn't any way to treat the condition that could accommodate frequent hand washing. If you ever had to wash dishes by hand perhaps you would know how painful even cuts and abrasions can be in soap water.

Why didn't you read the documents that indicates that she didn't just complain and that she saw at least two doctors ( as i remember) in a process that took more than year? That her hands healed while at home and the condition flared back up on her having to wash hands?

I wonder if she was given this choice.

She did attempt to wear cloves but as the documents i cited indicates that slowed her down at the grill which resulted in people shouting at her and so forth.

Still I have to agree with Intrepid, when you work in the food service you have to follow the company you work with sanitation regulations.

Not everyone in a food service industry handle's food and the judgement was not made because she did not follow industry regulations, she did for as long as humanly possible ( as attested by her doctors), upon which MacDonald's refused to carry out their legal duty to go to modest effort to find her a alternative position that would not require her to wash her hands.

As the judge/panel said she were in fact qualified, previous experience, to do some of the jobs that would not require it but MacDonald's just went ahead and exploited the chance to terminate her employment because they had the power to and it was the easiest way for them to proceed.

Now if the company was trying to get rid of her to rob her of her retirement rights after 25 years then the judge could have been able to use another way to get her rewarded for her loyalties,

Well if she did not get fired she would have been working there for 25 years by the time of the ruling. Either way she did not receive any benefits and half the 50 thousand was trough lost wages during those two years. There was a sum of 3000 for lost 'shared benefits' she would have earned and a further 600 or so for medical expenses. The rest was basically a punishment of MacDonald's for abusing their power to fire a employee that did , as far as the panel/judge saw at least, his or her best to follow company standards.

but getting a court rule that wasn't clear enough will open the door for any free loaders to do as they wish just to get a buck out of the company.

Why this paranoia about the 'free loaders'? Why do you have such a lack of faith in your fellow Canadians/Americans? How can someone who puts themselves trough 23 years of MacDonald's service be called a 'free loader' when there is no record that they wishes to change their employment and wished to work to retirement?

Why on gods earth are you folks trying to turn MacDonald's into the victim here? What planet are you from and why do you believe that corporations should have such exclusive power when it comes to their employees? Ten dollars a hour after 23 years and they will not even go to the trouble of keeping a loyal employee employed?

I do my best to the patient with Americans ( and the infected Canadians) but this kind of treatment of a fellow citizen screams injustice and i have a hard time understanding why Americans, despite getting poorer, keeps fighting each other based on this crazy notions about free loaders and 'welfare queens'. Americans will continue to fail together until they realise , like the rest of modern civilized world, that our only protection against abuse by corporations/concentrated power is standing together.

This should be self evident when it comes to labor rights and unionization but apparently that's how far behind American workers are.

Stella

Originally posted by habfan1968
My last two cents.

Hi habfan,

If you could keep yours i wouldn't have to throw down some of mine...

Union labor and suing companies for reasons like this will be the down fall of this country,

Actually Americans have gotten poorer as unions lose power. You can see how the consumers and workers in other countries ( Europe and others) gain power as their Unions become better organized.

As for countries falling you pretty much need wars for that so perhaps the best way to prevent the country falling is getting people so organized that the government can not declare war when it suits it?

sure there are other factors, but we as a people can control these reasons. A ruling like this, as ambiguous as this opens the door to many law suits and business in Canada cannot sustain the type of onslaught that will come.

You as people sort of fought for this type of commission and perhaps if you and others invested more time in studying the rulings and not falling prey the corporately owned media propaganda against such commissions you will all be increasingly better off for it?

How is the ruling ambiguous when MacDonald's managed to use her skin skin condition , over which she had no control, to fire her after two decades of service. How is that not discrimination when there were positions she could fill that would not have required her to wash hands so frequently or at all? Why didn't 'the company' try to accommodate her?

Just because McD's is large does not mean they can afford to pay a lawsuit so let's side with the complainant, the decision sets a precedent that other cases will be judged by in the future.

Cry me a river. Just because Mac finds it profitable to discard worn out workers does not make it the morally or legally correct thing to do. The decision does set a precedent and perhaps MacDonald's will do a bit more to encourage it's lower ranked bosses to be a bit more creative when it comes to keeping those workers who wanted to stay? Thing is these companies have a massive turn over in workers as frankly after about a year or two you are mostly over qualified and over paid according to their wage scales thus leading to them using every and all opportunities to 'let go' all those who make even a disgruntled peep about working conditions. The gentle hard working people who put up with for two decades is then discarded the moment they can not stick to the same pace as before no matter if they could be used in other roles.

Most McD's are franchises, they cost around half a milion CDN to buy into and now the franchisee has to pay this suit off.

Something that could have been avoided by treating this worker , or other one's , fairly. Owing a franchise does not make you god and above some moral and legal obligations to your fellow human beings. Why some people would pick the 'bottom line' over these considerations is beyond me but i suspect they might also believe that we are all , and should be, in a struggle for our very survival.

OH well we just have to lay off a couple of employees to make up the capital.

Yes, as if there are excess baggage to shed in daily operations. As if such places are 'overstaffed'. Perhaps you should get some experience of these places or perhaps where you come from such inefficiency succeeds?

you may say they can afford it because they make so much profit, first we don't that and second if they are making a profit , that is why they are in business to start with.

The root of the problem indeed. When you can get the rats to believe that they absolutely MUST run trough the maze to get to the tiny piece of cheese you might very well expect to find some carnage along the way. Fact is we are all losing our purchasing power when while we fail to help to change our current economic model or in failing to at least protect our fellow workers.

I am not saying this because i am a union organizer but because the societies where people have the best and most democratically organized unions also happens to be the places where people have the best quality of life.

The class struggle is clearly alive and well and you guys will probably blame the economic downturn on the power of unions as well. Obviously worker solidarity will destroy everything 'good' in the world because, well. the corporately owned media tells us so!

Such dupes we are!

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX


American workers lost their right a long time ago when corporate America lobbied in Washington to start killing the unions power back in the 70s and 80s.

At the same time they promoted the open borders so cheap labor could be accesses through illegal immigrants.

If you look at the conditions of America's labor force we are in the crap right now.

reply to post by marg6043


Hi Marg,

Well my apologies then as it seems you just had a axe to grind with this particular worker/case and that we seem to agree on the larger trends and policies as you outlined in the above post.

The assault is most certainly on the European and American working classes, being mostly representive of the goals of citizens all over the world, and i hope you all may forgive my very biased ideas when it comes to my views of the American corporate model that is trough globalization being 'exported' ( yes, that's what destroying Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia etc is all about) to other countries despite the best efforts and actions of their citizens.

Glad to agree with those who share this sentiment and resigned to keep disagreeing with those who blame their fellow citizens , or workers elsewhere, for the trouble we are all in.

Stellar

reply to post by StellarX


Stella I am one of those members that find faults to everything that the American governemt and corproate America has done to this nation.

You know by now that we are a superpower that is slowing dying thanks to the greed of those holding power.