Fak her right in Pus**: feminists need to suck the big one! | Page 9 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Fak her right in Pus**: feminists need to suck the big one!

inreb said:
They should have talked to him first to gauge his perspective. He may have been mortified the next day. Like the guy with no eyebrows(fire safety) he could be made the company poster boy for sexual harassment and redemption, second chances. A missed opportunity by Hydro One.
Click to expand...

No they threw him under the bus for free publicity and maximum exploitation.

He is an idiot but we work hard all our lives to move up and to take it all away for something so stupid is just not right.
 
wit a beatiful smile and heartfilled warmest feeling, i said: THANK YOU! thank u for youre wize words! :thumbup:

i agre with punishmant being poroportianal to offence. most of u acting all histerricall. kind of like woman!

if yuounion dont work for him, then last chance might be OCLA (ont civil lib asociation).

ashkan said:
I agree, people love to jump on the bandwagon, condemn and criticize! As if theyve never done anything stupid in their lives.

Its not like he killed, raped or caused permanent damage to someone.

Yes, what he did was wrong and if she wants to sue him, she should be able to. We have courts for that. But for Hyrdo to use this as some free publicity stunt is cheap.

This kid probably worked/studied hard to get a job like that so to completely ruin all his life's work because he made a stupid drunken comment is insane!

but in Canada, we love to be on our high horses and be all overly PC.

Give him some community service or make him pay a fine but to fire him is just an over reaction.
Click to expand...
 
inreb said:
They should have talked to him first to gauge his perspective. He may have been mortified the next day. Like the guy with no eyebrows(fire safety) he could be made the company poster boy for sexual harassment and redemption, second chances. A missed opportunity by Hydro One.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Turn it around with some positive spin.

If Michael Vick can play in the NFL after the stuff he pulled, I'm sure this poor sap can bring something positive awareness to women's issues etc.
 
The thing that is concerning is how an employers code of conduct affects and employee outside the workplace.

I'm not defending the idiot. He deserves the public humiliation and what ever else comes his way.

What if an employer finds an employee violates their code of conduct because they ride a motorcycle and they deem it dangerous?

Or the employee has committed infidelity and the spouse divorces and tells the boss?

It's important to have a code of conduct. And enforce it.

But how far does it reach outside the work place?

Again, if the moron mentioned Ontario Hydro while carrying on that way, I could understand. Or He was attending the event representing the company, it makes sense.
 
Roasted said:
So these guys aren't afraid to step out of line and take risks. Maybe these guys ARE the cream of the crop and are better employees than other people. Maybe their job performance is great and what they do outside of work has absolutely no bearing on their job performance. I know who I would NOT hire. I would not hire a sheep who follows the crowd and complains about every little insult and setback in life. A joke of a man with no back bone. Basically, I would not hire someone like you.
Click to expand...

Exactly right
 
I'd be really surprised if this vid was the only reason for his firing. More likely, someone had been trying to sack him for a while.
 
nakkers said:
The thing that is concerning is how an employers code of conduct affects and employee outside the workplace.
...
Click to expand...

Guys, this is nothing new.

This is a court decision from 2005. 10 years ago.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2005/2005canlii42487/2005canlii42487.html

Kelly v. Linamar Corporation - Mr. Philip Kelly was charged with possession of child pornography "using his own computer, and acting entirely on his own time, in the privacy of his residence. It was not related to work, but he was subsequently fired."

Kelly retained a lawyer and sued the employer, but the judge sided with the company, and concluded that the worker's termination was justified, because "of concern over the impact on the workplace and the reputation of the employer in the community."
 
I wonder if he lives in a condo or apartment? You don't want a firebrand that like that living close by. You never know what he's liable to do next. Somebody should alert somebody. Maybe he's carrying a mortgage. Bank should call it in on principle(no pun yada) What about the women tellers? Don't they have feelings?
 
RockerGuy said:
Why is this even news? Must be a slow day
Click to expand...

It is always a relatively slow day in TO. But I'm glad this happened. Last time GTAM was this entertaining was when Rob Ford was smoking crack on camera.

And not only GTAM. Any board I visit, the comments are pure GOLD.
 
ashkan said:
Its not like he killed, raped or caused permanent damage to someone.
...
Click to expand...

LoLz. It's not like he went to prison 25 to life. He just lost his job, get over it.

Honestly, do you think killers or rapists get fired as a punishment?

LoL

:p
 
Riceburner said:
re:Kelly v. Linamar Corporation
big difference between a criminal and somebody mouthing off.
Click to expand...

Well, read the case. It is a cautionary tale.

He was charged - NOT CONVICTED- and he was fired. The employer could had waited until the guilty veredict (innocent until proven guilty?), but they did not wait. Still, firing him was justified.

Same with Murphy v. Canadian Tire Corp. (1991).
 
MarcosSantiago said:
Guys, this is nothing new.

This is a court decision from 2005. 10 years ago.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2005/2005canlii42487/2005canlii42487.html

Kelly v. Linamar Corporation - Mr. Philip Kelly was charged with possession of child pornography "using his own computer, and acting entirely on his own time, in the privacy of his residence. It was not related to work, but he was subsequently fired."

Kelly retained a lawyer and sued the employer, but the judge sided with the company, and concluded that the worker's termination was justified, because "of concern over the impact on the workplace and the reputation of the employer in the community."
Click to expand...

That's why I used examples that were morally questionable and not criminal.
 
MarcosSantiago said:
Guys, this is nothing new.

This is a court decision from 2005. 10 years ago.

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2005/2005canlii42487/2005canlii42487.html

Kelly v. Linamar Corporation - Mr. Philip Kelly was charged with possession of child pornography "using his own computer, and acting entirely on his own time, in the privacy of his residence. It was not related to work, but he was subsequently fired."

Kelly retained a lawyer and sued the employer, but the judge sided with the company, and concluded that the worker's termination was justified, because "of concern over the impact on the workplace and the reputation of the employer in the community."
Click to expand...

A guy being a pedophile and a guy saying something stupid is a COMPLETELY different ball game LOL

The guy wasnt wearing any uniform or insignia showing his employer so not sure how this is his employers problem.
 
MarcosSantiago said:
Well, read the case. It is a cautionary tale.

He was charged - NOT CONVICTED- and he was fired. The employer could had waited until the guilty veredict (innocent until proven guilty?), but they did not wait. Still, firing him was justified.

Same with Murphy v. Canadian Tire Corp. (1991).
Click to expand...

That's a gimme. Even a politically incorrect or otherwise insensitive person wouldn't jump to child porn dudes defence. Let alone company brass or an esteemed judge.
 
inreb said:
That's a gimme. Even a politically incorrect or otherwise insensitive person wouldn't jump to child porn dudes defence. Let alone company brass or an esteemed judge.
Click to expand...

Next step is .... Charged with stunt riding = fired with cause
 
DownUnder said:
A guy being a pedophile and a guy saying something stupid is a COMPLETELY different ball game LOL

The guy wasnt wearing any uniform or insignia showing his employer so not sure how this is his employers problem.
Click to expand...

Completely different situations. But it is legal precedent...
 
Any male that thinks this conduct is acceptable is a Neanderthal and I feel very sorry for any women in their lives.
 
For me, it's the fact that she walked over to his group and asked for his opinion, and then condemned him for it.
Apparently, there was a "vigorous" search done to identify those who were there.
If the guy had said the nasty words into the mike, or even just what she said into the mike, sure, but he was condemned for his thoughts and opinions that were solicited by the person who then judged and executed him on the web.

That's just not right. Not right at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom