kiwi
Well-known member
ah well, made a change from the "Wave" threads for a couple of days
Under the occupation health and safety act they are required to take every precaution for the protection of the worker. By the same act I am required by law to raise all issues pertaining to my safety. I did that. Now the company is obliged to deal with matter. Failure on their end will result in my filing an official complaint with the ministry of labour. Going after me would be reprisal.
Obviously your definition of what is logical is quite different from everyone else.I realize logic is not everyones strong suit.
Sorry he did not CALL HR, he EMAILED HR regarding the fact that he almost got killed and received numerous death threats.You asked for advice . Nearly everyone said call the cops. You called HR? I'm pretty sure you leave the same impression with the people you work with, as you do here.
Here's a scenario for you. As is known with insurance, 1 million dollars in accident benefits is mandatory. This goes towards wage replacement and medical bills for whatever length to rehabilation. The recent changes to insurance put in place a 30 000 dollar deductlible for the right to sue. Let's say the company ignores my complaints against guy #1 and guy #2 and I am run off the road and I am hurt severely, I am covered regardless in the no fault scheme. After the fact I will have little problem finding a lawyer that will have zero problem suing guy #1 or guy #2 and also listing the company on the suit. If the company is listed they are required by law to retain a lawyer. It is in the company's interest to address the situation.
So your plan is to get injured and then sue...
Let me know how that works out for you.
To do what with? Make paper airplanes? I already reported the guy to the fire chief. Who knows what he did, if anything, perhaps he deleated the email as spam. That's the extent of what the cops will do in this situation.
Then you have never been in a union as you would know that is BS. All unions care about is the money they get, not you.
Reported to the fire chief. Lol. Most of the Platoon Chief's I know would read your email in the morning briefing to the guy's. Then the guys would spend five minutes discussing it, and laughing at you. If it made it to the District chief; Guy #1 would get called into the office and told to stay away from you so it doesn't escalate any further; then spend two minutes laughing at you.
Almost had me convinced you were a fire fighter there ..
Your rank structure is what throws you to the dogs.
Large, fulltime service - FF, capt, district chief, platoon chief, deputy chief, chief. Toronto, add a couple more layers below deputy.
If (because who knows what the hell is truth in this train wreck) there was a green light involved it was a volly FF. Chief and maybe a deputy are the only chiefs you'll find in one of those. They should be taking a complaint about one of their ff's driving a green light equipped vehicle seriously. But again, anything coming from the OP is gonna raise more questions than concerns.
Oh snap. I didn't know we were doing FF 1 today; one sec let dust off my IFSTA. Who is to say guy #1 pager/radio wasn't transmitting when the OP is claiming misuse of the green light.
Oh snap. I didn't know we were doing FF 1 today; one sec let dust off my IFSTA. Who is to say guy #1 pager/radio wasn't transmitting when the OP is claiming misuse of the green light.
Here's a scenario for you. As is known with insurance, 1 million dollars in accident benefits is mandatory. This goes towards wage replacement and medical bills for whatever length to rehabilation. The recent changes to insurance put in place a 30 000 dollar deductlible for the right to sue. Let's say the company ignores my complaints against guy #1 and guy #2 and I am run off the road and I am hurt severely, I am covered regardless in the no fault scheme. After the fact I will have little problem finding a lawyer that will have zero problem suing guy #1 or guy #2 and also listing the company on the suit. If the company is listed they are required by law to retain a lawyer. It is in the company's interest to address the situation.
You're missing the point.
Even if guy #1 was responding it is not legal or desired for him to be speeding or driving aggressively.
As you can tell by my post count, I don't chime in very often, but I do check in daily & poke around. I must say that in my 20 months as a member of
this forum, this is all at the same time the best, the worst, the most self-indulgent, the funniest, the most pathetic, the most nonsensical, and the BEST
thread ever! I absolutely can't wait to hear what spectacular details will be added by the originator today to keep this going!