Welcome to Rusanada

[gunrutz]

You laugh of course. But that's because you can't understand what I said. You see, most dogs run in packs, and soon learn the benefits of sniffing ass.

I however would not work for an abusive or unethical employer. I would rather walk out on them and work for honest people, even if it means making less. If everyone took the attitude to stand up and fight for their rights, instead of licking ass for the money, this wouldn't be a problem any more.

I agree with you, if everyone refused to accept some things from employers they would have no option, but that isn't reality. I too have a code of conduct to abide by, i don't like it sometimes but i can choose to work elsewhere, im sure I feel just like most of the people at parks Canada my job is too good to walk away from.

[cybercoma]

Why do you continually feel the need to make these nit picking and irrelevant remarks? They add nothing but frustration, is trolling ok?

There's a dangerous cocktail of ignorance and apathy that is slowly killing our institutions.

[gunrutz]

There's a dangerous cocktail of ignorance and apathy that is slowly killing our institutions.

Imprecise or casual language used to describe or institutions doesn't necessarily mean a lack of understanding of the finer points, nor does it mean the arguments made by those persons are invalid, i think you know that, and i somehow doubt your sole desire is to correct these minor imperfections in order to protect our institutions.

[Argus]

I think parks staff should call the cons bluff. Should the cons try to fire them they'd have a good case for wrongful dismissal.

Thank you, Perry Mason.

In fact, refusing to obey your employer's orders, rules or policies, or being disloyal to your employer are both grounds for instant dismissal under Canadian law.

[Argus]

This.

You notice how it's the loyal Harper flunkies who are the only ones defending this attack on free speech here

You mean smart people? Yes, I noticed. All the smart people acknowledge the routine nature of this kind of order.

[Argus]

So protecting the national parks is being a political activist now? Its in their goddamn job description.

Is the government proposing to drill in national parks? Because somehow I missed that on the news. Damn mainstream media!

[Argus]

In other words if you are a government employee you are a lemming. You have no free will. If you don't like it, quit. Is that right?

I can criticize the government, and have. What I can't do is to criticize it while working, to visitors or clients. I also can't go on the media and, while identifying myself as an employee of a particular agency or department, go onto criticize government policy.

[Argus]

You think Paul Bernardo started off raping and murdering his victims right off the bat?

Remember the 'soldiers, in our streets' attack ad the Liberals used, they weren't far off.

Give it time...

You really are a wack job.

[Signals.Cpl]

You really are a wack job.

Be careful, otherwise if you hurt sensitive Rick's precious feelings he goes and complains to the Mods...

[Argus]

My problem with this letter is that it doesn't seem to allow a government employee to express an opinion in public even if they don't identify themselves as a government employee.

I express my opinion in public all the time. I express my opinion at work, too, to other employees. And the last time I was at a union meeting I can tell you there were an awful lot of anti-government opinions being expressed fairly publicly.

[Argus]

But at the same time you should trust your security apparatus. For example do you trust the CF to uphold democracy? Meaning do you believe that its likely a General will overthrow the government and create a dictatorship?

I don't think that's what anyone is talking about. I think they're talking about the habit of those in power to bow to their superiors' will. During Chretien's time, for example, the RCMP commissioner Giulliano Zaccardelli was known as a toady who would do just about anything Chretien wanted, including sending police after the former head of the Business Development Bank of Canada when he started talking publicly about Chretien and how money was given to Chretien's crooked friend to buy a hotel.

And of course, Julian Fantino willingly did anything McGuinty told him to when he was Commissioner of the OPP. Fantino had no moral or ethical problems with not enforcing the law, or in using his position to attack his political enemies (is it something about Italians?).

We don't know the head of CSIS has any more of a spine than those men did, or the CDS.

[Guest Manny]

I express my opinion in public all the time. I express my opinion at work, too, to other employees. And the last time I was at a union meeting I can tell you there were an awful lot of anti-government opinions being expressed fairly publicly.

See this is the way I see it. I understand that you have an obligation as en employee, certainly while you are on the job. But outside of work they have no hold on you. Other than, you can't step up as a representative of your organization and say things without permission. That's just common sense.

But I would have thought that Parks employees work for Parks Canada, not the Harper government. The government changes during election. The personnel working for Parks Canada do not change.

[Argus]

See this is the way I see it. I understand that you have an obligation as en employee, certainly while you are on the job. But outside of work they have no hold on you. Other than, you can't step up as a representative of your organization and say things without permission. That's just common sense.

But I would have thought that Parks employees work for Parks Canada, not the Harper government. The government changes during election. The personnel working for Parks Canada do not change.

They do work for Parks Canada, which is an institution like any other, which values its reputation, and thus wants to carefully manage its image, and messages which appear to be coming from it. So it does not want its employees getting involved in bemoaning policy publicly.

[Wilber]

MP's are the government, I don't care about the fancy definition, it comes down to us electing our representatives and they pass down decisions based on our wishes.

No they aren't, the government is the PM and Cabinet. Parliament's duty is to keep the government accountable. A principle that is much abused.

[Wilber]

Thank you, Perry Mason.

In fact, refusing to obey your employer's orders, rules or policies, or being disloyal to your employer are both grounds for instant dismissal under Canadian law.

Actually there are all kinds of things an employer can't order you to do.

[cybercoma]

I can criticize the government, and have. What I can't do is to criticize it while working, to visitors or clients.

I agree with this. Someone working at a National Park shouldn't be slagging the government while they're on the job. It's neither the time nor the place for that. What concerns me is the part of the letter that suggests someone could overhear them when they're not on the job. It's that kind of thought-policing that I think is a problem.

[Fletch 27]

And that is between the union members.. There is no "thought police"... Its simply stupidity police.

This is NOT part of the policy...

I agree with this. Someone working at a National Park shouldn't be slagging the government while they're on the job. It's neither the time nor the place for that. What concerns me is the part of the letter that suggests someone could overhear them when they're not on the job. It's that kind of thought-policing that I think is a problem.

[cybercoma]

This is NOT part of the policy...

You might be right, but it's this quote from the CBC that's most concerning:

Eddie Kennedy, national executive vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said the letter went out to 4,800 agency employees around Canada three weeks ago.

"If you're in a coffee shop and you're criticizing the Harper government and there's someone sitting beside you and they know you work for a government department, technically you're in violation of the code of ethics," he told CBC News on Thursday.

To be fair, it sounds like it's the union blowing things out of proportion. If someone is wearing their work uniform and trashing their employer, then typically they should be reprimanded. Mind you the memo says they are not to "criticize," which is different from trashing the employer.

However, the question is whether it's a different circumstance when your employer is the government and you're a taxpayer.

Take for example someone that works at Walmart. If they trashed Walmart, that's one thing. However, they're also stockholders, just as Parks Canada employees are taxpayers. If the Walmart employee criticizes the board of directors, as the Parks Canada employee criticizes the current cabinet, is that different or more acceptable? Is it not expected that the board would answer to stockholders?

I don't know in this situation, but I'm inclined to err on the side of allowing political dissent.

[Fletch 27]

Good point but you need to understand that I'm a stockholder in both situations. Let's say a tourist from Japan sees or hears a "parks and service" person crap all over the Gov... F-this, screw-that, "I demanded this" "I want that"..etc. Etc. What would his recomendation be to his friends on his return trip.

This group is employed by the citizens of Canada and should be IMPARTIAL of what Gov is running them for the JOB at hand. To have unions who are partial to one direction or the other is mute. You work for the taxpayer. You do your jo. To the best of your ability and that is it. Politics can NOT come into it. Regardless of the party in power.

When these parties shit on the public, they shit on the business, and they shit on the image of Canada. THAT needs to change.

You might be right, but it's this quote from the CBC that's most concerning:

To be fair, it sounds like it's the union blowing things out of proportion. If someone is wearing their work uniform and trashing their employer, then typically they should be reprimanded. Mind you the memo says they are not to "criticize," which is different from trashing the employer.

However, the question is whether it's a different circumstance when your employer is the government and you're a taxpayer.

Take for example someone that works at Walmart. If they trashed Walmart, that's one thing. However, they're also stockholders, just as Parks Canada employees are taxpayers. If the Walmart employee criticizes the board of directors, as the Parks Canada employee criticizes the current cabinet, is that different or more acceptable? Is it not expected that the board would answer to stockholders?

I don't know in this situation, but I'm inclined to err on the side of allowing political dissent.

[Argus]

Actually there are all kinds of things an employer can't order you to do.

Clearly, anything illegal, for one. But within the bound of an employer/employee relationship he can order you to do just about anything that isn't unsafe or illegal with regard to his shop. And that includes not bitching and moaning about policies and rules to the public.

[Argus]

I agree with this. Someone working at a National Park shouldn't be slagging the government while they're on the job. It's neither the time nor the place for that. What concerns me is the part of the letter that suggests someone could overhear them when they're not on the job. It's that kind of thought-policing that I think is a problem.

I have never heard of anyone ever subjected to discipline because of that sort of thing. Heck, our union has been giving out tons of buttons for members to wear that say "Stephen Harper Hates Me". Do you think they'd be doing that if they thought those buttons would get the members in trouble?

Of course, if anyone is dumb enough to wear them at work their manager will likely tell them to take it off.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Argus

[cybercoma]

I have never heard of anyone ever subjected to discipline because of that sort of thing. Heck, our union has been giving out tons of buttons for members to wear that say "Stephen Harper Hates Me". Do you think they'd be doing that if they thought those buttons would get the members in trouble?

Of course, if anyone is dumb enough to wear them at work their manager will likely tell them to take it off.

We both know that this is opportunism by the opposition. The NDP are simply using this to build upon the narrative that Harper is a control freak, an overbearing tyrant. It's something people can relate to because a lot of people don't like their bosses. It's like $16 orange juice. People can understand that. It's not abstract like having the military pick you up and fly you to your vacation. This isn't an issue that's going to stick 3 years down the road, but it's one of those things that will niggle at the electorate about the Conservatives and build upon all the rest of the things going on.

[Battletoads]

Here's a good example of how the current soviet style system works.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/News/Canada/6468334/story.html

[Wilber]

Clearly, anything illegal, for one. But within the bound of an employer/employee relationship he can order you to do just about anything that isn't unsafe or illegal with regard to his shop. And that includes not bitching and moaning about policies and rules to the public.

On the job certainly but not during their own time.

[bleeding heart]

Take for example someone that works at Walmart. If they trashed Walmart, that's one thing. However, they're also stockholders, just as Parks Canada employees are taxpayers. If the Walmart employee criticizes the board of directors, as the Parks Canada employee criticizes the current cabinet, is that different or more acceptable? Is it not expected that the board would answer to stockholders?

Have you ever seen the video where a group of concerned, dissenting stakeholders, worried about the company's ethics, were--literally--laughed out of the meeting?

I don't know in this situation, but I'm inclined to err on the side of allowing political dissent.

You would...hippy.