Of Course 'Kemosabe' Used To Discriminate

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

Imagine what kind of signal this sends out to all potential employers.

Be wary who you hire. You too might find yourself facing an upset employee and a horrendous legal bill.

It is this way now. I know a fellow business owner who had hired a receptionist, and only found out later that the person was 'unable to do the job'. Given more than one task at a time, the person went to pieces and couldn't accomplish anything. The employer had to cover her butt, and couldn't let go of the receptionist immediately. A 'paper trail' has to be created, so after a series of written letters and reprimands, satisfying protocol, the person was eventually replaced. The employer's business had to suffer in the mean time, and I agreed with her that sometimes protocols such as these are unfair and unproductive for a business.

Imagine what would happen if, when you bought a car, you had the right at any time to take the car back to the seller and receive a full refund.

Funny, I just read an article about people who do this as a 'scam'. Some people actually had wardrobes supplied by stores who refunded or exchanged clothes, no questions asked (provided a receipt was shown). These people would cut the tags off, wear the clothes, wash them, sew the tags back on and return it to the store.

Wal-mart, especially, has been a victim of this, as they have a 1 year return policy on their goods. One could, theoretically, have 'new stuff' in perpetuity by simply keeping their receipt and exchanging the product every 364 days. (I know someone who did this with a video-game unit. I told him it was unfair to the rest of us consumers, and he said "Hey, screw them, they are a big company). However, it is the policy of the store and they must live with both the good and bad of said policies. If they garner more sales by having such a return policy, that is their gamble to take.

There is something very strange when one party to a contract (an employee) can breach at any time without providing any explanation but the other party (employer) is forced into a strait-jacket making breach extremely costly.

Again, that is the way it is now. That is why I find maplesyrup's argument so one-sided. Maplesyrup thinks the employers can still have you beaten for asking for more gruel.

[Cartman]

Unions need to be abolished ASAP. Their usefulness has bee out-lived. Gone are the days of company thugs beating employees with baseball bats for refusing to work overtime. Unions, especially gov't ones, are just 'job-security for the lazy', promotions are given for 'time served' and not ability, and are unrealistic in the business world.

In some ways I agree with you. I have actually worked in a union and have found that lawyers are more efficient and derive better settlements. Why? Because they do not care whether a company makes money or creates jobs as does a union. All lawyers care about is winning and making money for themselves. Lawyers do both very well. Be careful what you wish for.

[August1991]

Imagine what would happen if, when you bought a car, you had the right at any time to take the car back to the seller and receive a full refund.

Funny, I just read an article about people who do this as a 'scam'. Some people actually had wardrobes supplied by stores who refunded or exchanged clothes, no questions asked (provided a receipt was shown). These people would cut the tags off, wear the clothes, wash them, sew the tags back on and return it to the store.

I have noticed at Walmart that the line up for exchanges is long. Do the clerks "hassle" customers while looking for damage to an item? Dunno.

Thinking about this further, my example is bad.

The employee/employer situation is more like buying a $300 TV at Walmart, then six months later, returning it and asking for a $600 refund to compensate for the inconvenience of having a 'bad' TV.

Walmart, on the other hand, can't show up at your house and ask for another $100 because the TV's price just went to $400.

True, contracts have all kinds of weird one-sided clauses. My point is simply that in the case of employment contracts, efforts such as this case to protect employees just mean higher unemployment, lower negotiated wages and higher costs.

In the long run, this tribunal method won't even work.

The best protection against racism, and in the long run the only method that works, is the freedom to quit your job and work for somebody decent.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Cartman,

Because they do not care whether a company makes money or creates jobs as does a union

Unions don't care if a company makes money. Unions often destroy the competitiveness of some businesses. Air Canada and the NHL are prime examples.

Dear August1991,

I have noticed at Walmart that the line up for exchanges is long. Do the clerks "hassle" customers while looking for damage to an item? Dunno

I would expect that the 'returners' would do the hassling, especially the ones who are not 'on the up and up'. The best way to get something through 'on the nod' is to make the transaction undesirable, so the clerk does anything to get rid of the 'annoying/annoyed' customer as fast as possible. If the person has a receipt, the clerk's butt is covered and then they can blame the policy.

[caesar]

Unions don't care if a company makes money. Unions often destroy the competitiveness of some businesses. Air Canada and the NHL are prime examples.

Who does the NHL compete with and it was some arrogant rich owners who thought that they could buy the stanley cup by securing all the top players by paying exhorbitant salaries that started the NHL on a downslide. It was the idea of opening franchises in the South where hockey is not a normal part of kids play. No outdoor ponds where kids can skate in the warm south. It's the big bucks sent to bring in foreign players instead of using North Americans that has driven up the salaries. The union had little to do with the big climb in salaries.

[caesar]

I have noticed at Walmart that the line up for exchanges is long. Do the clerks "hassle" customers while looking for damage to an item? Dunno.

The walmart clerks are not exactly well trained people. Many can only speak minimum English which can slow down any transactions. What do you expect from minimum wage employees.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear caesar,

The union had little to do with the big climb in salaries.

This is only partly true. However, my point is that they (the union) are showing no interest in making the league profitable. The 24% rollback offer is a 'White Elephant', and does nothing for the long term.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

IMV, the changing terms of coloured people, negros, blacks, and now African-Americans reflect an effort to gain respect. I don't know if simply changing a name can achieve that.

A rose by any other name would still smell sweet.

Identifying people by 'colour' is technically wrong, regardless of that colour. However, that colour remains regardless of what it is called.

'Negro' is spanish for black. 'Coon', a very derogatory term for 'coloured people', is from the word 'barracoon', a temporary holding cell or cage, for slaves and convicts. So, rightly, this term could be used for non-blacks who have spent time behind bars.

African-Americans is a silly term at best. Not all dark-skinned people are from Africa (at least recently, and at one time we all were) and not all are Americans. Could someone be offended by this term also?

I worked with a young man from Trinidad, and one day we were talking about racism. He told me his dad 'didn't like niggers' and I said "Um, you are kind of dark yourself, how does that figure?" He replied, "Oh no, he meant the Creoles in Trinidad. He said they were all lazy bums". It seems everyone has their bigotry.

I saw an episode of "Kids in the Hall" where a 'slavic' cabbie was talking to a group of Ethiopian cabbies, and was trying to be friends. He said "When I say 'niggers', I don't mean you guys, I just mean the 'bad niggers".

Ignorance is truly rampant, but is it cause for criminal/legal action if it is merely ignorance and not meant to be derogatory?

[Argus]

The newest addition to the Canadian Charter.

All people are to be protected against being offended, however milldly, however inadvertantly, by the full power of government.

Maybe we could put people like her on a special reserve, where no one who wasn't heavily PC would be allowed to go.

Your logic is backwards. Being insensitive is NOT a human right.

If the newest addition to the Charter is to protect people from being offended, then the offender(s) are the ones to be sent to special reserves.

I am deeply offended by you. Pack your bags.

[Argus]

The Charter of Rights should protect us against racist cops. It need not protect us against racist landlords. If the Charter is used to protect us against landlords, it will lead to numerous contradictory decisions that invariably will become arbitrary.

Try to explain to the perpetually offended that they should just walk away. Not in Canada. In Canada it's up to the government DO SOMETHING about those who offend them. Make a law or something! Ban them! Fine them! People can't be allowed to walk around offending people!

[Argus]

To suggest 'this wouldn't happen in a union' is outright ridiculous. Unions need to be abolished ASAP. Their usefulness has bee out-lived. Gone are the days of company thugs beating employees with baseball bats for refusing to work overtime. Unions, especially gov't ones, are just 'job-security for the lazy', promotions are given for 'time served' and not ability, and are unrealistic in the business world.

Oh yes, gone are the days when there would be bullying bosses and arbitrary punishments, when people could be fired, transferred, have their hours cut back, or their jobs changed on the whim of their supervisor or manager, when every employee knew that their job security rested on how pleased their boss was with not just their work but their cringing attitude.

Suuuuureee.

[Argus]

  Unions often destroy the competitiveness of some businesses. Air Canada and the NHL are prime examples.

Although I have known this to happen you have chosen singularly bad examples. Air Canada had notoriously incompetent management for years, and the NHL owners are responsible for bumping up the salaries, not the players' union.

[caesar]

This is only partly true. However, my point is that they (the union) are showing no interest in making the league profitable. The 24% rollback offer is a 'White Elephant', and does nothing for the long term.

You are just buying into the leagues propaganda. At least the players offer a large cut. Cannot the powners take responsibility for themselves and control themselves? Why do they need the players to police the owners with a cap. As businessmen, if they cannot afford a player; don't hire him. The team and game must be "sold" to the public to bring up attendance. Some teams play too carefully defensive even with a small lead. Boring!!!! Fans want to see more offensive play with shots on goal. The style of hockey played is decided by the coach and general manager. It is the "team owners and staff" responsibility to sell the game to the public. Intermissions could be a little more entertaining; they just want you to go and buy their over priced food and beverages. Even getting the team involved in community events is a good way to promote the team like our Cancuk Place in Vancouver which I believe is a players initiatative with Linden a key promoter.

The owner does make more money than is being discussed (probably doesn't include stall rentalls and a few other profitable enterprises fed by the "game"

The players have made an effort to settle this LOCK OUT; the owners have not. The owners are still sitting around with the money from season ticket holders. The owners do have a large war chest to cover their butts during this lockout; where did that come from with all these cash strapped teams???????? Another write off from their prfits to indicate that THEY are losing money.

I do agree, hockey players, especially the stars, do make too much money as do actors and actresses; however, hockey players are much more prone to life long effects from injuries.

[Argus]

The union had little to do with the big climb in salaries.

This is only partly true. However, my point is that they (the union) are showing no interest in making the league profitable. The 24% rollback offer is a 'White Elephant', and does nothing for the long term.

I have heard it argued otherwise by reasonably knowledgeable writers. The cut came along with a luxury tax and various other changes, esp to the rookie salary cap which the idiot owners had previously destroyed with huge bonuses.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

when people could be fired, transferred, have their hours cut back, or their jobs changed on the whim of their supervisor or manager,

All of these things can be done, none on a whim. That is why there are enough controls and laws to make unions un-needed.

Air Canada had notoriously incompetent management for years, and the NHL owners are responsible for bumping up the salaries

Indeed, Milton has run Air Canada into the ground, and seeks every excuse in the book why it isn't from 'bad management'. However, Victor Li walked away from his offer to buy Air Canada because the Union was unwilling to negotiate realistic investment terms.

For some of the NHL maladies, I do blame the owners. However, salary arbitration and players 'holding out for more money' are just as guilty. An owner takes a gamble on a player with a large contract hoping it will generate revenue. Another team with more money can often 'outbid' that other team, and so it goes. Teemu Selanne was offered over 1 million as a rookie by Calgary, and Winnipeg (who had drafted but not yet signed Selanne)had to match the offer or risk losing one of the greatest rookies to enter the game. Then, when he became a free agent, the highest bidder gets him(usually). It is often a shame, because often these players only 'try' in the last year of their contract, hoping for a bigger one next time around.

[caesar]

Argus; looks like both of our posts made it to the wrong topic????

OOOPS we have just been a little side tracked by a comment

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear caesar,

OOOPS we have just been a little side tracked by a comment

Oops, me too. My last pertinent post to this topic ended with..

Ignorance is truly rampant, but is it cause for criminal/legal action if it is merely ignorance and not meant to be derogatory?

[Argus]

when people could be fired, transferred, have their hours cut back, or their jobs changed on the whim of their supervisor or manager,

All of these things can be done, none on a whim. That is why there are enough controls and laws to make unions un-needed.

All these can be done on a whim. There are no laws to protect workers from them. You can sue for being fired without cause, presuming you have a ton of money to gamble. Few people do, of course.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

All these can be done on a whim. There are no laws to protect workers from them.

Not so. For changing job descriptions, cutting hours (from full time, I believe) and reducing pay, one full pay period's notice must be given. As to firing, just cause must be given, along with the appropriate severance. As to transfers, I haven't done much research as I haven't had to do it either as an employee or an employer.

Do a google search on 'employment standards' or Gov't labour standards and you will see how un-whimsical' being an employer is.

[August1991]

The Charter of Rights should protect us against racist cops.  It need not protect us against racist landlords.  If the Charter is used to protect us against landlords, it will lead to numerous contradictory decisions that invariably will become arbitrary.

Try to explain to the perpetually offended that they should just walk away. Not in Canada. In Canada it's up to the government DO SOMETHING about those who offend them. Make a law or something! Ban them! Fine them! People can't be allowed to walk around offending people!

Argus, most of these private discrimination claims have been presented to provincial human rights commissions. The claims attract journalists, and lawyers financed by unions or other non-voluntary lobby groups.

These commissions are, not surprisingly, now inundated with such claims and complain of horrendous backlogs. (They annually put in for large budget increases.)

If the Supreme Court ever got involved in such claims, it too would soon face horrendous backlogs. So far, the judges appointed to the SC in Canada seem, by and large, to dislike clogged desks. (You don't get to Canada's Supreme Court by delaying... )

Unfortunately, our Supreme Court justices seem to have no guiding practical principles and seem quite willing to create extra work for lower courts, tribunals and commissions.

IOW, our SC judges are bureaucrats.

They think they have the ability to fix problems - and when they don't know what to do, or believe the problems will backfire on them, they send the file to someone else for further study.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

All these can be done on a whim. There are no laws to protect workers from them.

Not so. For changing job descriptions, cutting hours (from full time, I believe) and reducing pay, one full pay period's notice must be given. As to firing, just cause must be given, along with the appropriate severance. As to transfers, I haven't done much research as I haven't had to do it either as an employee or an employer.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that even if there are some kind of judicial or bureacratic remedies few workers would have access to them. I know any number of people in numerous types of low paying jobs who are at the mercy of fairly crude and ham handed employers, including Wal-Mart (whose in-store managers aren't all that sophisticated) and used to work in a number of small non-union businesses myself. I've seen the way supervisors at various levels can screw over people's lives on a whim and I'm quite happy to be somewhat protected from that in a union job.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

numerous types of low paying jobs who are at the mercy of fairly crude and ham handed employers,

Indeed, I have worked a couple myself. My first 'good paying' job was in a grocery warehouse, on the midnight shift. It was a large, and at the time, non-union company. The night janitor used to 'spy' on us, and he quickly got promoted to be our supervisor. Since our crew knew what we were doing, and he didn't have a clue, that situation didn't last long. Both he and the guy who hired him were demoted, and a guy from our crew was promoted to supervisor. However, happy endings like this are probably few and far between.

However, one of my beefs with unions, where seniority is god, is that the most senior person would have been promoted regardless of ability. He may have been fit for the job, or a complete boob, but it doesn't matter if he has seniority.

[Argus]

However, one of my beefs with unions, where seniority is god, is that the most senior person would have been promoted regardless of ability. He may have been fit for the job, or a complete boob, but it doesn't matter if he has seniority.

Well, that isn't a part of our collective agreement. Here the guy who gets promoted is the guy who speaks French.