Author
|
Topic: Has this been done before?
|
prototype
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14893
|
posted 19 January 2008 09:13 PM
Can anyone here think of a case where a person, who got no satisfaction from their union, the Labour Relations Board, the Courts, and/or the Tribunals, went online and brought their entire case out in the open - in public.What would everyone's thoughts be about somebody doing that on a forum such as this? (This is assuming laws against slander wouldn't be breached.) Need honest opinions, please.
From: Canada | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
triciamarie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12970
|
posted 20 January 2008 06:40 AM
My feeling is -- even the people that are paid to read all this stuff seldom do. You could also run into legal problems with posting identifiable personal information or medical opinions, employment records etc online. I'm also not sure what the moderators would think about hosting all this -- if that's what you had in mind?But, if you were thinking of drafting up a concise outline of your concerns, you might be able to get some general opinions in the "babblers helping babblers" forum. I think the protocol is generally to avoid naming names. Have you also thought about getting involved with, or starting, an advocacy group? [ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: triciamarie ]
From: gwelf | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 20 January 2008 07:07 AM
Welcome to babble, prototype. I agree with what triciamarie and Michelle have said. What I'll add, without knowing anything about your situation, is that sometimes the systems don't work, no matter how justified a situation is. Some of us are so far gone (okay, I mean me ) that we don't look to systems to help correct wrongs, since the systems themselves are deeply flawed in many ways. But for the less cynical, it can be a rude awakening. If you do decide to post something I strongly recommend you make it as concise (ie short) as possible and leave out all identifying information. The question that I would ask you is for what reason would you post your situation on babble? We aren't organized in any meaningful way, we're spread across the country and some of us aren't in Canada. At the most we may be able to offer suggestions or advice to next moves, but perhaps not even that.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
adam stratton
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14803
|
posted 20 January 2008 06:23 PM
Prototype,If by putting the case online you meant setting up a website and estblishing your case -with utmost caution not to defame or label people as you indicated, go for it. Stick to facts that you can prove. I have seen such cases and I know that they did attract attention especially when names of officials are mentioned. Some here have advised not to mention names, but the assumption here is that you are talking about putting the case on Babble. Remember that having been brushed off by multiple instances and "recourses" does not mean your case is not valid. I remember a case of a complainant that has been rejected by 3 levels of courts. Only when it reached the Supreme Court of Canada that justice was delivered. Good luck prototype!!
From: Eastern Ontario | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
prototype
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14893
|
posted 20 January 2008 08:43 PM
Thank you all for your thoughtful responses. I really need input on this.I know the odd person has gone public on the web with brief complaints of their own. Unfortunately, it's hard to get the whole story unless it's put down in chronological order and backed up by relevant proof. triciamarie said: quote: "I think the protocol is generally to avoid naming names."
Naming names wouldn't be the reason for putting the case online. The reason for putting it online would be to warn others about how easy it can be for an employer, together with a union, to get rid of a worker who's starting to talk and exactly how they can do it - step by step. adam stratton said: quote: "Stick to the facts that you can prove."
Documented proof is something I have lots of - no problem there. triciamarie said: quote: "Have you also thought about getting involved with, or starting, an advocacy group?"
I have seriously thought about advocating - but more for taking action, rather than just the talking. I've already taken steps in that area but can't say how yet. Anybody else have any suggestions or advice re: my previous post? [ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: prototype ] [ 20 January 2008: Message edited by: prototype ]
From: Canada | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
prototype
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14893
|
posted 20 January 2008 11:08 PM
Thanks for replying Fidel.You've got that right when you say that the feds or province have done their bit to protect employers from the small-fry worker. I've seen evidence of that in caselaw galore. As for small claims court - no way. This isn't about money and I'm not going that route, not that I could anyway. Higher court is my only possibility for appeal, even though I'd still rather take this to Arbitration. But the employer and union are strictly against that idea. Woe to them. Court is a lot more public than Arbitration. If the employer and union are forcing me to go to higher and higher court, and they're not being honest to all my coworkers and other employees where I used to work, then going public (via the web) is my only other recourse to let them all know what the hell's going on. As for the TKO - I'm going to more hearings this week. It's been a long haul. Any other suggestions or advice folks?
From: Canada | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
prototype
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14893
|
posted 27 February 2008 09:32 PM
Hi Scooter - Thanks for the tip. I found the book, you were referring to, here - Elements of Style Unfortunately, I'm getting a little long in the tooth to be changing my writing style. Hopefully what I write will be clear enough for people to understand, and concise enough so people don't lose interest in reading it. [ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: prototype ]
From: Canada | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
saga
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13017
|
posted 27 February 2008 09:48 PM
from your link ...Examples include: spreading malicious rumours, gossip, or innuendo that is not true excluding or isolating someone socially intimidating a person undermining or deliberately impeding a person's work physically abusing or threatening abuse removing areas of responsibilities without cause constantly changing work guidelines establishing impossible deadlines that will set up the individual to fail withholding necessary information or purposefully giving the wrong information making jokes that are 'obviously offensive' by spoken word or e-mail intruding on a person's privacy by pestering, spying or stalking assigning unreasonable duties or workload which are unfavourable to one person (in a way that creates unnecessary pressure) underwork - creating a feeling of uselessness yelling or using profanity criticising a person persistently or constantly belittling a person's opinions unwarranted (or undeserved) punishment blocking applications for training, leave or promotion tampering with a person's personal belongings or work equipment. ______________________________ Ah yes ... all those 'wonderful' memories of workplaces ... that I have left. [ 27 February 2008: Message edited by: saga ]
From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|