,to describe Filipino workers. This story breaks a day after a story breaks about Suncor firing a francophone worker.

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

Shaw said the information was put together to ensure the foreign workers operated in a safe environment, and to assist Canadian supervisors in learning about their culture.

---

They were so worried about ensuring a safe environment that they decided to include this:

quote:

---

The document goes on to say Filipino tradesmen treat safety as "secondary" and "not a priority," are "used to working long hours" and "like to be praised."

---

quote:

---

Could you change the title of the thread please. Suncor did not author this document. A subcontractor did. There is no evidence that Suncor was at all involved in the production or approval of the document.

---

Suncor is liable and accountable for actions of its sub-contractor, as the letter acted as "agent" for Suncor.

quote:

---

but said "our company took that information directly from Filipino tourism websites, and it was done by a Canadian Filipino working on the information package."

---

http://www.gov.ph/aboutphil/general.asp

quote:

---

But that does not justify such vocabulary emanating (or echoed) from Canada. In the Philippines the language of puppy mills is not as "developed" as in Canada to require a demarcation between a vocabulary that describes humans and that describing dogs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sidra:

Suncor is liable and accountable for actions of its sub-contractor, as the letter acted as "agent" for Suncor.

Suncor should have ensured that the product is "harmless". That it apparently failed to do so, neglect does not constitute ab excuse much less "mitigating" circumstances ?

---

quote:

---

So as Canadians it is our duty to rewrite anything coming into our country to ensure it's PC? -Noise

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by timmah:
huh? Flint is a separate entity working on a job site that happens to be Suncor's. That doesn't place the blame for this pamphlet on Suncor unless they had prior knowledge and approval of the document.

---

What did we learn in this seminar? (paraphasing)"Anyone here worked in the Middle East? They have a different way of thinking there. It's all about money for those people. Safety is secondary, 'cause they don't value human life like we do".

I shit you not. This was part of the cultural sensitivity training seminar. Believe it or not, that wasn't the worst part. That would be the idiots nodding in agreement, and saying things like "kill them all" in reference to the FN. Oh yeah, Albertans are a real pieces of work.

[ 08 March 2007: Message edited by: Jingles ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

Suncor was using the document to train their managers. If they didn't approve of the document, I doubt they would be using it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
. . . Oh yeah, Albertans are a real pieces of work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:

So as Canadians it is our duty to rewrite anything coming into our country to ensure it's PC?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

No. They weren't. Flint was using it to train their managers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oreobw:
Yeah, but it's much more fun bash Suncor, since most people have never even heard of Flint.

---

EDIT: out of curiosity, I looked up the issue over Suncor firing a Francophone employee:

quote:

---

CALGARY, March 8 /CNW/ - Iron Workers Local 720 will file a human rights
complaint against Suncor for firing a French speaking iron worker for speaking
poor English.
Suncor's decision to terminate a qualified worker because of language is
discrimination based on ancestry and place of origin. Such discrimination is
prohibited under Alberta's Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act.
Carol Rioux, of Gaspesie, Quebec, was fired for failing English-language
orientation tests. He has been an ironworker for 25 years.
Co-worker Marco Pelletier quit after learning of Suncor's decision.

Suncor's oil sands business is located north of Fort McMurray.

The Union will hold a press conference Thursday March 8, 2007 at 1:00 pm
in Fort McMurray. Both Rioux and Pelletier will be available for comments.

Location: Stonebridge Hotel, 9713 Hardin Street, Fort McMurray

---

If however I am not sufficiently billingual at the end of the training period, I simply don't get the job.

How is this any different?

[ 09 March 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

quote:

---

I'm currently involved in the competition process for a job with the federal government. The job requires that I be billingual and if I'm succesful in getting the job, I will receive up to 1 year of French training.
If however I am not sufficiently billingual at the end of the training period, I simply don't get the job.

How is this any different?

---

This is different in that there are safety concerns with the language issue regarding Suncor.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
I think they have to give them a reasonable amount of time to learn the language. The scabby contractor should be sued.

---

Fidel, you're doing the same thing they are from the other side - jumping to conclusions. A tribunal might hear all the facts and decide that the worker can continue to work with the English he now has, without undue hardship to the employer. That's the legal test, and the burden on the employer is to prove two things:

1. That the English proficiency he demands is a BFOR (bona fide occupational requirement); and

2. If it is, then he must show that it would cause "undue hardship" to accommodate the worker.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
You two (C.Morgan and Free_Radical) are truly amazing. Without a shred of information, you have concluded that a certain (unknown to you or me) level of proficiency was required, for safety reasons, as a bona fide occupational requirement, and the worker could not be accommodated in another position. And that the dismissal was justified.

---

I have all the evidence you do:

1. apparently the position required English skills
2. orientation and training was provided
3. the employee failed the test.

But it's nice to know you'll be going to bat for me if I fail my language training - because really, who are we to assume French is really that necessary?

But, by all means feel free to jump to the conclusion that the requirements were too high, that the poor guy was required to compose elaborate sonnets and rhyming couplets in order to pass the test.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:
I imagine that if communications problems led to an accident on the job site, you'd be the first to jump on Suncor for its unsafe working conditions.

---

They've had Francophone ironworkers and riggers working in the area for many years without an accident. And there are a number of significant differences in the language requirements between ironworkers in Alberta and federal government workers in Ottawa. It's a poor comparison, not even similar job descriptions.

In fact, a friend of mine from South America went out there in the 1990's looking for work. He had a few interviews but was turned down each time. His resume as a petroleum geologist in Venezuela was solid, and he speaks three languages, including English, very well.

I think the big energy companies out there aren't being taxed enough myself. An NDP government out there would make them see how good they've had it under a string of weak and ideologically-driven conservative governments. They wouldn't be pulling this kind of crap if they were made to see the light.

[ 09 March 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

That reminds me of the "cultural sensitivity" seminar put on by a large oil company for its subcontractors.

---

quote:

---

I shit you not. This was part of the cultural sensitivity training seminar. Believe it or not, that wasn't the worst part. That would be the idiots nodding in agreement, and saying things like "kill them all" in reference to the FN. Oh yeah, Albertans are a real pieces of work.

---

Jingles, generalizing about all ALbertans wasn't a wise idea.

Noise, calling Jingles names, is not cool.

Using natural gas to turn tarry sand into oil is the equivalent of turning gold into lead.

A 4 employee organization could probably make a successful argument that accommodating a person with language barriers is an 'undue hardship', because the accommodation might risk bankrupting the company (in some cases anyways).

Suncor is not a small employer, nor does it have limited resources. It has also been the beneficiary, over the past couple decades, of enormous financial benefits from the federal and provincial governments, which puts it into a different league (and may place it under the auspices of the Employment Equity Act, though I'm not sure). Unless they went to great lengths to provide 'reasonable accommodation' - reasonable being proportionate to the size of the organization as well.

So what that means is that they have a legal obligation to make accommodations for employees - not to discriminate, in other words. Unless there is more to the case, they will lose in a tribunal or at the SCC (after a decade or so of legal horseshit, of course).

As for the racist training materials:

- my experience as a subcontractor has been that the hiring company (in this case Suncor) has a responsibility for the actions of its subcontractors. Canfor was near hysteria for fear we'd screw something up (we didn't) - I'd be shocked if Suncor was somehow exempt.

[ 14 March 2007: Message edited by: arborman ]