SHOUT !

Shout
Shout
Let it all out
These are the things I can do without
Come on
I'm talking to you
Come on
Shout
Shout
Let it all out
These are the things I can do without
Come on
I'm talking to you
Come on

Federal court to rule on whether "shouting" is "workplace harassment"


This from Canada 

Shout, shout, don’t let it all out?
A federal court is being asked to rule on whether “shouting” is the equivalent of “workplace harassment.”
This after the National Research Council dismissed a ‘raised voice’ complaint on May 25 by Robert Herscovitch, an industrial technology advisor.
Herscovitch claimed a supervisor repeatedly raised his voice and belittled him, at one point shouting he was a “lowly industrial technology advisor, nothing else.”
In a court application, Herscovitch’s lawyers accuse the supervisor of subjecting their client to “a repeated pattern of harassment and bullying of him in the workplace since September 2018, including by raising his voice and getting angry at him, humiliating and insulting him, and acting in an aggressive and domineering manner.”
Meanwhile, the National Research Council has yet to file a statement of defence but management ruled the complaint did “not meet the definition of workplace violence” under Occupational Health And Safety Regulations.
In 2018, Parliament passed a bill requiring all federally-regulated employers draft anti-harassment policies.
The bill defined harassment as “any action, conduct or comment, including of a sexual nature, that can reasonably be expected to cause offence, humiliation or other physical or psychological injury or illness to an employee, including any prescribed action, conduct or comment.”
In a 2017 survey, 22% of federal employees said they were harassed at work, typically by supervisors, while 27% said their workplace wasn’t “psychologically healthy.”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

Image
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By   DARREN LINVILL   &   PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t  “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,”  as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ Posted by Jamie B.
Read more

The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term

Image
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term   (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President  Donald Trump  could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent  Joe Biden  when more votes are tallied.  This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President  Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This is arguably the most likely of th
Read more

Philosophical Question #14 – Lifestyle Choices

Image
Here is an interesting question in my list of philosophical questions: 1.) Should governments have penalties for those who live unhealthy lifestyles? A list of unhealthy lifestyles would include things like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, and other “vice” type activities. I guess the “government penalties” would be referring to monetary punishments, withholding medical treatments (insurance companies would love that), possibly imposing/regulating very high (exorbitant) prices on things considered unhealthy in order to cut down on their use, and other possibilities. 2.) Or, would you say that living an unhealthy lifestyle, likely resulting in a LOT of eventual personal pain and suffering, should be punishment enough for unhealthy lifestyles? When people make bad choices in life, often in their youth where ignorance and immediate gratification takes them over,  3.) Should a society be obligated to help "fix" them, by way of tax money?   Is that part of
Read more