Lecture 1 Employment Law

[Sunday21]

i gave my first lecture in employment law today. My class was horrified. Some were appalled that we protect certain groups and some were upset that we do not protect others. We protect a long list of groups starting with race and gender from discrimination. The list has about 15 categories including the disabled. Alcoholism and those who have had miscarriages recently fall under disabilities. You cannot refuse to hire an alcoholic. We may include vegans under the religion/creed category soon so that you cannot force a vegan to wear leather as part of a uniform. Some were surprise that we do not protect those who have tattoos or are smelly.

We have altered the uniform of the RCMP (federal police with colourful uniforms) to allow hijab and turbans. 

INteresting class!

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

You cannot refuse to hire an alcoholic.

So an alcoholic who is currently drinking can be allowed to fly a plane, preform surgery on my dad or be a police officer? 

Not arguing, just asking. 

Edited January 10, 2017 by MormonGator

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

How are we defining alcoholic?  People in AA may have been sober for 20 yrs and still call themselves an alcoholic. That is different than hiring someone whose drinking is still out of control. 

Edited January 11, 2017 by LiterateParakeet

[Sunday21]

You cannot refuse to hire an alcoholic. You cannot fire someone for being an alcoholic.  How exactly this plays out depends on the situation and the province. So...Imperial Oil wanted to give drug/alcohol tests before hiring, they were told no. They were told that had to wait until an accident occurred and then they could test. Oh you smashed the truck. Here pee in this bottle. 

On the other hand, Irving OIl in the maritime routinely does prehiring alcohol and drug tests.

if you have an employee who arrives under the influence, you could be able to get them off the forklift and suspend them but you could not fire them, if you are a company of a reasonable size, you would have to send them to a dry out facility and for counselling. You might eventually be able to fire them after several trips back and forth to the dry out tank but it would not be easy.

And maternity leave is, I forget how many weeks before birth, but 35-37 weeks after birth. This time can be split between mom and dad (or adoptive parents). I was explaining this policy to some colleagues who had moved from china and one bolted from the room. Perhaps to get started on the project? 

And if a member of your family or a member of your common law partners family is due to die within 6 weeks, you can have 6 weeks off to look after them...you can share this time off with siblings.

[Guest MormonGator]

14 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

How are we defining alcoholic?  People in AA may have been sober for 20 yrs and still call themselves an alcoholic. That is different than hiring someone whose drinking is still out of control. 

True, and of course once an alcoholic always an alcoholic. Though I think all of us would agree we don't want a still drinking alcoholic to be our pilot, perform complex surgery on our spouse, etc...

[Jane_Doe]

8 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

You cannot refuse to hire an alcoholic. You cannot fire someone for being an alcoholic.  How exactly this plays out depends on the situation and the province. So...Imperial Oil wanted to give drug/alcohol tests before hiring, they were told no. They were told that had to wait until an accident occurred and then they could test. Oh you smashed the truck. Here pee in this bottle. 

On the other hand, Irving OIl in the maritime routinely does prehiring alcohol and drug tests.

if you have an employee who arrives under the influence, you could be able to get them off the forklift and suspend them but you could not fire them, if you are a company of a reasonable size, you would have to send them to a dry out facility and for counselling. You might eventually be able to fire them after several trips back and forth to the dry out tank but it would not be easy.

That's messed up and dangerous.

[Sunday21]

Challenging!

my province has told businesses that it does not want to see different uniforms for men and women. Some bars had asked women to wear high heels, short skirts and low cut tops. This greater equality in uniforms is not the law yet, we will see. I wonder what Hooters will do?

[Guest MormonGator]

25 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Challenging!

my province has told businesses that it does not want to see different uniforms for men and women. Some bars had asked women to wear high heels, short skirts and low cut tops. This greater equality in uniforms is not the law yet, we will see. I wonder what Hooters will do?

Those regulations mean well but in reality they cost countless jobs. In a place struggling with unemployment the LAST thing you want is to throw red tape at businesses. 

[Sunday21]

The province of Ontario has an unemployment rate of 6.2, a bit less than twice Utah. About the same as District of Columbia. We are much higher than most us states most of which are in the 3-4 range.

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Challenging!

my province has told businesses that it does not want to see different uniforms for men and women. Some bars had asked women to wear high heels, short skirts and low cut tops. This greater equality in uniforms is not the law yet, we will see. I wonder what Hooters will do?

So you want me to show up to work in my husband's clothes?  Or would you prefer to see him in my clothes?

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

The province of Ontario has an unemployment rate of 6.2, a bit less than twice Utah. About the same as District of Columbia. We are much higher than most us states most of which are in the 3-4 range.

These numbers could be deceiving: unemployment is the rate of people who WANT to work but are currently unemployed.  Individuals who don't want work are not counted.  

[Sunday21]

25 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

So you want me to show up to work in my husband's clothes?  Or would you prefer to see him in my clothes?

We were thinking of something along the lines of pants and golf shirt for servers. Actually, in Ottawa, a bar owner to support this concept of equity, had his male bar staff dress in short skirts and high heels, just for a few hours. Why this was a shout out for equality I am not sure. The male bar staff looked very unhappy.

[Ironhold]

8 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

You cannot refuse to hire an alcoholic. You cannot fire someone for being an alcoholic.  How exactly this plays out depends on the situation and the province. So...Imperial Oil wanted to give drug/alcohol tests before hiring, they were told no. They were told that had to wait until an accident occurred and then they could test. Oh you smashed the truck. Here pee in this bottle. 

On the other hand, Irving OIl in the maritime routinely does prehiring alcohol and drug tests.

if you have an employee who arrives under the influence, you could be able to get them off the forklift and suspend them but you could not fire them, if you are a company of a reasonable size, you would have to send them to a dry out facility and for counselling. You might eventually be able to fire them after several trips back and forth to the dry out tank but it would not be easy.

And maternity leave is, I forget how many weeks before birth, but 35-37 weeks after birth. This time can be split between mom and dad (or adoptive parents). I was explaining this policy to some colleagues who had moved from china and one bolted from the room. Perhaps to get started on the project? 

And if a member of your family or a member of your common law partners family is due to die within 6 weeks, you can have 6 weeks off to look after them...you can share this time off with siblings.

Here in the US you can't discriminate against alcoholics if they are receiving treatment. 

Otherwise, it's basically "can you make the case that alcohol consumption will leave the person unable to do their job?". 

 

I'm an MBA, and as part of it I ended up sitting through employment law primers in about 20% of my classes. 

[Sunday21]

@IronholdThis receiving treatment proviso is a good idea!

[Backroads]

Who is held liable if a drunk employee injurs another party?

[Sunday21]

@BackroadsThe company is liable. The employee is an agent of the company and the company is responsible for the employee's behaviour. 

Edited January 11, 2017 by Sunday21

[Backroads]

Just now, Sunday21 said:

@BackroadsThe company is liable. The employee is an agent of the company and the company is responsible for the employees behaviour. 

Okay. Can the company then demand certain behaviors of the employee in regards to drinking at or prior to work?

[Sunday21]

@Backroads I am not sure how the situation plays out because I have not dealt with it personally. I wonder myself as to how this situation is handled. 

[mordorbund]

16 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

my province has told businesses that it does not want to see different uniforms for men and women. Some bars had asked women to wear high heels, short skirts and low cut tops. This greater equality in uniforms is not the law yet, we will see. I wonder what Hooters will do?

We should also require urinals for women's restrooms. YAAAY EQUALITY!!!!

[anatess2]

21 hours ago, mordorbund said:

We should also require urinals for women's restrooms. YAAAY EQUALITY!!!!

Of course!  So we can effectively use our p-mates!   It is the answer to the long lines in women's restrooms, you know.

[anatess2]

On 1/11/2017 at 8:20 AM, Sunday21 said:

@BackroadsThe company is liable. The employee is an agent of the company and the company is responsible for the employee's behaviour. 

So... a company is forced to make the active alcoholic an agent of the company and the company is forced to be liable for such dangerous behaviors that the company is forced to accept from his agents.

Way to go, Canada.

[Guest MormonGator]

On January 11, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Sunday21 said:

@BackroadsThe company is liable. The employee is an agent of the company and the company is responsible for the employee's behaviour. 

Sunday, do you know how scary this sounds? Who would open a business if this could happen? I wouldn't hire an alcoholic simply because if he or she falls off the wagon I'm accountable for their actions! Yikes! 

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Sunday, do you know how scary this sounds? Who would open a business if this could happen? I wouldn't hire an alcoholic simply because if he or she falls off the wagon I'm accountable for their actions! Yikes! 

So, there's this trick that employers use... like, if you want to hire a Filipino caregiver, you can't put in the hiring sheet - must be Filipino - because that's illegal.  But, you can put in, must speak proficient Bisaya, Tagalog, and know how to cook lumpia and pansit... so then if some non-Filipino goes and applies for the job you can pick the Filipino over him because the Filipino speaks better Bisaya/Tagalog or makes more yummy lumpia.  I'm thinking about this and I'm coming up blank on a "workaround" to guaranteeing the employer won't end up having to hire the active alcoholic...

[Rob Osborn]

Im getting all too tired of this equality bull$%*@!

I believe that as an employer I get to make the rules on who is hired, who is not based on any reason I want.

[Sunday21]

On 2017-01-11 at 0:17 PM, mordorbund said:

We should also require urinals for women's restrooms. YAAAY EQUALITY!!!!

Yes the alcoholic thing is scary. What can I say?it is the alcoholic driving a school bus that I worry about. Our drink  and driving stats are way scary too!.