2015 TFC Season

[RJB]

Oooops:

 

 

And they'll say they were drunk. 

 

But they're adults, and should know better.  We need to have a higher standard people, come on! 

[theaub]

I mean, they were pretty clearly drunk. 

 

An absolutely idiotic and moronic thing to defend (not mention the meme itself isn't funny) but there seems to be far too many people taking some perverse pleasure in seeing other people's lives get ruined.

[RJB]

but there seems to be far too many people taking some perverse pleasure in seeing other people's lives get ruined.

 

Hardly.  Violence and harassment towards women is unacceptable.  The employer, the University, and the public are just standing up and saying this is unacceptable.  No joy being taken, just pride that we don't stand for this.

[theaub]

I don't see where I said anything contrary to that.

 

The Gawker Activists bringing the mob mentality on these guys for being absolute morons on live TV for two minutes, while drunk, while being egged on by a trained reporter?  This has gone well beyond the 'hey this guy is a moron, maybe he should learn common sense and to respect women!' to 'hey this guy is a moron, let's publicly shame him until he can no longer be a functioning member of society!'  I'd hope that I or anyone I know would never tell a woman that she should be lucky not to have a vibrator in her ear, but I've seen more than enough good, respectable people say some stupid shit at sporting events that in isolation would make them seem like terrible people.

[RJB]

An excellent look at it:

 

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/men-do-comedy-good-fhritp-edition?utm_source=vicetwitterca

[theaub]

Well, 'excellent' appears to be a matter of opinion I guess

 

Far too many people seem to be moving down the road of implying (or outright saying) that if you don't want these guys publicly stoned,  you support the harassment and belittlement of women.

[jpg75]

An excellent look at it:

 

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/men-do-comedy-good-fhritp-edition?utm_source=vicetwitterca

That was just awesome.

[ted]

Far too many people seem to be moving down the road of implying (or outright saying) that if you don't want these guys publicly stoned,  you support the harassment and belittlement of women.

 

No kidding. I am a staunch feminist and I think the bans were/will be totally deserved.

I do NOT see how being drunk and stupid on your own time should get you fired from a job that should never have been part of the conversation. Unless the  employer provided tickets or if it was a company outing or this person's job was somehow related to the activities he should be at most offered counselling.

As for criminal charges I am very nervous. Some of the wording of the relevant laws, if applied in this case, could entirely outlaw supporters sections as saying anything negative and/or loudly could be construed as a disturbance.

 

[BuzzAndSting]

No kidding. I am a staunch feminist and I think the bans were/will be totally deserved.

I do NOT see how being drunk and stupid on your own time should get you fired from a job that should never have been part of the conversation. Unless the  employer provided tickets or if it was a company outing or this person's job was somehow related to the activities he should be at most offered counselling.

As for criminal charges I am very nervous. Some of the wording of the relevant laws, if applied in this case, could entirely outlaw supporters sections as saying anything negative and/or loudly could be construed as a disturbance.

 

 

So I was of a similar mind regarding this idiots job but I read something that basically convinced me that Hydro One did the right thing.

 

After this story was posted on Reddit people had commented that he shouldn't have lost his job and that Hydro One may not be in a legal position to let him go. Here is the link to the original comment in the original thread. Here is response cut and pasted.

 

HR story time!

Yes, you can be fired for out-of-work conduct, so long as it meets a certain threshhold of nastiness.

Best way to explain this is to talk about two employees: a spokesperson, and a janitor.

Suppose a story comes out on the cover of the Toronto Star: your spokesperson -- your $200k-a-year spokesperson, the public face of your company -- is two years behind on his child support and completely unrepentant. In fact, he got drunk last night and ranted into a phone camera, Rob Ford-style, on the subject. Embarassing, lurid stuff.

On paper, the child support has nothing to do with his job, right? It's not like he divorced his wife at work or something. If he were booked for fraud or embezzlement from his church

But because of the nature of his work, this state of affairs will limit his effectiveness. He becomes The Child-Support Guy, and your product becomes the Child-Support Product. Instead of giving a 30-minute interview about your product, he's giving a 25-minute interview about the child support thing and then squeezing in the product at the very last minute. Every time he gives a press conference, the first question is "SO ABOUT THE CHILD SUPPORT THING". (The second is "ARE YOU IN REHAB FOR YOUR ALCOHOLISM?")

In this manner, the behaviour in question is completely outside of the workplace, yet it definitely impacts his effectiveness and his ability to deliver on his duties. You would be able to fire this guy for the behaviour, even though it wasn't workplace-related, and you would get away with it too. (In fact, you could even fire him if the stuff was only a serious allegation. Unlike Tammy Wynette, an employer isn't obligated to Stand By [its] Man: he's making your product and business stink, and since his sole job is to make it appealing, he's got to go.)

But what if it were the overnight janitor who was behind on his child support?

Firstly, your overnight janitor won't make the cover of the Toronto Star, right? There might be nasty letters and a whisper campaign, but you can't really argue that he represents your organization or your products. He's the night janitor, ferchristsakes.

And just as importantly, this doesn't impact his ability to do his work. The janitor does not mop better or worse based on whether or not he's paying child support.

In this manner, behaviour which would get your spokesperson canned would wash right off your janitor, leaving him unscathed. (And if you did fire him, you might -- as you say -- wind up before a tribunal.)

Is this case more like the spokesperson, or more like the janitor?

It probably comes down somewhere in-between. But there are aggravating factors which give the employer the right to act:

• If he's earning 100k+ as a financial analyst in the public service (and crown corporations map onto "public service" for our purposes), he's probably classified as a professional or managerial employee, meaning the employer has fewer obligations to him than they would to an hourly (and almost certainly unionized) employee.
• This man's job requires extensive collaboration with other people. A lot of people, especially women, will not want to be in the same room as him after this incident. Insofar as this man has dug his own grave here, the employer isn't under any obligation to knit his social life back together. If people refuse to work with him or aren't comfortable around him, this will greatly imperil his effectiveness and his performance.
• This incident is going to generate additional work for the employer, essentially shovelling this guy's shit. Abusive contact; inquiries; public relations; loss of goodwill among other employees; keeping him aboard is going to eat up a lot of money and staff-hours, and the fact that he's created these problems for the employer would already be a sound reason to discipline him. (If he required accommodations because he had a disability, this would be another story. But there is no legal protection for being a complete and total dick in front of a TV camera.)

He probably wasn't fired: he probably just had an awful meeting where HR offered him something like four months' pay if he agrees to resign and go quietly. Firing is dicey, and this case is not cut-and-dry.

But there is a case here. I'm not saying the employer would win, but he is not as innocent or as safe as you seem to think he is, and taking the buyout in such a situation is not necessarily a bad decision.

[theaub]

See I don't buy that, but perhaps I'm just too paranoid about stuff.  I don't even care if they have/don't have the legal right to fire him (imo they do).

 

Hydro One needs all the good publicity they can get as they're about to privatize and throw away millions upon millions of future revenues for Ontarians.  Then I saw John Tory give this quote when he has friggin Rob Ford in his office and just recently appointed him to the board of the HHOF

 

“I don’t think those kind of reprehensible comments in any way represent any respectable, decent Torontonian — of which the vast majority are just that,” Tory said when asked about the incident during an unrelated press conference on Wednesday afternoon. “I would have fired that person as an employee on the basis that after the reprehensible conduct they went on to then carry on the whole thing on television, which indicates they don’t have an ounce of intelligence.”

 

Basically seems to me that everyone is taking a legitimately good cause to fight for and instead of promoting the actual thing here (not being misogynistic/a dumbass in general), they're instead just trying to use it to their personal advantage.  The only people who look good here IMO is MLSE who took the more logical approach of banning the guy for a year (that level of embarrassment to the organization, even if indirect, deserves the ban) and then they can quietly lift it then after this guy goes on the apology tour and the social justice crusade forgets about it all (although they'll forget it about it all by the weekend tbh)

[jpg75]

Any employer can fire any employee, it's a matter of whether there is cause or not that will determine the amount of severance (or lack of). This guy will probably sue Hydro for wrongful dismissal and the two parties will likely settle out of court or with a mediator.

[ted]

 

Yes, you can be fired for out-of-work conduct, so long as it meets a certain threshhold of nastiness.

Best way to explain this is to talk about two employees: a spokesperson, and a janitor.

 

 

OK, I understood that before. I did not see his job as closer to the spokesperson. Thanks for filling in some details. I can see it now.

I still am a little nervous about the criminal charges but as this took place outside the stadium it may not be all that relevant to supporters sections inside the stadium.

[Obinna]

Without knowing the details of what exactly he said - charging someone for what they said sets a dangerous precedent for our society. Anyone remember section 2 of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms?

[RJB]

 Anyone remember section 2 of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms?

 

There are many limitations freedom of expression, and rightfully so.  You can't go into a building and yell "FIRE!" if there is no fire. 

 

In any situation, it is a balancing of freedoms.  In this case, which freedom wins out?  Is it these guys freedom of expression, or the reporters right to security of the person?  (translate: their right to suggest a violent sexual crime, or her right to feel and be safe at work?)

[theaub]

Yeah FOS doesn't save you from being a total moron

[Obinna]

I never saw the actual interview. Did this man appear to be aggresive or threatening in any way or was he just being a vulgar prick?

If she truly felt threatened and unsafe that's one thing, but from what I have gathered she was just fed up with this asshole (which I don't blame her for). That's totally different than actually feeling unsafe.

[Gian-Luca]

Getting at least one of the two TFC threads back on topic, Altidore is gone for 4 or 5 weeks with an injury. Which means that (as I predicted somewhere else in this forum) he'll likely come back in time to be called for the US national team for the Gold Cup. Perfect timing for TFC. Bright Dike can't be recalled on loan until July 15th according to league rules, which means that TFC were quite foolish to loan him out given that they knew that Altidore was bound to miss a chunk of time with injuries & the US nats.

 

The good news is for Jordan Hamilton. There's only him & Luke Moore for the target striker role for the next 5 weeks, which means he's bound to see lots of playing time. Hopefully he'll pull a Larin and take his chance well.

[jonovision]

Saw a tweet summarizing remarks from Vanney to the effect that he would look at using Giovinco in a pure striker spot and instead make changes to his midfield. Not sure that's a sound strategy.

[BradMack]

Vanney mentioned other attacking midfield options if he were to move Giovinco up... who would they be? Bradley, Osorio, Chapman? But looking at the way Vanney has chosen his lineups this year he'll probably stick Warner in there to jump start our offence . I say we resign DeRo out of retirement. 

[tmcmurph]

My appologies to Altidore for commenting on how much more durable he was than previous DPs you've had. I'm sorry I jinxed the poor guy. Get well soon. I would like to see Hammy up top at least as a sub. Could be interesting. Dero out of retirement for a 2 month contract. I'd love it.

[Dub Narcotic]

That Dike loan was insane. Worse comes to worse I guess they can sign Nelson Rivas from II as well, he's looked about as good as Hamilton this year.

[shamrock]

Putting Gio on top sounds like briljant idea. He's the most dangerous man left on the roster. Maybe Osorio can move to the # 10 spot and get into scoring position as well.

[Keegan]

I want Giovinco on the left, all day every day.  Put him on the left and let him run at defences, he will tear this league apart.  Don't put him up top or in the middle.  How are MLS defenders going to react to a player like him cutting in and running at them?  Tons of holes. And if they want to close down that option in the centre he has the speed and left to get deep down the line. If you put him up top it eliminates his dribbling, teams will play a deep line and force him to come deep for the ball.  Central attacking mid isn't bad but it forces him to waste a ton of energy finding space out wide anyhow.  

 

---------Moore----Findley---------

Giovinco--------------------Osorio

----------Cheyrou--Bradley------

 

We would have to sacrifice Cheyrou going forward but that should put some balls in the net.

[Obinna]

I see what your saying about Gio on the left. Give him space to run at people. Teams are already crowding the middle and making it difficult for him to operate. Houston did it.

Where do you play Osorio in that case? Playing him on the right is a waste. He doesn't have the pace to go around defenders on the outside, and he can't cut inside from the right (which is why you'd want him as a winger in the first place.

Maybe they need something like this:

----------Moore----Findlay-------

Giovinco----------------------Cheyrou

----------Osorio---Bradley----------

Just a thought....not saying it's perfect (and certainly Vanny won't be looking at that)...but you have two technically strong players cutting inside on their dominant foot, creating space for Morgan and Morrow to bomb forward from the wing back spots. Osorio and Bradley have shown chemistry as a centre midfield pairing before, and I think any defensive instability from Osorio is negated by the benefit of having Cheryou cut onto his left from the right side.

[Keegan]

I think Osorio has the best delivery of the options available and even though he doesn't have blinding speed he can beat a man with dribbling and intelligent runs.