Home arrow Forums arrow Your Union arrow Where's the UFCW in this?

Where's the UFCW in this?

page: prev  1, 2
Display posts from previous:
Author Message
SharynS
Post Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 7:49 pm

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 3632
Location: the 'puter
Quote:
It's about workplace behaviour...
I would agree, had this incident been a workplace incident. It wasn't, it was about behavior on facebook - posts on a semi-private social networking site. And - other than the word of the manager dude that the fb posts gave him the willies - for 3 months no less - there was no evidence that the behavior itself on facebook carried over into the workplace.

I'm not saying it's alright or what the boys did wasn't beyond stupid but I certainly don't think of all the quasi teams tampering with legal precedent, that the labour board has - or should have - the right, the jurisdiction to make that cross-over.

ed= I should have added completely moot of course, that is the way it is. But what gives me the willies isn't anything anyone posts on fb but rather self-serving individuals with the access, the power and not much else to mess with individual freedoms and blind acceptance of the fact. Can't change the story if the moral is inflexible.

_________________
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
wm pasz
Post Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:51 pm

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Toronto
I get where you're coming from but I'm speaking about the realities of these situations. Workplace misconduct can involve behaviour that didn't take place in the workplace itself. That's well-established. There's no such thing as semi-private on the internet. Yeah, for sure, the employer waited in the weeds for JT to hang himself - and he did. As far as access goes, JT gave the employer access. It just makes him look like a guy who had it coming.

_________________
Time is on the side of the oppressed today, it's against the oppressor. Truth is on the side of the oppressed today, it's against the oppressor. You don't need anything else. - Malcolm X
Back to top profile :: pm :: www
SharynS
Post Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 5:40 pm

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 3632
Location: the 'puter
Yeah I get that. The overall presumption is that fb is private in as much as users (believe they) can select who does or doesn't see their profile.

In this instance only the initial post was accessible to the "superior". For the rest of his collection he had to rely on a rat to bring it out. The ongoing discussion was inaccessible to him specifically. Again I'm not defending the obvious stupidity and people need to know rats are dime a dozen

I am curious had the slurs been phrased within a dream scape if the board would have had to struggle more before slamming the 'superior' crap hammer down. I simply cringe, not only that goofs provide them ample ammunition but - that largely unqualified people are drawing these lines. Oh well hopefully lesson learned.

_________________
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
The Third Element
Post Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 6:18 am

Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 368
There's nothing I could say that Wanda or Sharyn haven't said above.

My opinion is these guys should not be reinstated, their behaviour is not acceptable by any precedent standard. The UFCW would just look more the asses for trying to reinstated these guys.

I want to take a second to heap a bit of praise on this site for providing a forum like this - it is beyond value. Thanks people.

_________________
No Beast so fierce knows but some small amount of pity, but I know none and so I am no beast.
~ Richard III
Back to top profile :: pm
SharynS
Post Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:15 pm

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 3632
Location: the 'puter
Thanks 3E, heaping some back, forums are nothing without contributors.

Who's going to volunteer to keep track and document what happens to these guys next, now that they have a labour record? Where do they go from here? Who will hire them? How long does it take (is it possible) to live down a bad (fb) decision?

_________________
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
The Third Element
Post Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:10 am

Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 368
Funny you should mention that...

One of the other sites I play on has received a request that the thread he contributed to back in 2007 and now wants to disassociate himself because he is trying to move his life along.

Sort of interesting, leopard spots thing.

_________________
No Beast so fierce knows but some small amount of pity, but I know none and so I am no beast.
~ Richard III
Back to top profile :: pm
SharynS
Post Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 4:45 am

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 3632
Location: the 'puter
That is rather hilarious don't you think? Kind of puts a whole new spin on having a labour record. Poor Matt Lallouet, first if he thinks ufcw spots can ever be worn off or that removing one article from one post, 2 years after the fact will do the trick. I'm thinking his future employers may have good cause to approach with caution. Twisted Evil

_________________
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
The Third Element
Post Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:13 am

Joined: 22 Feb 2006
Posts: 368
Now you've done it... you've gone and used Matt Lallouet's name in a post so Google will find it here...

You should be more careful.

_________________
No Beast so fierce knows but some small amount of pity, but I know none and so I am no beast.
~ Richard III
Back to top profile :: pm
SharynS
Post Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:44 am

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 3632
Location: the 'puter
oopsies? But I saw no harm as Matt pretty much outed himself.

I am curious to know how Matt planned to hide or skip his time with ufcw on a resume. Interesting for anyone to even consider that dishonesty might be less detrimental to their future than admitting to have been a ufcw machine head. Fascinating that it's the machine head himself.

_________________
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
wm pasz
Post Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:21 pm

Joined: 29 Jan 2006
Posts: 1219
Location: Toronto
I always get a chuckle out of these former union lords who who think they can just erase their tracks on the internet when it suits them. Even if this site admin agreed to delete his posts, there are all kinds of other items that appear about him if you do a google search on his name. Sorry, Matt, the UFCW will sort of follow you around like a bad smell.

_________________
Time is on the side of the oppressed today, it's against the oppressor. Truth is on the side of the oppressed today, it's against the oppressor. You don't need anything else. - Malcolm X
Back to top profile :: pm :: www
non member
Post Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:50 pm

Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Posts: 2
I was the union VP of a small local consisting of 50 members we were the only small autonomous local left in Ontario that flew the UFCW flag. All of our policies and procedures were handed down from the Local 175. I took on the position because it would have been detrimental to our local to have let others ( with non union ties/ agendas) take the position. I support labour then and now and always. I am not trying to hide my past I never worked for the UFCW I worked in a UFCW organized facility and I disclose the union affiliation during interviews and I am far from ashamed of it.

I was as far away as possible from being a union "machine head" or "lord". Our local had control of what happened in our facility and our facility alone, because we refused to amalgamate with the 175 we stayed autonomous.

I have no reason to put that I was a local VP on my resume because it was not my "job" it was a position in my local, I am not dishonest in any way, I am always straight forward and have nothing to hide, my attempt at moving things off the internet was and still is an attempt to determine if this information is actually affecting my job prospects, there is no evidence to prove that it is having any effect negatively or positively.
Back to top profile :: pm
SharynS
Post Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:25 pm

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 3632
Location: the 'puter
You little shitdisturber 3E. I know it's hard to tell from the previous posts but welcome to uncharted non member.
Quote:
...if this information is actually affecting my job prospects, there is no evidence to prove that it is having any effect negatively or positively.
Obviously you thought negatively in your situation or why would you have tracked back 2 years to try and change it?

Curious to know why or how you thought the union association was the problem? Was it ever alluded to in interviews, were there questions about it? And which employer(s)?

_________________
Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself. - Salman Rushdie
Back to top profile :: pm :: e-mail :: www
non member
Post Posted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:01 pm

Joined: 30 Nov 2010
Posts: 2
The lack of actual calls for interviews for positions that I am most certainly qualified to fill is what brought up the question that maybe the internet info is the problem.

I have had interviews but they have been in industries that I have no experience in. To tell you the truth it was a discussion between friends that kicked up the internet history thing. And I figured I may as well try to remove what I can to see if it makes any difference. Didn't really think I would get hammered by the labour community for doing so.

And thanks for the welcome
Back to top profile :: pm
Home arrow Forums arrow Your Union arrow Where's the UFCW in this?
Page 2 of 2
page: prev  1, 2
Display posts from previous:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group