True North wrote: For the benefit of those of us that don't have your insight do please explain, in plain english, what the hell you're talking about.
Edited to add; while you're at it, please explain how an individual or company can be "vicariously responsible".
Then stick with words you actually know the meaning of.
Sorry chump, no one owes the likes of you a clarifying explanation...your position is obviously from the position of emotion, go have a nap then come back and talk common sense...sounds like (edit) you may be best bud's with pilot "M", obvious bias. I do know the pilot in question by the way!
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by Big Bird Anonymous on Sun Mar 06, 2016 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Except for the part where, according to her statement of claim, she was fired for trying to get a copy of personel records on how they dealt with her complaint and when no records were forthcoming she used profane language, oh and butt dialling her boss, seems reasonable to me!
The sequence of events were outlined in the first article that was posted, it details that, she discovered that another FA had disclosed to the company that the same thing happened to her by the same pilot prior to this event and felt that had the company dealt with the first complaint in a responsible manner, she would not have been put in a potentially dangerous situation.
I also suspect that if WJ deliberately helped the pilot avoid arrest, they could be held accountable for accessory after the fact. I'm not basing this on any knowledge of law, just logic and many episodes of law and order.
This is a very sensitive topic. On that point I believe we can all agree. Our varying opinions of how WJ performed in their investigation and subsequent discipline vary widely on here. I worked for WJ for a very long time. I know several girls who have been subjected to the same behaviors that are alleged in the statement of claim. A few of them left work, never to return. One of many common aspects of their experiences was that they were ALL told to stay quiet and were encouraged to sign NDAs to enforce their silence. Many of them were also told that the reason to keep quiet was that the pilot has a family and it wouldn't be right to cause them any trouble. How is WJ not complicit at some level for perpetuating a toxic environment when these sorts of procedures are in practice? These behaviors seem to be perpetrated by a very small number of pilots, as the overwhelming majority of WJ pilots are disgusted by these types of behaviors.
In regards to the termination "with cause"... their so called "cause" and the subject of their insubordination was her use of a single curse word after 110 days of waiting for her file to be brought to her. The company has a policy that outlines that if you ask for your file that you will be able to see it within 30 days. She waited and extra 80 days to say "where the f*ck is my file?". This is after waiting almost 6 years for the company to properly deal with her report of criminal behavior. Her frustration goes far beyond understandable. The people responsible for not providing her file to her should be called to task.
WestJet's image is now being tarnished because of the actions of an under-qualified group of people. If they were capable of recognizing the situation initially as anything more than a stain on a pilot's career, they would have dealt with this immediately and professionally. This is happening 6 years later because that's how long WJ was able to hide the matter under the rug.
Is this Greg's fault? That's a long answer with a lot of yes and no statements but ultimately "the buck stops here" is a cliche that comes with being a CEO. It became apparent to me a couple of years ago that he surrounds himself with 'yes' people. There is little to no critical thinking that goes on in his presence. Having your employees lack the initiative or ability to question is a critical flaw in any business.
When anyone victimizes the victim it truly shows their character. Photofly, True North, and your little group of wagon-circling nay-sayers... you are perfect examples of why women are scared to come forward. There is so much more to this than you are willing to admit. There is a certain male upper-middle level manager who has been accused of sexually assaulting other males and using intimate relationships to procure employment and promotions for his friends. That this person puts himself in a fairly bulletproof position and is counted on to esentially self-report is why it has taken so long for his story to come out.. but when it does it will further expose the toxic HR culture at WJ. There is a Captain flying around with inappropriate, child-related material on his PEDs. Long time guy has his mafia to protect him too. In his case it's likely to be CBSA that catches him. All of these things are yet to come.... this is the tip of the iceberg and future WJ employees will benefit from the sweeping changes the WJ will be forced to make. One way or another, whether these prove to be true or false, that old boys club culture at WJ is over and changes are coming. "We're not just another airline", no they're not.... they are truly proving to be something different. Disneyland on the outside and North Korea on the inside.....
FatTrimmer wrote:This is a very sensitive topic. On that point I believe we can all agree. Our varying opinions of how WJ performed in their investigation and subsequent discipline vary widely on here. I worked for WJ for a very long time. I know several girls who have been subjected to the same behaviors that are alleged in the statement of claim. A few of them left work, never to return. One of many common aspects of their experiences was that they were ALL told to stay quiet and were encouraged to sign NDAs to enforce their silence. Many of them were also told that the reason to keep quiet was that the pilot has a family and it wouldn't be right to cause them any trouble. How is WJ not complicit at some level for perpetuating a toxic environment when these sorts of procedures are in practice? These behaviors seem to be perpetrated by a very small number of pilots, as the overwhelming majority of WJ pilots are disgusted by these types of behaviors.
In regards to the termination "with cause"... their so called "cause" and the subject of their insubordination was her use of a single curse word after 110 days of waiting for her file to be brought to her. The company has a policy that outlines that if you ask for your file that you will be able to see it within 30 days. She waited and extra 80 days to say "where the f*ck is my file?". This is after waiting almost 6 years for the company to properly deal with her report of criminal behavior. Her frustration goes far beyond understandable. The people responsible for not providing her file to her should be called to task.
WestJet's image is now being tarnished because of the actions of an under-qualified group of people. If they were capable of recognizing the situation initially as anything more than a stain on a pilot's career, they would have dealt with this immediately and professionally. This is happening 6 years later because that's how long WJ was able to hide the matter under the rug.
Is this Greg's fault? That's a long answer with a lot of yes and no statements but ultimately "the buck stops here" is a cliche that comes with being a CEO. It became apparent to me a couple of years ago that he surrounds himself with 'yes' people. There is little to no critical thinking that goes on in his presence. Having your employees lack the initiative or ability to question is a critical flaw in any business.
When anyone victimizes the victim it truly shows their character. Photofly, True North, and your little group of wagon-circling nay-sayers... you are perfect examples of why women are scared to come forward. There is so much more to this than you are willing to admit. There is a certain male upper-middle level manager who has been accused of sexually assaulting other males and using intimate relationships to procure employment and promotions for his friends. That this person puts himself in a fairly bulletproof position and is counted on to esentially self-report is why it has taken so long for his story to come out.. but when it does it will further expose the toxic HR culture at WJ. There is a Captain flying around with inappropriate, child-related material on his PEDs. Long time guy has his mafia to protect him too. In his case it's likely to be CBSA that catches him. All of these things are yet to come.... this is the tip of the iceberg and future WJ employees will benefit from the sweeping changes the WJ will be forced to make. One way or another, whether these prove to be true or false, that old boys club culture at WJ is over and changes are coming. "We're not just another airline", no they're not.... they are truly proving to be something different. Disneyland on the outside and North Korea on the inside.....
Hear, hear...exposure of this WJ cult(ure) needs to be brought to the public's attention...I witnessed the overt misogynistic crap there on many occasions and heard the complaints first hand...
Good Evening All:
To be very clear sexual harassment does not belong in the work place FULL STOP!
This presents a very interesting problem for their management if the there was a record of alleged harassment dating back to 2008. Does this mean it was overlooked, covered up or what were they thinking?
Needless to say someone is being invited to the CEO of WestJet for "milk and cookies".
Pure BS from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, aided by a hysterical journalist.
In 2008, as in this case, Westjet will have carried out the investigation that they are required to, in law, as laid down in their written policy which they are required to have, by law. Company policy will dictate whether the investigation is carried out in house by a senior manager or executive (typically legal counsel) or an outside law firm engaged by WestJet.
The test to be met for disciplinary action to be appropriate and allowed, is "on the balance of probabilities". If, on the balance of probabilities, the investigation found that the allegations were unsubstantiated then the matter ends (ended) there. This is a matter of law, not of "cover up" or "what were they thinking".
If it comes down to purely he-said vs she-said then the airline has done all it is required to do. To sanction the pilot in any way absent a "balance of probabilities" finding against him from the investigation would be unlawful.
In neither case is it required in law to reveal the results of the investigation to the complainant, nor to tell her what if any disciplinary action was taken against the pilot. Although the written company policy may say that the results and details of any disciplinary action will be revealed to the complainant in which case the company policy would have been followed.
The German language has a very interesting term "schadenfreude" which loosely translated means "taking pleasure in the misfortune of others". To be very succinct this is not the case in my writing as I am sorry to watch the work persona of every WestJet employee being tarred by the alleged incidents of 2008/2010 along with hearing about further allegations of eight more flight attendants coming forward about the pilot in question. For those who have not worked in an airline environment news of ones bad behavior travels very fast in a small tight knit community. It will take more than "team building" to reestablish the trust between back end and front end.
The CEO of WestJet should in the case of the allegations being true along with to stop the hemorrhaging of bad news should unequivocally state publically that sexual harassment has no place in either the workplace or culture at WestJet. To aid in the healing the alleged whistleblowers/complainants should be reintroduced to the workplace along with a formal apology including formal assurances that this policy is reviewed in the next Annual Recurrent Training by all employees of WestJet. The final being if the pilot in question did do what was he alleged he should be terminated with cause.
For Photofly please remember the date June 17, 1972 when the third rate burglary that happened at the Watergate Hotel. Journalists are not hysterical in nature (maybe Fox News but I digress) they investigate sources, go by their editor/legal counsel for vetting before publishing.
In closing try not to have your Karma consumed by your dogma
True North wrote: For the benefit of those of us that don't have your insight do please explain, in plain english, what the hell you're talking about.
Edited to add; while you're at it, please explain how an individual or company can be "vicariously responsible".
Then stick with words you actually know the meaning of.
Sorry chump, no one owes the likes of you a clarifying explanation...your position is obviously from the position of emotion, go have a nap then come back and talk common sense...sounds like (edit) you may be best bud's with pilot "M", obvious bias. I do know the pilot in question by the way!
Common sense? That's hysterical coming from someone who can't string two coherent sentences together. Misogynistic though, that's a good one. Google is your friend!
If the info posted by the Fat Trimmer individual is indeed correct(I am in no position to suggest anything) and this get repeated in the public domain, sadly WJ will be dealing with a toxic situation similar to CBC and Jian Gomeshi
FatTrimmer wrote:
When anyone victimizes the victim it truly shows their character. Photofly, True North, and your little group of wagon-circling nay-sayers... you are perfect examples of why women are scared to come forward. There is so much more to this than you are willing to admit.
FatTrimmer,
There is no circling of wagons. There is no doubt more to this story and that is the point I have been trying to make and that I won't pass judgement until I have all the facts. I'm not defending anyone but I am also not prepared to accuse anyone yet either. You seem to be privy to information the rest of us are not and if it is all true then there should be very serious consequences indeed.
True North wrote: For the benefit of those of us that don't have your insight do please explain, in plain english, what the hell you're talking about.
Edited to add; while you're at it, please explain how an individual or company can be "vicariously responsible".
Then stick with words you actually know the meaning of.
Sorry chump, no one owes the likes of you a clarifying explanation...your position is obviously from the position of emotion, go have a nap then come back and talk common sense...sounds like (edit) you may be best bud's with pilot "M", obvious bias. I do know the pilot in question by the way!
Common sense? That's hysterical coming from someone who can't string two coherent sentences together. Misogynistic though, that's a good one. Google is your friend!
Big Bird Anonymous wrote:Ouch, you don't have many friends do you!
So...what? My popularity has something to do with this? Or that's supposed to hurt my feelings and I'll go away. If so you'll have to try much harder than that.
I think it's ironic that you feel my "position is obviously from the position of emotion" when it's your posts that are so filled with emotion and vitriol that you have to make up terms to express yourself. I have no dog in this fight, I'm a simple although intrigued bystander. My issue at the moment is trial by social media which is where this thread was going when I decided to step in. It's becoming a common occurrence these days and it can be very damaging. So far we have heard one side of a very sensational story. I want to hear the other side before I pass judgement which, by the way, is a cornerstone of a free and just society. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
I think if Westjet wanted to they could easily make a statement with another side of the story, but if they prefer to reserve that for a more private venue like the courtroom where it less easily challenged by public knowledge and employees who can contest the details then that is their privilege. It does not however inspire greater trust in their side of the story in the same way full and open disclosure does. Jian Ghomeshi for better or worse did enjoy significant public support initially due to a lengthy public statement on facebook giving his side of the story, and while it certainly makes one more liable legally if you make false statements by presenting another side they could give a better public face to their response. You don't have to respond to accusations out of court, but when you having a reputation to maintain it might not be the worst idea. Everyone kind of implicitly thinks that when companies save the argument for court is just means they are calculating what the lowest payoff is to get the NDA signed with no admittance of wrongdoing.
Photofly, True North, and your little group of wagon-circling nay-sayers... you are perfect examples of why women are scared to come forward. There is so much more to this than you are willing to admit.
If being a wagon circling nay-sayer means not taking everything you read in a Statement of Claim at face value, it's a place where I'm comfortable.
---------- ADS -----------
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Big Bird Anonymous wrote:Ouch, you don't have many friends do you!
So...what? My popularity has something to do with this? Or that's supposed to hurt my feelings and I'll go away. If so you'll have to try much harder than that.
I think it's ironic that you feel my "position is obviously from the position of emotion" when it's your posts that are so filled with emotion and vitriol that you have to make up terms to express yourself. I have no dog in this fight, I'm a simple although intrigued bystander. My issue at the moment is trial by social media which is where this thread was going when I decided to step in. It's becoming a common occurrence these days and it can be very damaging. So far we have heard one side of a very sensational story. I want to hear the other side before I pass judgement which, by the way, is a cornerstone of a free and just society. Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?
Apparently the last word is important to you...Good luck with your upcoming westjet interview/performance review...
FatTrimmer wrote:Photofly, True North, and your little group of wagon-circling nay-sayers... you are perfect examples of why women are scared to come forward. There is so much more to this than you are willing to admit.
Although I am a bit hurt by not being mentioned by name, I also wonder how any of us are being nay-sayers? We are simply saying that allegations are not facts. I am certainly not denying anything, nor am I making any judgement at all as to the truth or lack thereof of the allegations. I cannot admit, willingly or not, what there is or is not to this, as I,like all the rest of you simply do not know.
One final try - until the case can be heard and both sides given a chance to present, there is no way any of us can say what's true and what's not.
---------- ADS -----------
Being stupid around airplanes is a capital offence and nature is a hanging judge!
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
Mark Twain
FatTrimmer wrote:Photofly, True North, and your little group of wagon-circling nay-sayers... you are perfect examples of why women are scared to come forward. There is so much more to this than you are willing to admit.
Although I am a bit hurt by not being mentioned by name, I also wonder how any of us are being nay-sayers? We are simply saying that allegations are not facts. I am certainly not denying anything, nor am I making any judgement at all as to the truth or lack thereof of the allegations. I cannot admit, willingly or not, what there is or is not to this, as I,like all the rest of you simply do not know.
One final try - until the case can be heard and both sides given a chance to present, there is no way any of us can say what's true and what's not.
Some prefer the clean easy work of having their truths given to them by the authorities that be. Our education system (obedience system) certainly trains towards and promotes this outlook on life. Other more free spirited people prefer to splash through the dirty, muddy waters of available information in search of their own opinion. This of course involves risk of having to change viewpoints as more is learned and maybe even admitting to holding to a wrong opinion for a period of time..
WestJet is capable and able of giving their side of this any time they choose. I'm sure that when they do it will add many unexpected elements of consideration to this evolving story.
stumper wrote:Some prefer the clean easy work of having their truths given to them by the authorities that be. Our education system (obedience system) certainly trains towards and promotes this outlook on life. Other more free spirited people prefer to splash through the dirty, muddy waters of available information in search of their own opinion. This of course involves risk of having to change viewpoints as more is learned and maybe even admitting to holding to a wrong opinion for a period of time..
Well, that certainly clarifies the basis of your posts. Jumping to conclusions is one way a person can decide to live their life. I prefer to take a more reasoned and measured approach of waiting for actual facts to be forthcoming. To each their own.
---------- ADS -----------
Being stupid around airplanes is a capital offence and nature is a hanging judge!
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
Mark Twain
Perhaps one of the legal geniuses here could explain why the pilot in question is still able to fly to the continental US if he is in such trouble in Hawaii? If he were the alleged perpetrator of an assault in the US, it doesn't matter which state it occurred in - as soon as he hits a border crossing, he's detained.
In other words, he is in no such legal trouble.
Actually - he still could be. Just like in Canada - the US has local or state warrents. You can be wanted in say Ontairo for questioning....but be in BC or Alberta and live your life normally, unless a Canada wide warrant is issued for your arrest. So you could be wanted for something in Hawaii, but unless a nationwide warrant is issued for you - it's possible to come and go as you please. Usually those are only issued once it's determined that they want to charge you with something.
The alleged offence occured six years ago, between two Canadian citizens, who were in Hawaii for just 24 hours, and both of whom had returned to Canada by the time any law enforcement agency (let alone Hawaii Police) were informed so HPD never had a chance to interview the alleged victim.
As your so fond of saying.....How do you know they didn't interview her and any other witnesses? The fact the file is still open tells even the thickest person that they have not yet concluded it was simply nothing. If they had determined that there was nothing amiss the file would be closed.
stumper wrote:Some prefer the clean easy work of having their truths given to them by the authorities that be. Our education system (obedience system) certainly trains towards and promotes this outlook on life. Other more free spirited people prefer to splash through the dirty, muddy waters of available information in search of their own opinion. This of course involves risk of having to change viewpoints as more is learned and maybe even admitting to holding to a wrong opinion for a period of time..
Well, that certainly clarifies the basis of your posts. Jumping to conclusions is one way a person can decide to live their life. I prefer to take a more reasoned and measured approach of waiting for actual facts to be forthcoming. To each their own.
Ouch.. Obviously you are referencing my off the wall surmising that WestJet might be rethinking their handling of this file after watching the disintegration of their carefully crafted brand. Or perhaps you are referring to my crazy notion that it would take courage for a young girl all on her own to take on a multi million dollar corporation with unlimited funds and access to top lawyers and other levers of power.
Don't fret, the authorities that be will give you your opinion soon
boeingboy wrote:
As your so fond of saying.....How do you know they didn't interview her and any other witnesses? The fact the file is still open tells even the thickest person that they have not yet concluded it was simply nothing. If they had determined that there was nothing amiss the file would be closed.
Indeed, I can't be sure, but, I think it would have appeared in her Statement of Claim if she had.
Where does this "fact" that the file is still open come from? And of what significance is that? I suspect that nobody in Hawaii has any interest in looking at this to either keep it "open" or "closed"; I suspect it's just been forgotten about for six years and nobody is going to look at it now as it has timed out.
---------- ADS -----------
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Actually - he still could be. Just like in Canada - the US has local or state warrents. You can be wanted in say Ontairo for questioning....but be in BC or Alberta and live your life normally, unless a Canada wide warrant is issued for your arrest. So you could be wanted for something in Hawaii, but unless a nationwide warrant is issued for you - it's possible to come and go as you please. Usually those are only issued once it's determined that they want to charge you with something.
Fair enough. Then why is it, after six years, the Hawaiian authorities haven't "determined they want to charge" the involved individual with something? Particularly in our present shoot-first-ask-questions-later trial-by-social-media environment?
Sorry, but whatever the actual story, the complainant doesn't come across as credible at all.
Someone mentioned the Ghomeshi trial. It was quite interesting when one of the complainants in THAT trial admitted under oath that hours after the alleged assaults took place, she emailed him telling him she wanted him "to f*ck her brains out".
J31 wrote:Lets convict Pilot M of sexual assault based on information in a law suit. Lets spread around some quotes from Twitter and a blog in her name.
Yup lets just have a Kangaroo Court right here on Avcanada.
This is so trashy.
And at the same time we should convict her of slander on Pilot M and liable for ruining WS's sunshiney image of sugar plums and gum drops!
Bottom line, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But lets have the professionals handle this. None of us have passed the bar, none of us are lawyers, and the case is very much in the discovery phase. We can come back and victim blame and WS blame after the court determines whos responsible.
Lets also not forget, we don't know all the facts yet. Just pieces. So until we get all the facts, lets not draw conclusions. Thats dumb.
Stumper wrote:I guarantee the wellbeing of Mandalena Lewis, any of the other assault/rape victims or even captain M are not of any concern of Gregg or any of westjets management team right now. They care about protecting the brand and their very well compensated careers. Don't worry about emotions on that end.
photofly wrote:Why is it ok to read from her Statement of Claim but not from her blog?
It's ok to read either. However the blog doesn't really have any bearing on the sexual assault claim. My guess is that her feminism opinions might have been influenced by her experience with this toerag. Having said that, I agree it's probably unwise of her to publicaly state that anyone who isn't a feminist is an "asshole". Not exactly a great way to get a new job...similar to posting drunken facebook pics.
