Workplace zero tolerance laws

I came across this information last week when I was researching some Florida and California laws. Apparently Ontario, in Canada is going to have a new type of zero tolerance program for workplaces. This seems to be a good thing on the outside, but it will most likely create a zero tolerance program similar to what happened with their zero tolerance program for schools.

The zero tolerance program for schools, which was in effect for some time, was used to weed the schools of a lot of young black males. They were systemically targeted by the program, pushed out into the streets and gangs. Most likely also into the police informant programs as well.

Anyways the parents of many of those kids fought for years to bring cases to the Canadian or Ontario human rights commission and then finally the laws were suppose to be scrapped, because they were unfair and discriminatory, in the way that they were used. Again not before a generation of children were adversely affected, but who is counting?

Remember when programs like this are instituted in any country, city, society, they are often hailed as a good thing. Who wants violence in the schools or the workplace? Not anyone that I know. So the Ontarians are at it again. They now have the human resources acting as change agents. For those not familiar with the term, huge New World Order buzz word. Don't forget that similar programs have been instituted in other areas. Welcomed as a good things, but based on history of such programs, what's likely to be the real outcome 5 years down the line? More cases before human rights commissions? Not as likely, because the people who will be weeded out using these programs, will be jobless and often not able to go before commissions. The other likely scenario is because they will be booted out for zero tolerance, many might well end up on some of these lists and be followed around and systemically destroyed. So I am being proactive and warning any workers in any city, who had similar programs, watch your back, and get ready now, and not 5 years from now.

Let's look at some articles that I came across in relationship to this.


http://www.cos-mag.com/201002011792/legal/legal-stories/fonseca-talks-workplace- violence-at-hr-event.html

[“The other component is the implementation of best practices and a sincere commitment by employers and employees to banish all violence in the workplace,” he said, adding that the Ministry of Labour has had “positive relations” with the HRPA, particularly in consulting about various legislative initiatives for Ontario workers.]

The problem with such policies are that they often don't banish violence in the schools or the workplace. They let those such as Human Resources personnel and others who are familiar with how the system works, it allows them to find ways to exterminate those around them. To get rid of people they see as trouble makers. It will allow them to use the smallest and widest range definitions to destroy innocent lives. It will bring about change, but not the way you think. Having seen how their zero tolerance programs worked in the schools, workers should be on their guard.


http://www.cos-mag.com/201006071889/legal/legal-stories/bill-168-faq-series-chal lenges-of-complying-with-bill-168-part-1-of-3.html

[quote]

Employers may wish to have slightly different reporting requirements depending on whether the conduct at issue is workplace violence or harassment. Given the dangers inherent in workplace violence, mandatory reporting of violence from any customer, patient or client, visitor or co-worker, and obligatory remediation are desirable.

However, there are separate considerations with respect to harassment as it will be defined under the OHSA.

The tremendously broad definition of harassment in Bill 168 means that a wide spectrum of conduct would, arguably, be subject to complaint, investigation and remedy under the policy and program. This could include harassment ranging from behaviour based on grounds protected under the Human Rights Code to much more trivial behaviour that can arise as part of workplace disputes. Such harassment can also be perpetrated by a range of individuals from all levels of the organization. Finally, victims may well have different levels of tolerance for harassing behaviour. To that end, the employer may wish to permit a greater amount of discretion in the hands of employees when it comes to reporting harassment by encouraging reporting rather than mandating it.
[/quote]

The first couple of lines are the most important, cause now harassment can be defined in so many new and unexpected ways that people never dreamed of, and the little worms that know the system best. The worms that are a plague upon humanity can use it to do harm. Don't get me wrong, if used properly programs like this should be a good thing, but with a New World Order agenda working in the background, that is not likely to happen.

"The tremendously broad definition of harassment in Bill 168 means that a wide spectrum of conduct would, arguably, be subject to complaint, investigation and remedy under the policy and program. "

A wide spectrum of conduct would be open to complaint and investigation. Not only that, but also this could get people as mentioned before put on lists. Behaviours that were not subject before now will be. Remember the guy in another city who was joking with his friend, and said something very innocent along the lines of, oh better hide the immigration officials are here. His friend was black, he was white, but they had been friend for years. Well it was over heard by a third party and he was reported, put on suspension and he committed suicide. That is what zero tolerance can and often does mean.

http://www.news.com.au/world/technician-roy-amor-kills-himself-after-row-over-racist-joke/story-e6frfkyi-1225852471753

[quote]
A HEALTH technician shot himself in the head after being suspended for making a politically incorrect joke.

Roy Amor had jokingly told a black friend and colleague that he "better hide" after he spotted immigration officials at their workplace, Britain's Mail on Sunday reported.

Although the man was not offended, someone who overheard the remark was, and complained to Mr Amor's bosses at Opcare, which makes prosthetic limbs.

Mr Amor, 61, was said to be devastated at the prospect of losing his job and shot himself outside his house, near Bolton, England, just hours after receiving an email from his bosses.

The email had asked him to explain his comment.

According to The Mail on Sunday, Mr Amor left three notes, all of which mentioned Opcare.

One of his friends told the paper: "Roy made a joke along the lines that his friend had better hide in case the officers found him.

"It was nothing more than a good-humoured joke but apparently someone overheard it and made an official complaint because they thought it was racist.
[/quote]

If used properly it can and will be a good thing, but too often, it allows these whiny crybabies with emotional issues, that truly never learnt to take a joke, to complain about the smallest things. Now don't get me wrong. I take the issue of workplace harassment very seriously. I understand full well that sometimes you need a broader definition. Eg. With workplace mobbing, often the examples of harassment are subtle, and it's hard to prove much less report, and in such cases it might help to have a broader definition. With workplace mobbing, just like with a lot of other things, what happens is that the person being harassed, ends up having the harassers make complaints, and then the persons justifiable outbursts are used against them to have them removed or placed on lists. This will allow a wider range of things to be used against those targeted, when they do justifiably respond back after being taunted. In most cases, the workers feel that they have done a good job getting rid of someone who was a real problem, and the reality all too often is that these programs get used as a systemic cleansing for those that are not sheep.

http://www.cos-mag.com/201002011792/legal/legal-stories/fonseca-talks-workplace- violence-at-hr-
event.html

[quote]
“Today we live in challenging and changing times, both for government, employers and employees. Our determination to succeed is being tested. Our government must reflect the realities of a changing workplace and we must seek to make our workplaces fair, safer, as well as more competitive,” Fonseca said.

Antoinette Blunt, chair of the HRA board, also talked about the changing workplace brought about by globalization. “Globalization means that the world has become a much smaller place.”
Blunt challenged HR professionals to become “change agents” allowing better understanding between employers and workers.[/quote]

Globalization and change agents. Wake up, the New World Order agenda is knocking on a lot of doors, and by the time it has finished, it will cleanse, remove, and destroy the innocent. People have to be aware of this, and figure out ways to legally arm themselves in advance. Consider this your 10 second warning.

Workers need to have the right to know when they are being investigated, and if they get put on a watch list, they have the legal right to know. This program is likely to be used and abused in ways never imagined. Zero tolerance is great in concept, but it should not mean that innocent people get destroyed in the cross fire, and zero tolerance should not be used as a cleansing agent, for New World Order agendas.