# Example of Ageism and Gender DiscriminationS in year 2022



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

I'm sure (almost) everyone in this country has heard this story. Here's the latest:

Executive to take leave amid fallout from Lisa LaFlamme's departure from Bell Media

I say "it's only fair" that the CEO (or in this case a "he) take a hike too.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> I say "it's only fair" that the CEO (or in this case a "he) take a hike too.


Yup CEO is a boomer and most of the executives on the board are much older than him

Lisa Laflamme is a year younger than the CEO. I agree the mainstream media and telecom oligarchy needs to be dismantled

Nobody under the age of boomer watches CTV anymore anyways. CBC needs to be defunded as well


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Like everyone under the age of a boomer only have their eyes glued to the iphone watching reality tv, livestreaming a drowning or yakking away on their phone with a last minute instruction to have dinner ready as 1. they're on the transit, 2, making their way with, and 3. just 5 more minutes to home. 

Oh my god, sounded like they got lost in some urban jungle getting home from work. No wonder they adamantly want to WFH with "4" days a week these days, provided they're "working like being employed" sans on CMF spewing.

As for wanting to defund CBC, you have to ask Trudeau that and he'll then thank you for your contributory tax dollars supporting it (that's provided you do pay into the Canadian tax systems.)


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

So they replaced the news anchor ... not sure what the big deal is.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

cainvest said:


> So they replaced the news anchor ... not sure what the big deal is.


Management could not articulate a rational reason/strategy/vision on why they were doing so. If it cannot be explained in a few simple sentences that the majority, especially news room employees, can understand, it is likely to mean something they are embarrassed to disclose. 

What they left themselves with is rampant speculation, such as the default conclusion of the title of this thread. The irony is this 'foot in mouth' disease happened in a news organization. If I learned anything from media training in my corporate days is that one must have understandable and believable messaging.


----------



## scorpion_ca (Nov 3, 2014)

At our firm, many boomers are working who doesn't need the money. I am totally against this. If you don't need money, do the volunteer work and leave the workplace. This will create opportunity for young generations.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Step aside......old folks, the young ones are taking over just as soon as they get out of their jammies and back to the office.






What matters — Greater Fool – Authored by Garth Turner – The Troubled Future of Real Estate







www.greaterfool.ca


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

AltaRed said:


> cainvest said:
> 
> 
> > So they replaced the news anchor ... not sure what the big deal is.
> ...


There's also the timing as well as the perception of secretiveness.

Whenever a departure was handled this badly - politics or breaking the law was involved in the termination.


Cheers


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> If I learned anything from media training in my corporate days is that one must have understandable and believable messaging.


So understandable (dumbed down to common denominator?) and believable (not necessarily the truth?) sounds like a recipe for corporate propaganda

Maybe the ministry of truth will set us straight



sags said:


> Step aside......old folks, the young ones are taking over just as soon as they get out of their jammies and back to the office.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Didn't read it but the link title is hilarious "garth turner - the troubled future of real estate"

Will Garth Turner finally get his RE crash after 10+ years of predicting it?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Eclectic21 said:


> *There's also the timing as well as the perception of secretiveness.*
> 
> Whenever a departure was handled this badly - politics or breaking the law was involved in the termination.
> 
> Cheers


 ... yep, amateurish handling would be an "understatement" here, especially for such a large corporation as CTV courtesy of Bell - "Canada's" telecommunications/news network. How cheap can those greedy executives get.

Don't forget Lisa LaFlamme wasn't the only one screwed over but also Danielle Graham back in March 2022 and royally too.

Seems like Bell has a "track record" of management practices of screwing its female employees over and over and over and over again ... just that we haven't heard about it until this year 2022. Very progressive company....f-backwards.

https://news.yahoo.com/host-etalk-t...eated-women-223620303.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall



> _"March 1: I brought to management's attention a situation where it was clear I was being discriminated against as a woman. I was ignored and laughed at," she began. "March 4: I forwarded this example of the blatant gender discrimination I was facing to HR. March 7: HR told me to file a formal complaint and that an investigation would commence. March 8: A meeting to discuss these issues was set for March 11."
> 
> However, things quickly took a turn for the worse, according to Graham.
> 
> ...


 ... so Bell needed to save an additional month of the minimum to pay one of its executives, eh? Let's start with the head of HR ...


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> So they replaced the news anchor ... not sure what the big deal is.


 ... imagine that was your wife and you go to her "Honey, what the big deal? I'm not sure what's the big deal of being sacked this way?"

And I don't blame her one bit for serving you the divorce papers then as you would 110% deserve it.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

m3s said:


> So understandable (dumbed down to common denominator?) and believable (not necessarily the truth?) sounds like a recipe for corporate propaganda


It is understandable the general public don't accept, question, or are skeptical of, glib corporate media gibberish so your response to my post is also highly typical. That is the fault of a poor corporate response but it does not have to be that way. 

The business I was in was far too technical to provide complex technical responses so the messaging had to be reduced to the key 3-4 sound bites. At the same time, it could not be dishonest... so no, it could never be false and it should never be speculative as to what is not known yet.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Investigations probed ‘toxic’ workplace allegations at Bell Media prior to ouster of Lisa LaFlamme

Above article is behind a paywall so here is its entirety:

_



By Omar Mosleh Staff Reporter, Jacob Lorinc, Business Reporter, TORONTO STAR
Fri., Aug. 26, 202


Bell Media launched two separate investigations into allegations of bullying, sexual harassment and inappropriate workplace behaviour last year, documents show.

Taken together, the investigations raise more questions about the workplace culture of a company whose newsrooms have come under increased scrutiny since the controversial firing of CTV News anchor Lisa LaFlamme.

The first investigation took place at specialty news channel CP24, which is owned by Bell Media.

According to multiple sources close to CP24, several employees filed complaints with the newsroom’s human resources department and the workers’ union in late 2020 and early 2021 when Bell Media’s current head of CTV news Michael Melling was general manager of the station. The complaints cited a “toxic” and “stressful” workplace environment that prompted at least four staff members to take leaves of absences.

In the following months, sources say, roughly 15 employees — some of them well-known news anchors — left CP24.

The second investigation, which was conducted internally by Bell’s Workplace Practices Team, looked into a grievance filed by an employee at the CTV News Toronto newsroom alleging a co-worker would regularly make comments that were “sexual in nature and inappropriate” to the person filing the grievance. The grievance said the harassment continued after she asked him to stop.

The first arbitration hearing was held in May 2021 and the decision was released the following November.

The investigation initially concluded that the allegations of sexual harassment were unfounded, but the union representing the workers challenged Bell’s findings. An independent arbitrator ultimately ordered the company to compensate the victim for pain and suffering.

For the CP24 investigation, Bell Media hired Quebec-based consulting firm Relais Expert-Conseil, which specializes in workplace investigations and dispute management, to speak privately with employees about workplace culture and their relationships with other staff and managers in February 2021.

The findings, which were circulated to staff three months later, contained mixed results. While the outside firm concluded that “CP24 is a well-oiled machine” with a “climate of trust amongst peers and co-workers,” it also referred to the newsroom as a “stressful environment” with “yelling, raised voices and outbursts.”

The review, which followed multiple rounds of layoffs, also found that employees saw career opportunities as “scarce.”

Several Bell Media employees and former employees who spoke with the Star on the condition of anonymity have described an office culture at CP24 and CTV News where morale was low and staff were made to feel interchangeable. Several former anchors described instances where senior managers, including then-CP24 general manager Michael Melling, told them they were “replaceable.”

“It was no secret that Melling regularly told people that viewers watched shows because of the brand of the show, not because of the people, and that the people were replaceable,” said Priya Sam, a former news anchor with CTV News Atlantic who also worked in the CP24 building.

Not long after the third-party review concluded, Melling was promoted to head of CTV News.

In a response to the Star’s requests for comment, Melling said he has “always been committed to a respectful workplace.”

“Serious and damaging anonymous allegations about me have been made or published in recent days that are categorically not true, including but not limited to accusations that age, gender, or hair colour have been factors in recent events. Major organizational changes are always thoroughly reviewed and approved before proceeding,” said Melling.

Mirko Bibic, president and chief executive officer of Bell Canada, said in a statement Friday that Melling was taking leave from his job, effective immediately “pending the outcome of the workplace review” announced by the company in the wake of the LaFlamme controversy.

In an email from Bell Media, a spokesperson told the Star that “third party independent workplace assessments are a best practice in most organizations — including at Bell Media — in order to ensure a safe and inclusive work environment.”

“If the findings of our assessments reveal issues, they are promptly addressed,” the company said.

More than a year since the CP24 review was concluded, Bell Media is again launching an independent workplace review following the ousting of long-time news anchor LaFlamme from CTV National News, one of the most-watched newscasts in the country.

The review was announced a day after an internal town-hall meeting last week, where employees complained of low morale and pushed Melling and senior vice-president Karine Moses to explain LaFlamme’s departure.

“Morale in the newsroom has been horrible for months,” one employee told the managers in the town hall, a recording of which was obtained by the Star. “We’ve been bleeding staff. I can name at least a dozen people who’ve left. If this is a company so keen on promoting mental health, why is no one checking on the mental health of its own staff?”

In the sexual harassment investigation, the complainant filed a grievance in line with Bell’s workplace violence and harassment policy against a colleague she worked closely with.

The arbitration decision says the male employee made comments and engaged in behaviour that the complainant considered sexual and inappropriate. The complaint was referred to Bell’s Workplace Practices Team.

The investigation found that the allegations of sexual harassment were “unfounded on a balance of probabilities.”

The union challenged the findings and the independent arbitrator, named as Ian Anderson, agreed.

“Having reviewed the report, heard from the Grievor and considered the representations of counsel, I disagree with the conclusions of the Investigation … I find that (the subject of the complaint’s) behaviour towards the Grievor constituted sexual harassment contrary to the Employer’s policies, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Canada Labour Code,” Anderson writes.

The arbitration decision directs Bell to pay her $5,000 in damages for pain and suffering and to not pursue any form of reprisal against the complainant for her grievance.

Randy Kitt, with Unifor, the union that represents editorial staff at CFTO-DT (also known as CTV Toronto or Channel 9), called Bell’s handling of grievances an “imperfect system.”

He said the union was aware employees were filing complaints with the company in late 2020 and that they immediately approached Bell about the complaints and was told they were launching an investigation.

Kitt said he couldn’t comment on the investigation’s findings or Melling being promoted after complaints were made about him, but said he hopes the complaints show how important it is for employees to come forward if they’re experiencing workplace harassment.

“We had a system that’s broken, or in this case the system didn’t work. And through the grievance procedure, we got justice and the harassment stopped,” Kitt said.

Click to expand...

 ... _at the end of the day, nothing changes as long as the fox(es) remain in charge of the hens' house.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

In an open letter, prominent Canadians call on Bell to ‘make things right’ for LaFlamme and the public

Another article (behind paywall) on the subject. Its entirety below:



> _By Globe Staff, The Globe and Mail. Aug 27, 2022.
> 
> A group of prominent Canadians including artists, journalists, civil rights activists, politicians and business executives is calling on Bell Canada to ‘make things right’ after the dismissal of CTV News anchor Lisa LaFlamme.
> 
> ...


 .. how about starting out with a "public apology" from its CEO, instead of the usual crxp of "we take this seriously". Really?


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

So where was everybody when Lisa first took the Job from the logical heir Tom Clark? He was an excellent journeyman who had worked his way up and deserved a shot the top spot.

But no! They wanted a woman so Lisa triumphed.

Clark who I'm sure was disappointed slowly faded off the scene and showed what a class act he really was.

La Flamme on the other is playing the age and the woman card to the max.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> It is understandable the general public don't accept, question, or are skeptical of, glib corporate media gibberish so your response to my post is also highly typical. That is the fault of a poor corporate response but it does not have to be that way.
> 
> The business I was in was far too technical to provide complex technical responses so the messaging had to be reduced to the key 3-4 sound bites. At the same time, it could not be dishonest... so no, it could never be false and it should never be speculative as to what is not known yet.


The problem here is that CTV/Bell media never had control of the narrative. So much so, that there's even confusion whether she was fired, or if her contract was not renewed, or if her contract was bought out. The media line was simply, "We're going in a new direction". 
They basically let the general public speculate and fill in the blanks. The ageism/sexism aspect didn't come into play until it was reported that Melling had asked who approved Lisa's hair to go grey. At that point it just snowballed when you consider that Peter Mansbridge and Lloyd Robertson were anchors well into their 60s and 70s.

Now, CTV/Bell could have had some valid reasons for replacing Lisa LaFlamme, but nothing concrete was ever presented. Now that Melling is on "personal leave", it just sounds like covering up. Especially when you hear stories about Melling being essentially a corporate stooge as opposed to someone with a journalist background who normally occupies his position.


----------



## MK7GTI (Mar 4, 2019)

This is truly a non issue. The only people who care about this situation are people who still watch 6:00pm news which is 55+. Give it another week and its gone.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Zipper said:


> So where was everybody when Lisa first took the Job from the logical heir Tom Clark? He was an excellent journeyman who had worked his way up and deserved a shot the top spot.
> 
> But no! They wanted a woman so Lisa triumphed.
> 
> ...


Great post Zipper - as always. I too remember the Tom Clark incident.

Clark's disappointment at not being named as Robertson's replacement was well known around CTV. Clark had been widely considered a top contender for the anchor job.

There's always more to the story

ltr


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Zipper said:


> So where was everybody when Lisa first took the Job from the logical heir Tom Clark? He was an excellent journeyman who had worked his way up and deserved a shot the top spot.
> 
> But no! They wanted a woman so Lisa triumphed.
> 
> ...





like_to_retire said:


> Great post Zipper - as always. I too remember the Tom Clark incident.
> 
> Clark's disappointment at not being named as Robertson's replacement was well known around CTV. Clark had been widely considered a top contender for the anchor job.
> 
> ...


 ... well, isn't that still ageism and gender discrimination by "Bell, his employer?"
Only Mr. Clark, like the little good company man took the lump down his throat and Lisa isn't. She's not letting history repeat with her even you deem her as playing the woman card to the max. Now Bell's dirty workplace secrets are blown wide open - it's beginning to stink too high and mighty to be swept under the rug.

Don't forget there's also Danielle Graham - a female who complained of gender discrimination/harassment only to be sacked for opening her mouth and given a laughable below the ESA severance standards. See link in post #10.

Is Bell a retarded company with retarded executives who think they're so brilliant? Now they're giving Rogers the edge.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> The problem here is that CTV/Bell media never had control of the narrative. So much so, that there's even confusion whether she was fired, or if her contract was not renewed, or if her contract was bought out. The media line was simply, "We're going in a new direction".
> They basically let the general public speculate and fill in the blanks. The ageism/sexism aspect didn't come into play until it was reported that Melling had asked who approved Lisa's hair to go grey. At that point it just snowballed when you consider that Peter Mansbridge and Lloyd Robertson were anchors well into their 60s and 70s.
> 
> Now, CTV/Bell could have had some valid reasons for replacing Lisa LaFlamme, but nothing concrete was ever presented. Now that Melling is on "personal leave", it just sounds like covering up. Especially when you hear stories about Melling being essentially a corporate stooge as opposed to someone with a journalist background who normally occupies his position.


 ... sounds like the C-suite are all corporate stooges.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... yep, amateurish handling would be an "understatement" here, especially for such a large corporation as CTV courtesy of Bell - "Canada's" telecommunications/news network. How cheap can those greedy executives get.
> 
> Don't forget Lisa LaFlamme wasn't the only one screwed over but also Danielle Graham back in March 2022 and royally too.
> 
> ...


Sounds like an endemic problem at Bell. The only solution is to get the CEO!


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

bgc_fan said:


> The problem here is that CTV/Bell media never had control of the narrative. So much so, that there's even confusion whether she was fired, or if her contract was not renewed, or if her contract was bought out. The media line was simply, "We're going in a new direction".
> They basically let the general public speculate and fill in the blanks. The ageism/sexism aspect didn't come into play until it was reported that Melling had asked who approved Lisa's hair to go grey. At that point it just snowballed when you consider that Peter Mansbridge and Lloyd Robertson were anchors well into their 60s and 70s.
> 
> Now, CTV/Bell could have had some valid reasons for replacing Lisa LaFlamme, but nothing concrete was ever presented. Now that Melling is on "personal leave", it just sounds like covering up. Especially when you hear stories about Melling being essentially a corporate stooge as opposed to someone with a journalist background who normally occupies his position.


I agree CTV/Bell media never controlled the narrative. As a media organization, this should be in their DNA 24/7. Why did they then fumble the ball? Hence the conspiracy theories have gone viral. 

I have no particular opinion as to what behind the change, good reasons or not. Nor do I care since I don't watch TV news channels. However, I certainly now have a poor opinion of the CTV/Bell media organization.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

As always there is more to the story but the comment about who approved Lisa's hair to go grey points out the 3 ring circus that is the C-suite. To add to the stupidity that exec is now on leave. This was likely mandated so that no further harm can be done while it all blows over. 

As an aside I think Dove did a wonderful job in capitalizing on the event with their #Keepthegrey campaign. As a further aside I thought her hair looked great. I was actually hoping that the movement would get more traction so that we can stop dragging our knuckles on the ground over what defines aging gracefully. I was also amazed at how Frances Horodelski was able to stay so long at BNN another Bell subsidiary. Everyday the world gives us another example as how we fail as a species.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

kcowan said:


> Sounds like an endemic problem at Bell. The only solution is to get the CEO!


 ...well yah, why is he/she paid above everybody else? I hope part of his/her performance/duty is "accountability" aka holding responsibility. 

All CEO Bibic at Bell (or whatever his name) said was "we're taking this (discriminations) seriously". REALLY? 

It's well known that the rot starts at the top and runs all the down the chain and so who ever held responsibility on this chain should be sacked too.

But like I said in one of my post, at the end of the day, nothing changes as long as the fox(es) run the hens' house. That's why this repeats over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ... etc. again. Which means it's not only happening "exclusively" over at Bell but at other big evil corps too. Progressions in these companies are F-BACKWARDS.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Make Lisa Laflamme CEO of Bell media

Internet and social media will still replace it as demographics age anyways

Lisa might as well start a Twitch, TikTok and youtube stream now


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> What they left themselves with is rampant speculation, such as the default conclusion of the title of this thread.


Ah, speculation from social media due to lack of info ... got it.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ... imagine that was your wife and you go to her "Honey, what the big deal? I'm not sure what's the big deal of being sacked this way?"


My SO would be so happy ... early retirement!


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> I say "it's only fair" that the CEO (or in this case a "he) take a hike too.


CEOs can operate their company as they wish. I think appearance discrimination applies less to on air talent. After all, 90% of them are literally selected on their looks.

In the case of Lisa, she had a 35 year career, made a lot of money, and will undoubtedly have a comfortable retirement. That is a lot more than most Canadians have.

It would be interesting to hear the opinion of someone who has been laid off. How do they feel about Lisa losing her news anchor lead job? I suspect they will be less sympathetic than those who have not been laid off.

Speaking of jack wagons, Michael Melling has demonstrated low behaviour. If he had taken responsibility for the change and stood behind it, I would have a lot more respect for him. When a CEO and some other people make a decision, that is the CEO's decision. Bell tried to pretend it was a majority vote. That is ridiculous.

I research companies and avoid companies that demonstrate these sort of behaviours. Again, bumping Lisa was not an issue for me. If I was a shareholder, I would be bothered that it was handled like a 4th grade incident. The owners of Bell deserve better.

For what it's worth, good quality CEOs and management are out there. They are extremely rare but they exist.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

cainvest said:


> My SO would be so happy ... early retirement!


My wife wanted me to retire years before I finally did. I still feel conflicted about it but I'm not going back.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

m3s said:


> Make Lisa Laflamme CEO of Bell media


 ... that's one way of making it up to her. Do you think Bibic is gonna to go home and tell his wife that he gave up his job?



> Internet and social media will still replace it as demographics age anyways


 ... right and then you can get your news from Twitter and the conspiracists on Youtube. Hell, you want CBC to be disbanded - as said, be my guest and see how capable you are on that.



> Lisa might as well start a Twitch, TikTok and youtube stream now


 ... so how many hats do you expect her to wear? CEO of Bell Media (include any social media as well), run her own Twitch, TikTok and YouTube channels too ... don't forget IG and whatever other garbage have you there.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> My SO would be so happy ... early retirement!


 ... sure. And the happy you would be the only one to bring in the pay cheque. Waaah!!!!


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Ah, speculation from social media due to lack of info ... got it.


 ... why don't you also read post #10 on Danielle Graham, employee of CTV/Bell? Lisa wasn't the only one to get the screwed over.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> CEOs can operate their company as they wish. I think appearance discrimination applies less to on air talent. After all, 90% of them are literally selected on their looks.
> 
> In the case of Lisa, she had a 35 year career, made a lot of money, and will undoubtedly have a comfortable retirement. That is a lot more than most Canadians have.


 ... I don't disagree with these sentiments. However, it was the "methodology" of her "laid-off" which was actually a sacking. Okay, so they didn't renew her contract so they can save a buck but what's with the secrecy surrounding it? Why did Bell leave it for Lisa to make the announcement? If those retarded Bell executives had nothing to hide (ie a valid laid-off even with a contract not renewed), then why don't they say so - aka make the annoucement. 



> It would be interesting to hear the opinion of someone who has been laid off. How do they feel about Lisa losing her news anchor lead job? I suspect they will be less sympathetic than those who have not been laid off.


 ... read post #10 on Danielle Graham. See how well she was treated or more like screwed over. Just because Ms. Graham is not on the 6pm news daily doesn't make her less of an employee, considering she tried to do the right thing of speaking up and then got sacked for that. What happened to the whisteblowers' policy? All lips I guess. Like Bibic's "we take this seriously". Really (again)? Like EFF.

[Btw, Bell isn't the only company with news of harassment on the job. There's a lawsuit brewing over at one of Canada's biggest bank for harassment of a sexual nature.]



> Speaking of jack wagons, Michael Melling has demonstrated low behaviour. If he had taken responsibility for the change and stood behind it, I would have a lot more respect for him. When a CEO and some other people make a decision, that is the CEO's decision. Bell tried to pretend it was a majority vote. That is ridiculous.


 ... of course they would say it was a decision (business, duh) by several people so no one take the fall but this land squarely on Melling's lap. He's responsible for her. And his boss (whoever that may be) is responsible for him. Both jackasses need to be sacked in my opinion. And don't forget the HR or PR head as well (provided they have one of either - LMAO).



> I research companies and avoid companies that demonstrate these sort of behaviours. Again, bumping Lisa was not an issue for me. If I was a shareholder, I would be bothered that it was handled like a 4th grade incident. The owners of Bell deserve better.


 ... no need to research - it's most likely the "norm" these days just that it's not on the front page of the news. Actually just in 2010 - Tom Clark (and thanks to Zipper for bringing that up) got sacked due to ageism and gender, ironically to Lisa. But then it wasn't Lisa's fault for his replacement. It's the executives. If they have a policy that its employees are to be sacked when they hit so many years of service, then stipulate it in their employment contract. No ifs or buts. That way there's no dispute but it's no doubt that ageism (if not gender) discrimination occurred in Lisa's case. And in Ms. Graham's case, silence whistle-blowers. Btw, I haven't got into the known toxic workplace bits.



> For what it's worth, good quality CEOs and management are out there. They are extremely rare but they exist.


 ... extremely rare - like winning the jackpot of a lottery. What're the chances of you being that winner? 1 out of 14 millions employees - wooopie.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> I agree CTV/Bell media never controlled the narrative. As a media organization, this should be in their DNA 24/7. Why did they then fumble the ball? Hence the conspiracy theories have gone viral.
> 
> I have no particular opinion as to what behind the change, good reasons or not. Nor do I care since I don't watch TV news channels. However, I certainly now have a poor opinion of the CTV/Bell media organization.


Yes... maybe during the cost cutting exercises, they cut out their PR team? because they really should know better that you can't just let random speculation on social media take control of the narrative.


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

TomB16 said:


> ... It would be interesting to hear the opinion of someone who has been laid off. How do they feel about Lisa losing her news anchor lead job? I suspect they will be less sympathetic than those who have not been laid off.


Maybe ... YMMV though as I've had laid off co-workers who expressed their anger at how other people who were laid off were treated.

The funny one was that the guy who had no problem with being laid off. He openly admitted he was working for another company during business hours, at the company he was laid off from. What upset him was the two others laid off at the same time. He didn't like being considered a bad employee like them. 


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

bgc_fan said:


> Yes... maybe during the cost cutting exercises, they cut out their PR team? because they really should know better that you can't just let random speculation on social media take control of the narrative.


Or the responsible person didn't care.

At some of the places I've worked, the HR/corporate lawyer spelled out the future consequences but as the responsible person ranked higher and insisted on it - it became a business expense. 


Cheers


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> ... I don't disagree with these sentiments. However, it was the "methodology" of her "laid-off" which was actually a sacking. Okay, so they didn't renew her contract so they can save a buck but what's with the secrecy surrounding it?


That's what I wrote. They misrepresent a termination as a lay off. They also pretended it was some sort of 2 out of 3 vote. Michael Milton is fundamentally dishonest.

A real CEO would stand up and say, "It was my decision to terminate Lisa LaFlamme." Done. Time will tell if it was a good decision. It doesn't look all that wise, at the moment.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> No wonder they adamantly want to WFH with "4" days a week these days


Which would actually turn out to be fair, as two-parent families work 26% more than 50 years ago, and that's for only 23% more earnings. Even working 4 days, 80% of 126% is still 0.8% more hours.










Juliet Schor wrote in her 1992 book _The Overworked American_:


> By the late 1950s, the problem of excessive working hours had been solved—at least in the minds of the experts. The four-day week was thought to “loom on the immediate horizon.” It was projected that economic progress would yield steady reductions in working time. By today, it was estimated that we could have either a twenty-two-hour week, a six-month workyear, or a standard retirement age of thirty-eight.
> 
> These prospects worried the experts. In 1959 the _Harvard Business Review_ announced that “boredom, which used to bother only aristocrats, had become a common curse.” What would ordinary Americans do with all that extra time? How would housewives cope with having their husbands around the house for three- or four-day weekends? The pending crisis of leisure came in for intensive scrutiny. Foundations funded research projects on it. The American Council of Churches met on the issue of spare time. Institutes and Departments of Leisure Studies cropped up as academia prepared for the onslaught of free time. There were many like Harvard sociologist David Riesman who wrote about “play” in the lonely crowd and the “abyss” and “stultification” of mass leisure.


Great thing we've solved the issue of mass leisure, huh, we certainly don't want people to have more leisure time, we want total work.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> That's what I wrote. They misrepresent a termination as a lay off. They also pretended it was some sort of 2 out of 3 vote. Michael Milton is fundamentally dishonest.
> 
> A real CEO would stand up and say, "It was my decision to terminate Lisa LaFlamme." Done. Time will tell if it was a good decision. It doesn't look all that wise, at the moment.


 .. who's M. Milton?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> Which would actually turn out to be fair, as two-parent families work 26% more than 50 years ago, and that's for only 23% more earnings. Even working 4 days, 80% of 126% is still 0.8% more hours.


 .. not the way most companies see it. The worst being the huge ones - conglomerate, et al since there's this fallacy of the bigger, the more elaborate the cmopany, the more secure the jobs.



> Juliet Schor wrote in her 1992 book _The Overworked American_:
> 
> Great thing we've solved the issue of mass leisure, huh, we certainly don't want people to have more leisure time, we want total work.


 ... sure employers want what they want, loyalty, cheap labour, best bang for the bottomline, etc. as long as it doesn't hit the decisionmakers' ones.

Anyhow, not sure if you heard but there's an (invisible) phenomenon rearing up call "quietly quitting" amongst the younger workforce these days. There was too much noise with the boomers going the FIRE route. No wonder there's a labour shortage these days.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> not the way most companies see it


130 years of "nobody wants to work anymore", one example for each decade.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1549527748950892544


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

CityNews

*Head of Bell says Lisa LaFlamme's departure not related to age, gender or grey hair*



> _By The Canadian Press, Posted Aug 28, 2022
> 
> The decision to end Lisa LaFlamme’s contract with CTV National News had nothing to do with her age, gender or grey hair, the head of Bell Media’s parent company said.
> 
> ...


 ... yes we're hearing directly from Bell's CEO M. Bibic's mouth via his LinkedIn (btw, isn't CTV a news media that he's in charge of?) that it wasn't "ageism, gender and the gray hair" factors that got Lisa sacked.

It was a "business" decision that *only now* "requires a workplace review".

And he is expecting the public to be that stupid to believe this coming out from the bozo's mouth. 

Perhaps he should be first reviewing the annual report to see if there's a Code of Conduct, Business Ethics, WorkPlace Equality, Expectations, etc. and the whole 9 yards for his company.

I feel for the guy who's replacing Lisa.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> 130 years of "nobody wants to work anymore", one example for each decade.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1549527748950892544


 ... it isn't the company per se itself but the people who runs it. Who wants to work for or next to a prick (male & female pricks)?


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> ... it isn't the company per se itself but the people who runs it.


That's all a company is: a group of people.

This is why I look for certain behaviours in the companies I own.

Unfortunately, companies curate sociopaths and sycophants. There are reasons for this, some of which are necessary, but the best people do not rise to the top. Best case: good people rise to the top.

I used to look for oil barons. They were universally type-A SOBs who were undoubtedly terrible to work for but I am familiar enough with the oil sector that I have managed to spot a few of these people and invest in them. It has been highly rewarding, on the occasions I've managed it.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> And he is expecting the public to be that stupid to believe this coming out from the bozo's mouth.


So it's best to just believe the social media speculation?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> So it's best to just believe the social media speculation?


 ... have you ever been told that "perception" is everything? And I don't suppose Bell is a private company.


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

cainvest said:


> So it's best to just believe the social media speculation?


You mean social media like the G&M?








Lisa LaFlamme ‘going grey’ questioned by CTV executive, says senior company official


CTV boss Michael Melling and Ms. LaFlamme clashed over stories, network priorities and resources – most visibly when it came to coverage of the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee and the war in Ukraine, staff reveal




www.theglobeandmail.com





While it could be either, I'm skeptical of the business decision. It was a stock reason that was trotted out as part of many downsizing or departure arrangements. It was also pretty standard to be releasing the announcement as or just after the affected people were notified.

There's no reason I can think of to keep it under wraps. Pretty much whenever a similar action was taken by companies I worked for - eventually a completely different reason became known, no matter what the initial or the damage control explanations were.


Cheers


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Eclectic21 said:


> You mean social media like the G&M?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 ... so the evidence is there. The Melling guy didn't like Lisa 'cause she didn't agree with him and he had to pick out her "grey" hairs to see her go. If that's not ageism and gender DISCRIMINATION, then I don't know what it is. And yet its CEO blatantly says (coming from him, the nerve), it wasn't. This means "LYING is considered a normal practice by the Bell C-Suite".

Anyone with half a brain cell can see this part (from my link in post #42) does NOT make any sense ... coming from CEO Bibic's mouth. Maybe it is time to scrap CTV "news" and go social media speculation instead and Bibic can then take a hike from his job too.

_



... Instead, removing the longtime anchor reflects massive changes to traditional broadcasting in Canada, he said.

*“The days when viewers wait until 11 p.m. to get their news are gone,*” Bibic said. “*While some may resist change, it is necessary and we need to confront this *… Bell Media needs to provide our journalists with the resources they need on all platforms where news is consumed.”

Click to expand...

_


> While it could be either, I'm skeptical of the business decision. It was a stock reason that was trotted out as part of many downsizing or departure arrangements. It was also pretty standard to be releasing the announcement as or just after the affected people were notified.
> 
> There's no reason I can think of to keep it under wraps. Pretty much whenever a similar action was taken by companies I worked for - eventually a completely different reason became known, no matter what the initial or the damage control explanations were. .
> 
> Cheers


 ..... no doubt, its C-Suite spin it every way it can ... with the continuous BSs being spewed. No, this issue ain't going away anytime soon.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> 130 years of "nobody wants to work anymore", one example for each decade.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1549527748950892544


Be curious to see if there was any news of nobody wanting to work in 1933 when the Great Depression was at its peak unemployment. The example for 1937 speaks specifically to one sector of the economy. There will always be shortages in certain areas which are magnified when wages or working conditions are unfavourable to other sectors. 

I understand the purpose of your post to be that most people do not enjoy working. The only thing they may enjoy less is going with out food, shelter and clothing. I would agree that given the option most would prefer a life of paid leisure over toil. This post is a healthy reminder that people are generally the same no matter the era.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> ... have you ever been told that "perception" is everything?


Sure ... by those that don't want the real information to come out.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Eclectic21 said:


> You mean social media like the G&M?


Possibly ... if they are just citing vague twitter info as their source.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Possibly ... if they are just citing vague twitter info as their source.


 ... and you would confirm and agree this is the "new" direction aka "business decision" (aka one of the many) their CEO Bibic wants to take as he stated:



> _... Instead, removing the longtime anchor reflects massive changes to traditional broadcasting in Canada, he said.
> 
> *“The days when viewers wait until 11 p.m. to get their news are gone,*” Bibic said. “*While some may resist change, it is necessary and we need to confront this *… Bell Media needs to provide our journalists with the resources they need on* all platforms where news is consumed.*” _


 ... 

Let's see what other "business decision" Bibic has for us tomorrow ...must be a slew of them in his black little note book ... ROFLMFAO.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Whenever I happen to see or read the news it's all based on twitter posts anyways

They might as well just replay youtube and have the anchor react like half of youtube does

Creating content of free content


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

I don't generally watch the news but we were staying in a hotel a few weeks ago, with little to do, and I flipped channels to the news. It was refreshing to be presented a condensed, curated, selection of news items.

Cable news is 24 hour coverage of Trump.

Fox: 100% GOP, was 90% Trump until recently when he seems to have fallen from favour
MSNBC: 100% Trump
CNN: 100% Trump

Even BNN and BBC News put a lot of mind share into Trump

It was a pleasure to have just a small smattering of politics in the news, without a 24 hour propaganda hose being rammed down our throat.

The news hour may be obsolete, as Bell Media management suggests, but it will be missed.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

TomB16 said:


> The news hour may be obsolete, as Bell Media management suggests, but it will be missed.


Reuters tv has a pretty good 5, 10 or 15 min update. You'll get more out of any of those than a 24hr "news"

Haystack app is also pretty good at pulling snippets from online news where you can add/remove tags

But really it's all based on twitter posts and tiktok clips nowadays


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

cainvest said:


> Possibly ... if they are just citing vague twitter info as their source.


Does that mean you didn't read the part about "According to a senior CTV official who was present at the meeting ..."?

It's a strange way to cite a vague tweet. 


Cheers


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Eclectic21 said:


> Does that mean you didn't read the part about "According to a senior CTV official who was present at the meeting ..."?
> 
> It's a strange way to cite a vague tweet.
> 
> ...


Sorry your link didn't take me to the article. The "According to" and I gather, "unnamed" official doesn't really inspire confidence in the reporting.


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

Strange .... whether I'm logged in or not, the link takes me to the article.

The first bit goes:
"Shortly after Michael Melling became head of CTV News, he raised questions about host Lisa LaFlamme’s hair.

According to a senior CTV official who was present at the meeting, Mr. Melling asked who had approved the decision to “let Lisa’s hair go grey.” The issue of Ms. LaFlamme’s hair colour came up again on set one day, when he noted that it was taking on a purple hue in the studio lighting."


Do you really think that while the corporate statement is that it was simply a business decision - a current employee is going to allow their name to be published?


IAC ... while one can question or believe the report as they see fit - the source does not seem to be whomever is typing into a social media app.


Cheers

*PS*
I haven't really done much digging to be aware of a named source as well as this unnamed source. I'm curious as to why you seem confident that company PR releases are accurately describing the decision's reasons.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Bibic and rest of his circus of stooges need to go too. Reasons being:

Company is moving in a new direction based on "business decisions" - no more "tv" news. Only 1 housekeeper needs to stay to ensure the computer is on to ensure it is running. It wouldn't matter if its viewer need factual news when they can go Twitter, TickTock, Instagram, Youtube, Facebook, etc. or whatever social media outlet its viewers like to follow. (Hell, I'm not even sure they need 1 housekeeper or even a physical location for that. Look at the savings - in the millions!!!!) NOW that's what I call "progression".

Bye Bibic!!!!


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Bell Execs Just Posted Two Different Statements About Lisa Laflamme's Firing Because Bell Is Fucked — Dean Blundell's Sports, News, Podcast Network

Don't take my words for it - the radio jockey expert above said it perfectly.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Eclectic21 said:


> I'm curious as to why you seem confident that company PR releases are accurately describing the decision's reasons.


Have we heard directly from LaFlamme to say otherwise?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Bell Media newsrooms involved in at least three previous formal reviews over workplace culture



> Robyn Doolittle, Susan Krashinsky Robertson, The Globe and Mail,
> August 28, 2022
> 
> _In the past three years there have been *at least three formal reviews involving Bell Media newsrooms*, in response to complaints over incidents that included alleged *bullying by managers, sexual harassment, and the use of the N-word during an inclusive-leadership training session.*
> ...


 ...well, well, well, here're the nitty gritties of the (another) "workplace review". I think Bibic's nose just grew a few more inches longer and that he need a stronger mouthwash.

Man, if an union's greivance remedy is a $5K hush hush, I can't imagine what a non-union's employee's grievance gets to. NOTHING except FARCE AIR.

Bottomline: As long as those old FOXes are managing the hens' house, that dirty culture will still exists. And that includes some overzealous *inept* (except for lying and dishonesty) stooges up there.

Hmmm... time to dig into some of the ETFS I own and see which includes Bell. Rid time.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Have we heard directly from LaFlamme to say otherwise?


 ... does the word "blind-sided" mean nothing to you? Or you're one of those who got their head stucked in the sand still? * I think you'll be hearing from her lawyers than directly from her now.

* No, it's the famous tactic of "play stupid, dumb and deaf" and all will go away.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Beaver101 said:


> I think you'll be hearing from her lawyers than directly from her now.


And that would be the correct course of action ... we'll see.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/entertainment/caj-concerned-about-editorial-freedom-at-ctv-1.6564313



> _Idil Mussa · CBC News · Posted: Aug 28, 2022
> 
> *The Canadian Association of Journalists (CAJ) said it has concerns about journalistic freedom at CTV National News, the Bell-owned network's nightly newscast that has been the focus of scrutiny following the departure of chief anchor Lisa LaFlamme.*
> 
> ...


 ... just getting juicier.

I think Bell needs a third party-independent review of its "management" including their practices MORE than anything else.

A "free" suggestion on the "new business decision direction":
Fire all the journalists and take on that news reporting responsibility . And then label it as "journalism with the upmost integrity" .

Now the foxes get to manage their own fox den instead of the trouble of running a hens' house. A few millions ($$$$) saved too!!!!


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

cainvest said:


> ... Have we heard directly from LaFlamme to say otherwise?


IMO it would be at a new level of incompetence if the communication to LaFlamme was anything but the alleged "new business direction". 

Even if LaFlamme has suspicions and/or evidence, it makes more sense to talk it over with a lawyer before making public statements about it.

A basic strategy the company used when improperly firing employees was to get a reason like "redundant" or "restructuring", in the hope the employee moved on without questioning the reason given.




cainvest said:


> Beaver101 said:
> 
> 
> > ... I think you'll be hearing from her lawyers than directly from her now.
> ...


Maybe and maybe not.

Few of my co-workers who engaged a lawyer ended up in court. The lawyer to lawyer discussion with substantial changes to the farewell package usually was enough. 

I suspect it would be if Bell digs in where her lawyers have some good evidence that much would become known.


Cheers


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Eclectic21 said:


> ...
> 
> A basic strategy the company used when improperly firing employees was to get a reason like "redundant" or "restructuring", in the hope the employee moved on without questioning the reason given.


 ... isn't that the same speak of "business decision" for termination, only those words were of yester-year. And mostly used for employees fresh from high-school. Were Melling and Bibic schooled only up to high school as it seems to be. Definitely Melling has no journalistic ability - and don't know how he got hired by Bibic - probably alot of butts-kissings.

And Bibic's "we take this seriously" with a "internal workplace review" ... YAWN!!! Pinnochio dances better than this bozo.

Anyhow, to let (actually force) Ms. LaFlamme to announce her own termination was already the FIRST mistake.



> Maybe and maybe not.
> 
> Few of my co-workers who engaged a lawyer ended up in court. The lawyer to lawyer discussion with substantial changes to the farewell package usually was enough.
> 
> ...


 ... maybe she doesn't have to hire her own lawyers now that the CAJ is involved and commenting on it. Or should I say the CAJ's lawyers will be commenting.


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

Beaver101 said:


> ... And mostly used for employees fresh from high-school.


I guess they were an equal opportunity place for firing. Most of those fired with this sort of description had university degrees, with at least a decade with the company. One had about twenty eight years with the company.


Cheers


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Eclectic21 said:


> I guess they were an equal opportunity place for firing. Most of those fired with this sort of description had university degrees, with at least a decade with the company. One had about twenty eight years with the company.
> 
> Cheers


 ... of course, that's why Bibic, Melling, and his likes are living in la-la-farce-land being paid WAAAAY TOO MUCH. His entire butts-kissing C-Suite needs to go.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Bell Canada risks damaging its brand amid backlash over dismissal of Lisa LaFlamme

Like someone commented, even his pic is looking down on its viewers. Says alot to the high and mighty who represents the last on that ranking list at #10, waaaaay behind Circle K (a gas station chain) even ... LOL if not pathetic!!!!

Bibic and his c-suite should be proud of his "accomplishing commands" which is < fill-in-the-blank >. That fill-in-the-blank says " suck in as much compensation as possible and as fast as possible" meaning "thanks to all being Bell's loyal suckers whether you're a shareholder, employee or viewer while I'm in command!". You heard it directly from him.



> ... _Bell’s investors, along with TV news junkies, will want to hear details on the telecom company’s plans for its media division and CTV now that Ms. LaFlamme has been shown the door. *It’s up to Mr. Bibic and his colleagues at Bell Media to provide these insights as they attempt to burnish a tarnished brand.*_


 ... this writer's article summary is spot on.

Care to elaborate on that mumble-jumbled new "business decision" directions he and his band of stooges in the c-suite are taking?


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Beaver101 said:


> Bell Canada risks damaging its brand amid backlash over dismissal of Lisa LaFlamme
> 
> Like someone commented, even his pic is looking down on its viewers. Says alot to the high and mighty who represents the last on that ranking list at #10, waaaaay behind Circle K (a gas station chain) even ... LOL if not pathetic!!!!
> 
> ...


Not sure why all your links are going to the Globeandmail front page, but probably related to it being paywalled. Here's a paywall free link:
Bell Canada risks damaging its brand amid backlash over dismissal of Lisa LaFlamme

But yes, for the case of penny-pinching (replacing Lisa LaFlamme with a cheaper alternative), if that's their intent, it's doing a lot of brand damaging... more so than usual.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> Not sure why all your links are going to the Globeandmail front page, but probably related to it being paywalled.


... don't know why as I was able to view it for "free". I just copied and pasted the link.



> Here's a paywall free link:
> Bell Canada risks damaging its brand amid backlash over dismissal of Lisa LaFlamme


archive.ph ... thanks.



> But yes, for the case of penny-pinching (replacing Lisa LaFlamme with a cheaper alternative), if that's their intent, it's doing a lot of brand damaging... more so than usual.


 ... spend a pound to save a penny ... LOL. Tells you how "competent" their c-suite is, from Bibic, down to his chain of stooges. Paid $1.1M (base salary) to hear the lies aka "heard it from him" along with some mumble-jumbles really take the cake. 

Imagine you were a "shareholder", are you pleased with paying that salary for that kind of "competence"? Mind you not only him but his entire team of stooges being paid tallying up in the millions. 

It's beyond amatuerish ... he's so stupid beyond belief or more like his team underneath him "advising" him ... he can't see a piece of dung in front of him if it was swung there. I'm not being paid to give hints here. He got his team of pathetic c-suite of competent amateurs.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

The reality is that businesses downsize, rightsize, and renew management and employee skills all the time. This is hardly news. It is often based on the current total cost of an employee or the projected cost. Salary, benefits, pensions, sick time taken, etc etc. Current and projected costs. I know of at least one HR consulting firm in the US who provides this service to large US companies. Some companies using the service changed their downsizing practices from having direct managers select employees to be downsized to having head office HR folks identifying those employees to be on the downsize list.

Employers have a right to do this and have been doing it for years. Clearly they never say why they are releasing an employee without cause. But....employees who are let go without cause have recourse. Often called transition packages. And contractors can and do get terminated based on their contract terms.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

The beautiful 58 year old Lisa LaFlamme was a ravishing 23 year old woman when she was hired 35 years ago. Do you suppose that had anything to do with her getting a job in television?

I was around then and I don't recall any uproar over CTV News giving the job to a beautiful woman, instead of the most qualified person. She was competent and highly attractive so she got the job and went far.

Lisa had a 35 year career with the same employer, rose to the top of her industry, and is said to have a modest but comfortable net worth.

Where is the outrage for other people who are severed? Where is the outrage for the guy who got a degree and worked in IT before having his job outsourced to India? Where is the outrage for Canadian part time workers who have their hours cut back to 3~6 per week to make room for guest workers who pay for their jobs?

The sensibilities of the average Canadian hurt my head to think about.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

TomB16 said:


> The beautiful 58 year old Lisa LaFlamme was a ravishing 23 year old woman when she was hired 35 years ago. Do you suppose that had anything to do with her getting a job in television?
> 
> I was around then and I don't recall any uproar over CTV News giving the job to a beautiful woman, instead of the most qualified person. She was competent and highly attractive so she got the job and went far.
> 
> ...



This list goes on and on. Canada's banks and financial firms have been offshoring for years. So have many other firms. It is very common. Do we hear anything about people refusing to deal with banks, stores, manufacturers, etc because they have made similar decisions???


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> The beautiful 58 year old Lisa LaFlamme was a ravishing 23 year old woman when she was hired 35 years ago. Do you suppose that had anything to do with her getting a job in television?
> 
> I was around then and I don't recall any uproar over CTV News giving the job to a beautiful woman, instead of the most qualified person. She was competent and highly attractive so she got the job and went far.
> 
> Lisa had a 35 year career with the same employer, rose to the top of her industry, and is said to have a modest but comfortable net worth.


 ... Tom, did it ever occurred to you that who were the ones to hire "pretty or beautiful" Lisa at that time? Likely the same type of drooling goats (if not old) who hired handsome Tom Clark. So please don't try to spin it "oh Lisa was hired for her beautiful looks and had a good tenure and so it's okay to sack her now". That ageism, gender (if not harassment) "problems" that still haven't gone away, has it? Youi're not doing yourself nor your peers a favour here with your post. It's embarassing as even AltaRed who is 2 decades older than you knew what was "part of the problem of in her termination", although not at the "root of it".


> Where is the outrage for other people who are severed? Where is the outrage for the guy who got a degree and worked in IT before having his job outsourced to India? Where is the outrage for Canadian part time workers who have their hours cut back to 3~6 per week to make room for guest workers who pay for their jobs?


 ... why don't you read some of the news link that were posted? In particular one of mine's where I mentioned an employer abit junior than Lisa (17 years tenure) was 1. sacked for just speaking the truth of "harassments", and 2. they gave her less than the ESA Standards minimum for the firing. Don't think you think Bell not only has a "toxic workplace" but its C-suite are either brain-dead or just plain inept. In the hope people like you (non-average Canadian) remain blind, deaft and silent about it.

And never mind about the outrage for the IT guy with his job outsourced to India. There was an outrage in the news, only you prefer to spin it differently here. That was RBC "Canada's Biggest Bank" - and the outrage wasn't merely the "outsourcing" problem so that the C-Suite can save a ton of money to get their "annual bonuses" "indexed" based on "their" own inflation metrics (not CPI) and pay its loyal shareholders like you the "quarterly dividends". And if it makes you feel any better, I get that you enjoy listening to the accents from those money-saving call centers. 



> The sensibilities of the average Canadian hurt my head to think about.


 .. no doubt, only the C-Suite butts-kissing personnel and their "loyal" shareholders are the "geniuses" in Canada.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Please allow me to be clear. I am not happy that Lisa LaFlamme was terminated. She did a good job and was part of the most respected news team in Canada. Bell Media management have ethical problems but probably not beyond an average corporation in the year 2022... which is to say brutally low level of ethics; specifically, zero regard for honesty and lie as easily as breathing.

Lisa LaFlamme's termination certainly caused me to scratch my head.

But, my outrage on this issue is at the general mindset of looking at an ER patient that has just died from multiple gun shot wounds, a severed torso, ruptured skull, and commenting on a non-flattering hair style.

Where are our priorities? A couple of Indian friends of mine tell me they pay $1000~3000 for Canadian jobs. Hiring managers make space for the hire bonusing guest workers by cutting the hours of existing workers to the point they are forced to leave, they make great overtures about not laying anyone off, and they bring in a new staff who are all from the same geographical region. I've seen this many times and found some of the displaced workers employed elsewhere in town. This practice became OK during the Stephen Harper era. It's the main reason I voted Liberal in 2015. Unfortunately, it has become far worse under the Trudeau government.

What other country in the world displaces nationals for guest workers? Me, and the people who have been displaced by this practice, are the only people I know who cares about this issue.

Canadians could give a rat's *** about inequity taking place on a minute by minute basis and yet we are outraged that an affluent, beautiful, woman (who has a lot of options and opportunities) is let go after 35 years.

What is wrong with our priorities? What is wrong with our attention span?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

ian said:


> The reality is that businesses downsize, rightsize, and renew management and employee skills all the time. This is hardly news. It is often based on the current total cost of an employee or the projected cost. Salary, benefits, pensions, sick time taken, etc etc. Current and projected costs. I know of at least one HR consulting firm in the US who provides this service to large US companies. Some companies using the service changed their downsizing practices from having direct managers select employees to be downsized to having head office HR folks identifying those employees to be on the downsize list.
> 
> Employers have a right to do this and have been doing it for years. Clearly they never say why they are releasing an employee without cause. But....employees who are let go without cause have recourse. Often called transition packages. And contractors can and do get terminated based on their contract terms.


 ... you can provide all the excuses you want but it's a wake up call to those pennies-pinching pound-foolish C-Suite Executives. This issue of ageism, gender, race, etc. discriminations are not going away. It's blown wide open by Bell who wanted to save a nickel. I wonder if the toilets cleanings there by these monopolies are done in-house or outsourced?


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> ...please don't try to spin it...


Broadly speaking, you and I will never share the same perspective. At most, we may fundamentally agree on the odd issue but I'm confident even in these cases you will disagree out of habit. I wouldn't have it any other way.

My friend Beaver, you keep me on my toes. Our points of view compliment each other. You are the turd to my poop bag.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> Please allow me to be clear. I am not happy that Lisa LaFlamme was terminated. She did a good job and was part of the most respected news team in Canada. Bell Media management have ethical problems but probably not beyond an average corporation in the year 2022... which is to say brutally low level of ethics; specifically, zero regard for honesty and lie as easily as breathing.
> 
> Lisa LaFlamme's termination certainly caused me to scratch my head.


 ... then why did you downplay the "severity" of those "problems" with "_Lisa was hired for her good looks_?" You can't have it both ways and that appears to be coming from both sides of your mouth.



> But, my outrage on this issue is at the general mindset of looking at an ER patient that has just died from multiple gun shot wounds, a severed torso, ruptured skull, and saying commenting on a non-flattering hair style.


 ... that was your "view" aka opinion. Now that the root of the problem(s) is out in the open, shouldn't they be properly addressed instead? 

For one, shouldn't Canadians deserve to know the "truth" instead of hearing from Bibic's mouth that wasn't the case when it was? Tells you how much Bibic (not Lisa) thinks of its viewers.



> Where are our priorities? A couple of Indian friends of mine tell me they pay $1000~3000 for Canadian jobs. Hiring managers make space for the hire bonusing guest workers by cutting the hours of existing workers to the point they are forced to leave, they make great overtures about not laying anyone off, and they bring in a new staff who are all from the same geographical region. I've seen this many times and found some of the displaced workers employed elsewhere in town. This practice became OK during the Stephen Harper era.


 ... you tell me what are "our" priorities as when you're using a couple of Indian friends of mine as your arguing example. Would you prefer your Indian "friends" to be told they they were luck to be hired as a dozen instead of hours cut or non-workable conditions? If they were indeed "legit", there is the labour board to go to. Perhaps you should've educated your Indian friends that there're "labour laws" in this country (or point them in that direction) instead of shedding crocodile tears here.



> It's the main reason I voted Liberal in 2015. Unfortunately, it has become far worse under the Trudeau government.


 .. I couldn't care less who you voted for. To me, it's the lesser of 2 evils.



> What other country in the world displaces nationals for guest workers? I am singular in my offence.


 .. a world class country(s).



> Canadians could give a rat's *** about inequity taking place on a minute by minute basis in the country and yet we are outraged that an affluent, beautiful woman (who has a lot of options and opportunities) is let go after 35 years.


 ... of course, Canadians don't give a rat's butt about workplace inequities until it "happen to them", no? In fact, I have colleagues, now ex- who wouldn't even participate in someone else standing up for their right. You see, they might get in trouble with the God-Oh-Mighty Employer themselves ... better lay low and keep quiet, at least they got "a (their) job".. LMAO .. these folks are beyond help i say.



> What is wrong with our priorities? What is wrong with our attention span?


 .. you tell me. The pandemic has already confirmed that for me.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I view this a strictly an issue between an employer and an employee or contract employee. That is it.

From my perspective the employer has the right to do whatever is best for the company as it pertains to personnel. The flip side to this are the penalties and remedies for termination without cause.

The public reaction to Lisa's contract being cancelled or not renewed is nothing short of bleeding heart nonsense simply because she happens to be in the public eye. There are many, many people in the country who have been terminated in the same manner without one peep or outcry from the general public.

It would not surprise me if, since Lisa's removal, a hundred or more of those in private industry non public facing jobs have had their employment terminated in the exact same way. I do not hear a word from the bleeding heart types over them.

A job or a position is not a lifetime commitment. At any time the employee or the contractor can decide to end the relationship.....just as the employer can.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> Broadly speaking, you and I will never share the same perspective. At most, we may fundamentally agree on the odd issue but I'm confident even in these cases you will disagree out of habit. I wouldn't have it any other way.


 ... I'm not disagreeing "out of habit" despite you see that way. I don't see it "your" way because I'm not convinced it's FAIR to begin with.



> My friend Beaver, you keep me on my toes. Our points of view compliment each other. You are the turd to my poop bag.


 ... good, I hope you poop every day as I'll be that turd reminder for you EVERYDAY here.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> ... then why did you downplay the "severity" of those "problems" with "Lisa was hired for her good looks?"


Why don't you tell us what the problem is? Are you taking up a collection for Lisa because she has fallen on hard times?

When a CEO is terminated, it is not the same problem as when a mail room worker is terminated.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

ian said:


> I view this a strictly an issue between an employer and an employee or contract employee. That is it.
> 
> From my perspective the employer has the right to do whatever is best for the company as it pertains to personnel. The flip side to this are the penalties and remedies for termination without cause.


 ... ian, you're still looking it from your POV as "management". No doubt employment at will the employer can do whatever, whenever they want. Hell, even employment contracts are not iron-clad. 

And of course, the employer will do whatever "best" is for the company (meaning for the me, myself and I) as it pertains to personnel. Strangely, I haven't heard of ANY CEO, Executives taking a salary cut with the sack-savings. Have you? It wouldn't surprise me one bit that they reward themselves with a bonus, if not a merit, increase for that job well done!



> The public reaction to Lisa's contract being cancelled or not renewed is nothing short of bleeding heart nonsense simply because she happens to be in the public eye. There are many, many people in the country who have been terminated in the same manner without one peep from the general public.


 ... no it's not the "bleeding hearts" phenomenon.

Simple question for you - do you "honestly" think an independent (ie. not Bell's inhouse) employment lawyer believes Lisa was properly sacked from Bell?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> Why don't you tell us what the problem is? Are you taking up a collection for Lisa because she has fallen on hard times?


 ... no, I'm NOT telling you what the "problem is or are". I'm not being paid that. And you can still deny there're problems over at Bell. Afterall, you stated, Canadians don't give a rat's butt about this.



> When a CEO is terminated, it is not the same problem as when a mail room worker is terminated.


 ... let's go with your 2nd argument first - of course not, why would it be? Unless you think Lisa was of a mailroom employment level.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

It does not matter to me what Lisa's employment counsel may think about her contract termination. That is a private matter between Lisa and her counsel. Hardly a topic for public discussion.

Lisa was not a 'mailroom" clerk. She worked in an industry where employment contracts, media ratings, etc. were a fact of life. Contracts not being renewed because of either party is the norm.

What if Lisa had decided not to renew her contract because of compensation issues? Who would you then blame for this? Lisa for asking too much or CTV for making a decision that the number was too rich for their budget??? 

Who really knows what transpired over the course of the last year, months etc. leading up to her leaving CTV? Do you...or do you make the wild assumption that it was because of her age or looks??? It could have been a straightforward compensation issue for all we know. Or it could have been the former.

I was terminated without cause at 58/59. I was thrilled because I was aware of the remedies that were available and those that could be negotiated. I engaged an employment lawyer to negotiate the company package upward to the usual standard in my industry, for my level, and my age.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

ian said:


> It does not matter to me what Lisa's employment counsel may think about her contract termination. That is a private matter between Lisa and her counsel. Hardly a topic for public discussion.


 ... I didn't say "Lisa's" employment counsel.

I said "independent" (to mean, not Bells nor Lisa's counsels) aka "third party". 



> Lisa was not a 'mailroom" clerk. She worked in an industry where employment contracts, media rating, etc. were a fact of life. What if Lisa had decided not to renew her contract because of compensation issues. Who would you then blame for this?


 ... are you serious? Now treading backwards. Then why was Omar S. hired? Was no replacement hired before Lisa even stepped a toe out of Bell?



> Lisa for asking too much or CTV for making a decision that the number was too rich for their budget???


 ... it's obvious that Lisa's salary was getting too rich for the C-Suite's budget. And Omar is definitely waaaay cheaper than Lisa. Like I said before, I feel for Omar.

Lisa is done at this point but the ageism, gender discrmination, harassments, toxic workplace and Bell's brain-dead C-Suite problems haven't gone away.



> I was terminated without cause at 58/59. I was thrilled because I was aware of the remedies that were available and those that could be negotiated. I engaged an employment lawyer to negotiate the company package upward to the usual standard in my industry, for my level, and my age.


 ... of course, you were thrilled as you got what you want. But I don't suppose your lawyer worked pro-bono for you?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Do you know that Lisa is unhappy with this outcome??? Has she said so?? My guess is that her counsel is advising her to say nothing one way or the other.

And no, why on earth would I expect my lawyer to work pro bono for me. I did not go contingent. I engaged a highly experienced lawyer. His fee was minimal compared to the increase in termination settlement that he successfully obtained for me within a month or two. I did my homework. I knew what documents and information he would need/request and I provided same in a timely manner. That in itself reduced the fee. I wanted to pay for his expertise, not his time requesting or organizing information that I could easily provide for him in the format that he wanted.

And Omar or anyone else in that business could be terminated at the end of his or her contract. Absolutely no difference when I was responsible for hiring contractors. It was a contract, not a lifetime endenture.

In my limited experience I think that it would be folly to make any assumption(s) as to why an employer/employee/contractor relationship is terminated. Sometimes the real cause is not as obvious as one would think.

Keep in mind the the C level folks at Bell media in all probability also have employment contracts. Just as their on air media folks do.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

ian said:


> Do you know that Lisa is unhappy with this outcome??? Has she said so?? My guess is that her counsel is advising her to say nothing one way or the other.


 ... does the word "blindsided" to her views sound "happy" to you? Never mind what her counsel told her what to say or not.



> And no, why on earth would I expect my lawyer to work pro bono for me. I did not go contingent. I engaged a highly experienced lawyer. His fee was minimal compared to the increase in termination settlement that he successfully obtained for me within a month or two. I did my homework. I knew what documents and information he would need/request and I provided same in a timely manner. That in itself reduced the fee. I wanted to pay for his expertise, not his time requesting or organizing information that I could easily provide for him in the format that he wanted.


... and I don't suppose you were of a mailroom clerk or even a bank teller clerk or even of a personal bank manager level? Which means you're in the 5% of those "happily-terminated" groups? Which then means 95% of the terminated workforce remained silence (aka taking the lump down the throat, if not a screw-over).



> And Omar or anyone else in that business could be terminated at the end of his or her contract. Absolutely no difference when I was responsible for hiring contractors. It was a contract, not a lifetime endenture.


 ... true. I did say above "_hell, even employment contracts are not iron-clad_". I should have added to that " ... _these days. Employers can weasel out of them_."


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> ... let's go with your 2nd argument first - of course not, why would it be? Unless you think Lisa was of a mailroom employment level.


Beaver... your attempt to equate Lisa with a mailroom employee shows lack of cognition, even by your standards.

Lisa was at the very top of her industry. She is respected. Look at the public outcry. I am confident Lisa has multiple offers, right now, for gainful employment.

That changes the balance of power and the impact of any oppression that may have taken place. It completely changes the damage and any potential remedy. How badly is she disadvantaged by this wrongdoing?

There are people at the bottom of society who would be homeless in 60 days, with few or no prospects, if this had happened to them. These are the people the law is supposed to defend. It's a shame we don't care about them because they aren't on TV and our attention span doesn't allow us to think beyond what is right in front of us every single day.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> Beaver... your attempt to equate Lisa with a mailroom employee shows lack of cognition, even by your standards.


 ... why don't you quote the entire context (copied below again) instead of "my" attempt to "equate Lisa with mailroom expertise" as a lack of cognition insinuation. If she was, for one why the "public" outrage? And why would I dedicate an entire thread to her/ "the problems" of ageism, gender discrimination and basically a toxic workpace?



> let's go with your 2nd argument first - of course not, why would it be? Unless you think Lisa was of a mailroom employment level.





> Lisa was at the very top of her industry. She is respected. Look at the public outcry. I am confident Lisa has multiple offers, right now, for gainful employment.


 ... of course but then I'm not sure about "the multiple offers of gainful employment" that you have "now insight" on or not sure where you read that from.

Regardless, I have no doubt Lisa can find "better employment opportunities" elsewhere should she chooses to. The USA definitely pays more.



> That changes the balance of power and the impact of any oppression that may have taken place. It completely changes the damage and any potential remedy. How badly is she disadvantaged by this wrongdoing?


 ... as a shareholder, I think you should ask Bibic and his cronies the question instead - how much damage did he and his cronies did to the brand?

You don't have to worry about Lisa - maybe she wasn't disadvantaged by this "wrongdoing" (your word/understanding). But the brand sure did.

Do you think the "public" (ie. not related to Bibic personally or professional) believes anything that's coming out of his mouth now - wait, make that LinkedIn. [Unbelieveably retarded way of announcing "hey, nothing is happening over here at the company I'm paid handsomely to run".]



> There are people at the bottom of society who would be homeless in 60 days, with few or no prospects, if this had happened to them.


 ... no need to wait even 60 days ... I see them all the time out in the streets in Toronto with their hands stretched and a cardboard asking for donations. But then our mayor don't see them (or even care to) since he rides home to his condo in his tinted limo every day after work ... he just need to ensure the city's property tax base is fully funded to ensure his city council is functioning everyday.



> These are the people the law is supposed to defend. It's a shame we don't care about them because they aren't on TV and our attention span doesn't allow us to think beyond what is right in front of us every single day.


 ... didn't you hear of Bibic "new business" directions sans Lisa? No more tv - it's apps this and that ... Twit this and that, TickTock this and that, Instagram this and that, even Fake Book is fading this and that away. 

Anyhow, we have become a society with permanent ADHD when the iphone (or smartphone) became the "norm" so the short or lack of attention-span is nothing new. Hell, my ex-boss was like that. Trying to ask or relay anything to him was met with a huh? duh? what? can you repeat that again? Single worded responses. I ask is he for real or just playing stupid, dumb and deaf.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> Hell, my ex-boss was like that.


We have all had a boss who was an incompetent, ignorant, tyranical, buffoon as Michael Melling seems to be. I believe this is why this story resonates so strongly with people. I am not immune to this, either.

But, we should be careful to not profile Michael Melling based on media reports of his behaviour. It could be true but we have an ethical obligation to resist profiling and prejudice.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Beaver 101.....I have been directly involved in the downsizing of multiple individual contributors and managers

I would say that 95 percent of them were 'blindsided'. They always thought it would would be the person beside them or the manager in another city. That is human nature. For some it is/was part of the settlement and the face saving game. Did not matter whether it was a performance issue or a general downsizing.

I have been involved in terminating a manager who was stealing, a contract employee who two female customers claimed was sexually harassing them when he was on their site. And one who was verbally abusing a fellow female employee while working after hours.

In all three cases very few, if any, of their fellow employees were aware of the reason for the terminations. Reasons were never given (other than obvious layoffs) to the employee or to his/her colleagues for obvious legal reasons.

In the latter two instances they were let go immediately with no explanation. The employee got a good settlement for termination without cause. The contractor got two days...until the end of that week as per his contract.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

She had a couple of years left on her contract, so it wasn't a case of not renewing her contract.

Bell broke the contract early for an undisclosed business decision that didn't includet any "just cause" reason for dismissal.

The reports are that Bell and Lisa signed an agreement on her termination package. I suspect it would be the 2 years of full pay to complete the contract.

What I don't understand is why Bell just didn't wait the two years and then not renew her contract. What was the big rush ?

Now they have to pay her in full and also pay her replacement's salary.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> We have all had a boss who was an incompetent, ignorant, tyranical, buffoon as Michael Melling seems to be. I believe this is why this story resonates so strongly with people. I am not immune to this, either.
> 
> But, we should be careful to not profile Michael Melling based on media reports of his behaviour. It could be true but we have an ethical obligation to resist profiling and prejudice.


 ... that labelling of my ex-boss wasn't based on his "incompetence" but his ADHD aka attention span which was short. The guy was around your age (or older) but act like he's just came out of high school. Each time I'm start asking him some serious questions, he would be playing around with his iphone, ipad or diverting his eyes elsewhere as he didn't have to answer you. This is one of his ploy. 

So I'm not labelling him with your adjectives as you think the media is portraying the Melling guy. I'm sure the Melling guy is no doubt a downright JERK (even his wife says he's a sweetheart) because he was "hired" directly by Bibic "without" any journalistic abilities first and foremost. That alone tells me not only is he inept in that industry but lack people's skills excpept for the boss' axx-kissing of course. Mind you had I had bosses like that who like to kiss their boss' axx to advance plus I had female bosses who were worser than him. My industry has a high turnover on management.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> ... that labelling of my ex-boss wasn't based on his "incompetence" but his ADHD aka attention span which was short.


We seem to have a fundamentally different view on the definition of the word "incompetent".


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> She had a couple of years left on her contract, so it wasn't a case of not renewing her contract.
> 
> Bell broke the contract early for an undisclosed business decision that didn't includet any "just cause" reason for dismissal.
> 
> The reports are that Bell and Lisa signed an agreement on her termination package. I suspect it would be the 2 years of full pay to complete the contract.


 ... that would be dumb of Lisa's lawyers to have her agree on that given she has 35 years tenure. They owe her 2 years of what's left of her contract + severance equating to at least 4 years (at minimum).



> What I don't understand is why Bell just didn't wait the two years and then not renew her contract. What was the big rush ?
> 
> Now they have to pay her in full and also pay her replacement's salary.


 ... LOL ... "business decisions". If I was a Bell's shareholder, I want the double-dipping be deducted off Bibic's salary for his performance review. I wonder if they're going to upgrade their KPIs?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

sags said:


> She had a couple of years left on her contract, so it wasn't a case of not renewing her contract.
> 
> Bell broke the contract early for an undisclosed business decision that didn't includet any "just cause" reason for dismissal.
> 
> ...


If that is the case she is golden.

Two years, probably structured for tax purposes, and perhaps some attached conditions. 

Part of the agreement will no doubt be complete silence on the issue including but not limited to the amount of the settlement. And possibly some additional conditions.

Think about it. She will get paid for two years or perhaps more while writing a book about her career, her experiences, her notable interviews, etc. 

You know the old song....'Don't cry for me Maria' might be appropriate. She will be crying all the way to the bank. 

CTV management may have made an error but it would appear that Lisa may in fact be the big winner.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> We seem to have a fundamentally different view on the definition of the word "incompetent".


 ... so by your defintion, someone hired for the job with no industry background is considered "competent" on a managerial level? When can I apply?


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> ... so by your defintion...


You clearly have no idea of my definition.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

ian said:


> If that is the case she is golden.
> 
> Two years, probably structured for tax purposes, and perhaps some attached conditions.
> 
> ...


 ... Lisa may come out a winner but the "dirts" still exist over there. And the rug is uncovered now.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> You clearly have no idea of my definition.


 ... so what is it?


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Beaver101 said:


> ... Lisa may come out a winner but the "dirts" still exist over there. And the rug is uncovered now.


Why is there a 'rug' to uncover? Or 'dirt' to discover for that matter.

CTV made an employment/engagement decision. They are not denying it. That is the sum total of our knowledge.

CTV are absolutely under no obligation to explain the decision to the public. Moreover, their settlement probably prohibits a public explanation.

I do not know the reason why nor is it really my business since I am not a shareholder.

All of the conjecture about why her services were terminated is simply that. Conjecture by those who do not know.

Someone claims or tries to infer that it is because of her age or her hair color or whatever. Suddenly some people jump on that bandwagon even though their knowledge of the situation or perhaps the media business is ZERO.

Reminds me of some of the musing of the conspiracy theorists.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

ian said:


> Why is there a 'rug' to uncover? Or 'dirt' to discover for that matter.
> 
> CTV made an employment/engagement decision. They are not denying it. That is the sum total of our knowledge.
> 
> ...


 ... yep, when you chose not to read into the details of Bell being a "toxic workplace" as reported from Canada's major news conspiracy outlets like the G&M, Toronto Star, NationalPost, etc. and instead chose to report your own experience as a manager in successfully terminating employees equitably or ratifying your own satisfactory severances.

FYI - Bell has launched an internal "workplace review" due to its fallout in handling Lisa's termination which is its "third" reviews btw in case you didn't chose not to read that too .... LOL ... like something is gonna change. The sly old foxes are still managing the hens' house!


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Bell may well be a toxic workplace. And they may well be launching a 'workplace' review.

So...is anyone without direct knowledge of the situation any closer to understanding the reason for the her termination of contract?

NO....pure conjecture based on ZERO facts and a few assumptions that may be correct or incorrect.

That is the point to my argument. The ONLY fact we know is that her services were discontinued. Or am I missing some critical information?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

ian said:


> Bell may well be a toxic workplace. And they may well be launching a 'workplace' review.
> 
> So...is anyone without direct knowledge of the situation any closer to understanding the reason for the termination?
> 
> ...


 ... what pure conjecture? How many workplace reviews do you need to convince yourself what's been reported with anonymous interviews that these are "pure conjecture based on Zero facts"... like a 1,000? Give your head a shake or go and actually read those articles.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Beaver101 said:


> ... what pure conjecture? How many workplace reviews do you need to convince yourself what's been reported with anonymous interviews that these are "pure conjecture based on Zero facts"... like a 1,000? Give your head a shake or go and actually read those articles.


So are saying that you have direct factual knowledge of the reason for Bell's termination of her services? Or do you prefer to base your version of the facts on conjecture and third party workplace comments. 

Do any of those articles relate the factual basis for the termination as per Lisa or Bell?

I think not. That is all that I am saying. Why make the claim without knowledge of the facts?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

ian said:


> So are saying that you have direct factual knowledge of the reason for Bell's termination of her services?


 ... why don't you ask the national papers? Or do they just make things up like those interviews according to you?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

ian said:


> NO....pure conjecture based on ZERO facts and a few assumptions that may be correct or incorrect.
> 
> That is the point to my argument. The ONLY fact we know is that her services were discontinued.


^^ Pretty much sums it up.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The “urgency” of her termination is the curious unknown. It’s not as if the future of CTV News hung in the balance.

In any event…to date she has not made any public comments on what happened and in fact may not even know the reasoning.

“The company is moving forward in a different direction” is the most likely generic reason given.

Given her replacement, the new direction appears to be a younger male…if that provides any insight at all.

Bell may have benefitted from the assistance of one of the top corporate labour lawyers in Canada as this really was an unforced error on the part of Bell management.









Toronto Employment Lawyers | Howard Levitt | Levitt Sheikh


At Levitt Sheikh, our team of Toronto employment lawyers can handle all work-related legal matters. If you need labour lawyers, trust our team to get results! Call 416-594-3900 today.




www.levittllp.com


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

These telcos sure seem to have a lot of public relations problems that most other major corporations manage to avoid.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> The “urgency” of her termination is the curious unknown. It’s not as if the future of CTV News hung in the balance.
> 
> In any event…to date she has not made any public comments on what happened and in fact may not even know the reasoning.
> 
> ...


 ... actually Levitt (well-known employment lawyer) had an article and it wasn't pretty "for Bell".

Quick sum up here from "Levitt (not an internet poster)": A royal F-UP by Bell.

Mind you, usually Levitt is pro-employer which tells you alot about her/the "termination" by Bell.

As previously said, it isn't the "company per se" that's making and causing the problems. It's the "people" who runs it. And you know who those are currently - the entire retarded C-Suite needs to go, starting with Bibic.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> These telcos sure seem to have a lot of public relations problems that most other major corporations manage to avoid.


 ... it wouldn't surprise me one bit that this problem is not limited to "telcos" but also other "corporations" - the BIGGER, THE WORSER. 

As for having proper "PR" mechanisms , their "C-Suite is the PR department" ... LMAO.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

sags said:


> The “urgency” of her termination is the curious unknown.


What urgency would that be?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ 2 months BEFORE her contract is up.


----------



## Eclectic21 (Jun 25, 2021)

ian said:


> This list goes on and on. Canada's banks and financial firms have been offshoring for years. So have many other firms. It is very common.
> 
> *Do we hear anything about people refusing to deal with banks, stores, manufacturers, etc because they have made similar decisions???*


Rarely in the media ... in everyday life, I know people who refuse to step foot in WalMart. Others switched from the big 5 banks to credit unions. Others switched telecom companies because of customer service outsourcing. 

I'm sure there are other similar situations that I am not remembering at the moment.


Cheers


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I know of at least one very large IT firm in the US that routinely lays off older employees. When I say old, I mean late forties, early fifties and above. The practice is well known within the IT industry.

They go one step further. They deposit the entire years matching DC contributions ONCE per year. In late December.

The reason....when they lay off an employee during the year they have avoided the cost of funding those employer matching employee DC monies for the entire year.

There are many firms in Canada who are outsourcing/offshoring , culling older employees, et It seldom gets any much air time.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

ian said:


> I know of at least one very large IT firm in the US that routinely lays off older employees. When I say old, I mean late forties, early fifties and above. The practice is well known within the IT industry.
> There are many firms in Canada who are outsourcing/offshoring , culling older employees, et It seldom gets any much air time.


 ... well, if they don't b1tch, then it's status quo. Of course, it's happening all over all sectors but that still doesn't make it right - does it?



> They go one step further. They deposit the entire years matching DC contributions ONCE per year. In late December.
> 
> The reason....when they lay off an employee during the year they have avoided the cost of funding those employer matching employee DC monies for the entire year.


 ... oh yeah, employers will do their damnest to save every penny. If the company was small, I would have sympathy for them.

But for a giant "public" like Bell or RBC to spend a dollar to save a nickel, isn't that assinined? And by that I don't mean the usual downsizing of replacing older more expensive employees (although they should replace the C-Suite for immediate massive savings) for younger and cheaper employees, it was the "methodology" of doing that. And no it wasn't just because Lisa got into the news for all but the C-Suite over at Bell were amateurish in doing it. And they still haven't got it as with you, a brainwashed "company" man.

So if it is any help in getting your head around your posts, google on H. Levitt's comments (Canada's "pro-employer" labour lawyer) on Ms. LaFlamme's termination by Bell.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... why don't you ask the national papers? Or do they just make things up like those interviews according to you?


 ... btw, I still haven't got an answer to my questions above for you. This is not just isolated to Ms. LaFlamme's case but "all others" where it "didn't get into the news".


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Has Lisa LaFlamme stated why she believes her contract was ended? Has Bell publicly stated the reason for her termination?

Have not heard of either party commenting on the reason for the termination.. I have absolutely no doubt that if Lisa Laflamme or Bell do anything other than remain silent we would have heard about it. Their respective lawyers would have a field day.

Did Bell make a PR blunder. Probably. But at the end of the day I expect that Lisa Laflamme will do quite well thank you very much. She will be he winner in this.

And I doubt very much whether Lisa Laflamme will say word one about it or confirm the reason one way or the other.....non disclosure will be part of her lucrative settlement. I doubt very much that Bell execs would be foolish enough to give her a reason.

They do not need to give her a reason. Their only obligation is to compensate her. The worst thing an employer can do is terminate someone without cause (legal cause) and then tell them why they were really fired. It leaves employers open to pesky lawsuits.

Until then.....it is all idle speculation. We are left to imagine anything we want. It will not be confirmed or denied by either party.

For all we know it could have been money, could have been ratings, could have been her hair, could have been a pending reorg to refresh the talent, could have been her age, could have been her attitude. Or a combination of any two or more. Who knows? I certainly do not despite what may be written/speculated in the newspapers.

Bottom line.....companies and organizations in Canada are doing this every week to selected employees. It generates a heck of a lot of legal fees for lawyers who specialize in this area.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

ian said:


> Has Lisa LaFlamme stated why she believes her contract was ended?


 ... huh???? Did you even read any of the news article - even from the very beginning when this fiasco broke out? Why would Lisa "not believe" her contract has ended when 1. she made the announcement to her viewers that her last date was June 29, 2022, and 2. she was blind-sided (aka "shocked") by that .. not only her contract not being renewed but 2 months BEFORE it was to end.



> Has Bell publicly stated the reason for her termination?


 ... their BS muddle-fuddled for "business" reasons whatever that is supposed to mean. Only the assinined "C-Suite " over at Bell got the reason(s) to terminate her. Maybe Melling was edging on Bibic to get rid of her 'cause he didn't like her grey hairs, or the clash between her and Melling was too much for Bibic so someone has to go and it's unlikely the one kissing his axx or maybe Melling along with K. Moses (their communications? or whatever her job is) edged Bibic to save a nickel with Lisa replacement. The fact is the "business" decision(s) wasn't based on 1 person although the Bibic guy is responsible being the "CEO (with half a brain)" but the entire C-Suite. That's why I said the "C-Suite" got to go. Do you think Bibic is gonna to say "Itwas my "business" decision" although everybodyin this country heard the lie(s) from him it wasn't because of Lisa's grey hairs. Perhaps not that alone but certainly ageism and gender discriminations rule the(se) days.



> Have not heard of either party commenting on the reason for the termination.. I have absolutely no doubt that if Lisa Laflamme or Bell do anything other than remain silent we would have heard about it. Their respective lawyers would have a field day.


 ... she probably had to sign a no disclosure agreement in order to get her satisfactory severance package. Even we don't know if it was satisfactory. As I replied to sag's post, her lawyer would be dumb enough to get her only 2 years of severance for someone with 35 years of tenure and let ago ahead of time.

For one, do you think uttering the word "blind-sided" to her viewers make her a happy camper?

Let me ask you a quick question - when you were sacked (if ever), do you announce "Hey, I got this for my severance, amounts et all"? 



> Did Bell make a PR blunder. Probably.


 ... now it's "probably". You can downplay it all you want but her viewers don't share your sentiments and ain't stupid.



> But at the end of the day I expect that Lisa Laflamme will do quite well thank you very much. She will be he winner in this.


 ... and so? What's your point here? Lisa owes Bell an apology?



> And I doubt very much whether Lisa Laflamme will say word one about it or confirm the reason one way or the other.....non disclosure will be part of her lucrative settlement. I doubt very much that Bell execs would be foolish enough to give her a reason.


 ... you going around in circles. You're repeating the above.



> They do not need to give her a reason. Their only obligation is to compensate her. The worst thing an employer can do is terminate someone without cause (legal cause) and then tell them why they were really fired. It leaves employers open to pesky lawsuits.


 ... well, didn't Bell used that retarded phrase of "due to business reason"? What business reason? There could be a million bs. reason.



> Until then.....it is all idle speculation. We are left to imagine anything we want. It will not be confirmed or denied by either party.


 ... no it's not idle speculation. It's only idle speculation coming from you.



> For all we know it could have been money, could have been ratings, could have been her hair, could have been a pending reorg to refresh the talent, could have been her age, could have been her attitude. Or a combination of any two or more. Who knows? I certainly do not despite what may be written/speculated in the newspapers.


 ... what about the rest of the staff?

Asking you once again, *is it in your belief that newspapers "lie" when they said they interviewed employees (name withheld) that Bell (or whatever big corp.) has a "toxic workplace"?* Because of harassment (sexual or otherwise), belittling, berating, discriminations, etc.? A yes or no will suffice, not your idle speculation spinnings.



> Bottom line.....companies and organizations in Canada are doing this every week to selected employees. It generates a heck of a lot of legal fees for lawyers who specialize in this area.


 ... no kidding. And the laughable thing is for such a large corp. like Bell, their C-Suite does their own PR. I can't imagine what kind of inhouse counsel they have or whether it even exists. 

*Bottomline:* Save a nickel on the lower levels' back in order so they can reward themselves with a big fat bonus at the end of the year for the job well done, only having to spend a dollar in the process of doing that. I gather shareholders just loves this kind of management. Ever heard of reputational damage? Priceless.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

When I was laid off my lawyer gave me strict instructions NOT to talk to anyone about why or even suggest why. Not to discuss ANYTHING with former colleagues. His instructions were to anyone who asks the impression that you were surprised, upset, and that you are busy seeking similar employment at a similar job level. 

Two months later, when a settlement was reached my lawyer impressed on me the clause that the settlement could be revoked if I disclosed it. Standard T's and C's

He also said go and sign up for EI now. And I did. After a 23 month waiting period I was in line for 43 weeks of EI. First time I had ever collected.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

ian said:


> When I was laid off my lawyer gave me strict instructions NOT to talk to anyone about why or even suggest why. Not to discuss ANYTHING with former colleagues. His instructions were to anyone who asks the impression that you were surprised, upset, and that you are busy seeking similar employment at a similar job level.
> 
> Two months later, when a settlement was reached my lawyer impressed on me the clause that the settlement could be revoked if I disclosed it. Standard T's and C's
> 
> He also said go and sign up for EI now. And I did. After a 23 month waiting period I was in line for 43 weeks of EI. First time I had ever collected.


 ... a "true" lay-off doesn't require a lawyer.

My question above still has NOT been answered.

Typical skirtings and deflections when the "root of the problems continue to exist." Reason? That's the *normal "expertise*" aka modus operandi *of management-level personnel. *Status quo is the lowest hanging fruit to pick.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

A true layoff of a senior manager does not require a lawyer??? Perhaps if the senior manager is a complete dim wit. 

Actually...in my career I have seen many senior managers laid off as their jobs were being eliminated. The company offers them a package. Could be 2 weeks per year of service.

That is not enough for a senior manager...... as the courts have determined in Canada. The max. is usually 24 months. It is based on age of the employee, position, opportunities that exist within the industry, etc. This has NOTHING to with whether or not the employment action was presented as a layoff of part of a general downsizing.

The size of the company could impact the settlement of course. My experience was only with four huge multinationals. All four acted in the same general manner when it came to this.

There can also be DB pension entitlement issues, stock option vesting issues, etc. . Finally how will the settlement be structured from the employee's tax perspective. How much can be rolled over into an RSP, perhaps it should be salary continuance with the remaining lump sum balance paid on Jan 1 of the following year. Or perhaps the employee wants all the money up front. 

Companies usually low ball. Their goal is the lowest cost of separation.

Once the employee engages a lawyer the severance is typically re-defined and both parties sign off.

Some employees go with a contingency lawyer who takes perhaps 30 percent of the delta between the first offer and the final settlement. Others engage on a fee/time basis. 

But I cannot ever remember a situation in the industry where I spent my career where a senior manager was foolish enough to sign the employer offer without seeking legal guidance. Part pf that guidance is an understanding of what is accepted as fair and reasonable from a financial perspective. 

It is not only money. In some instances there are T's and C's to consider. The very last thing that the company wants is that employee blabbing about the settlement to other current employees. Hence the standard non disclosure clause.

That is the employer's goal. Not so great for the employee who could be leaving a great deal of money and benefits on the table.

You may not think that this is how it works but it does in the real world.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

ian said:


> A true layoff of a senior manager does not require a lawyer??? Perhaps if the senior manager is a complete dim wit.
> 
> ...
> 
> You may not think that this is how it works but it does in the real world.


 .. yah, a "true" layoff doesn't require a lawyer except for a "complete dim-wit manager, senior or not". I thought all managers were geniuses to begin with. Unfortunately not.

Re your speaking of the "real " world now - so what happens to the rest of staff being laid-off that dim-wit manager who's crying crocodiles tears here? They don't count, right? And yet you and Tom keeps referencing "this happens ALL THE TIME in the REAL WORLD". How convenient only a manager, a senior at that to be laid-off ...cry me a river.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

https://ca.style.yahoo.com/katie-couric-slams-lisa-laflamme-dismissal-144910604.html

*



Katie Couric weighs in on Lisa LaFlamme dismissal: 'Really boneheaded'

Click to expand...

*


> Julia Ranney, Thu. September 1, 20222
> 
> _Katie Couric isn't afraid to share her thoughts.
> 
> ...


 ...oh, I love Katie, right to the point.

*"A bone-headed Bell run by a bone-head Bibic" *-nice ring to it too!!!


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

This may come as a complete surprise but there are people who realize that their knowledge of employment law and HR expertise/practice is not equal to that of the company HR and legal folks. The smart ones realize that this places them at an obvious disadvantage.

Nor do many people understand what the settlement norms are, the parameters, in each of the various provinces. Same reason many people engage lawyers (or accountants) to help them move through transactions, situations, etc. where knowledge and understanding will benefit them. And the reverse is true.

I saw many individual contributors follow the same route. They got a settlement offer with some T's and C's. At one firm, early on, the company in the termination meeting, actually encouraged the employee to see outside counsel.

In some circumstances where the tenure was short the offer was fair. But those employees were smart enough to at the very least seek an outside opinion from a lawyer.

These were knowledge based workers some of whom were professionals. What you might not comprehend is the growing focus on knowledge based workers, the growth of individual contributors who work as a team. These individuals were not part of a union or a professional bargaining group.

The notion that this process only applied to managers, directors, and above is simply not so. At least in my experience, in my industry, and with large multinational firms.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

ian said:


> This may come as a complete surprise but there are people who realize that their knowledge of employment law and expertise is not equal to that of the company HR and legal folks. Nor do many people understand what the settlement norms are, the parameters, in each of the various provinces. Same reason many people engage lawyers (or accountants) to help them move through transactions, situations, etc. where knowledge and understanding will benefit them. And the reverse is true.


 ... true, so are you equating the HR knows more than the lawyer(s) of the laid-off employee there? Surprise me.

Still doesn't change the fact that Bell is a bone-headed company run by bone-heads, starting with Bibic as being the biggest of them all. 

If Bibic and his gang claims it was their "lawyers' idea", then their lawyers (with employment expertise) are bone-heads as well. So far, I haven't "speculated" there were any bone-headed lawyers used at all over at Bell.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

Beaver101 said:


> ... true, so are you equating the HR knows more than the lawyer(s) of the laid-off employee there? Surprise me.
> 
> Still doesn't change the fact that Bell is a bone-headed company run by bone-heads, starting with Bibic as being the biggest of them all.
> 
> If Bibic and his gang claims it was their "lawyers' idea", then their lawyers (with employment expertise) are bone-heads as well. So far, I haven't "speculated" there were any bone-headed lawyers used at all over at Bell.


NO, what I am saying is the company HR and legal folk know far more than the employee. Employees engage a lawyer to understand their rights and to place themselves on an equal footing with the employer as it pertains to any separation settlement.

Companies, in my experience, do not generally increase settlements when asked by the employee just because they are nice.

The employee's lawyers lay out the situation from the client perspective. Bottom line is companies expect this. In general they both know where the end result will land. To get to that end point, instead of the initial offer, they sometimes need to know that the ee is serious. That means engaging a lawyer. If one has a good employment lawyer chances are they will get to that end point in a very short time.

You must be right, all the these folks are boneheads, the lawyers at Bell are boneheads. Employees who engage lawyers to understand their rights are boneheads. People who make errors in judgement on occasion must certainly be boneheads.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

ian said:


> NO, *what I am saying is the company HR and legal folk know* far more than the employee. Employees engage a lawyer to understand their rights and to place themselves on an equal footing with the employer as it pertains to any separation settlement.


 ... I know EXACTLY what you're saying and you're repeating the same thing from your previous post.

Re-read your first sentence and then go re-read your previous post - what is the common denominator in your posts.

In case, you can't see it - I bolded it in red for you above. Did that department consulted with their lawyers even? I didn't read it anywhere. And if you're absolutely sure they did, then their lawyers are just a bone-headed (repeating myself here).



> Companies in my experience do not generously increase settlements when asked by the employee.
> 
> The employee's lawyers lay out the situation from the client perspective. Bottom line is companies expect this. In general they both know where the end result will land. To get to that end point, instead of the initial offer, they sometimes need to know that the ee is serious. That means engaging a lawyer.


 ... don't care for the nitty gritties here.



> You must be right, all the these folks are boneheads, the lawyers at Bell are boneheads. Employees who engage lawyers to understand their rights are boneheads.


 ... no, the employees who engage lawyers to understand their rights are not bone-heads - I didn't say that. You're saying that right now. But it remains a fact that the C-Suite over at Bell are BONE-HEADS, if not MORONS. And if they now say 'that's what our lawyers suggest we do', then their lawyers are equal to these MORONS.



> This could all have been averted if only Bell execs and Bell lawyer had consulted with you on these various issues.


 ... why consult with me when they have these "million dollars salaried bone-headed moronic axx-kissing HRs, VPs, and an entire C-Suite" in the first place plus your long-winded legal expertise /posts here. Aren't these enough or are they paid too little still?


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

ian said:


> Companies, in my experience, do not generally increase settlements when asked by the employee just because they are nice.


Companies become far more interested in providing a fair settlement the moment they understand a lawyer is involved. They typically avoid court, although I am aware of one case which went to court.

Ian, thank you for sharing your experience through a layoff.


----------



## Zipper (Nov 18, 2015)

Beav you've been flogging this for weeks.

Call it a day before you have a stroke.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The problem for Bell is pretty simple, and boils down to one key fact.

They didn't eliminate "the job" due to restructuring. There was no downsize in numbers in this termination they can refer to in their defense.

They terminated an older woman with 35 years of seniority and immediately replaced her with a younger male, without any revealed "just cause".

That is a huge red flag for employers, that Bell and their lawyers should have been aware of.

The decision has all the markings of age and gender discrimination, which now involve the human rights of the terminated employee.

Severance pay is mandated, but the amount of "punitive" damages may still be yet to be determined or disclosed.

Given her age, tenure with the company, likelihood of finding an equivalent job, and the trashing of her human rights.....the judgement could be huge.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Zipper said:


> Beav you've been flogging this for weeks.


 ... no different than those who continue to flog other issues, particularly political ones.



> Call it a day before you have a stroke.


 ... I do call it a day after I get my daily flogging entertainment and I'm perfectly fine, no strokes thus far as with no Covid (2019 version) either. 

Keep in mind, I dont only flog this but that ** Scams Alert! ** will be a perpetual flog as long as this forum exists so be warned!


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> The problem for Bell is pretty simple, and boils down to one key fact.
> 
> *They didn't eliminate "the job" due to restructuring. There was no downsize in numbers in this termination they can refer to in their defense.*
> 
> ...


 .. well said, absolutely LOGICAL re above bold!

"Business" decisions was a cover up for Melling's harassment and discrimination on Lisa, and now women of all stripes (except for his balls-kissing wife, if he has or had one)!!!!

Btw, a 4 years severance compensation is the minimum, IMHO.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Beaver, Ian has shared his experience and insight on this topic. I appreciate his wisdom on this and other topics. He has been one of the nicest and smartest people on this site.

Why are you gnawing on him like he is the last branch you need to block the river of civility?

Would you like me to stop by your place with my angle grinder and knock those incisors down a bit?

You and I enjoy attacking each other. Please direct your aggression my way and we will continue to have fun posting together.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> Beaver, Ian has shared his experience and insight on this topic. I appreciate his wisdom on this and other topics. He has been one of the nicest and smartest people on this site.


 ... I don't disagree ian is one of the nicest (and now not sure about being "smartest") person on this forum, if you had noticed that I agree with him most of the time. Definitely 110% on politics. But his experience here that he's so generously is "sharing" is one sided - his side only and that's a biased side. And I don't agree with biased sides.

Let me put this in a simple way for you. How would you feel if Lisa was yours or the wife of ian's? By a "wife", I mean a career-oriented independent woman, not some wife owned (and dominated) by her husband. 



> Why are you gnawing on him like he is the last branch you need to block the river of civility?
> 
> Would you like me to stop by your place with my angle grinder and knock those incisors down a bit?


 .. I never gnawed nor was unciviled (sic) to him. That's your perception o/w how was I un-civiled(sic) to him? 

As I said and will repeat again - the Bell's C-Suite folks are BONE-HEADED MORONS.

You might want to ask youirself - or perhaps ian himself - why is he so bothered by opening up these ageism and gender discrimination issues. Are you or him saying these issues don't exist? Is the status quo better? It would only if you belonged to a C-Suite group.



> You and I enjoy attacking each other. Please direct your aggression my way and we will continue to have fun posting together.


 ... of course, the pandemic isn't over and I'll be your "personal" (your words) turd until it is or that you stop throwing those sticks/rocks at me.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> But his experience here that he's so generously is "sharing" is one sided - his side only and that's a biased side. And I don't agree with biased sides.


His experience corresponds closely with my own. He has chosen to share his experience where I have not.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> ... of course, the pandemic isn't over and I'll be your "personal" (your words) turd until it is or that you stop throwing those sticks/rocks at me.


I would have thought, if anyone would enjoy having a stick thrown at them, it would be Beaver101?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> I would have thought, if anyone would enjoy having a stick thrown at them, it would be Beaver101?


 ... so you took "civility" as "enjoy(ed)"... are you sadistic, or having an IQ lower than 1?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> His experience corresponds closely with my own. He has chosen to share his experience where I have not.


 .. I have no issues with that but I do have an issue when I repeatedly told him via either my posts or have a read on those links, if not google for himself on Levitt (a well known pro-employER lawyer). And what does he do - "continues to share his experience/ his views". Which tells me he didn't even looked at this problem from another POV.

Hell, you even said it happens at every employer everywhere everyday. And that to me is like saying "it's no big deal, it's perfectly acceptable", no? I get status quo is easiest but these problems will never be rectified when folks like you want the status quo. And I know ALOT of people will go for status quo as it's the easiest route to take. 

Just like you said "well, there're some really good employers out there but they are RARE" and I agreed there... as rare as winning the lottery's jackpot. And so ... has the toxic workplace problems gone way. NO! ie. you can't right a wrong by ignoring it.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Beaver101 said:


> Which tells me he didn't even looked at this problem from another POV.


He is under no obligation to consider any other point of view, nor is anyone on this web site.

In Ian's case, he has direct experience with the process in a way that somewhat corresponds with the situation Lisa LaFlamme is in. It is excellent insight.

I wonder if Lisa's husband ever coughed and then said, "Excuse me. I had to clear the LaFlamme out of my throat."?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> He is under no obligation to consider any other point of view, nor is anyone on this web site.


 ... correct, and nor does anyone on this website has any obligation to consider his POV.



> In Ian's case, he has direct experience with the process in a way that somewhat corresponds with the situation Lisa LaFlamme is in. It is excellent insight.


 ... the only way his "direct" experience with the termination process as "somewhat" (a pinhead bit?) "corresponding" with Ms. LaFlamme's situation is his "probable" agreement that the entire Bell's C-Suite are boneheads, if you ask me. Otherwise, it's the total opposite.[Actually the C-Suite are MORONS. The 'Boneheads' description is too polite IM"H"O.] 

Don't take my words for it - his "direct" experience does not allow "speculations" (his words) about Ms. LaFlamme even when the facts surrounding Ms. LaFlamme's termination have been published in Globe and Mail, National-Post, pretty well all major newspaper outlet (and now rippled to the USA) along with "live people" interviews about the toxicity of Bell's workplace.

I had asked him a simple question earlier as he accused me of "speculating". And the question "was it in his belief that all the major newspaper outlets were reporting lies" when they "interviewed employees (names withheld for obvious reasons)" there? As of date, I haven't heard a "yes" or a "no" from him. Why? What is he afraid of? And this question remains - for him and you now.



> I wonder if Lisa's husband ever coughed and then said, "Excuse me. I had to clear the LaFlamme out of my throat."?


 ... I'm sure Ms. LaFlamme said "go ahead and do that." Just you wait and see.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... I didn't say "Lisa's" employment counsel.
> 
> I said "independent" (to mean, not Bells nor Lisa's counsels) aka "third party".
> 
> ...


 ... poor Omar, the "new sitting" duck.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/lisa-laflamme-omar-sachedina-ctv-news-message-174042974.html

Better use your own brain Omar instead of reading off that script in front of you.

Hell, a TomBCruise look-alike shorty from Degrassi High can replace you any day by your lovable C-Suite boss over at Bell.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

It looks like Lisa has a new job. Kind of expected given the circumstances, especially considering that CityNews is owned by Rogers. Lisa LaFlamme to join CityNews as lead correspondent following Queen's death


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Bone-headed C-suite morons at Bell couldn't see a truck running over them even they tried. Tells you how ept they are. 

I wonder how much shareholders are paying for that third "internal workplace" review of a continuous round of axx-kissings in the upper echelons?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> It looks like Lisa has a new job. Kind of expected given the circumstances, especially considering that CityNews is owned by Rogers. Lisa LaFlamme to join CityNews as lead correspondent following Queen's death


 ... Lisa having been made "special correspondent" to cover the Queen's death news will likely have to travel to the UK for that. 

Meanwhile Omar gets to cover that news .... from WFH using Zoom.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Beaver101 said:


> ... Lisa having been made "special correspondent" to cover the Queen's death news will likely have to travel to the UK for that.
> 
> Meanwhile Omar gets to cover that news .... from WFH using Zoom.


Except if Lisa was still with CTV, she wouldn't have been able to go, since I don't see the anchors actually going on-site. But the other consideration is whether CTV would have sent anyone to the UK considering that one of the issues was that she fought to get a correspondent on the ground for the Jubilee.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

bgc_fan said:


> Except if Lisa was still with CTV, she wouldn't have been able to go, since I don't see the anchors actually going on-site. But the other consideration is whether CTV would have sent anyone to the UK considering that one of the issues was that she fought to get a correspondent on the ground for the Jubilee.


 ... like I said, Omar can go one step further to save those nickels for the C-suite's annual bonuses .... by corresponding from (his) home using Zoom with borrowed coverage from another news outlet (maybe Lisa's? that would be funny!) and then reporting it as "live" some hours later. See, there's always a work-around for cheapies.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Opinion | Toxic leadership’s toughest foe is a strong corporate culture

Above article may or may not be paywalled (currently it isn't). 

This is the year 2022 and has anything changed on the subject? NO!!!!

Internal workplace reviews ... nothing but a waste of money or keep those "consultants" employed. I wonder if these firms get a discount for using these consultants?


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Beaver, sometimes you have to say, "What the flamme".


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Like WTF?!


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

It was a Tom Cruise quote. I was trying to keep it clean, Beav.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Well, well, well, look who's talking clean here: 

https://www.esquiremag.ph/culture/movies-and-tv/tom-cruise-shouts-at-prod-crew-a00304-20201216



> _You can listen the entire cuss-filled screaming show here.
> 
> ..._
> 
> * “If I see you do it again, you’re f**king gone. And if anyone in this crew does it, that’s it—and you too and you too. And you, don’t you ever fu**king do it again,” screamed Cruise.*


* ... *beautiful I say as it's most appropriately applied.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Former CP24 on air personality files human rights complaint against Bell Media

Another score for Bell Media - on discrimination and sexism in the workplace! Keep up the great work Bell C-Suite !!!!


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

After independent review in wake of Lisa LaFlamme’s ouster, CTV’s Michael Melling is out of news operations

Why is Michael Melling still employed by Bell Media? We all know he's one overzealous sap employed by Bell under the leadership of Bibic and his gang of saps-in-waiting.


----------



## TomB16 (Jun 8, 2014)

Michael Melling is still a VP at Bell Media. His authority domain has changed but he is not gone. He is able to continue his mode of operation on a different group of CTV staff.

I used to watch CTV News a lot and used their web site for news during my last few working years. I haven't been to the web site since the LaFlamme incident and regularly click "Don't recommend channel" on YouTube but, of course, Google has as much respect for people as Michael Melling so I continue to be spammed with video recommendations from CTV News.


----------



## Tostig (Nov 18, 2020)

TomB16 said:


> Michael Melling is still a VP at Bell Media. His authority domain has changed but he is not gone. He is able to continue his mode of operation on a different group of CTV staff.
> 
> I used to watch CTV News a lot and used their web site for news during my last few working years. I haven't been to the web site since the LaFlamme incident and regularly click "Don't recommend channel" on YouTube but, of course, Google has as much respect for people as Michael Melling so I continue to be spammed with video recommendations from CTV News.


I watch CTV noon news because it is between The View and The Social.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

TomB16 said:


> Michael Melling is still a VP at Bell Media. His authority domain has changed but he is not gone. He is able to continue his mode of operation on a different group of CTV staff.


 ... that's why Bibic as his boss needs to be called out as well as the head of their HR department. Which century are they living in? 



> used to watch CTV News a lot and used their web site for news during my last few working years. I haven't been to the web site since the LaFlamme incident and regularly click "Don't recommend channel" on YouTube but, of course, Google has as much respect for people as Michael Melling so I continue to be spammed with video recommendations from CTV News.


 ... haven't watched CTV news on the net and I hell ain't starting it now. Moreover, I can't even recall when I last watched it on television with Lisa LaFlamme and Lloyd Robertson on there. It doesn't mean others can't watch it if they so desire but does Bell, being a "Canadian telecom giant" have any "pride" so to speak particularly in treating their employees like sh1t in the 21st century. Bibic and the gang, are you listening?


----------



## Jericho (Dec 23, 2011)

People still watch CTV news?


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Not sure who you're asking with your question.


----------

