Ill Done By
We must no longer sit in judgement upon others. There but for the grace of the exercise of restraint and common sense, go we. Stick in there a bit of self-preservation and self-respect as well.
These are all notable and required elements in making free-will choices for ourselves. Those who succumb to the presumed attractions of drug and alcohol addictions are to be considered, perversely, victims. Victims of circumstances, errant values, poor choices and of course, victims of "addiction".
They are disabled by their addictions, and therefore not to be held responsible for their actions that may result in criminal offences, and very often do.
In the case of a former Toronto Transit Commission electrician and union-local president, add to that little roster the decision he made not to waste his own money of which he had ample, on the purchase of the drugs he craved, but that he would much prefer to steal thousands of dollars' worth of copper wire from his employer.
As the former head of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, local two, who represented the workplace well-being of 500 maintenance workers at the transit agency, he might seem to have been misplaced as a CUPE official, given his propensity toward drugs and his further decision regarding thievery.
His addiction was costly, about $1,000 monthly for cocaine,and $900 on sports-bets.
His addictions to drugs and gambling did not leave him penurious by any means. He owned a suburban house in Toronto with a swimming pool, and he also owned a 18-foot fishing boat. But he had no intention of beggaring himself by using his own earnings which were ample, to fund his addictions.
And because he was addicted, he was "disabled".
CUPE came to the defence of its union member. The union lawyer who handled the case defended the union's decision to oppose the transit authority's firing of a CUPE leader. Even though that leader was convicted of a criminal offence. "When someone's job is on the line, a union has to do what they can to ensure that every step is taken to protect that employee's interests.
"While some members of the public might not see it as a disability, it is fairly clear that the courts, human rights and labour adjudicators do see addiction as a disability." Hmm, clearly that is so. Human rights and labour adjudicators. It was this man's human right to make decisions injurious to his health, his longevity, his employer and his reputation.
Mike Santos's dismissal was upheld by an adjudicator who rejected CUPE's argument that the transit commission discriminated against their former employee based on his addiction 'disability'. The former union head testified that he had stolen copper cable from his employer on three occasions, worth thousands of dollars, resold to a recycling depot.
This union representative and trusted employee also pocketed his $320 boot allowance from the transit commission rather than use it for what it was meant for; designated footwear. He only sought addiction counselling once he had been informed he was under police investigation for wire theft.
TTC management reached the conclusion that the 'disabled' addict they employed who requested sick leave and addiction treatment represented a late effort on his part to appear remorseful and to forestall consequences of his thieving.
Isn't that just like management, unresponsive to the silent pleas of a worker who has been ill done by?
These are all notable and required elements in making free-will choices for ourselves. Those who succumb to the presumed attractions of drug and alcohol addictions are to be considered, perversely, victims. Victims of circumstances, errant values, poor choices and of course, victims of "addiction".
They are disabled by their addictions, and therefore not to be held responsible for their actions that may result in criminal offences, and very often do.
In the case of a former Toronto Transit Commission electrician and union-local president, add to that little roster the decision he made not to waste his own money of which he had ample, on the purchase of the drugs he craved, but that he would much prefer to steal thousands of dollars' worth of copper wire from his employer.
As the former head of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, local two, who represented the workplace well-being of 500 maintenance workers at the transit agency, he might seem to have been misplaced as a CUPE official, given his propensity toward drugs and his further decision regarding thievery.
His addiction was costly, about $1,000 monthly for cocaine,and $900 on sports-bets.
His addictions to drugs and gambling did not leave him penurious by any means. He owned a suburban house in Toronto with a swimming pool, and he also owned a 18-foot fishing boat. But he had no intention of beggaring himself by using his own earnings which were ample, to fund his addictions.
And because he was addicted, he was "disabled".
CUPE came to the defence of its union member. The union lawyer who handled the case defended the union's decision to oppose the transit authority's firing of a CUPE leader. Even though that leader was convicted of a criminal offence. "When someone's job is on the line, a union has to do what they can to ensure that every step is taken to protect that employee's interests.
"While some members of the public might not see it as a disability, it is fairly clear that the courts, human rights and labour adjudicators do see addiction as a disability." Hmm, clearly that is so. Human rights and labour adjudicators. It was this man's human right to make decisions injurious to his health, his longevity, his employer and his reputation.
Mike Santos's dismissal was upheld by an adjudicator who rejected CUPE's argument that the transit commission discriminated against their former employee based on his addiction 'disability'. The former union head testified that he had stolen copper cable from his employer on three occasions, worth thousands of dollars, resold to a recycling depot.
This union representative and trusted employee also pocketed his $320 boot allowance from the transit commission rather than use it for what it was meant for; designated footwear. He only sought addiction counselling once he had been informed he was under police investigation for wire theft.
TTC management reached the conclusion that the 'disabled' addict they employed who requested sick leave and addiction treatment represented a late effort on his part to appear remorseful and to forestall consequences of his thieving.
Isn't that just like management, unresponsive to the silent pleas of a worker who has been ill done by?
Labels: Health, Human Rights, Justice, Ontario
posted by Pieface | 9:29 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home