You think the bureaucracy is bad in the U.S.? This will make you shake your head.

If British Columbia sounds like the land that common sense forgot when it comes to human rights, there’s good reason. Many of the most ridiculous case studies discussed in this book originate in that province.

Take, for instance, the time the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal declared that a McDonald’s restaurant employee had the human right not to wash her hands, even when she worked in the kitchen, and instead should be accommodated by finding her another job in the organization where handwashing was not essential. In theory this makes sense; but in practice, McDonald’s, who ought to know, say that there aren’t any positions that don’t require handwashing.

Beena Datt was a McDonald’s employee who claimed she’d developed a skin condition that prevented her from washing her hands in compliance with McDonald’s hygiene policy. That’s the same hygiene policy that has helped turn McDonald’s into a fast-food market leader here in the West and an embassy for Westerners travelling overseas. When you’re in a Third World country and tired of eating in hygiene-challenged local restaurants, you can count on a Western standard of cleanliness at McDonald’s.

www2.macleans.ca...

MacDonald's tried to accomodate her but there were no positions that didn't require hand washing. They paid her for 2.5 years in an attempt to keep her. In the end there was nothing they could do. That's damn generous imo.

So what does Datt do after her paid 2 and a half year vacation? She sues MacDonalds AND WINS!!!! The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal(BCHRT) awarded her $50,000 stating that the employer had violated her "dignityn and self respect". Again.....

Damn ridiculous. Now here's the kicker:

What would happen if, heaven forbid, someone contracted a disease from McDonald’s food because of this insane order? Could the victim sue the restaurant for failing to live up to its legal public health requirements, even though McDonald’s wanted to do so? Could the BCHRT itself be sued? What if it wasn’t just one customer who got an upset stomach, but a dozen people dying from E. coli? And why do we have to play such a risky game in any case, when the science behind food hygiene is settled?

This is about as sad as it can get. :shk:

Thats kinda like you sueing your wife for a dinner she made you...AFTER YOU ATE IT AND ENJOYED IT!!!
The system is the biggest crackhead I have ever seen.

I think the whole human rights tribunal in Canada has become a farce, and should be dismantled.

I can't believe that they made such an idiotic decision.

reply to post by kommunist


For me the fact they gave Mahar Arar 10 million for his ordeal and gave David Milgaard 3 million is absolutely insane.
A good ole innocent Canadian boy compared to a guy who is from another country with suspected terrorist ties.
Makes no sense to me.Its actually pretty disgusting in my opinion.

reply to post by intrepid


That is mad!

I have a story from the UK that I think will make you chuckle.

Not quite in the OP's league but anyway:

When I moved here from NZ about 11 years ago I had to apply for a National Insurance Numbers, kind of like a SS number in the US.

So I made the appointment and waited for 3 hours in line. I had all the paperwork and everything, gave them in and answered a few questions. One of the questions was "Have you ever left the UK and returned, if yes please give details in the box below?"

Well I left the UK when I was 6, living in several countries in Asia, Africa and Australasia, travelling to and fro until the point of my moving back to the UK. So the answer was huge, and I needed a full piece of paper to get it all down.

Anyway I gave the nice woman my forms and went on my way, expecting to wait the 3-4 weeks for my card and number.

9 MONTHS! later I recieve a letter saying there's a problem with my application, so I go to my next appointment and am absolutely gobsmacked when told the problem was the extra information on the paper I handed in (which was given to me by the lady and taken by her) did not have a BOX around it, so was not VALID!

I almost fell off my chair, so I had to witness the new person draw a box around my writing, then I had to countersign it, then 6 months later I got my number!

Amazing!

Good ol' UK!

[edit on 5-6-2009 by kiwifoot]

reply to post by intrepid


This not only made me shake my head, it made me throw up a little bit...

Outrageous. It would be good to get the name of the judge out into the Internet. We already know the name of the "human rights" lawyer who took the case:

former divorce lawyer and left-wing lobbyist named Judy Parrack

People like this need to be held responsible for crimes against intelligence.



[edit on 5-6-2009 by Skyfloating]

Yah this is ridiculous. It's kind of like that time, that 4 cops, on video, all wearing kevlar vests, went in to apprehend a Polish dude who had been stuck in the airport for like 24 hours. Instead of using force of 4, they just tasered him 5 times for almost 30 seconds. Then he died.

What did the government do? Made it so that none of the officers could be charged, and instead held an "inquiry".

On video. All the evidence. No charges. RIDICULOUS.

And why couldn't she use the purell crap and just rub it on her hands? And if you can't wash your hands, which should be a REQUIREMENT for any food sector job regardless of position, then why take the damn job?

Wait a moment, if the employee can not wash her hands, then she can use gloves whenever she is to handle food.

Or that is also against her humanly rights to selfrespect.

The judge is lacking intelligent basic skills alright.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by marg6043]

reply to post by marg6043


I wish I could give you more than one star marg6043.

But I have a feeling that more will follow this one.

Gloves? I imagine a lawyer would be able to argue that in this insane venue.

Think about this. The precident has been set. Others can now opt out of hand washing in BC. What if one of those that does had contracted Swine Flu. I'm not buying into that hype but without hand washing wouldn't that give the bug more legs?

Well i see plenty of people leaping to conclusions so perhaps it should be added that she developed a skin condition of working at MacDonald's for 23 years; perhaps because of being forced to wash her hands with strong detergent ( if someone wants a research project )?

As i understand she got this 'reward' because MacDonald's used her disability to rob her of the benefits as well as trough lost wages when they refused to accommodate her skin condition ( From reading the document it looks to me like she did her best to keep washing her hands) by giving her one of the positions that would not require washing of hands and were within in prior experience range.

www2.canada.com...

And the the ruling document :

www.lancasterhouse.com...

Basically this looks to be a clear cut case of the 'law' siding with a victim who were discarded ( after almost 25 years) having worked loyally for a very long time. If only we could get Americans , and apparently some Canadians, to understand that 'rugged' individualism best serves to divide us, massively profiting corporations ( why pay her any benefits if you can get rid of her before retirement?), we would all be better off but here we are and forced to again watch the chest pounding defense of "survival of the fittest"( hand washers??) dogma.

Sad.

Stellar

Originally posted by Skyfloating

People like this need to be held responsible for crimes against intelligence.

Yes.

Can I help draft the legislation?



Just read your post stellarX - thanks for the info. ...necessary perspective and thanks for the kick in the butt. I really do know better than to jump to conclusions.

...Great line anyway, Skyfloating.



[edit on 5-6-2009 by soficrow]

reply to post by StellarX


Thanks GreyMagic, now Stellar, still rather than complain about her "condition" I still think that she could have been able to wear gloves to handle food whenever it was required.

I wonder if she was given this choice.

Still I have to agree with Intrepid, when you work in the food service you have to follow the company you work with sanitation regulations.

Now if the company was trying to get rid of her to rob her of her retirement rights after 25 years then the judge could have been able to use another way to get her rewarded for her loyalties, but getting a court rule that wasn't clear enough will open the door for any free loaders to do as they wish just to get a buck out of the company.



[edit on 5-6-2009 by marg6043]

Originally posted by intrepid

If British Columbia sounds like the land that common sense forgot when it comes to human rights, there’s good reason. Many of the most ridiculous case studies discussed in this book originate in that province.

What you miss, though, is how many employers put their employers through unsafe working conditions. These laws...though they can have some awful weird ramifications, are set in place to protect workers. I'll admit that some abuse the system, but it is in place due to employer excess.

The law says it isn't a firing offence to get sick, and if work makes you sick, you should be accommodated. Should you develop an allergy to aspects of your workplace, you'll be damn glad those policies are in place.

Like those asbestos workers that are dropping like flies...

They awarded that *%$#@ $50,000 of my taxes paid money that i sweat my %#@!s off for? Are you f'n kidding me? Enough is enough. I don't know the details of this case but I will bet any one the person is an immigrant from a country where the people are repressed. Give them an inch and they take a mile. My family immigrated here, I was born here and am very Canadian, so Canadian it may irritate some people and would never dream of doing someithing like that

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by StellarX

 

Thanks GreyMagic, now Stellar, still rather than complain about her "condition" I still think that she could have been able to wear gloves to handle food whenever it was required.

I wonder if she was given this choice.

Still I have to agree with Intrepid, when you work in the food service you have to follow the company you work with sanitation regulations.

Now if the company was trying to get rid of her to rob her of her retirement rights after 25 years then the judge could have been able to use another way to get her rewarded for her loyalties, but getting a court rule that wasn't clear enough will open the door for any free loaders to do as they wish just to get a buck out of the company.



[edit on 5-6-2009 by marg6043]

It is actually required to wear glove while handling food in a restaurant.

Why is she not wearing gloves in the first place?

Edit to add - not knowing the details of the case however i would bet the person has been working there for less than 2 years.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by habfan1968]

Originally posted by habfan1968

I don't know the details of this case but I will bet any one the person is an immigrant from a country where the people are repressed. Give them an inch and they take a mile.

Well, then...oughtn't you read the details before you start in on the racist stereotypes?. I'm sure your immigrant forebears didn't like them much.

It is actually required to wear glove while handling food in a restaurant.

Why is she not wearing gloves in the first place?

Read the Lancaster report of the Tribunal's decision...looks pretty straight up to me. I'm sure y'all would want to be treated fairly as well. Employer frustration...especially an outfit the size of McD's doesn't trump a worker's human rights. Looks to me as though she could have been accommodated.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

Wow I just read the article and I got some egg on my face there a little, ooops.

She has an allergy to some metals? How is hand washing aggravating that?
It took 23 years for this disorder to appear?
If someone works the cash at McD's they actually do not handle the food unpackaged so she could not do that job?

Seems to me this is a little trumped up to get some cash on the way out the door of her last job.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by habfan1968

I don't know the details of this case but I will bet any one the person is an immigrant from a country where the people are repressed. Give them an inch and they take a mile.

Well, then...oughtn't you read the details before you start in on the racist stereotypes?. I'm sure your immigrant forebears didn't like them much.

It is actually required to wear glove while handling food in a restaurant.

Why is she not wearing gloves in the first place?

Read the Lancaster report of the Tribunal's decision...looks pretty straight up to me. I'm sure y'all would want to be treated fairly as well. Employer frustration...especially an outfit the size of McD's doesn't trump a worker's human rights. Looks to me as though she could have been accommodated.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by JohnnyCanuck]

the article does not say why she was not wearing gloves, why?
You are right I should have read it first however I still think the inch / mile stereotype fits the bill, on top of that I dealt with racism daily growing up in predominantly white Canadian schools and learned how to deal with it, stood up when it was warranted and turned a cheek when it was not worth a fight, just like my parents did.