Westjet cover up: Alleged sexual assaults by pilot

[oldncold]

May I suggest you fine gentleman read my post page 12 of this thread, there is sage advice given to me many moons ago,it still is applicable now

[43S/172E]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3488721

Now that WestJet has hired Ernst Young to audit WestJet vis a vis the ahem "alleged sexual harassment allegations".

This is not against the employees at WestJet but the ineptitude of senior management at WestJet not to vigorously investigate the sexual harassment allegations from 2010 on.

This really defines Epic Failure and I trust after this audit safeguards will be in place to protect all employees.

[Longtimer]

To be fair, I think it was a matter of not seeing the trees for the forest. Over the years, WestJet became almost a "Cult Family" rather than a simple business. That was great when the employee numbers were low but once they grew, so did any problems. Their hiring of an outside firm to look into the culture should be seen as a positive step. Good for them!!

[complexintentions]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.3488721

Now that WestJet has hired Ernst Young to audit WestJet vis a vis the ahem "alleged sexual harassment allegations".

This is not against the employees at WestJet but the ineptitude of senior management at WestJet not to vigorously investigate the sexual harassment allegations from 2010 on.

This really defines Epic Failure and I trust after this audit safeguards will be in place to protect all employees.

The best "safeguard" against being assaulted - whether male or female as either the assailant or victim - is to exercise some prudent judgement. But you cannot legislate good judgement, no matter how many earnest attempts you make, since judgement is formed from experience, not "policies". The answer isn't to try and protect everyone from themselves. You can make whatever rules you want, and people will still place themselves in risky situations. As I said earlier, all more regulations do beyond a certain point is make life more difficult and dreary for the 99% of folks who behave reasonably. Isn't anyone in Canada tired of having absolutely everything dumbed down to the lowest common denominator?

And again, the assertions of "ineptitude" without allowing the process of investigation to even begin, let alone complete. Let's see what the audit produces, hmm?

[photofly]

I think photofly is just jealous because he never got to party with WestJet FA's and works somewhere really boring.

If this attitude towards Westjet staff occurs with any kind of frequency within the company, E&Y are going to be there a long, long time. Mr. Saretsky should be praying that WestJet can become the most boring company in the world as quickly as possible to protect his company's bank balance; otherwise he can start writing the $$$ compensation cheques, and not stop until it's time to turn the lights out and lock the doors.

[complexintentions]

If this attitude towards Westjet staff occurs with any kind of frequency within the company, E&Y are going to be there a long, long time.

Uhhh...no. Actually my statement was directed at you photofly, not WestJet staff. I don't work for WestJet either, but I'm fairly certain they don't socialize/hook up/slam-click any more or less than other airlines. Meeting up to socialize with your colleagues isn't exactly unusual, nor is it limited to people who work for an airline.

Do you even work in the airline industry? You seem baffled by the idea of grown consenting adults spending time together, and almost hoping that this particular situation will cause the demise of WestJet ("and not stop until it's time to turn the lights out and lock the doors").

I wondered why, and was just speculating that perhaps it was because you've never enjoyed a really good room party.

[photofly]

I realize that your statement was addressed at me. Unfortunately, regardless of how great room parties can be (or perhaps because of how great they can be) a company in which they are encouraged explicitly or implicitly by management has extra hurdles to clear to demonstrate that it protects its staff. If it doesnt, the compensation money is going to flow.

The law takes a boring fuddy-duddy old fashioned no-sense of-humour view of what an employer needs to provide its employees. There are no exemptions for airlines just because they're airlines. The behaviour of employees will get judged by and compared to all the "boring" companies - banks, retail, accountancy practices and the other places with 20,000 employees you wouldn't like to work. You won't get far with "If Your Honour had ever been to a good room party you'd understand". Whether I've enjoyed a really good room party or not is irrelevant. His Honour hasn't, and it wouldn't make any difference if he had.

Look up online the headaches caused to employers by Christmas parties - official and unofficial. They're an HR nightmare - and they only happen annually.

[complexintentions]

No one has ever said WestJet has encouraged anything remotely illegal. There have been zero legal findings that they have been less than protective of their employees. That is your own editorializing. Encouraging employees to work together and build camaraderie is not negligent in any way. If employees go too far, of course it has to be addressed. Duh. Do you honestly think WestJet has no policy on harassment in the workplace?

The law also takes a dim view of people disseminating factually untruthful statements, particularly in print. Since you seem like an extremely cautious, humourless person, I would like to do you the favour of suggesting prudence in your unsubstantiated claims of WestJet management encouraging activities you have zero ability to prove. Anecdotes are not fact.

And I note your avoidance of the question regarding your personal experience, or lack of, in airline operations, and the social interactions that take place during layovers. While my question was meant to be lighthearted, I will take that as a "no".

[photofly]

No one has ever said WestJet has encouraged anything remotely illegal. There have been zero legal findings that they have been less than protective of their employees.

Agreed, but that's the charge they have to counter. I'm pointing out they may have a higher bar to clear because of the image they promote. You're free to disagree.

Encouraging employees to work together and build camaraderie is not negligent in any way.

Indeed not. It's good business practice and a great marketing point. But that encouragement has to be accompanied by a realistic view of what else might be encouraged at the same time, and whether the airline has any extra duties to protect its staff because of that.

you seem like an extremely cautious, humourless person,

It's the job of HR departments to be cautious and humourless. Lack of caution and attempts at humour, go down badly in employment law cases. If you (anyone) thinks that a company should try to "funny" it's way through a harassment and assault case, I'd suggest that's bad advice. Outside of this thread, well you can judge my sense of humour and caution elsewhere.

And I note your avoidance of the question regarding your personal experience, or lack of, in airline operations, and the social interactions that go on during layovers. While my question was meant to be lighthearted, I will take that as a "no".

I'm not avoiding anything; I've said (this is the third time) I don't work for an airline. Never have, never will, don't want to. But I do know enough HR lawyers.

[Rockie]

Private activity, while it might offend individual rights, can either be regulated by government or made subject to human rights commissions and other bodies created to protect these rights.

I believe that's what I said here:

Companies and individuals must comply with human rights laws, which themselves must reflect the values of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You're quite right that the Charter only applies to governments or entities acting for the government, and human rights laws deal primarily with discrimination which doesn't seem to apply here because none of the identified groups is separately targeted by such an archaic idea as limiting who people can associate with. I'd love to see a company try though regardless.

I'm pointing out they may have a higher bar to clear because of the image they promote.

What image are you referring to and how specifically are they promoting it? I also wasn't aware there were two sets of harassment laws, one for airlines and another for everybody else. As far as I know the bar is the same height for everyone.

How are you making out finding a company that controls how many people can be alone in a hotel room?

[photofly]

The bar is absolutely not the same for all companies. The bar to reach for protecting your staff depends on the risk to which they are subject. As I said before, 20,000 staff all working alone - not so much risk. However, here's what Ms Lewis has to say about the airline's culture:

image.jpeg (104.14 KiB) Viewed 2516 times

I concede that is only her story, and is written purely to support her claims. But if she can make that charge stick, it seems clear cut to me that the company needs to do more than most others to meet the requirement of providing a safe workplace.

[Rockie]

Private activity, while it might offend individual rights, can either be regulated by government or made subject to human rights commissions and other bodies created to protect these rights.

I believe that's what I said here:

Companies and individuals must comply with human rights laws, which themselves must reflect the values of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You're quite right that the Charter only applies to governments or entities acting for the government, and human rights laws deal primarily with discrimination which doesn't seem to apply here because none of the identified groups is separately targeted by such an archaic idea as limiting who people can associate with. I'd love to see a company try though regardless.

I'm pointing out they may have a higher bar to clear because of the image they promote.

What image are you referring to and how specifically are they promoting it? I also wasn't aware there were two sets of harassment laws, one for airlines and another for everybody else. As far as I know the bar is the same height for everyone. Regarding your idea for hotel rooms, although the company pays for it and makes it available to me in compliance with the CAR's, they do not control it. My name is on the register, not theirs. They do not control who can and cannot go in it, only I can do that.

How are you making out finding a company that controls how many people can be alone in a hotel room?

[Rockie]

The bar is absolutely not the same for all companies. The bar to reach for protecting your staff depends on the risk to which they are subject. As I said before, 20,000 staff all working alone - not so much risk. However, here's what Ms Lewis has to say about the airline's culture:

image.jpeg

I concede that is only her story, and is written purely to support her claims. But if she can make that charge stick, it seems clear cut to me that the company needs to do more than most others to meet the requirement of providing a safe workplace.

Risk might determine the effort a company must exert to reach the bar, but the bar's height is the same. No harassment.

I added the following to the previous post but big thumbs and small buttons messed it up:

Regarding your idea for hotel rooms, although the company pays for it and makes it available to me in compliance with the CAR's, they do not control it. My name is on the register, not theirs. They do not control who can and cannot go in it, only I can do that.

[photofly]

I think that's just semantics you're arguing now. The law clearly expects a company's policy to be written to match the level and circumstances of the risk its employees face. The anti-harassment policy for a company whose employees work entirely alone would be inadequate for Westjet. That cannot be a controversial idea to you.

Let's indulge ourselves. Let's assume Ms. Lewis's claim on that point has even a tiny spark of merit. If the company is formally "encouraging" socializing on layovers, under a policy the company has garnished with a special name, it should have the good sense to recognize the extra risk of unwanted sexual attention resulting from the behaviour it endorses. It might have been wise to have adapted it's anti-harassment policy to suit. And, if it hasn't already, it might want to start now.

Why don't you join in the fun and brainstorm some ways that it would be sensible that WestJet's anti-harassment policy should differ from that of, say, another airline that doesn't encourage socializing on layovers under a "One Crew" concept?

We can have a competition, and see who gets closest to what, if anything, E&Y suggest.

[Rockie]

You'll have to show where anti-harassment laws are different for companies with a different level of risk. The bar is set at "no harassment". Show me where it's different for Westjet compared to a cab company with two cars.

What are your thoughts regarding what I said about hotel rooms?

[photofly]

The law is the same; the policy the company must implement to satisfy a court that it is managing the risk - depends on the risk.

If you want some thoughts on why Westjet's policy and the anti-harassment policy of a cab company might differ, here 's what the HRC has to say:
http://www.ccdp-chrc.gc.ca/sites/defaul ... e_en_1.pdf

"No one policy can be applied to every workplace. Even within the same industry, and perhaps within the same organization, different workplaces will have different needs."

Do you think Westjet's policy should be different from, say, Air Canada? If so, how?

About hotel rooms: you're simply repeating the same thing. Saying something lots of times doesn't make it any more correct. If you want to know what I think about the point you keep repeating, you can scroll back in the thread and read it. When you make a new objection, I'll address it.

[Rockie]

So you agree that the effort a company must exert to reach the bar differs with the risk. Progress.

Regarding the hotels, I've never said that before so how could it be a repeat? The company makes a rest facility available to me because they are required to, not because they're nice guys. My name is on the register. Nobody else can come in the room if I don't want them to even if they paid for it. If I wanted to admit someone to my room and Calin Rovinescu showed up to prevent it, who do you think would win that argument when the police are called?

[photofly]

So you agree that the effort a company must exert to reach the bar differs with the risk. Progress.

well, that is what I've been saying, since page 1 of this thread. If you find progress in realizing that, so be it!

Regarding the hotels, I've never said that before so how could it be a repeat? The company makes a rest facility available to me because they are required to, not because they're nice guys. My name is on the register. Nobody else can come in the room if I don't want them to even if they paid for it. If I wanted to admit someone to my room and Calin Rovinescu showed up to prevent it, who do you think would win that argument when the police are called?

Oh the police will side with you, of course. But the next day, HR will ask you into the office, and explain that because you admitted someone into the room contrary to the company's anti harassment policy - which it requires you to uphold - you are terminated with cause.

Clearly you can let anyone into the room, it's not unlawful. But that doesn't mean if by doing so you violate a company policy there won't be consequences.

[Rockie]

How does admitting someone into my room violate anti-harassment policy? Maybe they're my niece or nephew. Maybe she's an FA that wishes to discuss and clarify an incident. Maybe she's a friend. Maybe she's my wife.

[Rockie]

I just read an article detailing Westjet's action in response to this incident (well, not the incident but the horrible beating their brand is taking). Honestly now I'm a little worried that their response will become an overzealous witch hunt snaring people who do not deserve it. I hope I'm wrong.