To begin with, Bambi would like to thank her friend Gabi for attracting her attention to a National Post article about an absurd union-related story from out of Québec, Canada. This article, by Mr. Jacob Serebrin, is entitled “Truck driver who drank nine beers before crash had alcoholism disability and must be rehired: arbitrator” (https://t.ly/3Ccpx).
The current post addresses the same surreal topic. Indeed, thanks to Mr. Richard Martineau who, with his usual accuracy and sarcasm, nailed the analysis of this worrisome story for individual responsibility that could endanger the public safety.
Clearly in Bambi’s mind, Martineau’s column, which was published yesterday in the Journal de Montréal (https://t.ly/e91lh), is of high importance, like the National Post piece. This is why she decided to translate it for you. She did it with gratitude for her friend’s prompt assistance. Of course, she is talking about the tireless, Mr. Google Translate.
After reading Mr. Martineau’s article below, what will be your thoughts? Please feel free to share any comment to generate an enriching, and hopefully useful, public discussion.
—
“Another unreasonable accommodation
A truck driver drives a drunk 18-wheeler? It’s his employer’s fault!
Yesterday, I was talking about the rigidity of the system.
Its lack of flexibility.
Stupid logic that says “the rules are the rules”.
Well, unions suffer from the same disease.
They apply their regulations to the letter, without any discernment.
“Regulation 2.01-5B says that? So that’s what we’re going to apply!”
It’s very simple, robots would be more circumspect!
JUDGMENT WITHOUT JUDGMENT
The day before yesterday, La Presse published a story about a Québec truck driver who – hic! – got caught driving – hic! – its heavyweight with – hic! – 12 beers in the body.
Of course, her employer fired her. But the truck driver and her union filed a complaint with the arbitration tribunal… which ruled in their favour!
Believe it or not, but the referee in question ruled that given that alcoholism – hic! – is an illness, the employer should have “accommodated” the driver by installing a breathalyzer in her vehicle!!!!
“This is a great victory for workers and disabled workers in particular. We are very happy with the decision, given that it is a striking example of employers’ duty to accommodate, ”said his lawyer, Mr. Dominique Goudreault. “This is a situation where the employer had not taken its responsibilities.”
You read that right: it’s not the lady who didn’t take responsibility by driving dead drunk, no.
It is rather her employer!!!!
Who failed to accommodate its “disabled” employee!!!
Insane.
Anybody with an intelligence quotient, which is above the intelligence level of gravel (or a little stone) reads that and says, “Are you kidding me, for Christ’s sake?”
PRIVATE CLUBS
So folks, if you get caught by the police while driving with enough alcohol in your body to blow up a hot air balloon, tell the cop you’re “disabled”, you have “a serious illness” and that you are not responsible for what happens to you!
And after that, the unions say they have the well-being of the people at heart, unlike the bad bosses!!!!
Are you serious?
All you care about is protecting YOUR members who bring you money!
You operate like a private club.
Let me go with the “people”! You don’t give a damn about the “people”! The latter can get hit by an 18-wheeler driven by a woman filled to the brim with beer. Yes, the “people”!
It doesn’t give you a crease in the navel.
Unions that think like that are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem.
This is why it is so difficult to change things in Québec.
Because we are struggling with bureaucrats, civil servants, corporations and unions who DO NOT WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING!
And who only think of themselves!
The machine I was talking about yesterday has one and only goal: to protect itself.
POOR AGGRESSORS!
And after that, one wonders why citizens are so cynical and suspicious of authority figures.
Duh!
Soon, if this continues, employers will have to “accommodate” their employees who grab the buttocks of their clients under the pretext that these “poor wretches” suffer from a “serious illness” that they cannot control!“
We can, however, be virtually certain that she was fully vaccinated, because her union would have likely let the employer suspend her for *that*, and the tribunals would also have found it acceptable.
Drunk driving, on the other hand?
That deserves the full might of the union behind her.
Quebec has long been a pro-alcohol province. It was the only province opposed to prohibition in National Referendum on Prohibition (September 29, 1898) which was never repealed.
http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/stats/prohibit.htm
Another referendum in 1919 allowed alcohol sales and led to its being available in corner stores, which has shaped much of modern Quebec’s society being different from that of the remainder of Canada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_Quebec_prohibition_referendum
Indeed, when I lived in Hullabaloo (Kebekistan), there was a case reported in the news of an 18 year-old girl who was killed by a drunk driver while walking home at night from her job at a health food restaurant. Le Droit newspaper reported that at his trial, the drunk’s lawyer told the court “my client has been arrested for drunk driving eight times but this is just the first time he’s killed anybody.” Indeed, the judge bought the mitigating plea and the driver got off with a slap on the wrist.
Thank you, Fred, for sharing this story (may this girl’s memory be eternal). You are making Bambi think of another FREAKY story of unreasonable accommodation. It happened when Bambi was still living there too, maybe in 1994 when
“Judge Raymonde Verreault concluded that a man of Algerian origin, guilty of sexual assault on a minor, had protected his victim by contenting himself with sodomizing her, thus preserving her virginity for the future husband”.
https://www.ledevoir.com/opinion/idees/274840/les-accommodements-deraisonnables?
Does Bambi remember the case of the rapist in Montreal who pled “cultural differences” at his trial bcz he claimed rape is part of the culture in Haiti, ergo he should have been allowed to rape in Canada?
Thank you, Fred for the question. Wow. Not really (maybe because it is getting late and her brain is half asleep now?). Thankfully, Le Devoir French article (link she provided earlier) may have refreshed her memory by citing either this case, or at least, another one in the same spirit of those unreasonable requests or accommodations.
Here Bambi, I found it and it’s as offensive as I remember:
https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2012/01/26/cest-dans-leur-culture
Bambi is eager to read it now. Thank you, Fred.