TBURGESS

That's because I'm not arguing that the women don't have a right to complain. I'm arguing that equality & equity is getting the same results as men who complain. I'd like to think they'd take the fine as the cost of getting their point across. It certainly wouldn't increase the gap. I have absolutely no problem with women in pro sports. Never had. You really need to define what you think privileged means to you. What's 'simply incorrect' changes over time. Most folks were on the wrong side of the slavery argument. It wasn't until 1980 that workplace sexual harassment became a form of discrimination. Before that women were the ones who were on the wrong side of that argument. Instead of blocking or firing people with differing opinions, we need to let them talk, think about what they have to say and each decide for ourselves if they are right or wrong.

Equity is trying for equality of results. We aren't talking about equality of results here. Example: Giving poor schools more resources because they need more resources to achieve the same results as richer schools is equitable. Giving both schools the same is equality. I honestly think some people around here are simply parroting what they have been taught without actually thinking about it. I don't think either should be finable offences, but equality and equity would say they should.

Can you tell me how equity is in play in this conversation. Two people complain about something the CFL does. One gets a fine. The other doesn't. Is this equal? Nope. Equitable? How?

No wonder you hold your opinion, you don't know the difference between Equality and Equity. WHAT IS EQUITY? The term “equity” refers to fairness and justice and is distinguished from equality: Whereas equality means providing the same to all, equity means recognizing that we do not all start from the same place and must acknowledge and make adjustments to imbalances. The process is ongoing, requiring us to identify and overcome intentional and unintentional barriers arising from bias or systemic structures. It's obvious how equality doesn't apply. Can you explain how equity applies to this conversation?

Then stop calling it equality.

It could have been a couple of years ago. He could be completely honest. See how this isn't an actual argument?

I’ve been in this league for a long time and I got fined for saying something about the schedule one year. - Jim Barker If that's a finable offence...

After re-reading it, I agree with your analysis. It would have been He promised. The pertinent statement is: "As I and many female staff members across the league have communicated to Randy Ambrosie, the handling of this extremely serious situation has been a complete and utter failure from top to bottom." Barker states that he got fined for complaining about a league policy in the past, therefore the same should hold true for people complaining about the failure of a league policy in the present OR neither should be finable (My take). The denotation of Equality mean everyone gets the same rights. The Canadian connotation is that special groups or communities get special rights. You need to know a person's age, race, religion, and/or sex, sexual orientation, to understand which rights they have or don't have. Quite frankly, if all the groups got together and helped each other, we'd be way closer to true equality. 17.. I'm not saying equality is unfair. I'm saying it's not equal. wbb.. If Barker gets fired or fined for voicing his opinion, then that would prove my point that equality isn't equal.

The bolded part is clear. The you in the statement is Randy Ambrosie, IE the league. Privilege? What privilege?

Marcoux went on to say how she and female staff members across the league have advised CFL commissioner Randy Ambrosie the handling of this “extremely serious situation has been a complete and utter failure from top to bottom.” “You promised to go above and beyond the league recommendations,” she posted. “Yet at the first opportunity to do so, you did the complete opposite. You have only managed to downplay a serious situation and make women across the league feel unvalued, disrespected and unsupported. Do better.”

I see that you're one of the 'special groups need to be protected' = equality guys.

Barker's right. If you want equality, you have to treat everyone the same. Of course what we like to call equality is actually 'special' groups who we need to 'protect'.

Looking at the top paid players by position, we've got the most expensive QB & RB as well as 3 of the top 4 most expensive receivers. I doubt that leaves much room for a vet returner.

I also said it when the story first broke months ago.

That's a False Equivalence. Asking why anyone would stay where they are being harassed isn't equal to suggesting that the employee change rather than the organization rectify the issue. Nor is it suggesting that the harassment didn't take place for that matter. Why stay? Is a $25K a year job is their dream job? Do they think they can move ahead in that job? Is it the only job they could get? None of that's likely. So, what's in it for them to want to stay? Should the organization do something to rectify the situation? Absolutely. You're gonna hate it, but not renewing her contract is what they chose to do. If they renewed the contract knowing about the harassment, they'd be saying the harassment is OK, which it obviously isn't. I'm sure they thought that was the end of it. They should have reported it to the league as soon as it was reported to management. They should have sent Kelly for sensitivity training right away and told him he wouldn't get a new contract until he completed it. I'm sure the league would have backed that position & not let Kelly sign with anyone until the training was complete. I think she has a good case for harassment, but not a case for wrongful dismissal because she wasn't dismissed, her contract ran out and a new one wasn't offered. That's part of working on a contract basis instead of being a full employee. If the company doesn't want you anymore for any reason or no reason at all, they don't have to offer you a new contract. If she quit because of the harassment, then she would have a case for constructive dismissal, but that's not what happened nor is it what she is complaining about. She's complaining that she wasn't offered a new contract, which pretty much negates the constructive dismissal argument.

Talk about gaslighting. No one is saying she should change or that it's her fault.

Why does anyone expect the victim to want to stay?

Milt's 54. He's doing this as a TSN stunt. Might be fun to watch tho.

Chad Kelly denies sexual overtures towards former Argos strength and conditioning coach in statement of defence Kelly's side of the story.

A job you hate isn't the same as being harassed at your job. If you want to say the reason you left is harassment, you have to actually leave. Claiming it after they don't offer you another contract weakens your case significantly.

I didn't say boys will be boys, nor do I think it. I'm saying it's hard to bring a lawsuit when you've put up with the same behavior for 2 years & when you'd sign up to keep taking the same behavior again. That makes the whole suit about not being offered another contract, instead of what it should be about... workplace harassment. A truly horrible take is the behavior is OK as long as I get paid.

You've talked to her so you know what she's feeling? Note todays article: https://3downnation.com/2024/03/01/toronto-argos-qb-chad-kelly-denies-harassment-allegations-seeks-dismissal/ She's claiming harassment for 2 seasons. I guess the 2022 harassment wasn't enough to make her quit & the 2023 harassment wasn't enough to make her quit. (Possible Constructive Dismissals) Not getting a 2024 contract offer makes the 2022 and 2023 seasons harassment bad enough to sue. The numbers have changed since the first report and they added the claim of breaching the CFL's violence against women policy. She now wants $345K for not offering a $25K contract.

Please go ahead and explain it. Which of these do you think applies? She didn't quit with cause or fail to comply with a contract. The company didn't change the terms of employment or force her to quit. If they had offered her a contract and she turned it down because of the situation, then she'd have a constructive dismissal situation, but that's not what happened. She's complaining that they didn't offer her a new contract. Why would she complain if the situation made her work environment untenable anyway? If they offered and she accepted, then she'd be accepting Kelly's behavior.

I'm not minimizing anything, nor did I didn't say it is acceptable to me. This comment proves what I'm actually saying. You've already decided guilt based on only one side of the story. You assume that anyone who wants to know the other side of the story is a horrible human being who thinks sexual harassment is OK. Par for the course. Have an opinion based on part the information and then attack those who question your opinion. Assuming that the contract has an end date that has passed, then the team doesn't have to renew it even if they have renewed it multiple times before. That's one difference between contract workers and employees. Lets take Bailey as an example. Multiple contracts. Didn't do anything wrong. Bombers decided not to pick him up this year. No harm. No foul.

It's not wrongful dismissal. They didn't dismiss her, they simply didn't pick up her next contract. Corroboration of at least the bus part of the complaint should be easy, but we don't even have that yet, but assuming the story is true, and we only have her side of it, it's workplace harassment & likely uttering threats. People need to stop throwing around terms like 'Sexual Predator'. It weakens the term so much as to be useless. Asking a girl out, even multiple times, and complaining that she was going out with someone else on a bus doesn't rise to the level of Sexual Predator. Everyone jumping on the bandwagon to 'protect' her after only hearing her side of the story is exactly why they went to the media in the first place. Kelly & Murphy have already been convicted in the court of public opinion. The Argos can't attack her or the story without coming off as evil. IMO that's why we won't see anything in the press from there side.