Wobblies defend driver sacked for swearing - press release

[Voley]

I don't think anyone is arguing that swearing at someone in a work place or referring to their weigh is ok. Of course it's not, it's totally out of order, especially the second bit.

But he has apologised and accepted that this was wrong. The point is that they've sacked him for it, which given the precedents in that workplace can't be right.

Agreed. That's a better way of expressing it than I managed.

 

[audiotech]

I don't think anyone is arguing that swearing at someone in a work place or referring to their weigh is ok.

Swearing at someone at work goes on all the time. Ever worked on a building site?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Swearing at someone at work goes on all the time. Ever worked on a building site?

Yeah I have. And also everyone swears at my work, but that's not what we're talking about. There's a difference between swearing generally and swearing at someone. If someone I worked with started swearing at someone else in an abusive way I would tell them to leave it out.

Also a lot of it depends on context, if some bloke in my work starting calling a woman a fat fucker I think that would be bang out of order, but if someone just said fuck off you tosser in a jokey way I wouldn't think anything of it.

But definately not a sacking offence! He has apologised and said he regrets it, what more do they want? To be honest the fact that they're going for "gross misconduct" shows that this is a total and utter set up.

The person in question has a long history of trade unionism and standing up for workers rights, it's a scandal that he's being treated that way.

 

[audiotech]

Yeah I have. And also everyone swears at my work, but that's not what we're talking about. There's a difference between swearing generally and swearing at someone. If someone I worked with started swearing at someone else in an abusive way I would tell them to leave it out.

Also a lot of it depends on context, if some bloke in my work starting calling a woman a fat fucker I think that would be bang out of order, but if someone just said fuck off you tosser in a jokey way I wouldn't think anything of it.

But definately not a sacking offence!

Fine.

 

[butchersapron]

The person in question has a long history of trade unionism and standing up for workers rights, it's a scandal that he's being treated that way.

Are you suggesting that this was a poltically motivated sacking (i'll not say anything about which 'forces' were complicit in it). In this day and age?!!

 

[cockneyrebel]

Are you suggesting that this was a poltically motivated sacking (i'll not say anything about which 'forces' were complicit in it). In this day and age?!!

From what I know about the background then yeah I would.

 

[SaturdayService]

Does anyone know why he's not being represented by ASLEF or the RMT?

 

[Red Leicester]

Does anyone know why he's not being represented by ASLEF or the RMT?

Because he's being represented by the IWW. ASLEF and the RMT aren't the only unions to organise on the railways, you know.

However, the full reason for his choice will become apparent at the Employment Tribunal.

 

[Haller]

From what I know about the background then yeah I would.

That's certainly what it sounds like.

 

[Haller]

the Employment Tribunal.

Any idea when?

 

[Red Leicester]

Any idea when?

Don't have a date yet.

 

[HarrisonSlade]

Roll your eyes all you like, but failure to deal with aggression in the workplace could lead to legal action by the person on the receiving end. If that was a manager abusing a member of staff you'd be squealing like a stuck pig, and probably rolling your eyes.

Was that a manager abusing a member of staff though. hmmmm/ I think not, tory boy.

 

[Red Leicester]

The Bristol Blogger is being more careful about what gets published (see fourth comment) than the Morning Star.

Sadly, the Stalinist School of Falsification lives on!

 

[Red Leicester]

And the Bristol Evening Post hasn't felt the need to lie about the case.

Shame about (and on) the Morning Star.

 

[oneflewover]

Does anyone know why he's not being represented by ASLEF or the RMT?

Only a guess mind, I doubt that ASLEF or RMT would defend him for calling a fellow driver a fat whatever, and i.m.h.o. correctly so.

The company involved is not an issue, as bad as they maybe.

If the tribunal rules in the sacked drivers favour and gets re-instated and the company was found to have carried out it's procedures correctly, what sort of message will that send to all the workplace bullies? Open house?

If however the company is found to have carried out it's disciplinary procedures incorrectly them yes the Driver should be reinstated.

 

[Haller]

what sort of message will that send to all the workplace bullies? Open house?

I don't know the details of the case, but I've known the guy concerned for over twenty years. And the word 'bully' really isn't appropriate.

 

[cockneyrebel]

I don't know the details of the case, but I've known the guy concerned for over twenty years. And the word 'bully' really isn't appropriate.

Totally agree.

 

[oneflewover]

Anybody who uses the sort of name calling he has admitted using in a workplace situation would be classed as what then?

 

[the button]

Shame about (and on) the Morning Star.

The Morning Star's always going to line up behind the bureacracy, right or wrong. They have the CPB's strategy to think of, after all.

 

[Red Leicester]

Anybody who uses the sort of name calling he has admitted using in a workplace situation would be classed as what then?

Although the company has a "bullying and harassment" policy Pat wasn't charged with either of those things.

He was sacked for swearing at a colleague.

No-one is suggesting that such behaviour is OK and Pat has apologised.

What the company will have to prove is that Pat's behaviour amounted to "gross misconduct" and that he is being treated in exactly the same manner as every other person in that workplace.

 

[Mation]

I don't know the details of the case, but I've known the guy concerned for over twenty years. And the word 'bully' really isn't appropriate.

Ditto.

 

[newbie]

The Morning Star's always going to line up behind the bureacracy, right or wrong. They have the CPB's strategy to think of, after all.

it's supposed to be a newspaper of course it has a political agenda, they all have, but that's no excuse for such sloppy journalism.

They printed an uncorroborated statement but immediately retracted when given another side of the story, which they faithfully printed despite it also being apparently uncorroborated as well as entirely unattributed. Throwing legal caution to the winds they've taken sides by describing an anonymous someone as a 'victim', prejudging all the evidence.

They owe apologies all round but I don't suppose they'll give any.

 

[Red Leicester]

The Morning Star's always going to line up behind the bureacracy, right or wrong. They have the CPB's strategy to think of, after all.

One of the things this case is going to expose is how union bureaucrats work hand in glove with the bosses.

 

[Red Leicester]

Driver sacked for swearing takes Morning Star to PCC - IWW Press Release

Driver sacked for swearing takes Morning Star to PCC - IWW Press Release


Bristol train driver, Patrick Spackman, sacked for swearing by First Great Western, has referred the Morning Star to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC).

On 6 June the Morning Star, self-styled "daily paper of the left", reported Mr Spackman's sacking for swearing, which the company claimed had been "threatening."

However, two days later, the paper claimed that he had, in fact, been sacked for "violent harassment in the workplace against a respected senior lay union representative."

Mr Spackman responded: "This is completely untrue. I complained to the Morning Star but haven't even had the courtesy of an acknowledgment from them. So I've referred the matter to the PCC who now have a copy of my dismissal letter which clearly shows why I was sacked. I look forward to a public apology and retraction from the Morning Star."

Mr Spackman, who intends to take his dismissal to employment tribunal, is being represented by the Industrial Workers of the World, the union generally referred to as "the Wobblies."

A union spokesperson commented: "Someone seems to have set the Morning Star up here. But a bit of basic checking would have avoided the problem. Needless to say, the 'union representative' referred to by the Morning Star is not a member of the IWW".

 

[Red Leicester]

From Monday's Morning Star:

The Lib Dems brushed aside their left-wing opponents to lift the Morning Star five-a-side football tournament for the second year running....

Perhaps the Morning Starlinists have been too busy playing footy with the Lib Dems to check the accuracy of their stories!

 

[wobbly]

Anyone sick of the sell-out-merchant union bureaucrats might like to consider joining the Wobblies.

 

[butchersapron]

Might be a few RMT out before too long...

 

[Serge Forward]

Anyone sick of the sell-out-merchant union bureaucrats might like to consider joining the Wobblies.

Well I have to say, the IWW is doing a brilliant job of building a rank and file union from scratch in this country. It's doing a fair bit of organising around retail, education and health workers at the minute. Sure, it's early days, but in due course, I think we'll be a real force to be reckoned with.

 

[Red Leicester]

Looks like FGW are on to a loser:

A recent case where an employee was sacked for swearing in the workplace questions how foul or abusive language should be dealt with by employers.

Bristol train driver, Patrick Spackman was sacked for swearing at one of his colleagues. His managers considered this as gross misconduct.

Bryani Cuthbertson, HR Associate at Workplace Law Group Ltd says that the use of abusive or foul language in the workplace should not fall under gross misconduct but should be dealt with informally. Employers should sit down and have a conversation with the employee concerned and explain to them what the company norm is. If the employee continues to use what the company considers unacceptable behaviour, then formal action such as verbal warnings can be issued......

- can be viewed here.

 

[Red Leicester]

Well, well, well.

Although 98% of UK publications are covered by the Press Complaints Commission, the Morning Star isn't one of them.

Perhaps the Morning Starlinists object to the first clause of the PCC Code of Practice which states: "The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information..."

So, they can get on with their job of printing lies on behalf of bureaucrats - safe in the knowledge that most workers will be unable to seek redress.

Shame.