Jian Fired Over Personnal Life

[notyou2]

The CBC fired Jian on Sunday. He is now suing for 50 million.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/cbc-cuts-ties-with-jian-ghomeshi/article21308822/

Should your employer be involved in what you do in your bedroom?

Does it differ if you are a nationally recognized celebrity?

[denominator]

The CBC fired Jian on Sunday. He is now suing for 50 million.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/cbc-cuts-ties-with-jian-ghomeshi/article21308822/

Should your employer be involved in what you do in your bedroom?

Does it differ if you are a nationally recognized celebrity?

This is very similar to the Slava Voynov case, which I already discussed here, but will re-embed the relevant part of the quote:

On a different note, I'm curious what other hockey fans' thoughts are on the Slava Voynov suspension. Regardless of what actually happened and whether or not Voynov abused his girlfriend, I have two major issues with the NHL's immediate suspension:

1) It goes against the central tenet of our justice system, that a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. Voynov has already been punished by the league before anything has been proven as to whether or not a crime was committed.

2) The league should have no right to prosecute a player for off-ice incidents. Players are, in essence, employees of the NHL and an employer should have no right to say what an employee can or cannot do when they are not working and not on work property.

Obviously, the Voynov suspension is a direct result of the Ray Rice debacle. But suspending Voynov with pay effectively does nothing, and punishes the Kings organization more than it punishes the player. Voynov's contract still counts against the cap but they cannot use him, so they are effectively down a player and out $4million for something that Voynov is only alleged to have done.

I have the EXACT SAME issues with the Ghomeshi dismissal. I'm already using the term "innocent until proven guilty unless it's domestic abuse" because we, as a culture, seem to have decided that domestic abuse requires no evidence nor a trial to decide whether or not to prosecute a suspect. Regardless of the second issue (see below), nobody has the right to prosecute Ghomeshi on alleged charges, ever. For anything.

As for whether or not the CBC can fire Ghomeshi over this, that depends on his contract. From what I understand, many public personalities such as radio hosts have a morality clause buried in their contract, that basically is a broad brush allowing the employer to fire the employee for anything they deem "unbecoming behaviour". This is because, like Voynov for the Kings organization, Ray Rice for the Ravens, and both for the NHL and NFL respectively, Ghomeshi is representing the CBC at all times. This is a much grey-er area than the above guilty until proven innocent conundrum, but still bothers me. I feel that regardless of the occupation, whether the employee is a public figure or not, the employer should not have the right to punish or prosecute an employee for activities that occur outside of work hours and off work property. Obviously, not all share this view and this is not the way contracts are written, but it still bothers me that the CBC can now control Jian's sex life.

[Dukasaur]

The CBC fired Jian on Sunday. He is now suing for 50 million.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/cbc-cuts-ties-with-jian-ghomeshi/article21308822/

Should your employer be involved in what you do in your bedroom?

Not normally, no.

Does it differ if you are a nationally recognized celebrity?

Yes. If you're an entertainment personality, you are being paid not so much for what you do but for the mystique surrounding your (often fake) persona. If you do something to shatter the illusion, you are destroying your market value, and therefore destroying the very reason for keeping you on the payroll.

[notyou2]

I think you are wrong. I believe another network will pick him up that isn't involved in the bedrooms of it's employees. Jian will be bigger than ever and better off, but that still doesn't excuse what the CBC did.

This isn't 1950.

[Dukasaur]

I think you are wrong. I believe another network will pick him up that isn't involved in the bedrooms of it's employees. Jian will be bigger than ever and better off, but that still doesn't excuse what the CBC did.

This isn't 1950.

I have no idea who this dude is, and for all I know you're right that another network will pick him up, and maybe he'll make more money than ever before.

That doesn't change the fact that I'm right in principle: an entertainer isn't being paid for his work, he's being paid for his image, and if his image is devalued, the people paying for it have a right to cancel his contract.

It may not be 1950, but nothing I said is time-sensitive. An entertainer's trademark value will far exceed the actual value of his work output, always. It was just as true in 5000 B.C. as it will be in 5000 A.D.

Anybody can say, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!" but only one man could say "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!" and make 20 million women gasp and swoon. That swooning was not based on his saying of the line, it was based on his representation of an almost-superhuman image. Without the image, an actor is just another swinging dick.

[Metsfanmax]

Is $50 million an appropriate compensation in any case?

[nietzsche]

Is $50 million an appropriate compensation in any case?

relax, it's canadian dollars.

[DaGip]

Is $50 million an appropriate compensation in any case?

relax, it's canadian dollars.

eh?

[Serbia]

WHY DID THIS GET SO VERY WEIRD

Bollocks.

[denominator]

I think you are wrong. I believe another network will pick him up that isn't involved in the bedrooms of it's employees. Jian will be bigger than ever and better off, but that still doesn't excuse what the CBC did.

This isn't 1950.

I have no idea who this dude is, and for all I know you're right that another network will pick him up, and maybe he'll make more money than ever before.

That doesn't change the fact that I'm right in principle: an entertainer isn't being paid for his work, he's being paid for his image, and if his image is devalued, the people paying for it have a right to cancel his contract.

It may not be 1950, but nothing I said is time-sensitive. An entertainer's trademark value will far exceed the actual value of his work output, always. It was just as true in 5000 B.C. as it will be in 5000 A.D.

Anybody can say, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!" but only one man could say "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!" and make 20 million women gasp and swoon. That swooning was not based on his saying of the line, it was based on his representation of an almost-superhuman image. Without the image, an actor is just another swinging dick.

I don't entirely agree with you, but you are on to something there.

There may or may not be something called a "morality" clause in Ghomeshi's contract - which formally states what you laid out above. Without that, I would argue against you, that the CBC is paying Ghomeshi to be a radio host and nothing more. With that clause, they are paying him to be a posterboy. Further, that clause DOES give the CBC the flexibility to fire Ghomeshi over something that occurs away from work - which I have already stated I have an immense issue with.

However, there is one very big red flag for me in this case:

Only one of the alleged victims worked at the CBC. She never dated Ghomeshi. She alleges he approached her from behind and cupped her rear end in the Q studio, and that he quietly told her at a story meeting that he wanted to “hate f---” her.

The woman said she complained about Ghomeshi’s behaviour to her union representative, who took the complaint to a Q producer. As the woman recalls, the producer asked her “what she could do to make this a less toxic workplace” for herself. No further action was taken by the CBC, and the woman left the broadcaster shortly thereafter.

source

That suggests to me something occurring at the workplace, which would absolutely give the CBC grounds to fire Ghomeshi. It seems like they completely mishandled that situation and are trying to make up for it now.

[saxitoxin]

Ghomeshi, 47, surrendered to police on Wednesday morning and was formally charged under the Criminal Code with four counts of sexual assault and one of overcome resistance – choking. A large crowd of media and extra police have gathered at the downtown courthouse.

News of the charges against Ghomeshi come a day after it was revealed a $55-million lawsuit he launched against the CBC last month had been dropped. CBC has said Ghomeshi will pay $18,000 in legal costs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/jian-ghom ... -1.2850661

[patches70]

Man, now the cops are trying to control this freak's sex life, it's like 1950 all over again. Oh the humanity.

[Lootifer]

While risky, sounds like it was a good call by CBC.

If the cupping ass/whisper incident is true then, to me, that is grounds for instant dismissal.

[notyou2]

When I was initially defending him the additional allegations had not come to public light. I was a fan of his show. Now I understand that he is a control freak, practically impossible to work with and an asshole extraordinaire.

Also, I feel the CBC was well within their rights to severe all ties.

The new host does not seem to have the panache of the ex-host though, but in fairness, I have only heard one show.

[saxitoxin]

While risky, sounds like it was a good call by CBC.

If the cupping ass/whisper incident is true then, to me, that is grounds for instant dismissal.

whadda prude

[Lootifer]

Mate, you can cup my ass anytime, I only object to it when prior permission is not granted.

[Metsfanmax]

When I was initially defending him the additional allegations had not come to public light. I was a fan of his show. Now I understand that he is a control freak, practically impossible to work with and an asshole extraordinaire.

I'm a fan of shows where the character is a control freak, practically impossible to work with, and an asshole extraordinaire.

[notyou2]

When I was initially defending him the additional allegations had not come to public light. I was a fan of his show. Now I understand that he is a control freak, practically impossible to work with and an asshole extraordinaire.

I'm a fan of shows where the character is a control freak, practically impossible to work with, and an asshole extraordinaire.

With a fake American accent.

Mets, I would have guessed you watch a lot of documentaries like Nature. Educational television, real TV as opposed to pre-scripted artificial reality TV.

[Metsfanmax]

When I was initially defending him the additional allegations had not come to public light. I was a fan of his show. Now I understand that he is a control freak, practically impossible to work with and an asshole extraordinaire.

I'm a fan of shows where the character is a control freak, practically impossible to work with, and an asshole extraordinaire.

With a fake American accent.

Mets, I would have guessed you watch a lot of documentaries like Nature. Educational television, real TV as opposed to pre-scripted artificial reality TV.

Documentaries are idiotic. I read books.

[notyou2]

When I was initially defending him the additional allegations had not come to public light. I was a fan of his show. Now I understand that he is a control freak, practically impossible to work with and an asshole extraordinaire.

I'm a fan of shows where the character is a control freak, practically impossible to work with, and an asshole extraordinaire.

With a fake American accent.

Mets, I would have guessed you watch a lot of documentaries like Nature. Educational television, real TV as opposed to pre-scripted artificial reality TV.

Documentaries are idiotic. I read books.

I read too, mostly history.

[Metsfanmax]

Documentaries are idiotic. I read books.

I read too, mostly history.

What are you into? I don't read as much history as I should.

[notyou2]

Documentaries are idiotic. I read books.

I read too, mostly history.

What are you into? I don't read as much history as I should.

Right now a book on WW1 in East Africa. Quite interesting. There was a German ship trapped by the English. This story alone would make a great movie but the book is about the entire theatre. I never heard the story before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rufiji_Delta

I have read a lot of WW2 books, War of 1812 and WW1, but like history in general.

[Metsfanmax]

Documentaries are idiotic. I read books.

I read too, mostly history.

What are you into? I don't read as much history as I should.

Right now a book on WW1 in East Africa. Quite interesting. There was a German ship trapped by the English. This story alone would make a great movie but the book is about the entire theatre. I never heard the story before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rufiji_Delta

I have read a lot of WW2 books, War of 1812 and WW1, but like history in general.

Wow, that's an amazing incident.

Have you ever tried Bruce Catton's American Civil War books? I read one at the recommendation of a friend and I did enjoy it quite a bit.

[saxitoxin]

Mate, you can cup my ass anytime

will do

[saxitoxin]

When I was initially defending him the additional allegations had not come to public light. I was a fan of his show. Now I understand that he is a control freak, practically impossible to work with and an asshole extraordinaire.

I'm a fan of shows where the character is a control freak, practically impossible to work with, and an asshole extraordinaire.

me too