Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Fired] Mark Donnelly

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Coconuts said:

That's not true, many companies have policies in their contracts regarding things like social media use and misrepresenting the company. As a professional hockey player you don't just play for the team, you also represent the brand. Same thing goes for professionals like social workers, child and youth care workers, ect. You don't get to be a social worker working in child protection for the government and affiliate yourself with the Hell's Angels. That's an extreme example, but you get what I'm saying. 

 

It's like how you see folks lose their jobs and the like for being racist on social media. 

 

 

Being racist or opposing government policies are two different things.  Mark exercised his right as an individual to participate in a community that the government might oppose will not damage the company's reputation.  Opposing any government policy does not damage the Canucks in any way as a brand.  A murderer or a rapist or even racist do damage the reputation so protesting on something is not a crime in itself.    You have to keep in mind that the owner has other interests and his goal is to maximum his profits with other business that he invests, namely real estate business that he is doing all over the city and it is in his best interest to make more money via perks, or tax breaks by any means by scratching the government's back with some backroom deals.  It's like I'll scratch your back if you scratch my back kind of thing is disgusting.  It is not about racist.   I highly doubt that the example you cited out is just a poor example would happen.  Most government worker will not get involved that they knew that it's illegal and would rather to keep their job because they are the government worker and most often that they agree to their policies when  they are hired unless you are a leader of an official opposition party in the parliament.  Most often, the government would rather hire their own people in any government related businesses.

 

I do agree that masks is needed for protection but you cannot take away the individual's right to express his opinion on any government policies.  Going to a rally is your right for as long as it's social distance.  There are a fine line if the government seek to prevent any rallies that is related to the government policies that they try to ban the gathering is wrong.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, drummer4now said:

Even though I personally wear a mask just because of the feel of it especially during winter I formally believe people should have the right to wear one or not..

 

IMO people improperly wearing masks do more harm than ones who don't.. 

 

The evidence behind them saving lives is also iffy.

In regards to masks it doesn't have much to do with the law and more about policy privacy businesses implement. Private businesses can set guidelines in order for people to shop. No different from no shoes, no shirt then no service. You wanna shop there then follow their rules.

 

Of course there are guidelines/laws the provinces/gov will implement.

 

Rather not get fined and not be able to go into stores.

 

21 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

That's not true, many companies have policies in their contracts regarding things like social media use and misrepresenting the company. As a professional hockey player you don't just play for the team, you also represent the brand. Same thing goes for professionals like social workers, child and youth care workers, ect. You don't get to be a social worker working in child protection for the government and affiliate yourself with the Hell's Angels. That's an extreme example, but you get what I'm saying. 

 

It's like you see folks lose their jobs and the like for being racist on social media. 

 

 

This is mostly true but major corporations also fear cancel culture, good or bad. They all want to look good in everyone's eyes because of that cash mondo. It can cause some problems with suppressing differing opinions though context matters(Like if the person is being racist which is justifiable for termination or something so miniscule/unjustifiable like having a different political/social view). Just look at Hollywood. Pretty much a hivemind over there, everyone thinks alike. Not many people in that sort of industry probably like to differ from each other when it comes to certain issues. All about money and good PR in the end. It's a little concerning but that sort of bad cancel culture is starting to get thwarted out, some people are standing up for differing opinions. 

 

Mostly a side point with that Coco, unrelated with the MD. IDK how I feel about this one to be completely honest.

Edited by Junkyard Dog
Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH he'll probably be back at some point. It wouldn't come to a shock for me after this all dies down.

 

Not anytime soon or in the near future though.

Edited by Junkyard Dog
  • Wat 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, coolboarder said:

Being racist or opposing government policies are two different things.  Mark exercised his right as an individual to participate in a community that the government might oppose will not damage the company's reputation.  Opposing any government policy does not damage the Canucks in any way as a brand.

It is up to Aquilini to decide what damages the Canucks as a brand, not us.

  • Hydration 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

In regards to masks it doesn't have much to do with the law and more about policy privacy businesses implement. Private businesses can set guidelines in order for people to shop. No different from no shoes, no shirt then no service. You wanna shop there then follow their rules.

 

Of course there are guidelines/laws the provinces/gov will implement.

 

Rather not get fined and not be able to go into stores.

 

This is mostly true but major corporations also fear cancel culture, good or bad. They all want to look good in everyone's eyes because of that cash mondo. It can cause some problems with suppressing differing opinions though context matters(Like if the person is being racist which is justifiable for termination or something so miniscule/unjustifiable like having a different political/social view). Just look at Hollywood. Pretty much a hivemind over there, everyone thinks alike. Not many people in that sort of industry probably like to differ from each other when it comes to certain issues. All about money and good PR in the end. It's a little concerning but that sort of bad cancel culture is starting to get thwarted out, some people are standing up for differing opinions. 

 

Mostly a side point with that Coco, unrelated with the MD.

There's no question that it's also about money, that's a huge part of it. You mention PR, that's also a huge piece. Aqua and the Canucks will do everything in their power to protect the brand they've built. But yeah, it's likely that there are those of different opinions and views who toe the line as well. That's just how it is sometimes though, sometimes people work for companies with beliefs that don't align with their personal beliefs and that's not always simple thing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

A lot of jobs now have stipulations about behaviour that reflects poorly on the organization.  Even outside of work.

 

It's not about "opinions"....it's about blatantly ignoring Public Health orders that result in fines.   These are regulations that are in place and he's defying them.  They have every right to cut ties based on this.  They likely have a contract in place (yes some do work on a contractual basis) that goes over things like this.

Yet if this rally was in support of say BLM most people would be ok with that. There are numerous studies Proving masks don't help all that much.

The only people who have a right to judge are the people who have ceased to go outside therefore guaranteeing they aren't putting anyone at risk.

If you choose to wear a mask everywhere great if that makes you feel safe. So if you believe they work why would you care if someone else thinks differently since your protected from said person due to you wearing a mask?

I just find it odd that pro-mask people say the mask works but then turnaround and say, anti-mask people are putting others at risk but if the mask works why would it matter? Wouldn't the only people at risk be other non-mask wearers? 

Frankly at this point it seems the decision-makers are just throwing crap against the wall hoping something sticks. 

In the grand scheme of things wearing the mask isn't a big deal but imagine if we had a pandemic that killed at a higher rate then something comparable to a bad flu season. Playing fast and loose with rights that are guaranteed and wars were fought over is a slippery slope. 

  • Hydration 2
  • Wat 7
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Coconuts said:

There's no question that it's also about money, that's a huge part of it. You mention PR, that's also a huge piece. Aqua and the Canucks will do everything in their power to protect the brand they've built. But yeah, it's likely that there are those of different opinions and views who toe the line as well. That's just how it is sometimes though, sometimes people work for companies with beliefs that don't align with their personal beliefs and that's not always simple thing. 

Like I said context matters. Some things just can't be said/believed. These types of things are usually universally disagreed upon by everyone though. Like if someone is being openly racist then 99% of people will agree to can their ass. Hell I might be more willing to go the extra mile if something like that happened in front of me being mixed ethnicity

 

A fine line has to be drawn though protecting free speech(differing opinions) otherwise you get people afraid to speak their minds and following the herd, hence indirect suppression(like Hollywood). The online world made this a lot worse in this regard. It is really easy to discredit/ruin/fire someone. The question is whether or not it is deserving when dealing with these areas that aren't clear cut(aka grey areas).

 

My whole point with that spiel was to bring awareness about it and to encourage investigation and discussion when things aren't clear cut rather than going with the flow. Disagreement is healthy and you broaden your own perspective when opening yourself up to different ones.

 

As I said, Unsure with this one. Don't exactly know the whole story but leaning toward it being understandable from the Canucks given the context known. I just don't like seeing someone like MD getting tossed aside, like from some comments here. He had a lot of good history here.

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • -SN- locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...