My struggle against corporate tyranny, in Canada, and why the Canadian state must assert its writ.
(In the Name of Allah, Who with His Name nothing can cause harm in the earth, nor in the heavens, and He is All Hearing, the All Knowing.)
Subject: My struggle against corporate tyranny, in Canada and how it affects basic rights and the confidence in the state and why it needs to assert its writ.
To,
CEO JCI - Mr. George Oliver
PM Canada - Mr. Justin Trudeau
Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada – Mr. Richard Wagner Supreme Court of Canada | Cour suprême du Canada
CC – Canadian Human Rights Commission , Ontario Human Rights Commission , Canadian Labour Congress - Congrès du travail du Canada , Department of Justice Canada | Ministère de la Justice du Canada , Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada , Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Dear Sirs,
I’m writing this letter/article addressed to the three of you, as the issues I raise here, concern the responsibilities under your care, and the human rights and labor organizations are copied as it pertains to basic rights and labor interests nationally. It’s about the employment policies and processes, and how they affect civil liberties and basic rights, especially the right to work in Canada, that owing to the existing provisions may be more accurately deemed as a privilege bestowed by a past employer than a right of a citizen or a resident. As you go through this, you’ll realize the lack of adequate safeguards against actions driven by malevolence and with exploitative intent, against vulnerable but law abiding citizens, that transgress their basic rights, and which cannot be simply deemed as legal disputes, and should be dealt as law enforcement issues. The Supreme Court of Canada is addressed here as it relates to violation of constitutional principles and matters of public importance that may need a relook.
Just for information, I’m a Canadian citizen and was a legal permanent resident (not under a work visa) when I was hired in Canada.
This is regarding what has happened to me since March 2019, when I was removed by 江森自控 (JCI) on grounds of ‘restructuring’, and for all intent and purposes I have been rendered unemployable, and the reason why I have reached out is because it raises the issues of:
I’ll address Mr. Oliver first. (The PM&CJSC have been addressed later in this piece. Apologies for the length, but it wades into questions on rights and policies & I can only bring them with how it relates to my experience and that needs to be stated before that.)
Dear Mr. Oliver,
I have good reason to state here that your organization has left me in a position where my career is seriously destabilized and perhaps fatally damaged. And this is not just a result of a callous decision, by some of your company’s powerful leaders, but a sustained campaign against me, that continues to this day and that has left me with no option but to come out in public to appeal to the authorities, and including you, and throw some daylight on the actions that are going on in the shadows for far too long.
I’m making the claim that your company removed me in bad faith and with a mala fide intention, with an ulterior motive that took a long time to unfold(longer than the time limit to make a legal case), and because I did not oblige in this plot (according to the script), I have been rendered unemployable, by three factors:
Thus I have been left with an unenviable choice between accepting exploitative terms and facing sustained oppression in the form of an economic blockade on my family, by opportunities being blocked for me that I could pursue elsewhere. Or to put it in another way: a choice between: work and dignity. Normally people don’t have to make such choices but I have been tested for the last three and a half years since my job termination, on this test. This has continued, until now and despite the knowledge in your company that I’m the only breadwinner in my family, and my wife, although quite qualified, is severely disabled medically. I must also state here that the reason why I haven’t spoken earlier is that initially I was left bewildered on why this had happened and was trying to get hired and not offend anyone in the market, including your company and others as well. But as the plot has unfolded over at least two and a half years until I could finally establish the motive, and even when I did finally comprehend the entire intrigue, I didn’t want to escalate it, and continued to repose faith in the fair sense and goodness of the people in positions of authority across the job market, and hoped that I’ll be allowed to find work with dignity. But sadly it didn’t happen. I also conveyed that I knew this manipulative scheme, through someone who had offered to play an intermediary role, hoping that I would be left alone perhaps. Again it didn’t get the desired result unfortunately.
During this time and especially the last few months, I have also applied in jobs outside Canada, and I have faced resistance on two counts here – 1) my career gaps have created a problem for me and 2) is your organization’s reach and as the sanctity of the ex-employer’s word being held sacred is the dogma of this age, and cuts across national boundaries, leaving me with no option but to come out in public, both to put the record straight for my own future consideration and to bring to the attention of the authorities, the dangers of an over organized market, with the balance skewed against the most vulnerable section – The individual.
After going through the information below, you can either confirm or deny the veracity of my claim. If you choose the latter then you should have no problem in seeking an official investigation, by a judicial commission of inquiry. We can then jointly call for it, and if my claims are proven true then your organization will bear the responsibility of its actions, else I’ll be liable to be prosecuted to the severest extent possible. My appeal to the authorities is: if after an investigation my case bears merit then they must fight it on my behalf as it can’t be treated as a legal dispute.
The reason why a state sanctioned commission of inquiry is needed is because it’s not an employment dispute, although it may have begun as one, with the wrongful termination, however the market collusion and abuse of power and misuse of clout to affect an economic boycott upon a family of law abiding citizens, needs to be investigated by the appropriate state agencies. I’m willing to cooperate fully with such an investigation and ready to undergo lie detector test, psychological tests or any other tests as may be deemed necessary. I would also like the individuals involved in this conspiracy to be subjected to similar tests. And when an investigation happens, I’ll provide their names.
I’m putting some easy questions here for your benefit that you may like to ask yourself and answer as well.
If you contest my account then let’s jointly call for a judicial commission of inquiry, as it pertains to misuse of clout and conflict of interest while giving a job reference to any outside employer. Moreover such a commission held publicly would also give a good demonstration of my interview skills so any doubts on that front could also get addressed.
The plan that I have been able to deduce was: To remove me on ‘restructuring’ grounds from the manufacturing division, where I was supporting the external/indirect integration channel and get someone from the internal/direct integration channel to assume my redefined position after six months, where they would oversee and support both the direct and indirect channels. Having someone from the direct channel to man the manufacturing division role, would provide this specific channel an oversight & even control of the competitor indirect channel. But this wasn’t the actual problem for me if I had been ‘allowed’ to go my separate ways, as the plan for me was: to get me to then approach the direct channel, to first ‘apologize’ for having done my job well of supporting the indirect channel, for whose dedicated support I had been assigned, (by the previous leadership of the fire product division and which had left the scene in July 2018), and after having shown appropriate contrition, I would be absorbed by this direct channel, in a diminished position, that I would have to be grateful to get. This would have been a natural conclusion like so many other manufacturing division personnel, who were earlier supporting the indirect channels and had been subsequently absorbed by the direct channel, in the US, who had been previously supporting the indirect channels. This began to happen after the earlier restructuring of the fire products division at the sales director level above me, when the role of the sales director dedicated to the indirect channel was removed in July 2018 by the sales director of the direct channel (who had been part of the integration business for a long time before the indirect channels were launched), and was given the responsibility to manage both channels across the Americas. The actual problem happened when I didn’t oblige according to the script that was written for me, and I didn’t reach out to the direct integration channel, as I was not enthusiastic about working there. I applied in both the JCI’s product division for various positions, as I had strong experience in multiple product lines, aside from applying outside JCI, as I had not signed the non- compete offer that we negotiated and which I didn’t sign as I didn’t want to curtail my options.
I had been at the top of my game and was the highest achieving sales performer on the fire products division, across Americas, when my job was terminated on ‘restructuring’ grounds, and I had no reason to believe that I would have to struggle to get a job, and I’ll later give a few examples of how jobs would disappear. But this was not something to get worried I thought. But three months after the termination of my service (in June 2019), a threat on banning me was made, by one of the managers, in the chain of command then of the fire products division, where I had worked. He said that “if I didn’t make the right phone call, he could put in a note that would prevent me from getting hired.” This was said during the phone call he had made, and although I was stunned, but I didn’t react, as I believed then and actually thought to myself that- ‘Let the market decide that!’ It was optimism in my capabilities and faith in the market. However a pattern emerged, where companies starting with those in the life safety and security business as well as those beyond would avoid me. This was restricted not just to one particular industry but across industries such as electrical products, industrial, educational etc. Obviously there is an online record of applying, over various forums, that can be pulled easily, and I understand, that I can’t be presumptuous to state that I should have been hired wherever I applied, but it clearly became obvious this was no simple job search, but a siege I was up against.
In May 2021, I got a job in a fire services company in Hamilton. This was a small company and after one interview and viewing the JCI termination letter, I was hired. This company used to take product and services support from JCI, and that was always a cause of concern for me. Almost four months after joining this, one day I was hurriedly removed citing no reason, and a letter to the Sr. General Mgr., who I was reporting to and asking him the reason for the job termination was not responded. The employment insurance company informed that the reason provided was – work was no longer required. Now this was no reason to avoid facing me or even responding to the letter that I had written. I must state this may have been a small company but these were some of the best people I have worked with and the sudden termination was shocking particularly as my performance was strong. My letter to the Sr. GM had highlighted the achievements as well. I have reason to believe that the employment record access through SIN nos. that past employers have can help in tracking them, even when they don’t want to be tracked by those they believe have malevolent intentions. The digital footprint of those who may have accessed my file through the SIN no. would be revealing. Two years and three months after the threat, in September 2021, a highly senior leader of the integration division- direct channel, of your business boasted regarding this banning and even gave a reason on why it was done. He said on the reason why I cannot get hired, “Because you hurt the enterprise solution!” Now both the threat and the boast were over the phone, but it can’t be denied that both the manufacturing division where I was working until removal and this direct channel of integration business were operating in tandem, and this direct channel was a beneficiary of my removal first, as after my termination, a person from this division took over the job to manage both the direct and indirect channels, after six months and ten days, thus giving it the oversight of other channel that it never got during my term, as I was not authorized by the previous senior leadership of the manufacturing division, to allow oversight of the indirect channel to this channel. This job position was also not advertised outside the company and I know it as I was following pursuing recruitment opportunities in JCI at the time, and if it was then it must have been on a midnight of a weekend and perhaps for five minutes. Moreover the indirect channel dealership that I had supported until March 2019 was also ended around this time. The induction of this channel had been a contentious issue and it had preceded my tenure, and the lack of internal stakeholder consensus at the top executive level between the then fire products and integration channel of JCI was always visible to me at least. Thus my job at helping and nurturing this indirect (external) channel grow had put me in the crosshairs of the direct channel. This was the reason why it wanted to punish me and also avail my skills to get business for itself.
I understand that a phone call threat can be contested, but does a threat to life also get contested in the same way? Or is it only a threat to livelihood that gets contested and has to meet a certain legal threshold to be considered credible? If both are crimes then both need to be pursued through law enforcement. However there is another way to establish that there was mala fide intent when I was removed by JCI on supposedly ‘restructuring’ grounds.
If the reason was restructuring alone (and it was alone as the dismissal was without cause), then I should have had no problem getting hired into another position WITHIN JCI, in the product’s division where I wanted to work in Canada, and in the JCI in the Mideast where I had been part of Tyco for a good amount of time. I say this as I possessed strong work skills, with years of design engineering experience and until then almost a decade and a half experience in sales, business development and channel management and most of it in Tyco/JCI. Companies groom personnel over the years in their product lines and here the astonishing part was that at the peak of my professional powers, my applications were getting rejected and although some went under review, but nothing would move further. Is it not surprising that a person who did the job he was assigned to develop and grow the external channel business in Canada, and in less than four years facilitated it to become the by revenue, the largest external channel across the world (FY 2018 -Sept 30 2018 figures), with 3.44M USD and who was the top achieving sales performer for both Americas target wise, clocking at 141% of the target, was not getting hired by JCI and there was radio silence when he would apply to any job in it, and what was happening outside JCI was equally disappointing. But more importantly this also means the real reason for my job termination was not business restructuring!
I have made another claim that the conspiracy also included the part where I was to be put in a diminished position. This too can be established. In end of October 2019, more than six months after my job had ended, I had reached out to this top JCI integration channel leader, to clear my position that I had only tried to do my job when I was at the fire products side, and also seek a good reference to getting a job in JCI products division or outside in another company. He asked me to work for him in the direct channel but offered me a salary that was considerably lower and a lower position. He also said that it seemed I had run out of money finally and therefore had to reach out to him. This was after he had positioned a person from his division in my place (naturally after getting me evicted), and ensuring I couldn’t get hired anywhere else, he was offering a lower position and a lower salary! If there was ever an example of creating distress and seeking to exploit it then this would be it. In fact in Feb. 2020, almost a year later, after my job at JCI had ended, I actually found a job in a small company in Hamilton, with a lower position and salary. But I had to resign from this at the time of covid, in a month, and it fired everyone shortly later. And I would later get a job in the fire company, I have mentioned above, only fourteen months later after it.
Coming over to Dec. 2021 this senior leader again told me that I could only get hired in a diminished position in his division. This was admitted in writing in an email exchange. This was two years and nine months after my job termination when the entire plot had unfolded. So it was a clear indication of intent and the endgame objective. Basically I couldn’t get hired in the product’s division of JCI nor outside JCI and the only position that I could work would be in a diminished position in the direct integration channel of JCI. (And if I would get hired anywhere, then it won’t be long before I would be removed.) This was the same person who had told me on the phone that the reason for my not getting hired was because: “I had hurt the enterprise solution.”
A few words about what this enterprise solution refers to: It meant the direct channel had a no. of fire and security products that it could sell as a solution, while the channel that I was supporting had only the fire alarm system. But even so, how could it be considered a crime, when I was hired by my salary paying division to grow and sell only a product and not the enterprise solution? In fact I had wanted an enterprise solution for the indirect channel as well, in the last annual general sales meeting before my job termination. In Oct. 2018, I developed a market strategy plan and gave it to the new leadership, which was to scale up the indirect channel business by incorporating the enterprise solution approach. My responsibility was Canada, but I had developed this for both Americas. I prepared it for the indirect channel because I was associated with the indirect channel!
It’s evident now that I had been thrown under the bus by the new leadership of my products/manufacturing division where I worked at JCI and at the behest of this direct channel division that wanted to humiliate me by taking me under its charge and then making me pay for beating it in the past.
I believe that: When you remove someone at the top of his performance then you prove you don’t value performance.
When you seek to shift someone to another division without seeking their consent then that is lack of transparency.
When you do both then you are proving that you don’t value those who value a culture of excellence and
want them to serve those who value the culture of patronage.
When you remove someone with mala fide intent, then that is deception.
When you prevent them from getting a job elsewhere and expect them to come to you, with their negotiating power destroyed, then that is manipulation.
领英推荐
When you threaten them for not doing what you expected from them, even when they didn’t want it, then that is intimidation.
And when you expect them to fold over, break down in their will, and serve your agenda, while accepting their fate, in a diminished position then that is seeking subjugation. All this is a perversion of values.
When you devalue someone, in your hubris, and expect them to add value to you and sell for you, even when they know what you have done to their career then it is an inversion of logic.
And when you prevent someone from getting a job after your company has removed them, and you do so to keep them off the market until they accept their fate, then that is: The subversion of the principle of demand and supply.
I must add here that my objection to working in a diminished position was restricted to JCI alone, and it was based upon sound logic: If I had performed well in my job then I should have been promoted and not removed, and least of all demoted. People seek to work where they can progress and the implied aspect of their job contract is that they’ll be rewarded for doing well, and certainly not hounded out and then put under an economic blockade if they didn’t roll over and get ready to serve in a diminished capacity.
Until today, I have applied in all sorts of positions where I can work – both junior, same level and senior roles where I possess capability and across the industries. I also accept that I may not have been the right fit for every job I applied, but I know that I have lost some big opportunities because of this monkey on my back, and if it was lack of competence then I could understand but because I know the threats I received and I wasn’t imagining them, and the pattern I have seen over three and a half years, makes it evident, the dice is loaded against me. This is bias as defined in mathematical probability and denial of equal opportunities to me.
A few examples of jobs that vanished and left a bad taste:
A few days after my job termination, well-known company was looking to hire a senior leader for BD activity in the middle- east. The interview with the GM was remaining and I left for a family emergency as my sister had suffered a pulmonary embolism, and although the interview was agreed to happen after I came back, but the job was gone. This is possible and nothing can be attributed based upon this alone; however when I offered to work for free, for six months, in this company, it was not willing to oblige.
A month after my job at JCI ended, I successfully closed an interview and the owner of the company said he’ll send the proposal. He later excused himself.
A couple of months after the job termination, I was recommended by a director level contact in a different company, who I had supported extensively in the past, on a specialized technology, for a position at his company, which is a competitor to JCI. This was for this specialized product that I had sold across vertical markets, for almost 13 years. Needless to say, I was not hired and in my place, another candidate from JCI was hired. Nothing wrong here as it’s the hiring team’s prerogative and I bear no ill will to any individual who got the job. However the person hired had no knowledge of fire detection let alone this specialized technology at the time of this hiring. It must also be mentioned that JCI is the biggest buyer of this tech, so it is understandable to an extent.
These are a few instances that show how dangerous it becomes if you don’t want to oblige the powerful. Some of the companies would not even have the courage to say no to me, and to respond to my job application, they would visit my Linked in profile to indicate, they have seen my application and there is no job for you. Others were more creative and some just would not get back after they had conducted multiple interviews. Not even to say they aren’t moving further. Needless to say their actions appeared coordinated and remain so to this day. I also felt a sense of pity for them. They too appeared helpless. It’s not like I was only aiming for specific positions, but the resistance was pervasive, across positions. None were ready to hire me for less salary either!
Back in end week of December 2021, I had communicated all what I knew until then, to a common contact, as he had reached out to me, seemingly out of nowhere, and offered to play an intermediary role. I had told him that I would be forced to ask George Oliver, these questions. It’s now September 2022, so my bringing this out in public shouldn’t be laid upon me, but your own leaders, as I tried to keep pushing it away, hoping that the sabotaging of my future employment prospects would stop. But it has persisted and so my hand has been forced. I can only presume, that your organization, wants to fight this challenge through some legal chicanery. And that would be a shame, given the scale and scope of your company’s ambitions if it strives for legal compliance, and has no problem with committing a moral outrage. I would like to add here: In Nov. 2021, a person came to me, from Vancouver, to discuss a role in Toronto, for me. But in the meeting, he only spoke about the non-compete offer that I had not signed with JCI and recommended me to approach JCI to sign it. He said he was also ex-JCI. What surprised me was why would someone come from Vancouver, to discuss a job opportunity, but won’t discuss it at all in the one and a half hour long ‘job interview’! More significantly, why is it that everywhere some action occurs; there is a link to JCI? It’s not the legality but the morality of actions that should be the guide.
Your company has been giving a reference regarding me over the last three and a half years, and even if one were to disregard the initial blacklisting threat and the subsequent boast confirming the threat, by your personnel, the fact that your (company’s) reference has worked ‘so well for me’, that I’m unemployable, makes me obligated to give one about your company as well and I can assure you it would be well reasoned and accountable. Of course this entire letter can also be considered as one big feedback.
It seems you have problem where the purpose of the organization has been lost or degenerated, as well as a broken internal checks and balance mechanism that can’t course correct to steer the organization to its rightful direction. If this wasn’t the case then the removal of the then top sales performer (FY18) on restructuring grounds would have raised some flags somewhere, but it didn’t. Moreover it demonstrates a brazenness of intent when that person is rendered unemployable and an example is made to everyone inside the company that you don’t go against the entrenched establishment, even if you have been hired to initiate and lead change in the new go to market strategy that wants to grow multiple channels. There is also a fallacy in the strategic thinking among these leaders, with regard to the element of choice itself. They are terrified of the choice that can be exercised by their customers and believe that by eliminating choice from their intended target, they can get what they seek, in their business objectives, through default. This defines their approach to pursuing business, and it is a slippery slope and can easily lead to deception, manipulation and intimidation to achieve subjugation. More significantly this cheapens the value proposition your business may have to offer. The correct approach would be to seek to win business not by eliminating choice, but getting it despite all the choices available to their target prospect, who would then want to give business not by compulsion but because they appreciate the value of having this company. The fact that my troubles with the internal integration business unit were over the external channel and that was ended, for whatever reasons after I left, says something about the difficulty this business suffers when a competitive choice exists. As explained above there is a perversion of values, inversion of logic and subversion of the principle of demand and supply.
The problem lies in the rewarding of ruthlessness and as the ruthless rise up the rank; they do what the ruthless do well: Destroy without mercy. And unless you are planning to invade and take no prisoners, having the most brutal lead is a recipe for disaster. It’s been said in researches, that many top executives are psychopaths. And psychopaths by nature are devoid of empathy. And without empathy, how will you understand your prospects/customers and therefore appropriately serve them or cultivate deeper relations with them? Or even understand those who can target the markets for you when you are, by definition devoid of empathy. This is bound to create a massive blind spot at least. This may have begun by the actions of a select few but it required the cooperation of different functions within your company, and therefore it’s a problem that can’t be corrected by simply changing personnel. You need to also question the sanctity of the reference check given internally within your broader organization. These are some telltale signs of decay and degeneration. Perhaps you might like to start with those that empower these who are prone to oppressing.
This is feedback for you– open, transparent and accountable feedback. Not the one that can be given through whisperings and in the shadows to sabotage someone, and deny them a choice in their career. In fact you are getting this for free when some organizational consultant would charge you money for saying all of this! I must also add here, that my problem has been with some of your leaders here in this region in Canada/US. And I would not like to tarnish everyone including the countless men and women who work honestly both here and your businesses in other parts of the world. I worked in this company once and I won’t say I had any problems, neither in Canada nor in the Middle East then. But what is important is that the actual values of an organization are those that its leadership practices at any given point in time and space, and not what is listed in any website. Is creating distress and then leveraging it - called business? Has forcing a volunteer to become a conscript unsuccessfully, helped your business in any way? Ask yourself why someone else is paying a price for not giving in to vindictive and exploitative demands of your leaders? When you terminate a contract, you must respect your own decision and allow someone to go with their life in good faith. Humility in a business is essential, if its mission is to: Serve. Please work on this aspect and perhaps you can rewire it. Ideas are best tested when contested and some of your business leaders are afraid of both competition and ideas. What they don’t realize is that competition forces innovation and ideas incubate it. Pursue policies and develop strategies on this line and hopefully you can undo the damage.
My intent here is not to seek retribution, but an acknowledgement that a wrong has been done and my rights have been violated, to an oppressive limit and instead of introspection and atonement, it has been persisted with and insult upon injury and insult upon injury perpetuated endlessly. I have been made to feel powerless against this abuse of power. You must either admit what I have stated here or challenge me. If you accept then you must also assure how your organization will prevent such outrages in the future to anyone else and how you will take steps to make your processes more transparent and accountable. However if you contest my claim, then you will explain how your organization’s actions were justifiable; both legally and morally, and will also stand alongside me and ask for a judicial commission of inquiry. You should not delegate this to your subordinates or any of your lawyers. Although anyone can stand up to deny this, but as power and authority flow from you, in your company, thus you are the one who bears the moral responsibility, and you are where rests the moral authority. You are also free to question my moral integrity and you are welcome to say that my allegations are baseless and that you stand by your leaders. I’m certain your workforce would also like to see you speak up on this issue, besides the market. I have refrained from naming anyone here and you can consider it as a fig-leaf for these personnel. If an investigation is required then I’ll oblige with the names.
I’ll address the PM and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court here:
Sirs, I’m certain that if you have been able to go through up to this point, you can understand my situation somewhat, and the choice I had to contend with and my appeal to you is ensure that laws are tightened so that trade should only happen when mutual value can be exchanged with consent, and not when the powerful decide they want to have something and on their terms. I have raised some concerns below, on the vulnerabilities that exist in the employment recording process, reference check and its lack of accountability and the misuse of market clout. All of these need to be reviewed in the light of the changes we are seeing with digital transformation and with individual rights in mind.
With regard to basic rights of life, liberty and dignity, we can all agree that the right to life requires the right to pursue livelihood else life won’t sustain. If the avenues of livelihood can be artificially curtailed legally then right to life itself becomes a privilege, at the good graces of the powerful! And can someone be considered free, if they can’t freely exercise their right to choose employment without getting banned, ether overtly or covertly? Its three years and six months since my job termination and I feel like a runaway slave. And I have been trying persistently to find employment that is free of any malign influence of my ex-employer, and here I am. Even by the conventions of the age of slavery, this would be atrocious as I have the ‘Deed of Emancipation’ - The job termination letter that my ex-employer gave me on their own.
On dignity, I’m not sure, what legal status it carries in Canada, but how can someone stand up for freedom or liberty, if the lack of these doesn’t injure their sense of dignity? And more significantly, the laws that inadvertently reduce this sense of dignity or dull it in its populace also potentially endanger the polity as - the injected cowardice would then prevent the people, from standing up for its supremacy or even its nationhood if ever such a choice has to be confronted. Spines that have been bent for too long will have unlearnt what standing straight is and they won’t, when it matters! A citizenry that can think on its own and has a strong sense of dignity is a better defender of the state’s values than a pliable and a fearful population.
The right to work anywhere in Canada, is an established right. However if the prevailing employment processes allow a past employer to opaquely control the labor movement of their past employee, then how much of this so called right is a right, and how much is it a privilege? Would it not be fair to say that the right to work in Canada for legal residents and citizens is actually at the pleasure of the past employer and they can choose to withdraw this privilege at will! This creates a unique situation where social and political freedoms are guaranteed but economic enslavement is also possible and that puts into question the purpose of these guaranteed freedoms as a whole!
This is pertinent as the real challenge to industrialized democracies may not come in the future from other nation states with divergent ideologies, but from transnational corporations, given the advances in the fourth industrial revolution, there may be a possibility to getting a successor/consortium to the Dutch East India Company, that displaced the authority of many states and levied taxes and maintained armies, over vast tracts of this planet. This isn’t fear mongering, but foreseeing a potential threat, that can come about within just a few false moves and the landscape becomes completely transformed to what we see in the present, particularly as this threat is more insidious than any from other nation states. The advancements in technology will provide greater control to such companies, particularly transnational corporations, and as they become more pervasive through controlling homes, buildings, cities and overall infrastructures through smart solutions, they will acquire greater control. Now there is nothing wrong in any of this if adequate checks and balance exist to control the behavior of such entities and to hold them to compete on a level playing field in a market governed by the values of the Canadian state. The response to this is vigilance of both rights and interests of everyone. The objective is to ensure that no one can exploit or gets exploited. Industrialized democracies need to remain both industrialized and democracies, and to do so they would need a balance between the proponents of industrialization and the biggest stakeholders of democracy, which is the citizenry. A truly competitive market in both goods and labor mobility would be the right answer. But how would one know if the market is truly competitive? The answer to this lies in the model of the operation of the business of sport and like that business, the sport of business too, must follow and emulate.
As in the business of sport, where you have on the field umpires/referees, and off the field vigilance officers, to ensure that a truly competitive sport is played and witnessed, in a level playing field and with no questions, that can be raised on the integrity of the game, so likewise, the sport of business too should also have a similar approach to ensure the integrity of the market can’t be questioned. The law is blind and for good reason, but the state has both eyes and ears, or at least it should have, and it must use them, besides the referees and vigilance officers. The idea that the market would correct itself is false hope. The market only seeks profit and if it can come with competition then it would compete. And if the market perceives collusion as profitable then it would collude. In fact if the market can both compete and collude at the same time, then it would also do so. Thus it depends on what the enabling environment desires and frames checks and balances accordingly. And the market only ‘corrects’, when the weight of the lies leading it becomes too big and it collapses under its own gravity. And this keeps repeating and surprisingly it’s seen as an irrational force of nature. At the base of the last global financial crisis were lies so it could only grow till the laws of physics could allow it. (When a top-sales performer of a leading company, with reasonable experience and skills, struggles to get hired after being removed from his position on ‘restructuring’ grounds, and not any cause, then it should raise questions on the actual reasons on what is going on and why they cannot get hired! This indicates at the very least, the market is off-normal here.)
Another point that requires attention pertains to inclusivity and diversity that are promoted enthusiastically by all organizations. Their hiring websites inform us that they make no discrimination on the various grounds, and that you can be black, blue, yellow, brown, orange or magenta in color and they have no problem. That your eyes can glow in the dark or you can breathe under water, and you are still welcome. This is all great, but when these companies choose to discriminate, then they can do so at a highly focused individual level, and none of these markers matter. This makes the individual quite vulnerable. Although I have never seen myself as a ‘diversity’ candidate, but I’m sufficiently brown and that qualifies me as a visible minority. But that hasn’t helped me at all. The point I’m making is that protection at an individual rights level is required, and as admirable the pursuit of inclusivity may be, it’s no guarantee against being singled out for special treatment and that too is discrimination even if not motivated by these diversity markers. If the mission is to ensure the equality of opportunity then discrimination beyond these listed diversity markers should be considered as discrimination. Presently it is not so as I have confirmed it.
This has an international dimension as well, with regard to attracting immigrants. I say this, as the meaning of a free market can mean different things to different people. And given my experience I can say the Canadian market has shown to be quite restrictive in terms of labor mobility; if an employer decides so. However those aspiring to come to live in Canada understand otherwise. To them, Canada is a free market in terms of labor mobility and is non-restrictive, unlike the cumbersome process of changing sponsors, like what happens in the middle-east. But what I have realized is that the process in the middle-east is actually more transparent, especially with the ‘reference/no objection certificate’ part. There, the ex-employer has to put their intention on a govt. paper, with either a no objection or an objection to the ex-employee getting another job. In the latter case, the ex-employee may not be able to work for a certain period, like six months, in the country etc, but at least what is said on the paper is clear, established and can be held accountable. The ex-employer can’t carry their malice any further, or perhaps they may have certain likeminded ‘allies’ in the market, who may defer to this company, in their ‘hiring’ decision, but the nature of the broader market is far more competitive, especially in UAE, where I last worked in before coming to Canada, and putting someone ‘off the market’ through collusion would not work. I can now see certain nobility in the dog-eat-dog competitive world over there. It’s any day better than an over organized market where what is provided on the paper to you in the termination letter is completely different from the reason why you can’t get hired again. The Canadian govt. should either ensure its market becomes truly labor competitive or when the government markets Canada as a livable destination for the global workforce, then it shouldn’t proclaim Canada as a free market, as it is a restrictive/employer controlled market. Given the way the world is now, you’ll still attract immigrants. But it’s best to not create misconceptions and unrealistic expectations. The underhanded collusion between employers needs to stop, and it can only stop when collusion on labor movement is emphatically deemed illegal.
I believe these companies are also victims in a way and if the laws against misuse of market clout, opacity & lack of accountability in the reference checking process are tightened then it would foster a more competitive labor market environment. Presently the collusion is legalized as the reference check is opaque and can’t be challenged and the employment record gives your information on a platter to your past employer, even if you don’t want that to happen! The idea that an ex-employer can also be malevolent seems not to have occurred. But if an ‘ex’ prefixed personal relationship can be toxic and malevolent, then why not the one with an ‘ex’-employer? And what purpose does this reference checking system serve? If someone shouldn’t be working at all, then not only the employers but even that person needs to know why they are being removed from the job market. At least then they can have the opportunity to challenge it if there is no justified reason for this step. This also creates a restrictive and an employer controlled market. This would also foster fear in the labor segment, and degrade the integrity of the competitive market besides giving a fillip to more malevolent tendencies amongst employers. What needs to be realized is that you can cut a cross-section of the Canadian population on class, creed, color, language, gender, or any other marker, and you’ll see that those who are classified as labor would be an astounding majority.
When the power to control someone’s future is bestowed by law or convention, to another, then that control would be misused at some point, as that is the nature of control. And this is true even if the roles are reversed between the controller and the victim of such control. You can see a similar analogy with the gas supply control being exerted by one nation over Europe. It can do it because it actually can! And what can be done will eventually be done at some point. Perhaps the laws that allow these controls and provide such a framework have not been thought through with regard to their misuse. This also creates another dangerous situation where if the doors of employment can be closed at the snap of someone’s finger, then those doors or some of them can be opened too, by another snap of these same fingers, should that be their desire then. Thus your career progress is no longer in your hands and has then become performance proof beyond just one employer. You are now a plaything to those who believe they are the pharaohs of this age. Or perhaps you are a rat in an experiment, where its movement is being controlled by the opening and closing of different doors to a predefined destination. I’m hoping the government and the supreme-court can review some of these provisions from the perspective of individual rights that presently enables unjustified control and prevents them from fully accessing the job market and leading to their exploitation or oppression.
Let me state this: Information here has been condensed (or at least I tried to!) and much also left out, as this is not an exhaustive account, but to provide enough information to make a case that a moral outrage and an injustice has been committed. I’m not legally qualified but this case has echoes of forced labor, oppression & exploitation. This is a throwback to a different era when transnational corporations ruled the planet and did as they saw fit. When a commission of inquiry is established, a full account can and shall be provided.
If two hundred and twenty nine years after this land abolished slavery, the reference check and/or misuse of clout can render a person like a runaway slave then has slavery been really abolished or it has simply become more surreptitious? Or is it smart slavery where the slave need not know they are under such an arrangement? Do I have to live on the run forever or find jobs in hiding and hope I’m not seen? And is that even possible in today’s connected world? Am I to be denied equality in freedom and opportunity?
I would like to add something related to my personal situation here. I have a young son and an ailing wife here, who suffers from a degenerative condition and multiple disabilities and was last month supposed to undergo her second major surgery, in three months, and due to a complication it got delayed. My career has been as you would know by now, at a standstill since the last three years, and this makes pursuing a legal route to get redress challenging. When I lost my job I was confused, I had no idea on why it had happened. It slowly became clear as the plot unfolded, with pieces on the ground moving, a pattern emerging and the actual motive getting uncovered. But as I got clarity, I also lost time and money. And it’s not just the lawyer’s fees but the cost of investigating on this scale, where it’s not just one company but others as well, that would be beyond my limited capacity. Can I compete against such opponents that have almost limitless resources, while pursuing it legally? I’m not even sure if the law presently considers blacklisting as wrong and then there is the time limit within which such cases can be filed. Here the time it took to uncover the entire agenda was more than two and a half years, while I have invested this current year, entirely in my job search, with the full knowledge of the loaded dice against me, and I can’t gamble on a lawyer when survival is the bigger problem. Which is why I have chosen to explain how damaging it has been to me, and hoping that such provisions could be reviewed. If the investigation confirms my claims then I would like the state to fight on my behalf or assign a lawyer well versed in corporate law, willing to work for free or reduced rates. Although it raises questions on the morality of forcing an individual to hire a lawyer to fight against being taken into forced labor or remove economic sanctions when the social compact between the citizen and the state rests on the guaranteeing of basic rights! Aside from my own personal stake here, this case would also serve general good, as it involves public interest, and it will help remove any arbitrary restrictive measures or any provisions that allow them, improve the employment processes for the better for everyone and reaffirm the supremacy of individual rights, with respect to corporate practices, for future reference. Thus I have requested a judicial commission of inquiry; if the CEO of JCI contests my claim. A suo moto notice can be helpful here. But regardless of the response, the vulnerabilities that have been raised must be addressed for general good.
I hope I have explained the situation well enough to be easily comprehensible, and I know it can be challenging for someone who isn’t familiar with the inner workings and I’m ready to elaborate further. As you can understand, this can’t continue forever given my uniquely exigent circumstances. I can’t be held hostage like this and I need to know if the Canadian state can provide this sense of security that I can pursue my career without any malign influence of a past employer that has a conflict of interest in my pursuit of gainful employment, and stands to benefit by sabotaging it? Can I find work with dignity and without fear, where I know that I can be hired and fired solely upon how I perform and not by someone pulling strings from the top? Does the law even recognize this possibility of a malicious, malevolent and malignant ex-employer or is their word held sacred? Even applying for a government job requires this damn reference as you would already know! If the Canadian govt. desires, I could help it develop a plan to make the system more robust and future proof. Given my experience in designing electrical systems for buildings, I also understand that there are breakdown conditions when the system will not perform to its intended design and how those conditions need to be factored and planned accordingly. Similar principles could be applied here. (My case above pertains to such breakdown conditions, if you observe carefully). Some ideas I have discussed here and others I’m not putting here as that would be a separate topic.
Oppression, exploitation and focused discrimination may not come with receipts, but they would leave their footprints, both digitally and on the ground; in the actions that have been undertaken and the state should possess the resources to check them. And if this can satisfy the criteria of justice, then so be it. Else this document would serve another purpose as well: I’m hopeful there is a world out there that will not enable injustice or indirectly tell you to go back to your past ‘master’. And they would disregard the sanctity of this ex-employer’s reference as unworthy. And rightfully so! If this doesn’t work out then God would surely have ordained for me some path to pursue my sustenance.
I would like to raise some deeper questions: Is the purpose of the rule of law to establish justice on the principles of fairness and ensuring that no section gets exploited or is it to create a legal web where the most resourceful, dominant and scheming spiders can lure the disadvantaged, the weak and the na?ve, and devour them? Is the rule of law a tool to perpetuate the tyranny of the powerful over the powerless? Is it a ploy to control the actions of the timid so they pose no threat and remain forever frail? Can there be any justification to put a family with the young and the infirm, under a siege, until they can be coerced? I believe the letter of the law is like a living body, and it’s alive only because it possesses the spirit of the law, and bereft of this spirit, it’s as dead as a body without life in it.
I understand the purpose of the state is to establish justice, and I hope the powers that be, agree with me in principle, and therefore I have reached out publicly, hoping that necessary corrective actions can be taken towards improving the lives of the people, their empowerment and their confidence in the state as being a defender of its values reaffirmed. Let me also state here that I have found Canada to be an enriching place with warm people and I say this despite the challenges I have faced here. The reason I have brought this up is because I believe that Canada has the systemic ability to improve further. And had I believed otherwise, I would have left this country earlier, without saying anything. What I have observed in my experience is that in the countries that aren’t industrial democracies, the people are afraid of governments but not past employers, and in Canada, it’s the converse. Here the people are afraid of their past employers but not the government. It just shows where the coercive power resides. But is it possible that people should have to fear neither if they have abided by the law?
This struggle has given me an insight, a new awareness, which is ironically the privilege of my suffering. And this privilege is both a moral trial and a trust for me. A trial that tests my purpose of life and which, I can’t escape, ignore or stall any further. And it’s a trust that is now a sacred obligation that I must now discharge to the best of my ability, and for which I shall one day, be held to account, not by any earthly court, but by the Court of the One Most High and on the Day of Accounts, when the Sovereignty will be His Alone and He shall be the Judge of us all. And I believe this is a trust, not just for me, but for everyone and especially those, whose hands, possesses the power to rectify, reform and reaffirm.
I don’t know how this will end, but I believe my cause is just and I must do my part and speak the truth to power and leave the rest in the hands of the Almighty. I had started this with a religious invocation, and I’ll end it with another one: I put my trust in Allah and sufficient is He as a Disposer of affairs. So help me God and to You is our final return.
Sincerely,
Samir Siddiqui