Apparently I am not allowed to use one of those words... At least I think that is what the HRPA is referring too... I got the following (somewhat vague) email:
I have since edited it to say 'screwed' as my choice of words first time round may not have been the most professional... My apologies to anyone I may have offended.
As for my choice of the F-word, I still believe that Bill 138 would be horrible for our profession, the companies we work for, and is nothing more than attempt at gaining more (unnecessary) power over us from the HRPA... This I stand by.
I also stand by the fact that the approach of creating Bill 138 was not democratic... Many (paying) members still don't know about it, and are not happy when they become aware.
Not only do I stand by it, but I think it is the only reason my blog got the attention it did. The HRPA does not want people to oppose Bill 138... They want it to pass under the radar... Too bad.
Remember the email I posted from the THRPA Board?
This is the key take away from the tactics used:
The THRPA Board of Directors was extremely disappointed by the manner in which HRPA decided to conduct the meeting on November 29th. HRPA had already decided BEFORE the meeting what the intended the outcome would be. This mischievous and egregious action cannot be accepted. We expected an open dialogue where we could explore our mutual interests for our members and the HR Profession, instead the HRPA Board of Directors threatened to remove us as your elected board representatives of THRPA if we refused to sign certain agreements immediately that evening. As HR professionals we would never advise our employers or clients to force anyone to sign a letter with these requirements and under duress. Why would HRPA dare to choose such an approach? We felt their actions were not merely disrespectful but potentially illegal.
Why didn't they just say give 'em an offer they can't refuse?
But this isn't the first time a comparison to gangsters that can be made about the HRPA... Remember the Capranos video?
The so-called 'promotional video' for our profession? The one promoting violence along with gender, racial, and ethnic stereotypes?
There was also a statement in the email from the THRPA regarding this video:
This promotion of violence posted officially on the internet and advertised to Chapter Presidents as HRPA official communication was unacceptable. We were disappointed by the response and the subsequent efforts to rectify the situation.
What would the THRPA be so upset about?
Well, here are some screenshots from a discussion about the video from the HRPA Members LinkedIN group:
In all fairness, there was a variety of responses to the video - some liked it some didn't... with any form of self-expression (like a blog for example) this can be misinterpreted.
Good thing the HRPA's Manager of Membership and Chapter Relations is on top of things!
Meanwhile, on Twitter...
Copies are still available?
I know I'm not supposed to use the F-word anymore... but this sure looks like a big middle finger to the THRPA Chapter president to me.
Do you see a big middle finger? I do!
Want another example? Let me pick one!
As a believer in National Unity, I think all provinces should work together whenever possible. To me, the CHRP designation is becoming increasingly de-valued as a national designation due to the lack of national unity.
I believe that a national designation should have a national standard... There's logic to that right?
So, I posted a discussion about it on the HRPA Members LinkedIN group:
But this isn't about me using obscene language... This is about me opposing Bill 138.