Olena Russell was asked to cover up by a B.C. Transit driver on a bus in downtown Victoria more than three weeks ago. B.C. Transit says an apology is in the mail, and drivers have been told that breastfeeding is permitted on buses in accordance with the B.C. Human Rights Code.

But Russell said she’ll pursue a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal complaint process until she feels certain no similar incidents will happen.

Russell was breastfeeding her baby daughter, Kaia, when she got on to the bus, ahead of her husband. The driver told Russell’s husband that she needed to cover up.

In the discussion that followed, the driver said it was at his discretion whether Russell could breastfeed on the bus — something the stay-at-home mom said she knew wasn’t true thanks to her involvement with a breastfeeding and infant nutrition support group through La Leche League of Canada.

“I was really surprised, disappointed. I have two children and three years later, I’ve never had anybody say anything to me,” said Russell, who also has a three-year-old son, Kasian.

After getting off the bus, they walked for a few minutes before getting on a second bus. Russell said she was again breastfeeding, but this time the driver didn’t seem to mind.

The couple began filing a pair of complaints — first a letter to B.C. Transit, then an official complaint to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal that Russell said she’ll post Monday.

B.C. Transit spokeswoman Joanna Linsangan said the transit company received Russell’s letter on Wednesday and mailed out an apology Friday, along with a pair of bus passes for the month of August.

B.C. Transit has investigated the incident and issued a letter to all operators reminding them to abide by the Human Rights Code.

The code bars discrimination based on sex, which includes pregnancy and breastfeeding. This means mothers have a legal right to breastfeed in public places and makes asking them to cover up discriminatory, according to a Ministry of the Attorney General publication.

That’s how construction worker Raul Aguilera described his battle for unpaid wages against a former employer under British Columbia’s employment standards enforcement system.

“This is ridiculous,” said Aguilera, 44, who came to Canada from Mexico as a skilled worker in 2000 and now lives in Toronto. “It puts the whole burden on workers. The process is hard and frustrating.”

The bill — the subject of a one-day public hearing Tuesday — mandates workers to first confront the employer before filing a complaint on disputes such as working conditions, owed wages, wrongful dismissal, vacation and overtime pay.

It would also allow employment standards officers to facilitate settlements, currently a responsibility of trained Ontario Labour Relations Board adjudicators.

The changes are part of the province’s employment standards modernization strategy to reduce the 14,000 workers’ claims in backlog.

But critics fear the “mandatory self-enforcement” approach would adversely affect all Ontario workers, especially those in low-paying temp jobs and newcomers with language barriers.

“You don’t reduce backlog by creating more barriers to discourage complaints,” said Fred Hahn, president of the 230,000-member Canadian Union of Public Employees in Ontario.

Aguilera, an installer, worked for a Vancouver construction company in 2005 and was owed $600. He spent days to study the labour ministry’s self-help kit before he learned to calculate the amount of unpaid wages and completed the complex complaint form.

To show ministry staff his attempt to resolve the dispute, Aguilera called and faxed his employer, but to no avail. Finally, he went to the boss’ work site.

“He refused to pay me and just started pushing me really hard. I was afraid. I just left,” recalled Aguilera, whose case was finally accepted by the ministry after he detailed the confrontation.

Yufen Wu, a nanny from China, was owed two months of salary and overtime pay by a Burlington family of seven. She was immediately terminated in October after her boss was notified of a complaint she filed earlier.

When she called the family to recoup the unpaid wages, she was contacted by police and threatened with harassment charges.

“This bill would give employers even more power and make it worse for workers,” said Wu.

The labour ministry proposes to exempt certain workers from mandatory self-enforcement: young workers, live-in caregivers, people with language barriers or a disability, workers afraid to contact the employer or when the employer has closed or gone bankrupt.

“How do you decide whose English is not good enough and who is not afraid to confront the employer?”

But how well do the leading complaint websites themselves work? On Monday, an old-fashioned bricks-and-mortar organization, the Consumer Federation of America, delivered a mixed verdict: The best sites are great for helping consumers voice irritation, but not so great for helping them address it.

Stephen Brobeck, the federation’s executive director, said the group decided to examine more than a dozen complaint websites, in part because they show up so frequently in Web searches.

Not very long ago, aggrieved consumers had few options beyond griping to friends or relatives, filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau or state attorney general, or suing, Brobeck said. Now, sites such as My3cents, Complaints Board, and Ripoff Report, offer an alternative.

Though some sites, such as My3cents, offer consumers the chance to post positive comments, the sites have special appeal to the disgruntled.

“They’re unhappy, and they want to vent,” Brobeck said. “And this is a very low-cost way to vent, with potentially high impact.”

Susan Grant, the federation’s director of consumer protection, said the best sites could help potential customers of the large, national companies most likely to appear in the sites’ databases.

She said a lack of complaints should not be seen as any sort of guarantee. “But if there are lots of complaints, and lots of complaints about particular kinds of problems, that’s a good indicator to consumers that they may want to look elsewhere for their purchases,” Grant said.

Grant said the sites could also prove useful because consumers sometimes shared stories about how they ultimately solved a problem.

But isn’t the Obama Administration doing everything possible to help US homeowners now living in a toxic home because of toxic Chinese drywall? The Chinese Drywall Complaint Center says, “the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill-now officially the worst oil spill in US history is not the Obama Administrations first astonishing failure to respond to a national disaster. The Obama Administration’s response to toxic Chinese drywall has been negligent, and they act like they either do not want to talk about it-or their are afraid of offending the Chinese-either way 100,000′s of US Homeowners in the US Southeast have been abandoned by Washington, DC.” The group says,”even worse than Obama’s lack of interest in toxic Chinese drywall-the US Consumer Products Safety Commission has miserably failed 100,000′s of US homeowners with their lack of information.

Symptoms of toxic Chinese drywall in homes in Louisiana, North Florida, Central Florida, South Florida, South Carolina, Florida, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia, or Southeast Texas include: repeated air conditioning coil failures, within two years of the home being built. In addition to air conditioning coil failures, toxic Chinese drywall in the US Southeast may cause appliance failures, light bulbs burning out prematurely, copper turning black, combined with all, or some of the family are experiencing seemingly never ending upper respiratory issues, nose bleeds, severe headaches, unexplained very unusual rashes, especially in the late spring, or summer. The time frame for toxic Chinese drywall in the US Southeast is 2001-to early 2009. The Chinese Drywall Complaint Center is saying, “We think the worst effects of toxic Chinese drywall in the US Southeast occur in from mid April—mid October because of high heat combined with high thresholds of humidity.”

First filed last Friday in the U.S. District Court in Tallahassee on April 30, the amended complaint in Ward, et. al. v. BP, et.al. (N.D. Fla., Case No. 4:10-cv-00157-SPM-WCS), alleges gross negligence, willful misconduct and other claims in the design, construction and operation of the rig, as well as in the response to the disaster. The case has been assigned to Chief Judge Stephan P. Mickle.

The defendants include various divisions of oil giant BP (formerly British Petroleum), Transocean, Ltd. (the owners/operators of the Deepwater Horizon), Halliburton Energy (which was involved in “cementing” operations to cap the oil rig when the explosion occurred) and Cameron International Corporation (manufacturers of the rig’s blow-out-preventers, which failed to operate properly and prevent the oil spill).

Similar lawsuits are planned for Texas, Alabama and Mississippi, as the devastation from the oil rig disaster continues to grow.

“Oil continues to flow into the gulf, and with it an environmental nightmare,” said Dr. Howard, who most recently played a leading role in coordinating a national team of more than 40 law firms in the Toyota sudden acceleration lawsuits.

“This unmitigated horror threatens to destroy one of the most beautiful marine, coastal and estuarine environments in the world.”

clean up the oil spill along the Gulf of Mexico. The company said they are recovering over 2000 barrels of oil everyday and are in the process of cleaning up the oil spill.

“It is expected that it will take some time to increase the flow through the system and maximise the proportion of oil and gas flowing through the broken riser that will be captured and transported to the drillship” BP said.

The company said this past week that they have been recovering the oil which spread into coastal regions which is an estimated 5000 barrels and over 1000 have been recovered already. BP has been working on covering the leaks in the leaks and has been taking measure to ensure the incident does to worsen and repeat itself.

BP is offering compensation for those affected by the spill in Florida, Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi and has spend $650 million on total expenses out of which $450 million was spent on the clean up. BP said 15,600 complaints were received in total out of which 2,700 have been compensated.

Well according to a Consumer Reports survey that asked 2,000 Americans to rank their complaints about rental cars companies, airlines and hotels and found that luggage fees caused the most resentment.

Granted this is an American survey and we in Canada are somewhat spared the burden of baggage fees when flying Westjet or Air Canada but we still have to doll out the cash for our luggage when flying on a US based carrier. But the survey also found that rude behavior by staff was not far behind.
According to Mark Kotkin, of Consumer Reports “Two themes emerged. One of them was added fees. That really irritated people regardless of the industry. For airlines, in particular, it was the new luggage charges.”

The other main irritant was rude or unhelpful staff. (I’d like to see a survey from people who work on the other side of the counter to see if rude customers are their top complaint).

One reason passengers find charges for luggage so irritating may be because they are new and they are expensive. ($15 – $25 per bag/per person each way depending on the airline)

Surprisingly consumers questioned in the poll said lack of information about airline delays was more aggravating than the delays themselves. Passengers were also annoyed by fellow airline passengers who hog seats and carry-on space.

Personally I find it extremely aggravating when someone’s carry-on stowed in the compartment above is the size of a small car and takes up all the, barely leaving room to shut the door.

On a more positive note, airline passengers seem to have accepted waiting in long lines to go through security and check-ins at airports and the lack of snacks on flights.

So what’s the message in all this? Get used to extra fees, there here to stay and if you’re in the hospitality or travel industry, no matter how rude or demanding the customer gets, smile.

Jeanne Marie Hackema, 68, was arrested Thursday and charged Friday. She has since been released.

The victim of the alleged assault is a 55-year-old woman who no longer lives at the facility, which is housed in a bungalow at 115th Street and 9th Avenue.

The woman filed the complaint in May 2009 and left the facility two months later, said Acting Staff Sgt. Roxanne McKean.

“We are very gratified to know she has been charged and held accountable. The main issue is when you’re vulnerable, you can’t complain, your families can’t complain, because they need 24-hour care,” she said.

In 2004, the Elder Advocates of Alberta filed a complaint about the Open Arms care home alleging overcrowding, insufficient food, delays in helping with bathroom needs and a lack of trained staff.

According to Alberta Seniors and Community Supports, a separate complaint was filed against the care home in February, but has since been resolved. The department would not release further information, citing privacy concerns.

McKean said the alleged victim was in the care home because of a brain injury. Brain injuries can affect memory, mental focus and a variety of emotional, intellectual and physical attributes.

Police laid a “global” assault charge in the case, which means they believe more than one assault may have occurred during a set period.

McKean said officers are looking for other potential victims, but do not have any other suspects.

Elan on March 29 filed a complaint with the ITC asserting that Apple had violated a patent relating to the ability to detect the simultaneous presence of multiple fingers on touch devices. The technology involved is used in the iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch, MacBook and Magic Mouse products.

Elan asked the ITC to issue an order barring importation of those products into the U.S. Elan also asked the ITC to bar Apple from selling any of these products it had already imported into the U.S.

Elan is alleging that Apple infringed patent number 5,825,352, which is registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Elan is a semiconductor design company, which also develops products focused on touch technology.

An Apple spokeswoman declined comment on ITC’s initiation of an investigation into its products.

phone

email

dated

manager name

company name

Dear XXXXX:

This letter has two purposes: to formally submit a complaint, and to put the facts of the situation on record. The subject of my complaint is the treatment I received [put the date here] by my co-worker [name].

Please note that I have been an employee at [your company] since [date]. I have every reason to believe that I am a dedicated and outstanding employee. I am confident that I exhibit the highest work ethics and treat my supervisors and co-workers with respect.

My complaint, in brief, is that [name] has [summarize here]been harassing me on several occasions. The latest event has been extremely shocking. As a result, I have made the decision, despite great difficulty, to make a formal complaint.

The events were these: [now give a chronological detail]

On the 9th of February of last year (2001)….
Again, in June of last year…
I spoke to my supervisor, who spoke to my [co-worker]…
However, again on…

I am sure that company policy must prohibit or discourage this kind of behavior. In fairness, I should point out that [co-worker] might not have intended his/her first occasion of this behavior toward me. However, despite my clearly negative reaction, and the reprimand from my supervisor, he/she continues to harass me.

I want to reiterate that I am a loyal employee, and work hard to get the job done in a professional manner. I do not need the added pressure of discourteous treatment. I trust you will agree, and I look forward to your assurance that it will not occur again. I would also appreciate an apology or other recognition of the error, directly from [co-worker's name]. I feel this is an entirely fair request.

The city suffered a setback in January when U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz dismissed the suit. Motz said the connection between the Wells Fargo foreclosures and urban problems was “implausible when considered against the background of other factors leading to the deterioration of the inner city,” and called the suit overly broad.

City Solicitor George Nilson said Wednesday that the new complaint, which was filed Wednesday, outlines specific property damages – including millions in costs to city fire and police services – to more than 200 vacant, foreclosed properties spread out over 36 city blocks.

The new complaint also separates damages incurred by the city in the form of lost property taxes, Nilson said. When the foreclosed homes became vacant, the city alleges, many of them lost much of their value and drove down the value of nearby homes, leading to lost property tax revenue for the city.