The Air Canada Issue Has Nothing to Do With RIM

Posted
by
Kyle McInnes
on December 2, 2011, at 4:25 PM
in News
. Tags: , , , .
Comments: 13 responses
13 Comments

So two drunks were charged with mischief and had to be removed from an Air Canada flight from Toronto to Beijing. Why is it relevant that they’re RIM employees? Stories like this have been reported before, but the place of work for those charged is never disclosed because it’s simply not relevant. Did RIM as a company have anything to do with them being drunk? Of course not. Also, have you ever taken a flight from Toronto to Beijing? I dare you to fly for 13 hours without getting blackout drunk. It’s boring as hell.

Steven Colbert

When I asked a friend of mine who is a journalist why all these media outlets think it’s relevant that those charged work at RIM and the answer was “RIM is a newsworthy company so anything the employees do is newsworthy.” I’m not buying it. The real reason is that it has become popular to take anything RIM related and put it in the context of something negative for the company. PlayBooks on sale? It must be a failure. New BlackBerry launching in Indonesia? That’s because it can’t sell in America. This company simply can’t catch a break.

Here is the Toronto Star’s angle on why they think RIM is relevant in this story.

Permalink

Post Comment

  • Anonymous

    Totally agree. The Globe and Mail is the worst for this – they made the recent jailbreak item sound as if Playbooks were going to steal your car. They will take every opportunity to kick RIM in the shins and I don’t get it, outside of stereotypical Canadian self-loathing.

  • http://twitter.com/WEKetchum William Ketchum III

    Media outlets work that way, though. If a company is newsworthy, then so is what their employees do. The same would happen with the employees of another company, with members of an employee’s entourage, etc. Fact of the matter is, when you work for someone, your work reflects that company. It’s not something I think is right, but it’s a reality. 

  • http://twitter.com/gnosys Fan-Ir

    Just speculating here, it could be possible they yelled “I work for RIM!” when they were being removed, to mirror diplomatic immunity?

  • Furious George

    In a company where morale is already terrible, reading articles about executives behaving like this is another slap in the face. So while the RIM affiliation may not mean much to the outside world, it is very relevant inside the company.

  • Anonymous

    I read “RIM exec’s party harder than you”

  • http://www.twistimage.com/blog Mitch Joel – Twist Image

    They were travelling on business for RIM… not pleasure. Their tickets were paid for by RIM (their employer). I would argue that you’re an ambassador for the business that employs you 24 hours a day. I would argue even harder that if you’re travelling for business, then you represent the business. This issue has everything to do with RIM because these two were “on the clock.” Is RIM responsible for their behaviour? No. But, these two should know that when you’re travelling for business, you are the business. You’ll note that two gentlemen from the Montreal region recently drowned while on vacation (I believe they were in the caribbean). Because they died while on vacation, who they were employed by is only mentioned in passing (if that). Had this happened while they were there on business, you can rest assured the company’s names would have been front and center.

  • http://wowbored.com Brian

    Yeah, I agree. If those 2 execs worked for no name companies this would not be news at all.

  • bman

    Totally agree with your comments. On business you are a direct reflection of  your company. How many thousands of other people travel Toronto to Beijing and we don’t hear about it.  

  • http://about.me/kylemcinnes Kyle McInnes

    You may be right but I would say the reality of the situation is wrong. We work for companies but we don’t think for them. It’s funny how people put “my views are not those of my employer” thinking that will get them out of a lawsuit. It won’t. You just need to work for someone that understands these things are trivial.

  • http://about.me/kylemcinnes Kyle McInnes

    You may be right but I would say the reality of the situation is wrong. We work for companies but we don’t think for them. It’s funny how people put “my views are not those of my employer” thinking that will get them out of a lawsuit. It won’t. You just need to work for someone that understands these things are trivial.

  • http://about.me/kylemcinnes Kyle McInnes

    You may be right but I would say the reality of the situation is wrong. We work for companies but we don’t think for them. It’s funny how people put “my views are not those of my employer” thinking that will get them out of a lawsuit. It won’t. You just need to work for someone that understands these things are trivial.

  • http://about.me/kylemcinnes Kyle McInnes

    It’s good that you bring up the opposite point and reveal the argument but I totally disagree. Those charged have the right to hold their employers’ identities secret and revealing them before they’re found guilty is a complete breach of their privacy. I think the courts should be left to decide whether the place of work is relevant and whether to release that information. Otherwise, it’s just 2 guys who got a little too drunk and should be punished. End of story.

  • http://about.me/kylemcinnes Kyle McInnes

    You shouldn’t have to live your life according to how others perceive your company. Keep your head down and do a good job. Priority #1 for the next year.