Personal behaviour vs employment
Moderator: bbmods
- think positive
- Posts: 40237
- Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:33 pm
- Location: somewhere
- Has liked: 337 times
- Been liked: 103 times
- David
- Posts: 50659
- Joined: Sun Jul 27, 2003 4:04 pm
- Location: the edge of the deep green sea
- Has liked: 15 times
- Been liked: 76 times
Perhaps it’s a bit cavalier to want a court case to serve an abstract idea, but I feel like cases like these are of some genuine national importance, particularly when civil liberties are under sustained threat and the ground underneath the struggle between employer power and workplace rights is shifting so significantly. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that this would have been a landmark case.Pies4shaw wrote:Employment lawyers who think that it is “disappointing” that other people’s clients didn’t go on to spend many hundreds of thousands of dollars each to obtain a cute precedent need to TAGHLAT.
In any case, even if all that’s a sideshow, the idea of both Rugby Australia and Folau flushing their riches down the toilet seems like a no-lose situation.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
- stui magpie
- Posts: 54828
- Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 10:10 am
- Location: In flagrante delicto
- Has liked: 126 times
- Been liked: 160 times
^
I think you over estimate the level of precedent this could have made and it's impact on average Jack or Jill.
The federal court would have been likely ruling on whether the termination of employment was illegal under section 772 of the fair work act and it's associated regulations, specifically on the point of religion.
It's extremely unlikely to have made any ruling around the amount of power an employer holds over their employees actions in their private life and, even if they did, because of the specifics of this case they would be unlikely to have application to the average punter and nor would the average punter be able to leverage it in any way without legal advice.
I think you over estimate the level of precedent this could have made and it's impact on average Jack or Jill.
The federal court would have been likely ruling on whether the termination of employment was illegal under section 772 of the fair work act and it's associated regulations, specifically on the point of religion.
It's extremely unlikely to have made any ruling around the amount of power an employer holds over their employees actions in their private life and, even if they did, because of the specifics of this case they would be unlikely to have application to the average punter and nor would the average punter be able to leverage it in any way without legal advice.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
-
- Posts: 8764
- Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:04 pm
Bit harsh to expect someone to walk away from what is rumoured to be around $10M to satisfy a higher morality. The guy might not be able to work again (barring the odd appearance for Samoa) because of virtue signalling twats in various Rugby and League organizations. He has to think of his family and future.