Where is the logic in that? If they won't get 10 mill and know it, why would they try for more?He is a man of faith, and expressing his faith got him fired. If he believes that $14,000,000 is what he was deprived of, then good on him I say.
Personally, I think that they both know that they won't get $10,000,000, so they've upped it in order to receive a bit more. There's more to this than people think.
Which ramifications are those? I'm already bound by my position not to say certain things in the public eye or on social media and it has been this way for a long time. He's no pioneer.....others have taken up similar fights in the past and others no doubt will do so in the future.Funny thing is that most appear to miss the subplot beyond the greed.
The subplot is why I support his legal case, as the result will hold very real ramifications for all of us!
His greed otoh, meh, miss me with that shit!
What's the subplot and very real ramifications?Funny thing is that most appear to miss the subplot beyond the greed.
The subplot is why I support his legal case, as the result will hold very real ramifications for all of us!
His greed otoh, meh, miss me with that shit!
Which ramifications are those? I'm already bound by my position not to say certain things in the public eye or on social media and it has been this way for a long time. He's no pioneer.....others have taken up similar fights in the past and others no doubt will do so in the future.
Anyway, regardless of what you feel about the case, don't you think $10, million is more than enough? Asking for $14 is obscene.
There's a difference between employers rights to commercial in confidence practices and employees rights to hold a private opinion.What's the subplot and very real ramifications?
Been happening for quite some time. You can't say nuthin'.There's a difference between employers rights to commercial in confidence practices and employees rights to hold a private opinion.
Employers gaining a legal precedent to police employees in their private domain is tbh, a fucking scary agenda.
I for one, do not want my employer telling me what to and not to think, do, say etc all outside of the role they employ me for!
Nobody is denying him the right to an opinion, just the right to express opinions which may alienate fans, teammates and shareholders on a social media platform Which is very much in the public eye.There's a difference between employers rights to commercial in confidence practices and employees rights to hold a private opinion.
Employers gaining a legal precedent to police employees in their private domain is tbh, a fucking scary agenda.
I for one, do not want my employer telling me what to and not to think, do, say etc all outside of the role they employ me for!
It’s more like ask for $10 mil negotiate down to $5 mil.Where is the logic in that? If they won't get 10 mill and know it, why would they try for more?
You say he's a man of faith? I say he's a man of obscene greed and stupidity. A bottom feeder of the lowest order.
Intolerant for dumb arses yes i am. Now compare with what i said about izzy, to what he said, to about 95% of people in this country. Im racist. Lol. I didnt condemn him to hell like he thinks we all need to go.
Fuck the **** he needs a good ear bashing along the terms of what i said and told to pull his head in.
Getting around like his some god, the fuckwit.
Nail the **** to some wood like we did with the other one lol.
This club would lose alot of fans and respect if this clown turned up.
An expectation is different from a right.I don't know if he's got a chance of winning his case. But many professions in the public eye are entitled to expect their employees to act responsibly in their dealings on social media. In this case he supposedly agreed to abide by some of these behavioural standards in a contract renewal and did not after having been told it was not acceptable previously. So putting aside whatever ethical points you take regarding his comments, he placed his own beliefs above the value of his contract by making the comments in the most widely visible domain that he could.
All the more reason we as society need to baulk at this shit and fight for our freedom.Been happening for quite some time. You can't say nuthin'.
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019...ervice--banerji-decision/11377990?pfmredir=sm
There is an easier option for brand protection.Nobody is denying him the right to end opinion, just the right to express opinions which may alienate fans, teammates and shareholders on a social media platform Which is very much in the public eye.
I get that you believe he should be able to say what he wants on personal social media platforms, but companies and governments have had the right to protect their brands by asking employees to sign behavioural policies for a long time now.... it’s really nothing new.
Anyway, you’re definitely entitled to your opinion that companies should not be able to ask employees to sign these sorts of clauses, but I personally think they have a right to protect their interests.
Anyway, It’s probably not worth getting back into this circular argument. I understand your position, even though I don’t agree.
I just think asking for $14 million is obscene.
I don’t think Rugby Australia is coming to the negotiating table. I think they are very confident of winning and not having to pay a cent.It’s more like ask for $10 mil negotiate down to $5 mil.
So ask for $14 mil negotiate down to $7mil.
An obvious negotiating tactic.
The real target would be $7mil
Think of employers as parents for grown ups. If their children say something they don’t like, they have the right to put them up for adoption.An expectation is different from a right.
Therein lies the issue, they can expect certain behaviour, yet have no right to enforce such behaviour.
Enslavement? Now come on, that’s more than a little hyper bowl lick.They employ us to complete a task for payment!
The other option, irrelevant how you word it, is enslavement!
What's that saying that goes along the lines of "I might not agree with what you say, yet will fight tooth and nail for your right to say it!"?
Too many are marrying separate issues here.
Their legal fees must be getting quite high and they aren’t exactly swimming in money. I’m totally off Folau but hope he smashes them, I can’t stand the sport and a lot of the people involved in itI don’t think Rugby Australia is coming to the negotiating table. I think they are very confident of winning and not having to pay a cent.
How else would you word being restricted to your employer's policies in all aspects of your life?Enslavement? Now come on, that’s more than a little hyper bowl lick.