Israel Folau back

[086]

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!

 

[Dawgfather]

In a way I draw parallels between Rugby Australia and Westpac.

Both have very niche 'businesses. One is supposed to preside over Rugby in Australia and the other is supposed to be in the business of banking.

Unfortunately both have decided it would be a good idea to become virtue signalling organisations and devote countless time and resources to things that have nothing to do with rugby or banking.

LGBTQ, diversity, equity, aboriginals, gay marriage. None of these things have anything to do with banking or with Rugby yet both are trying their best to have everything to do with them.

Both Westpac and Rugby Australia are now reaping what they sewed. If you want to pretend to be a virtuous organisation, you are going to look very hypocritical when you are caught out doing exactly what you pretended not to do.

In Westpac's case they facilitated payments to child sex trafficers
In Rugby Australia's case they decided that a few words on the internet (that can also be found in the most popular book in human history (the bible) are grounds for dismissal, even if it's the best rugby player you have in the country.

 

[Flanagun]

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.

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.

 

[Flanagun]

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.

 

[Mitch Connor]

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?

 

[086]

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.

What's the subplot and very real ramifications?

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!

 

[Alan79]

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.

 

[wendog33]

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!

Been happening for quite some time. You can't say nuthin'.

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019...ervice--banerji-decision/11377990?pfmredir=sm

 

[Flanagun]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Weak Gutted Dog]

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.

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

 

[Alexander the Great]

Just like half the boys nailing your mother whilst you and your dad watch. Good times

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.

 

[086]

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.

An expectation is different from a right.
Therein lies the issue, they can expect certain behaviour, yet have no right to enforce such behaviour.

Been happening for quite some time. You can't say nuthin'.

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019...ervice--banerji-decision/11377990?pfmredir=sm

All the more reason we as society need to baulk at this shit and fight for our freedom.

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.

There is an easier option for brand protection.
In this instance, all RUA had to do, was tweet a reply along the lines of "Whilst we respect Israel's right to an opinion, RUA and its sponsors do not endorse, nor share the same beliefs."
Simple as.
They distance themselves from his views, without creating a toxic mess and subsequent the legal liability.
Yet we know that a certain airlines CEO wasn't going to allow that, hey
Pity he doesn't fly over to where his parent company is located and publicly denounce their views against his personal lifestyle choices!

 

[The_Chimpster]

He's an absolute flog. Makes anti homosexual posts, rightfully gets sacked now wants 14 million dollars due to lost earnings, claiming he "would have been wallabies captain"

He may be a talented athlete but he shouldn't be allowed back into any code imo (although saying that, wife beaters and domestic abusers should be locked up and are welcomed back into the nrl with open arms)

 

[FaceBreaker]

Hope he wins.

Couldn’t care less of Raelene pulls the plug on her life. Bitch destroyed this club and there is a high price to pay.

 

[Flanagun]

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

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.

 

[Flanagun]

An expectation is different from a right.
Therein lies the issue, they can expect certain behaviour, yet have no right to enforce such behaviour.

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.

Seriously, I think they do have thst right.... and if an employee believes an item in a code of conduct document is discriminatory, they should challenge it from the ourset, not give both written and verbal assurance they will abide by version conditions and then try to sue for ridiculous amounts of money after they go back on their commitment.

we will have to agree to disagree, I suppose.... see what the court says.

 

[086]

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.

 

[Flanagun]

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.

Enslavement? Now come on, that’s more than a little hyper bowl lick.

 

[Natboy]

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.

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 it

 

[086]

Enslavement? Now come on, that’s more than a little hyper bowl lick.

How else would you word being restricted to your employer's policies in all aspects of your life?