Israel Folau - Breach of contract or right to free speech?

[moXJO]

I think you should be able to put almost anything into the contract, and then it’s up to the person to decide whether the millions offered are worth it or not.

And for the guys on $60k or less with little choice?
16-18yo with little experience?
Business should not be able to solely write, or trump workplace laws.

 

[rederob]

The question though is whether or not I have the right to sack the chef for expressing political or religious views or circulating propaganda in a private capacity, in their own time and in no way involving my restaurant?

How can that be a question?
You need to rely on applicable laws and none are evident.

 

[Dark Knight 2.0]

How can that be a question?
You need to rely on applicable laws and none are evident.

Question is fairness. What should the Laws, the FW act protect, in the name of fairness.

Rob, if it were a Muslim quoting the Quran would you be so adamant?

 

[rederob]

Question is fairness. What should the Laws, the FW act protect, in the name of fairness.
Rob, if it were a Muslim quoting the Quran would you be so adamant?

The law is the law is the law. Governments can and do change them.
The FWA covers "fairness" - as in unfair dismissal. It also covers "lawfulness" - as in unlawful termination.
Most of us have a pretty good idea of things which are lawful or not.
Same for saying things which are respectful, and even more certainly things which others will find offensive.

 

[SirRumpole]

Same for saying things which are respectful, and even more certainly things which others will find offensive.

People can be offended by anything they want to be offended by, even the truth.

A lot of religious people might be offended by pornography or brothels, but they continue to exist.

Would you consider blashphemy should be a crime ? People could be offended by it.

 

[Value Collector]

If I owned a restaurant then no way would I be promoting any political or religious cause. Doing so is a “can’t win” approach - it’ll attract few if any new customers but will lose at least some of those on the other side.

The question though is whether or not I have the right to sack the chef for expressing political or religious views or circulating propaganda in a private capacity, in their own time and in no way involving my restaurant?

If your restaurant business model was based around hiring celebrity chefs, and you had Gordon Ramsey on the bill board every Friday night, if he become on nose to the public and started doing things that might damage your restaurant you would probably dump him and put Jamie Oliver on the bill board.

I think you would be right to fire the chef in that case, because it’s not a faceless chef in the back, your image and he image of the chef outside the kitchen become entangled.

 

[Value Collector]

People can be offended by anything they want to be offended by, even the truth.

A lot of religious people might be offended by pornography or brothels, but they continue to exist.

Would you consider blashphemy should be a crime ? People could be offended by it.

It’s ok to be offended, offense itself is not a crime.

But if a church group signed a contract with the local sizzler for meals every Sunday after church, and then the sizzler rebranded as a strip joint / brothel, the church group would be within its rights to say “that’s not what we signed up for” and end the contract.

 

[Value Collector]

Most companies would jump at that option, a clause that says we can terminate employment, when we see fit.

And the market will decide whether that clause stays.

If Israel didn’t want the clause, he could find another group to sell his services to, as you know he hasn’t been shy about shopping around for different contracts.

 

[Value Collector]

And for the guys on $60k or less with little choice?
16-18yo with little experience?
Business should not be able to solely write, or trump workplace laws.

I agree, but the more extraordinary your income becomes, the more you should expect to have a lot of unusual terms and conditions that are designed to protect the person taking the punt and paying you those millions, and the more you can expect the “job” to encroach on some of your personal life.

 

[SirRumpole]

I agree, but the more extraordinary your income becomes, the more you should expect to have a lot of unusual terms and conditions that are designed to protect the person taking the punt and paying you those millions, and the more you can expect the “job” to encroach on some of your personal life.

Rights are not determined by your income, you either have them or you don't.

 

[Smurf1976]

How can that be a question?
You need to rely on applicable laws and none are evident.

Pretty much anything that anyone ever stood up against was not illegal at the time.

Everything from wars and the White Australia Policy to dams and coal mines. All fully legal at the time, in many cases being the actions of government itself, and geneally with mainstream support but rarely were those with a dissenting view actually silenced.

The mainstream media still reported the news and gave dissenting views a fair run despite relying on advertising $ from the other side and those aligned with it. And those advertisers didn’t walk away just because their advertising $ didn’t buy editorial influence and nor did they expect it to.

 

[SirRumpole]

But if a church group signed a contract with the local sizzler for meals every Sunday after church, and then the sizzler rebranded as a strip joint / brothel, the church group would be within its rights to say “that’s not what we signed up for” and end the contract.

That would depend on the contract. The sizzler's job was to supply meals, not act as a "brand representative".

 

[IFocus]

Good to see you boys are not letting go...........

 

[rederob]

Pretty much anything that anyone ever stood up against was not illegal at the time.

I have no idea what that response addressed .
If people breach the conditions of their employment there are consequences.
What is so hard?

 

[Dark Knight 2.0]

Good to see you boys are not letting go...........

"This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning". Winston Churchill.

 

[SirRumpole]

If people breach the conditions of their employment there are consequences.
What is so hard?

Don't you believe in inherent human rights ?

Interdependent and indivisible

All human rights are indivisible, whether they are civil and political rights, such as the right to life, equality before the law and freedom of expression; economic, social and cultural rights, such as the rights to work, social security and education , or collective rights, such as the rights to development and self-determination, are indivisible, interrelated and interdependent. The improvement of one right facilitates advancement of the others. Likewise, the deprivation of one right adversely affects the others.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/pages/whatarehumanrights.aspx

Anything that diminishes these rights (like a contract) is therefore acting contrary to the individual's rights and should not be allowed to have that effect.

 

[Smurf1976]

The law is the law is the law. Governments can and do change them.

In the context of social issues the primary instigator of change is those who are not part of government and who challenge accepted wisdom and current laws.

Without the ability to express dissenting views in a peaceful manner the gay rights and environmental movements, among others, would never have gotten anywhere.

Without past generations freely expressing dissent the world today would look very much the way it did in 1950 so far as society’s attitudes are concerned.

Therein lies the great irony in all this. It’s those on the progressive side who have the most to lose given that business is in most cases either neutral or on the conservative side politically.

I do not agree with Folau but there’s far fewer consequences to someone preaching religion, who can simply be ignored, than there are to the silencing of dissent.

Journalists, whistle blowers and so on are in the same category. Silencing those with unpleasant information or views brings far more danger than allowing them to say it.

 

[rederob]

In the context of social issues the primary instigator of change is those who are not part of government and who challenge accepted wisdom and current laws.

This is a case where a contracted employee was warned about the type of behaviour that was not not appropriate BEFORE entering into into a fresh 4 year term.
This is a case where the employee had an opportunity to not sign, knowing full well the damage he did with respect to a similar instance over a year ago.
This is a person who has no respect for so many in the community and now thinks he deserves an apology.
The sporting community will be the better off without him.

 

[sptrawler]

This is a case where a contracted employee was warned about the type of behaviour that was not not appropriate BEFORE entering into into a fresh 4 year term.
This is a case where the employee had an opportunity to not sign, knowing full well the damage he did with respect to a similar instance over a year ago.
This is a person who has no respect for so many in the community and now thinks he deserves an apology.
The sporting community will be the better off without him.

You may be spot on with your take on it Rob, IMO all that is in question is the severity of the punishment, relative to the indiscretion.
The precedent being set, is an extremely strong one.
They would have been much better served, just quietly dropping him from the team, then at a later date pay out his contract as his services are no longer required. Trying to make a public spectacle of the issue, is crazy, detrimental to the sport and showed a lack of judgement. IMO

 

[satanoperca]

This is a case where a contracted employee was warned about the type of behaviour that was not not appropriate BEFORE entering into into a fresh 4 year term.
This is a case where the employee had an opportunity to not sign, knowing full well the damage he did with respect to a similar instance over a year ago.
This is a person who has no respect for so many in the community and now thinks he deserves an apology.
The sporting community will be the better off without him.

Thank-you Rederob, for saying it how it is, perfect summary of the situation.