Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

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

Jump to new
Well Robbee, only one of those causes seems to be in question and looks likely to be tested in court.

We shall see.
 
Funny how the players who did not sing the anthem on the fields have not been involved in a similar sacking
On the field,, not on their own time expressing a potentially divisive political view
So definitively a politically biaised sacking, funny how no one raised that issue..maybe someone did..did not follow too closely
 
qldfrog said:
Funny how the players who did not sing the anthem on the fields have not been involved in a similar sacking
On the field,, not on their own time expressing a potentially divisive political view
So definitively a politically biaised sacking, funny how no one raised that issue..maybe someone did..did not follow too closely
Click to expand...

That was Rugby League, under the ARL.
Israel Folau is playing Rugby Union under the ARU.
But your point is entirely correct.
 
if.jpg
 
SirRumpole said:
Once you "clock off", the employer *should* have no control over you and your life is your own.

.
Click to expand...

They haven’t taken away his right to say what he wants, they have just exercised their right to not be associated with him if he says things that hurt their brand.

No doubt he signed a contract with all sorts of clauses describing how he should act while he was being paid to represent the club and the league.

He didn’t have to sign up to those terms or accept the big pay days, he is a free man, but he did sign the contracts and did accept the pay.
Other wise you are a slave
Click to expand...

A slave would be beaten into submission, he was simply let go and is free to continue making any public comments he likes.

Definitely not a slave.
 
IFocus said:
View attachment 95611
Click to expand...
I pay a more than fair amount of taxes as a rich bastard who dares to earn more than the minimum wage for free healthcare and hospital,
on the other hand, I do not give anything to churches..as really, this is what is threatened: faith.
I am a non believer so I would fight against my taxes being spent on churches..and I actually do, for chaplains etc
But on the other hand, knowing we are spending 50 billions on obsolete even before design submarines, I will not give a cent for extra funding to Australian hospitals, or welfare: salvos etc:
donations for me are O/S, animals and nature, which are not gov funded.
In summary: I would feel right, as a believer if I was one, to donate to Folau
If it is your money, do what you want with it, and faith is a bloody good reason to believe in a cause in my opinion
Here we start to silence what is the basis of our civilization whether you like it or not, and under what, the pretense of freedom?
 
qldfrog said:
I pay a more than fair amount of taxes as a rich bastard who dares to earn more than the minimum wage for free healthcare and hospital,
on the other hand, I do not give anything to churches..as really, this is what is threatened: faith.
I am a non believer so I would fight against my taxes being spent on churches..and I actually do, for chaplains etc
But on the other hand, knowing we are spending 50 billions on obsolete even before design submarines, I will not give a cent for extra funding to Australian hospitals, or welfare: salvos etc:
donations for me are O/S, animals and nature, which are not gov funded.
In summary: I would feel right, as a believer if I was one, to donate to Folau
If it is your money, do what you want with it, and faith is a bloody good reason to believe in a cause in my opinion
Here we start to silence what is the basis of our civilization whether you like it or not, and under what, the pretense of freedom?
Click to expand...

The point is really not just about religion , but any subject on which the employee chooses to comment on which does not affect the performance of their job.

Anti vaxing, anti or pro political parties whatever they are or social policy , if your employer doesn't like what you say you can apparently get the sack for "bringing the company into disrepute", and yet people like Alan Joyce can use the resources of his company's shareholders to campaign for his own kind, even though they are a small minority of the population.

It's all heading in the direction of diminishing the power of the individual and encouraging group-think.

I believe that George Orwell had something to say about that some time ago. Very prophetic.
 
True, but here we attack the basis of our civilisation/culture.
I am a non believer yet adhere to the judeo christian values, most of them I agree with.
I know 1984, brave new world..this is bloody now, and with all due respect with your side of politic SirRumpole, it is not a fascist nazi far right dictatorship leading the way to this nightmare as I would have guessed 40y ago, ..not a new Franco or Pinochet but the sons of those who once fought for freedom, liberty, knowledge, education.
It must be hard to take, I am saddened by what happened to the "real aspirational idealistic left" for better words, which made most of my family ancestors.
 
I'll always hold in the highest regard those who are willing to present with objectivity and fairness the opposing view to their own or at least seek to understand it.

In the business world it's a rare thing but there's a few in the resource industries that aren't scared to present alternative views which contradict either the company's own short term interests and/or the official corporate line.

At a personal level I've always sought to understand both sides of anything and I know others with similar views but I also know people for whom that concept is anathema.

Broadly speaking the oldies seem more open minded than those under ~30 or so. Just an observation. :2twocents
 
SirRumpole said:
The point is really not just about religion , but any subject on which the employee chooses to comment on which does not affect the performance of their job.
Click to expand...
Folau signed a document that related to his employment in that he represented Rugby, and agreed to abide by a code of conduct which, if not followed, was detrimental to his teammates and the game. That code applied both on and off the field. Folau does not go off the clock after a game, or after training, with respect to the code he agreed to and which was fundamental to his employment in every regard.
SirRumpole said:
... if your employer doesn't like what you say you can apparently get the sack for "bringing the company into disrepute"
Click to expand...
Personal opinions expressed publicly should not bring any company into disrepute, but reputational damage to the company might see you in hot water.
SirRumpole said:
... Alan Joyce can use the resources of his company's shareholders to campaign for his own kind, even though they are a small minority of the population.
Click to expand...
Joyce donated $1m of his own money to the "YES" vote. Separately, QANTAS continues to be proactive in representing minority interests, and its board rightfully should support its CEO in being treated equal to others in the community.
SirRumpole said:
It's all heading in the direction of diminishing the power of the individual and encouraging group-think.
Click to expand...
No, individuals retain the power of "choice" and should exercise that with some knowledge of consequences. In Alan Joyce's case, he was fighting for the individual to freely choose who they love and could have a right to marry.
 
rederob said:
Folau signed a document that related to his employment in that he represented Rugby, and agreed to abide by a code of conduct which, if not followed, was detrimental to his teammates and the game. That code applied both on and off the field. Folau does not go off the clock after a game, or after training, with respect to the code he agreed to and which was fundamental to his employment in every regard.
Personal opinions expressed publicly should not bring any company into disrepute, but reputational damage to the company might see you in hot water.
Joyce donated $1m of his own money to the "YES" vote. Separately, QANTAS continues to be proactive in representing minority interests, and its board rightfully should support its CEO in being treated equal to others in the community.
No, individuals retain the power of "choice" and should exercise that with some knowledge of consequences. In Alan Joyce's case, he was fighting for the individual to freely choose who they love and could have a right to marry.
Click to expand...

You believe Folau brought the ARU into disrepute? Ban David Pocock for shooting animals in Sth Africa while on the ARU payroll too.
Secondly Joyce used Qantas to further the LGBIT cause. The ARU then has been roundly criticized for jumping into the SSM debate and taking one side.
 
Almost everyone in this thread (Atheists) are going to Hell.
I'll never play Rugby Union in Australia now due to this post. Does that make sense?
But I'd probably get away with it though coz I'm only attacking Atheists.
 
Dark Knight 2.0 said:
You believe Folau brought the ARU into disrepute? Ban David Pocock for shooting animals in Sth Africa while on the ARU payroll too.
Secondly Joyce used Qantas to further the LGBIT cause. The ARU then has been roundly criticized for jumping into the SSM debate and taking one side.
Click to expand...
You have 4 separate issues.
  1. The ARU will have no difficulty representing themselves.
  2. Who is David Poocock? Is it illegal to shoot animals in SA?
  3. QANTAS can act for itself as it wishes. Shareholders can make it account.
  4. I don't follow what the ARU does, but whether they did, or did not, support SSM is again for them to decide, and those who elect them to bring them account if they acted against the body's interests.
I think Folau is a great athlete, and he's academically as gifted as Anthony Mundine.
 
rederob said:
my comments are in blue lol.
Click to expand...
You have 4 separate issues.
  1. The ARU will have no difficulty representing themselves.not sure what this has to do with the price of eggs in China, other than showing what a David v Goliath battle Folau in undertaking financially speaking.
  2. Who is David Poocock? Is it illegal to shoot animals in SA? Is it illegal to post Biblical verses on Instagram.David Pocock plays for the Wobblies too.
  3. QANTAS can act for itself as it wishes. Shareholders can make it account. Yes but if Joyce wasn't CEO would they jumped so fully into the SSM debate - I think not.
  4. I don't follow what the ARU does, but whether they did, or did not, support SSM is again for them to decide, and those who elect them to bring them account if they acted against the body's interests. The ARU flew the flag for SSM.
I think Folau is a great athlete, and he's academically as gifted as Anthony Mundine. This isn't about qualifications.
 
sptrawler said:
I don't understand, how someone can be sacked for speaking his mind, unless what he says is illegal.
Click to expand...
Folau is (was) paid millions of dollars by the ARU to do more than just play rugby union. He was their number 1 pin up boy. He was their role model bought and paid for by the ARU to represent rugby union NOT ANY other code, organisation or church.

He was paid over and above any other player with the full knowledge that he must honour his side of the bargain which was spelt out clearly in the contract. Folau can't be too smart otherwise he should not have signed the contract in the first place. I like the saying "You can't have your cake and eat it (too).
 
Macquack said:
Folau is (was) paid millions of dollars by the ARU to do more than just play rugby union. He was their number 1 pin up boy. He was their role model bought and paid for by the ARU to represent rugby union NOT ANY other code, organisation or church.

He was paid over and above any other player with the full knowledge that he must honour his side of the bargain which was spelt out clearly in the contract. Folau can't be too smart otherwise he should not have signed the contract in the first place. I like the saying "You can't have your cake and eat it (too).
Click to expand...
So he has to sell his religious beliefs, I'm not religious personally, but it seems to be a bit totalitarian to say someone can't voice his dislike of a belief, that has been held for 2000 years.
It actually sounds like, an oppressive regime. IMO
 

Similar threads

basilio
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
3K
sptrawler
sptrawler
CanOz
Labour Law - Breach of Contract
Replies
4
Views
3K
CanOz
CanOz
Julia
Crikey's version of Mr Downer's farewell speech to John Howard
Replies
2
Views
4K
BradK
B
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
10K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Top