Actually if you look at it in a holistic way, this whole green, anti anything mainstream, is becoming a bit of a cult thing.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).
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).
What is next?He was paid for his football skills not his opinions.
A contract of employment should be about employment not what someone says out of hours.
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
A contract can be for what ever you want, he didn’t have to sign it.
At the end of the day he is being paid to represent a club, both on the field and off it.
To some degree I am offended by anyone who smugly thinks that the people around them will go to hell ( experience unspeakable torture forever. It is not an uncommon thing of course.Firstly, there was NO clause in Folau's contract about Social Media postings of his religous beliefs apparently. Which leads to the second point - cause of action he is pursuing. By Law you can't prevent someone from writing about their religion beliefs.
Thirdly, do you really think he brought the Game into disrepute? None of you drunk, athiest, fornicator Buffett idolators have taken offence to his post.
To some degree I am offended by anyone who smugly thinks that the people around them will go to hell ( experience unspeakable torture forever. It is not an uncommon thing of course.
Rugby Australia's website has 28 pages of details pertaining to their Code of Conduct, and I previously linked to a brief document which was used at club level and signed off. I should have used their website link, so apologies.Firstly, there was NO clause in Folau's contract about Social Media postings of his religous beliefs apparently.
Folau is not prevented from expressing his beliefs. However, if and when he chooses to do so, he has to accept that he made undertakings wrt to his employment that should be considered. Actions have consequences.By Law you can't prevent someone from writing about their religion beliefs.
Given I do not follow Rugby, and its poster boy has made comments which are plain silly from where I sit, then in my eyes there has been an adverse affect. His comments have also affected the code's sponsors, and they are able to measure that impact in dollar terms, so it becomes a material impact on the sport.Thirdly, do you really think he brought the Game into disrepute? None of you drunk, athiest, fornicator Buffett idolators have taken offence to his post.
A contract can be for what ever you want, he didn’t have to sign it.
You mean it can be anything the employer wants ?
The ARU is a monopolist employer , if you don't like what they offer there is nowhere else to go.
There are rules that control business monopolies, these rules are devised by governments to protect individuals against the oppressive dictates of corporations. I don't see why rules should not be introduced in the case of employment contracts to protect individual rights.
Rumpy, you continue to completely miss the many points at issue.You mean it can be anything the employer wants ?
The ARU is a monopolist employer , if you don't like what they offer there is nowhere else to go.
There are rules that control business monopolies, these rules are devised by governments to protect individuals against the oppressive dictates of corporations. I don't see why rules should not be introduced in the case of employment contracts to protect individual rights.
In the world of everyday work, one is required to act in an appropriate manner to their colleagues.
Not so at all Rumpy.As long as he respects his code of conduct on the field and at other times when "on duty" , then he has fulfilled his obligations.
Rumpy, you continue to completely miss the many points at issue.
In the world of everyday work, one is required to act in an appropriate manner to their colleagues.
RA has codified this and clearly expects players to treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity.
As an employer, RA is successful because it has, in detail, clarified how all matters are to be addressed by all participants, including spectators. It has done this to maintain and protect its BRAND.
Folau has used the media in a manner which both disrespects his player colleagues and damages the brand. Worse, he had been warned, so has acted maliciously. He needs to be very careful that RA do not, after the court case, pursue him for damages which will be quantifiable.
Quoting a religious text in what he believes to be saving peoples souls is a very fine line for dismissal. He obviously has a case.Not so at all Rumpy.
In Folau's case you would have us believe that he only needs to abide by the RA's code of conduct for about 2 hours each week. After that you would consider it ok to disrespect his colleagues and damage the brand.
Laws which protect the interests of employers and employees are not constrained by the clock.
It is a nonsensical view that people's actions "after work" cannot impact their employment obligations and this is occasionally tested in law. Most times people who are sacked for such breaches realise it's smarter to just move on.
Rather than repeat yourself, you need to show why your idea has substance.
Laws which protect the interests of employers and employees are not constrained by the clock.
It is a nonsensical view that people's actions "after work" cannot impact their employment obligations and this is occasionally tested in law. Most times people who are sacked for such breaches realise it's smarter to just move on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?