Aussie Pro Rugby
-
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
This is the problem with having two issues that people seek to uphold when they become incompatible with each other.
I don't have the answer for it, but when it comes to business I fall firmly into the camp that says he who has the gold makes the rules.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
I guess my point is companies are often reacting to a very loud minority of people that want to ruin anyone that disagrees with them politically. Hence my example about gender, what is offensive can be really subjective. There are also employee rights to consider, companies should have valid reasons for firing their staff that go deeper than "we disagree with what they said".
It's not obvious to me that Folau's comments would hurt RA or Qantas financially either. His beliefs were already well known when they re-signed him. I feel like it's more a reaction to the usual suspects overplaying the importance of his words as they feed their narcissism with over the top statements that demonstrate their morals.
No doubt some beliefs and statements are obviously offensive. But there's also an awful lot of grey area where some are offended and some aren't, and those that do decide to take offense sure do drum up a lot of noise on social media.
-
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
I guess my point is companies are often reacting to a very loud minority of people that want to ruin anyone that disagrees with them politically. Hence my example about gender, what is offensive can be really subjective. There are also employee rights to consider, companies should have valid reasons for firing their staff that go deeper than "we disagree with what they said".
It's not obvious to me that Folau's comments would hurt RA or Qantas financially either. His beliefs were already well known when they re-signed him. I feel like it's more a reaction to the usual suspects overplaying the importance of his words as they feed their narcissism with over the top statements that demonstrate their morals.
No doubt some beliefs and statements are obviously offensive. But there's also an awful lot of grey area where some are offended and some aren't, and those that do decide to take offense sure do drum up a lot of noise on social media.
But it is black and white in terms of dismissal for me. If someone I employed makes a comment on social media about anything and I lose a load of customers for that comment, that person is gone.
I think that is very clear.
-
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
I guess my point is companies are often reacting to a very loud minority of people that want to ruin anyone that disagrees with them politically. Hence my example about gender, what is offensive can be really subjective. There are also employee rights to consider, companies should have valid reasons for firing their staff that go deeper than "we disagree with what they said".
It's not obvious to me that Folau's comments would hurt RA or Qantas financially either. His beliefs were already well known when they re-signed him. I feel like it's more a reaction to the usual suspects overplaying the importance of his words as they feed their narcissism with over the top statements that demonstrate their morals.
No doubt some beliefs and statements are obviously offensive. But there's also an awful lot of grey area where some are offended and some aren't, and those that do decide to take offense sure do drum up a lot of noise on social media.
But it is black and white in terms of dismissal for me. If someone I employed makes a comment on social media about anything and I lose a load of customers for that comment, that person is gone.
I think that is very clear.
If you can prove you lost a load of customers, then yes I agree. That may not be easy though, and I'm not convinced RA could prove that in this instance.
NB: Just to reiterate to everyone, I've been described as a militant atheist in the past, I am in no way defending or endorsing Folau's views
-
One also needs to keep in mind that there's a world of difference for people earning seven figures and those on the median full time wage. With extraordinary remuneration and opportunities comes extraordinary requirements.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
One also needs to keep in mind that there's a world of difference for people earning seven figures and those on the median full time wage. With extraordinary remuneration and opportunities comes extraordinary requirements.
That's a fair point.
-
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
I guess my point is companies are often reacting to a very loud minority of people that want to ruin anyone that disagrees with them politically. Hence my example about gender, what is offensive can be really subjective. There are also employee rights to consider, companies should have valid reasons for firing their staff that go deeper than "we disagree with what they said".
It's not obvious to me that Folau's comments would hurt RA or Qantas financially either. His beliefs were already well known when they re-signed him. I feel like it's more a reaction to the usual suspects overplaying the importance of his words as they feed their narcissism with over the top statements that demonstrate their morals.
No doubt some beliefs and statements are obviously offensive. But there's also an awful lot of grey area where some are offended and some aren't, and those that do decide to take offense sure do drum up a lot of noise on social media.
But it is black and white in terms of dismissal for me. If someone I employed makes a comment on social media about anything and I lose a load of customers for that comment, that person is gone.
I think that is very clear.
If you can prove you lost a load of customers, then yes I agree. That may not be easy though, and I'm not convinced RA could prove that in this instance.
NB: Just to reiterate to everyone, I've been described as a militant atheist in the past, I am in no way defending or endorsing Folau's views
Would you have to prove you lost a lot of customers though or just the potential to lose a lot of customers. Let alone your potential loss of future sponsorship should your current major sponsor abandon you.
-
If I pull any shit that are even seen to threaten the financial or reputational status of my company, I'm basically gone.
I got a written warning once over a simple failure to follow protocol. It didn't actually harm anyone or anything. Nobody outside a couple of teams knew about it. AND I advanced the project by about 6 weeks inadvertantly, but those are the rules.
-
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
Wouldn't it then just be best not to hire someone with views that could have a negative impact on your business? I wouldn't even want a homophobic or racist tradie doing work on my house. If Folau's views are so unpalatable for AR then they should never have rehired him.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
Wouldn't it then just be best not to hire someone with views that could have a negative impact on your business? I wouldn't even want a homophobic or racist tradie doing work on my house. If Folau's views are so unpalatable for AR then they should never have rehired him.
You don't have that hindsight when hiring in most cases. Not really a question you can ask or expect to be answered honestly either.
-
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
I think with this attitude you very quickly get into the territory of "well if this union doesn't want us to bring non-white players on this very lucrative tour then who are we to argue, I'm not letting their feelings get in the way of a buck".
-
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
Wouldn't it then just be best not to hire someone with views that could have a negative impact on your business? I wouldn't even want a homophobic or racist tradie doing work on my house. If Folau's views are so unpalatable for AR then they should never have rehired him.
You don't have that hindsight when hiring in most cases. Not really a question you can ask or expect to be answered honestly either.
Yeah I think it was stupid of RA to offer him that contract given he never even backed down last year, and even went as far as saying his religion is 100 times more important than his rugby. This was an inevitable situation, I guess they were hoping against hope he'd stay quiet.
But the hypothetical we are talking about is if you didn't have prior knowledge. I actually feel for companies today in the age of the internet and social media, they get put in a pretty tough position. They wouldn't want to let go of someone that adds a lot of value over something fairly minor, but at the same time have to be seen to be doing the right thing lest they feel the wrath of the online mob.
-
@rotated said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
I think with this attitude you very quickly get into the territory of "well if this union doesn't want us to bring non-white players on this very lucrative tour then who are we to argue, I'm not letting their feelings get in the way of a buck".
I don't.
I also need to be clear, I'm not talking to this exact situation, more in response to @No-Quarter post earlier.
-
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
Wouldn't it then just be best not to hire someone with views that could have a negative impact on your business? I wouldn't even want a homophobic or racist tradie doing work on my house. If Folau's views are so unpalatable for AR then they should never have rehired him.
You don't have that hindsight when hiring in most cases. Not really a question you can ask or expect to be answered honestly either.
They wouldn't want to let go of someone that adds a lot of value over something fairly minor, but at the same time have to be seen to be doing the right thing lest they feel the wrath of the online mob.
Sorry for just grabbing a soundbite but a employer wouldn't let someone go for anything fairly minor.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel in most cases, would you even know you had a homophobe or racist employed doing work for you?
Most people who might identify like that, are most likely not going to advertise it due to the potential fallout
-
@No-Quarter There’s also the option that RA, NSWRU etc actually do hold these values (and that the “internet” outrage is not a chief concern) and combining that with the threat of the loss of sponsorship deals means it’s a no brainer from their point of view.
As @Rancid-Schnitzel has said (repeatedly 😉) RA probably shouldn’t have re-contracted him, but maybe they did so for two reasons? 1. They didn’t want to discriminate against a player on religious grounds, and 2. They thought they had an assurance from him that he would not post similar messages on social media (after all a good Christian boy isn’t going to lie to their faces).
-
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
Wouldn't it then just be best not to hire someone with views that could have a negative impact on your business? I wouldn't even want a homophobic or racist tradie doing work on my house. If Folau's views are so unpalatable for AR then they should never have rehired him.
You don't have that hindsight when hiring in most cases. Not really a question you can ask or expect to be answered honestly either.
They certainly did in this case. They had all the info they needed.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@barbarian said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@Stargazer said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@nzzp Poccok got a formal warning from the ARU after he was arrested at a mine protest in 2014, so they weren't that happy.
And after the formal warning, Pocock has more or less gone silent on these issues (publically, at least).
Unfortunately, Izzy didn't do the same after he received a similar warning.
Do you think, generally speaking, companies should he able to contract people to not express political and religious beliefs publicly?
I do if it would be seen as detrimental to the company. For example a company that sells into Indonesia that has a sales marketing manager that tweets that Christians are good and Muslims are bad. (Extreme tweet but you get my drift)
It's an interesting discussion that definitely doesn't have a clear right or wrong answer. All companies have brands to protect, but we (as a society) should also place a lot of importance on the value of free speech.
I can't help but feel that in recent times the online outrage culture, with petitions to have people fired for saying the "wrong" things, has gone too far and we need to be weary of those that want to actively ruin people who have different political and religious beliefs. Especially given some of the stuff on the far left has become extremely radical - the debate about gender being a good example of that. If you say there are biological differences between men and women that influence behaviour that is seen by some as transphobic, which is hate speech, which leads us to the same outcome as Folau.
Likewise I would not want some of the radical beliefs on the far right to become mainstream and unable to he challenged without fear of losing your livelihood.
There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think we have it right at the moment.
I disagree as if I am paying you and your comments can affect my business and profit adversely. You can do one! Go work for a council or a church or something
Wouldn't it then just be best not to hire someone with views that could have a negative impact on your business? I wouldn't even want a homophobic or racist tradie doing work on my house. If Folau's views are so unpalatable for AR then they should never have rehired him.
You don't have that hindsight when hiring in most cases. Not really a question you can ask or expect to be answered honestly either.
They certainly did in this case. They had all the info they needed.
Yes
-
@Nepia said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@No-Quarter There’s also the option that RA, NSWRU etc actually do hold these values (and that the “internet” outrage is not a chief concern) and combining that with the threat of the loss of sponsorship deals means it’s a no brainer from their point of view.
As @Rancid-Schnitzel has said (repeatedly 😉) RA probably shouldn’t have re-contracted him, but maybe they did so for two reasons? 1. They didn’t want to discriminate against a player on religious grounds, and 2. They thought they had an assurance from him that he would not post similar messages on social media (after all a good Christian boy isn’t going to lie to their faces).
Fair point - having an inclusive policy makes sense for RA given they'd want as many people playing the game as possible. Qantas are 100% full of shit though
