Aussie Pro Rugby
-
@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
-
@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).
Have I mentioned it before ☺? They resigned him because he's one of the best and most recognised players in the world. In other words they just followed the lead of their masters at Qantas and did a deal which made them as competitive as possible.
-
@Hooroo said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@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
Most people appear to have some form of social media though so you can use that to do some due diligence. I mean you only have to look at the @NTA twitter page to know he's batshit insane ☺.
-
@No-Quarter said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@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
Yeah, fuck QANTAS, not only did they make me stop over in Townsville (basically a hot version of Palmerston North) but they also unloaded my bags there. Luckily I noticed my bag going in circles on the bag carousel after everyone else had cleared their bags and picked it up and took it to the counter … only to be admonished by the staff member for picking it up who claimed it would have made it to Sydney despite the fact none of my colleagues bags were also on the bag carousel. I haven’t flown with them since.
-
@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:
@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
Most people appear to have some form of social media though so you can use that to do some due diligence. I mean you only have to look at the @NTA twitter page to know he's batshit insane ☺.
I find that the more senior the position you are recruiting for the less of a social media profile they have. If it is a junior position, a simple google search gives you pages of information.
-
dude moves in mysterious ways bro!
-
@Paekakboyz said in Aussie Rugby in general:
dude moves in mysterious ways bro!
God's will bro. God's will.
-
Israel Folau has requested a code of conduct hearing in a response to a Rugby Australia breach notice. Folau had until 2pm AEST on Wednesday to respond to the notice wand the star fullback indicated he would not be accepting Rugby Australia's sanction, forcing the matter to a hearing. Had he accepted the notice, Folau's contract would have been terminated without any financial compensation. In a statement on Wednesday, Rugby Australia said a date was yet to be set for the hearing, at which a three-person panel will determine whether Folau has breached the Code Of Conduct to the point that he warrants termination. "Rugby Australia will now make arrangements with the Rugby Union Players' Association (RUPA) to bring together the Code of Conduct hearing," the statement read. "Israel has responded formally today to request a Code of Conduct hearing which, under the circumstances, was not an unexpected outcome. We will now work to confirm a date for the hearing as soon as possible. "After the date for the hearing is confirmed Rugby Australia and the NSW Rugby Union will make no further comment on the matter until the Code of Conduct process has concluded." -
@Stargazer So, I think god has told him his time in rugby is up, but, he should try and get some money for tithing before he leaves.
Could be win win, RA pay a % of what they’d be paying him normally, he walks away without causing anymore trouble to start his new career as a pastor?
-
@NTA said in Aussie Rugby in general:
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.
You work for McDonald’s?
Genia confident Wallabies can succeed without Folau
