Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

What would jesus say? That'll be €70K

13»

Comments

  • #102
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    RainyDay wrote: »
    If a guy needs to be fired, you don't need to manipulate anything. You just deal with the reasons why he needs to be fired.

    LOL ... please. There are a bunch of laws that employees, especially women and the religious zealots, can use to take employers to court and screw them. Some fair, some completely bonkers. These were of the latter variety and had they been let go without a lot of care and planning then the employer would have been done for a fortune and a lot of negative publicity. The employers in this thread's case would have been a lot better off had they had some good people advising them.


  • #103
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    lazygal wrote: »
    As someone who's also had to fire someone that is a lot easier said than done.

    Not in my experience. Firing isn't easy for anyone, but if there is a proper case for it, it's not difficult to document that case.
    Piliger wrote: »
    LOL ... please. There are a bunch of laws that employees, especially women and the religious zealots, can use to take employers to court and screw them. Some fair, some completely bonkers. These were of the latter variety and had they been let go without a lot of care and planning then the employer would have been done for a fortune and a lot of negative publicity. The employers in this thread's case would have been a lot better off had they had some good people advising them.

    Yes, these employers would be a lot better off they had taken better advice about documenting the case against this employee. But there is never any reason for 'manipulating' (your words) the case against any employee. Either you have a case or you don't. If you don't, you're firing without cause, and you deserve to get hit for it.


  • #104
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    swampgas wrote: »
    I absolutely do think that people who are demonstrably incompetent should be removed. But that is a separate issue. If Ms. Duffy retired tomorrow or was sacked (and in saying that I'm not saying she is necessarily incompetent), the issue of the judgement itself would still remain.
    Same thing I said as in the case of a judge.


  • #105
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    RainyDay wrote: »
    But there is never any reason for 'manipulating' (your words) the case against any employee. Either you have a case or you don't. If you don't, you're firing without cause, and you deserve to get hit for it.
    Are you really that naive ? No offence intended. But that's not how the world works. I could write about it more but it would only be bait for lots of angry people.


  • #106
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Piliger wrote: »
    Are you really that naive ? No offence intended. But that's not how the world works. I could write about it more but it would only be bait for lots of angry people.

    I'm not naieve at all, having been through the process quite a few times. If you don't want to debate, that's your call, but I don't think anyone will relate to your need to 'manipulate' (your words) the situation or the records. Either you have reason to fire someone, or you don't. You only need to 'manipulate' if you don't have good reasons.


  • #107
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    obplayer wrote: »
    Ok, hadn't thought of that, fair enough.
    And also if there was no formal complaint from a fellow worker to HR it really does put a different complexion on things.

    Two colleagues did complain, but did not want to make it an 'official' complaint.

    The main issue I have with this decision is that it seem to improperly apply existing case law. In addition, it only references the preacher's article 9 rights, it ignores the fact that his colleagues also have those same rights, which should mean they don't have to listen to him blather on about how awesome Jesus is.

    MrP


  • #108
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    RainyDay wrote: »
    I'm not naieve at all, having been through the process quite a few times. If you don't want to debate, that's your call, but I don't think anyone will relate to your need to 'manipulate' (your words) the situation or the records. Either you have reason to fire someone, or you don't. You only need to 'manipulate' if you don't have good reasons.
    It's not an issue of being wiling to debate. It's about needing to fire someone for one reason, but having to find another to avoid a real risk of legal action. I don't wish to go into it because a) it's not really on topic, and b) I see it as an inflammatory issue in the context of fora like this and don't want to drag this thread off. Let's leave it at that shall we ? Tks.


  • #109
    RainyDay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,925 ✭✭✭RainyDay


    Piliger wrote: »
    It's not an issue of being wiling to debate. It's about needing to fire someone for one reason, but having to find another to avoid a real risk of legal action.
    The only scenario of having to come up with a different reason is when your real reason breaches the law, and the person is being fired for discriminatory reasons.


  • #110
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Two colleagues did complain, but did not want to make it an 'official' complaint.

    The main issue I have with this decision is that it seem to improperly apply existing case law. In addition, it only references the preacher's article 9 rights, it ignores the fact that his colleagues also have those same rights, which should mean they don't have to listen to him blather on about how awesome Jesus is.

    MrP

    The real issue is she plucked the "right to prolethyise" from an article which gives people the right to some "manifestation" of religion, subject to other peoples rights. Since that article has not overturned the burka ban in France, nor the ban on religious jewellery in French schools, nor allowed a woman to send pictures of aborted fetuses to chemists who sold abortifacients ( see http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights) it seems that the Irish equality agency stands alone in its reading of this article.


  • #111
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    The real issue is she plucked the "right to prolethyise" from an article which gives people the right to some "manifestation" of religion, subject to other peoples rights. Since that article has not overturned the burka ban in France, nor the ban on religious jewellery in French schools, nor allowed a woman to send pictures of aborted fetuses to chemists who sold abortifacients ( see http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights) it seems that the Irish equality agency stands alone in its reading of this article.
    Hmmm, but as far as he is concerned preaching is a manifestation of his religion, so I don't have so much of an issue with that. I can see how, logically, one could derive a right to prolethyise from a right to manifest one's religion. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a bad judgement. The issue seems to be that they have forgotten that this right is first, qualified, and second, that it also applies to other people. By all means give someone a right to preach, but give people that don't want to be preached to protection. That is what article 9 should do, but hasn't in this case.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    obplayer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭obplayer


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Hmmm, but as far as he is concerned preaching is a manifestation of his religion, so I don't have so much of an issue with that. I can see how, logically, one could derive a right to prolethyise from a right to manifest one's religion. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a bad judgement. The issue seems to be that they have forgotten that this right is first, qualified, and second, that it also applies to other people. By all means give someone a right to preach, but give people that don't want to be preached to protection pepper spray. That is what article 9 should do, but hasn't in this case.

    MrP

    FYP


  • #113
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    MrPudding wrote: »
    By all means give someone a right to preach, but give people that don't want to be preached to protection. That is what article 9 should do, but hasn't in this case.
    Who exactly has been denied protection? If you can find this person, by all means send in your complaint on their behalf to the equality commission.


Advertisement