General Rugby Discussion II

Squidgy Black

Squidgy Black wrote: »

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/folau-takes-fight-against-rugby-australia-to-fair-work-commission-20190606-p51v53.html

Folau filed with the Fair Work Commission against the ARU for unlawful dismissal.

Interesting case this for Australia.

Without knowing the particular details of his contract and personal circumstances, I'd wager that Folau is seeing the writing on the wall here a little bit and perhaps realises that he has created a situation that is likely to seriously limit his earning potential moving forward (in any job).

Unless he plans on going into right wing politics or taking up a role within his church I don't think there are going to be brands and employers lining up to work with him.

I would hazard a guess that his agent has come back empty handed and Folau is now going to drag this out in an attempt to secure enough money to last him.

Again, I don't know what his contract situation is like so hard to know whether he has a case or not. I hope he gets nothing but a requirement to pay the ARU's costs personally.

Folau wrote:

The messages of support we have received over these difficult few weeks have made me realise there are many Australians who feel their fundamental rights are being steadily eroded

Certainly sounds like someone who is thinking about Politics. I actually agree with him on this also, I can imagine that homosexuals are concerned about their fundamental rights being eroded, but I think he is referring here to the make believe sky Gandalf.

Burkie1203

Squidgy Black wrote: »

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/folau-takes-fight-against-rugby-australia-to-fair-work-commission-20190606-p51v53.html

Folau filed with the Fair Work Commission against the ARU for unlawful dismissal.

If Folau wins this case Aussie Rugby is on the brink of collapse

Burkie1203

Burkie1203 wrote: »

If Folau wins this case Aussie Rugby is on the brink of collapse

They most likely have insurance for this sort of thing or at least some level of commercial cover.

Certainly very 'charitable' of Folau to tack on the additional 5 million. He is entitled to seek damages, but I wonder whether this stacks up with his beliefs. Not that it matters if it is considered a 'sin' - it's easy to ignore aspects of religion that don't indulge your pre-existing prejudices.

troyzer

The fact that the NRL, AFL and several overseas union clubs have publicly said he's unemployable probably strengthens Rugby Australia's case.

They'll be able to make a very strong argument that this was a commercial decision.

geotrig

Came across this yesterday and its a bit of an insight into the world of caucau and although it flicks past a lot of stuff it shows or offers some insight into how some of these players struggle.
and while i not a fan of go fundme i thought it was worth sharing the vid regardless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lugT_TShU10

Christy42

troyzer wrote: »

The fact that the NRL, AFL and several overseas union clubs have publicly said he's unemployable probably strengthens Rugby Australia's case.

They'll be able to make a very strong argument that this was a commercial decision.

Falou's statements can also be interpreted as an attack on fellow ARU employees based on their sexuality.

So a win for Falou would be a very strong precedent for allowing discrimination within the office.

Can't see him winning.

stephen_n

Deleted User wrote: »

They most likely have insurance for this sort of thing or at least some level of commercial cover.

Certainly very 'charitable' of Folau to tack on the additional 5 million. He is entitled to seek damages, but I wonder whether this stacks up with his beliefs. Not that it matters if it is considered a 'sin' - it's easy to ignore aspects of religion that don't indulge your pre-existing prejudices.

Face facts, Christians value money above all else and he has really good Christian values.

NeonWolf

troyzer wrote: »

The fact that the NRL, AFL and several overseas union clubs have publicly said he's unemployable probably strengthens Rugby Australia's case.

They'll be able to make a very strong argument that this was a commercial decision.

I find that aspect of the case most concerning. People have been saying that this isn't a freedom of speech issue , rather a simple case of a contractual breach in employment law.

Folau broke no contractual rules with the AFL or NRL yet they have preemptively ruled him out of getting a gig there.

I don't like what he instagrammed but I also don't think he is getting a fair shake.

Apparently according to Australian MP Mark Latham there is now evidence in circulation that Qantas essentially sacked Folau.

The ARU started this whole mess when they threw their weight behind the pro gay marriage movement in OZ.
It's similar to The Gardai doing the same here.

Tolerance seems to only be tolerance when you tolerate what the crowd want you to tolerate.

thomond2006

Folau is free to say what he likes. His employer is equally free to run a mile. Seems simple enough to me.

Exclamation Marc

NeonWolf wrote: »

Folau broke no contractual rules with the AFL or NRL yet they have preemptively ruled him out of getting a gig there.

Most contracts have clauses requiring employees not to bring their employer into disrepute. Posting aggressively homophobic messages is very much in that territory. Freedom of speech is never absolute.

NeonWolf

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Most contracts have clauses requiring employees not to bring their employer into disrepute. Posting aggressively homophobic messages is very much in that territory. Freedom of speech is never absolute.

He has not signed one with them yet.

They are holding him in breach of a piece of paper he never signed in agreement with them.

I also raise an eyebrow at it, when I note the wife beating, drink driving, coke addled culture that seems to be prevalent in aussie sports, yet not held to the same high standard that Folau is.

Bazzo

NeonWolf wrote: »

I find that aspect of the case most concerning. People have been saying that this isn't a freedom of speech issue , rather a simple case of a contractual breach in employment law.

Folau broke no contractual rules with the AFL or NRL yet they have preemptively ruled him out of getting a gig there.

I don't like what he instagrammed but I also don't think he is getting a fair shake.

Apparently according to Australian MP Mark Latham there is now evidence in circulation that Qantas essentially sacked Folau.

The ARU started this whole mess when they threw their weight behind the pro gay marriage movement in OZ.
It's similar to The Gardai doing the same here.

Tolerance seems to only be tolerance when you tolerate what the crowd want you to tolerate.

Why do you find it concerning? If some random accountant decided to tweet about how all Jews and blacks were going to burn in hell and their black Jewish employer saw it and they were subsequently unceremoniously sacked would you find that concerning?

sydthebeat

NeonWolf wrote: »

He has not signed one with them yet.

They are holding him in breach of a piece of paper he never signed in agreement with them.

I also raise an eyebrow at it, when I note the wife beating, drink driving, coke addled culture that seems to be prevalent in aussie sports, yet not held to the same high standard that Folau is.

There is a code of conduct associated with the contract, of which there was a "high level" breach

NeonWolf

Bazzo wrote: »

Why do you find it concerning? If somebody random accountant decided to tweet about how all Jews and blacks were going to burn in hell and their black Jewish employer saw it and they were subsequently unceremoniously sacked would you find that concerning?

If the accountant had quoted a verse from a freely available book that is placed in the drawer of most hotel rooms in the world I would be concerned yes.

Im an atheist. What he said is distasteful , but he shouldn't have lost his job, or be ruled out of joining new leagues in other codes. He broke no contacts with them.

NeonWolf

sydthebeat wrote: »

There is a code of conduct associated with the contract, of which there was a "high level" breach

What contract did he have with the NRL or AFL?

sydthebeat

NeonWolf wrote: »

If the accountant had quoted a verse from a freely available book that is placed in the drawer of most hotel rooms in the world I would be concerned yes.

Im an atheist. What he said is distasteful , but he shouldn't have lost his job, or be ruled out of joining new leagues in other codes. He broke no contacts with them.

It wasn't a direct quote from the Bible.

Read it again

NeonWolf

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Most contracts have clauses requiring employees not to bring their employer into disrepute. Posting aggressively homophobic messages is very much in that territory. Freedom of speech is never absolute.

He had no contract in effect with either of the aforementioned codes.

Squidgy Black

Folau signed a contract with the ARU with stipulations about posting controversial matters on social media. Which he had previously been warned for breaching.

Any standard contract of employment says you cannot publicly represent your employer in a negative manner.

If I was to go on social media and make controversial, and sensitive comments, about a group of people who were born that way, be it race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, my employer would rightfully be legally able to terminate my employment. And I'm sure any other companies who were aware of it wouldn't touch me with a barge pole, as having an employee like that would be harmful for the company's reputation.

There's a difference between tolerance, and publicly denouncing something. Folau is entitled to his religious beliefs and if he has a personal opinion about homosexuality, that's fine. But the issue arises when he then broadcasts that to the public from a platform visible to people around the globe.

The ARU didn't sack him for thinking people who are gay are sinners. They sacked him because he publicly told them they're sinners.

It really couldn't be any more simple.

sydthebeat

NeonWolf wrote: »

What contract did he have with the NRL or AFL?

employers still have the right to pick and choose who they employ.....

NeonWolf

sydthebeat wrote: »

It wasn't a direct quote from the Bible.

Read it again

Maybe not directly, ill give you that, but the general premise of homosexuality being frowned upon is contained within the scripture.

NeonWolf

sydthebeat wrote: »

employers still have the right to pick and choose who they employ.....

The NRL are not an employer per se in this instance. They said they would refuse to register him, even if a team in the league wanted to sign him.

He broke no rules with them as he had no contract with them.

It was populist grandstanding by the NRL to pander to the current status quo.

NeonWolf

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Folau signed a contract with the ARU with stipulations about posting controversial matters on social media. Which he had previously been warned for breaching.

Any standard contract of employment says you cannot publicly represent your employer in a negative manner.

If I was to go on social media and make controversial, and sensitive comments, about a group of people who were born that way, be it race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, my employer would rightfully be legally able to terminate my employment. And I'm sure any other companies who were aware of it wouldn't touch me with a barge pole, as having an employee like that would be harmful for the company's reputation.

There's a difference between tolerance, and publicly denouncing something. Folau is entitled to his religious beliefs and if he has a personal opinion about homosexuality, that's fine. But the issue arises when he then broadcasts that to the public from a platform visible to people around the globe.

The ARU didn't sack him for thinking people who are gay are sinners. They sacked him because he publicly told them they're sinners.

It really couldn't be any more simple.

i don't think anyone is reading my posts properly. Im on about the NRL and AFL saying they wouldn't allow him play despite him not having any active contracts with them. Thats what i find concerning.

An argument put forward by many people is that this is not a free speech issue or a freedom of religion issue but a simple employment issue . He broke a contract he had signed with Raelene castle and the ARU and he has to go.

Ok fair enough, but he has broken no agreement with the other codes. If the sydney roosters want to sign him or collingwood in the AFL they should be allowed to. However the bosses of those leagues have said they would not facilitate his registration. That's my point

NeonWolf

sydthebeat wrote: »

employers still have the right to pick and choose who they employ.....

It's like Paddy Jackson signing for Manchester United and the Premier League saying no you can't sign him . We won't register him.

Folau has broken no laws of the land. He's a free man. He's a clown but he is not a criminal. ARU have small print that they can get him sacked on.

But other codes shouldn't be allowed exclude him.

Squidgy Black

NeonWolf wrote: »

i don't think anyone is reading my posts properly. Im on about the NRL and AFL saying they wouldn't allow him play despite him not having any active contracts with them. Thats what i find concerning.

An argument put forward by many people is that this is not a free speech issue or a freedom of religion issue but a simple employment issue . He broke a contract he had signed with Raelene castle and the ARU and he has to go.

Ok fair enough, but he has broken no agreement with the other codes. If the sydney roosters want to sign him or collingwood in the AFL they should be allowed to. However the bosses of those leagues have said they would not facilitate his registration. That's my point

Because they deem his acts to be harmful to the reputation of their business. He doesn't need to have an active contract with them for them to say "this would be a terrible business decision for us to allow him into the league".

The AFL and NRU got ahead of the curve and stomped out the rumours that he was being approached by their clubs as a way out of his ARU contract.

NeonWolf

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Because they deem his acts to be harmful to the reputation of their business. He doesn't need to have an active contract with them for them to say "this would be a terrible business decision for us to allow him into the league".

The AFL and NRU got ahead of the curve and stomped out the rumours that he was being approached by their clubs as a way out of his ARU contract.

I'll tell you what else is harmful for business. Trying to win rugby matches without the top try scorer in super rugby history.

Exclamation Marc

NeonWolf wrote: »

It's like Paddy Jackson signing for Manchester United and the Premier League saying no you can't sign him . We won't register him.

But other codes shouldn't be allowed exclude him.

They can do what they want. If Ted Bundy was magically resurrected, they could refuse to register or contract him.

Any code can exclude him if they want. They're entitled not to accept someone who brings the game into disrepute. They don't want anything to do with a vocal homophobe and that's their right. There's no right to employment of anyone.

NeonWolf wrote: »

I'll tell you what else is harmful for business. Trying to win rugby matches without the top try scorer in super rugby history.

Well if sponsors pull out left right and center because of his affiliation, they'll know exactly what's harmful for business.

Former Former

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Well if sponsors pull out left right and center because of his affiliation, they'll know exactly what's harmful for business.

Well this is it.

Qantas were very vocal first time around. Without strong action this time they might well have walked.

In somewhat related news, London Irish have lost one of their sponsors after signing Paddy Jackson.

molloyjh

NeonWolf wrote: »

sydthebeat wrote: »

employers still have the right to pick and choose who they employ.....

The NRL are not an employer per se in this instance. They said they would refuse to register him, even if a team in the league wanted to sign him.

He broke no rules with them as he had no contract with them.

It was populist grandstanding by the NRL to pander to the current status quo.

Like Folau has freedom of speech, employers have freedom of association. They are not obliged to employ him or to register him. But this merry-go-round of "concern" will continue regardless. People seem to get very caught up on individuals rights without any concern for their responsibilities or the rights of other people/organisations within the same scenario.

Christy42

Indeed. If I went up to an LGBT colleague and told them they would burn in hell for who they are I would get fired. It would be a terrible work environment for LGBT people if people did that.

Falpu did the same thing except with a bloody megaphone. Not that Falou winning would mean employers in Aus would not be able to protect employees from this type of abuse.

I really don't care what book it is written in. What he did was wrong and he know faces consequences for his actions.

Yeah_Right

If an AFL or NRL club wanted to sign Folau and he publicly apologised for what he did and declared that he no longer believed that homosexuality was a sin, then the organisations might allow him to be signed. I'm sure that they would require some stipulations about social media to be in his contract.

I doubt any AFL club would be interested in him as he wasn't very good at the sport.