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

Hamas strike on Israel - Threadbans in op - mod warning in OP updated 19/10/23

Options
13693703723743751266

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 18,483 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    It seems self defeating too. One imagines there is a pretty bad atmosphere inside the company now that the employees know that management openly identify with the Netanyahu regime and see themselves as cheerleaders for it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 55,507 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    If an Israeli employee employed by an Irish company publicly labeled Ireland a country of terrorists, that employee deserves the sack.

    Courtney from Clondalkin has gotten her 15 mins a fame



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,995 ✭✭✭✭chopperbyrne


    No, they don't deserve the sack for that.

    They can be criticised for their statement, but that's it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭Long Sean Silver


    the state of Israel is founded on the injunction to remember a history of destruction and to ensure that such events will never happen again.

    they (Netanyahu that is) may well have temporarily taken their eye off the ball, but that doesn't negate their founding principles which are based on historic/long running paranoia, and their obsession with the Holocaust.



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,483 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    She could easily argue that she is referring to the current far right Netanyahu regime, rather than 'Israel' as a country (as she made other posts outlining her objections to the regime's actions in Palestine).



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 55,507 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    So, what.....HR call her in and say, "that wasn't very nice, Courtney!"



  • Registered Users Posts: 824 ✭✭✭Sir_Name


    ''He also said that Channel 4 news hadn't been allowed into Gaza. Why is that I wonder? Hamas strictly controls the narrative coming out of Gaza.''

    Above is your words which questioning why Channel 4 were not allowed into Gaza... Asking the question why and stating Hamas strictly controls the narrative would suggest that Hamas has control over that entry/situation. If thats not what you meant, I'm all ears...



  • Registered Users Posts: 824 ✭✭✭Sir_Name


    What would be sufficient? UN / Human Rights Watch Amnesty International? This is for educational purposes...



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,680 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    There is a difference between a moral argument and a legal argument. What Israel is doing is morally wrong, but it may not be legally wrong.

    Those who cry "war crimes" every time Israel does something are in danger of becoming the boy who cries wolf, and when Israel does do something that is illegal, Israel will point to the persecution complex.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,762 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    I disagree. International laws on warfare are simply words used to put a framework around a moral and ethical point — they are imperfect as any laws are. They are also written and agreed to by States (not private citizens), and ultimately are heavily influenced by the great State powers of the world — and so the question of what is good warfare and bad warfare is written by them and is written to the advantage of the manner in which they conduct war. So, a State can bomb an enclosed space like Gaza, kill hundreds of children, and say that unlike Hamas they didn't personally and directly target those kids even if by any rational standard they were reckless to the fact of killing children.

    When the shoe is on the other foot, what does the State have done with you when you didn't mean to kill someone but you acted recklessly? Indeed, what would you have done to someone who recklessly killed your child?

    International law is a good thing, but ultimately you must always remember that it can be used as a permission slip for a government to be allowed to bomb your house, kill you, kill your children, kill your parents, kill your neighbours — and coolly explain it all away with a glorified "woopsie" if it didn't fit within some wording that makes it a crime.

    That's why we should all hold States to a higher standard than the standards they apply to themselves.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 27,680 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Geographically and legally, it is the same situation. North Korea has blockaded South Korea, the only difference is the degree of success, the legality of it is exactly the same.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,995 ✭✭✭✭chopperbyrne


    No, HR say absolutely nothing if it was a personal statement not made while representing or advertising the company.

    Just reading the article, and it says she posted comments on LinkedIn.

    I don't use it myself, but as far as I know your employment history and current employer is a big part of your profile.

    If she had Wix listed as her current employer while making those statements on that platform, then there is grounds for disciplinary action.

    I would say that an immediate termination of contract for an employee of over four years however is going to be an easy win in an unfair dismissal case.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,630 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    No

    There is a process.

    Usually HR give a combination of 2 written warnings and a verbal warning followed by dismissal (differs from company to company).

    IE you're given a chance to stop. If you don't stop, then you get dismissed.

    I think this is fair, there's no surprises, people are given a chance to asses and change the situation, and there can be some degree of negotiation. (which is what we need, not the knee jerk reactions we're seeing)



  • Registered Users Posts: 27,680 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Doesn't apply in the case of gross misconduct. Immediate dismissal is possible in such circumstances.

    Supporting terrorist violence against your company's owners could well meet the definition of gross misconduct.



  • Registered Users Posts: 65,320 ✭✭✭✭unkel
    Chauffe, Marcel, chauffe!


    International humanitarian law came from the 1949 Geneva convention, which has been ratified by 196 states. That's pretty much the opposite of what you are saying that they were written and heavily influenced by the great state powers of the world.

    This is as close as a universal set of rules as can be got. But yes I agree with you, it's far from perfect. Bombing Hamas and killing thousands of innocent civilians including children, is within this law. How very tragic that may be.

    As I said, if you can "win" a war by turning the other cheek, you are on a higher moral ground. Like Ghandi did. But he had a billion Indians vs a few thousand Brits and they weren't surrounded by countries that all have stated they wanted to wipe them off the face of the earth either, that made that strategy a bit more viable 😂



  • Registered Users Posts: 18,483 ✭✭✭✭Strazdas


    She could really be only dismissed if found to be making offensive comments such as racist or homophobic ones. Criticising the Netanyahu regime (a political opinion basically) doesn't seem near enough grounds for dismissal.



  • Registered Users Posts: 55,507 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Maybe they did their due diligence and were happy to sack. Maybe there wasn’t a need to go through what you’re suggesting. It’s not always an exact science when disciplining an employee



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,630 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    Exactly.

    Like they've done themselves no favors in the instant sacking. Moral will be crap in there now and will affect productivity. If they'd have sat down and discussed it could have all been avoided. But that moderate attitude is lost on Arabs and Israeli's... they're very extreme



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,285 ✭✭✭howiya


    South Korea is not subject to a blockade of any sort.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,792 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    It's obvious Israel has a right to defend itself under international law and is doing so in accordance with that.


    A ceasefire saves Hamas.


    Why would sunak go along with that. No matter what way it is presented for sale.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,630 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    You both could be correct.

    I still think it's for the WRC/Courts. And given this is Ireland I would guess that WIX will lose.



  • Posts: 0 Nola Scary Hair


    “would suggest”

    You’re trying to guess my intentions here. Never mentioned anything about the border so am not bothered about it. The Hamas run ministry of health releases casualty figures for Gaza. I’d like to see a 3rd party figure for these if possible.

    “What would be sufficient? UN / Human Rights Watch Amnesty International?”

    If they were available, It would be interesting to see them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 16,739 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    Well at least you are consistent. Personally , in this hypothetical, I believe the Israeli employee should not be sacked. It's a dangerous road to go down if people can be sacked for expressing their political views.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,535 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Going by the Independent it wasn't instant, she got told to stop and then kept going with more posts.

    It's called bringing a company into disrepute, if your boss wakes up to an inbox full of complaints from something you've done in a very public way you're getting fired.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,792 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    They might lose but they'll probably not mind either way. They also have to think of the safety and well being of their Jewish employees and protect them.



  • Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭Long Sean Silver


    every time Israel is attacked, they claim it's another Holocaust. they then use that to justify the murdering of innocent Palestinian children.

    the attack of Oct attack by Hamas was horrific and barbaric, but it was NOT a holocaust. such misuse of language is extremely unhelpful.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,630 ✭✭✭Beta Ray Bill


    If true, well then the process was followed and the dismissal is legitimate.

    Kind of strange in terms of morals isn't it? Like if I fully believed in X and my employer fully believed in Y, and Y and X are incompatible and seek to destroy each other, then why would I work for someone that believes so much in Y?

    I don't get it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 55,507 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Well, that is why people need to be careful and considerate as regards where and how they express themselves.

    We can't hide behind this "political views" for every case of where someone makes claims. I can say what I like because these are my "political views." That is a nonsense

    I think it was mentioned that Courtney hadn't one mention of the Hamas butchery during her political commentary in slating Israel. Not a whiff of compassion/condemnation for the October 7 massacre; she was so keen to jump on the Israel bashing bandwagon, that the October 7 massacre slipped her mind. And when I consider this, it is why I believe that she doesn't give a fiddlers about the situation, really.



  • Registered Users Posts: 55,507 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Exactly. She was (in their mind, and I'd agree) a threat to their company....had to be sacked.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,535 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Seen a recent enough WRC ruling where a employee did something naughty in the bathroom of another business he got arrested and charged but not yet convicted and it was reported in the papers.

    Employer fires him, he goes to WRC and loses. You don't have to have done anything bad or illegal just get your name out there in a negative way.

    And then there's the case of a Irish rail working maiming 2 women in a drunken car accident getting sent to prison, fired while in prison and somehow wining at the WRC as they took too long to fire him.



Advertisement