News Do you care if Israel Folau returns to the NRL?

[Pommy]

Sure it doesn’t add anything to the debate but I did find this amusing.

 

[ULYSSES]

We are talking about a guy who plays for a rival sport on a rugby league forum and what he said whether it's right or wrong.

Why are we giving this so much air time?

Possibly the principal involved will have far reaching effects on Australian and possibly world society. In three days over a half million dollars has been raised to support Falou in his legal battle. Many of these donors have left comments that indicate they have a secular interest not Christian.
my interest in this is...if you are not free to practice your religion without your employers approval then what is next.?

 

[unforgiven]

This is the classic bringing the game into disrepute which would be found in most player agreements.

I am not saying it is right or wrong but are you saying that this type of clause shouldn't exist?

No it's not, this is about freedom of expression which is a human right!

 

[Iafeta]

Folau is fighting his dismissal (I understand) on the basis that the code of conduct did not prevent him practicing his religion. Did your agreement specify this?

Mine? It basically says I cannot cause disrepute, brand reputation damage, share confidential information etc.

 

[unforgiven]

Unless you agree to work for an organisation that has amongst its policies a social media policy that prohibits it. Most commonly to avoid brand damage.

And what is being contested here is if that organisation has a right to restrict a persons freedom of expression in those policies. I do not believe they should be allowed to do so!

 

[unforgiven]

What if Folau had used social media to say that AFL is the superior sport, and Rugby Union is a long way behind both AFL and Rugby League?

Do you think in that situation it would be ok for the ARU to request that he stop? And if he failed to do so, to terminate his contract?

I think he has a right to say that if he believes it, but I may suggest he is playing the wrong sport if he does. I have heard sports people say other sports do certain things better.

 

[Iafeta]

No it's not, this is about freedom of expression which is a human right!

He never lost that. He is free to preach as he sees fit.

To me it depends on what is in their social media policy, any other policies that may be applicable, etc.

If there is a policy for which he agrees to, whether it’s in his contract, or in many organisations you do refresher courses or refresher acknowledgments of the policy, then it’s a matter of them disciplining him for breaching it.

He’s not forced into accepting these conditions. He has options such as choose to work for an employer that does not have these policy obligations. He agrees to perform as a rugby player and to follow their codes, policies etc, and they agree to pay him.

 

[Foreign Legion]

Possibly the principal involved will have far reaching effects on Australian and possibly world society. In three days over a half million dollars has been raised to support Falou in his legal battle. Many of these donors have left comments that indicate they have a secular interest not Christian.
my interest in this is...if you are not free to practice your religion without your employers approval then what is next.?

Yea, but honestly who cares... this is a footy sight not the "P.C. United Nations of Justice for all" like am I the only who doesn't give a f..k ?

 

[unforgiven]

He never lost that. He is free to preach as he sees fit.

To me it depends on what is in their social media policy, any other policies that may be applicable, etc.

If there is a policy for which he agrees to, whether it’s in his contract, or in many organisations you do refresher courses or refresher acknowledgments of the policy, then it’s a matter of them disciplining him for breaching it.

He’s not forced into accepting these conditions. He has options such as choose to work for an employer that does not have these policy obligations. He agrees to perform as a rugby player and to follow their codes, policies etc, and they agree to pay him.

As I've said what is being contested here is whether the organisation has a right to include this in their policies, I do not believe that they should!

 

[unforgiven]

Yea, but honestly who cares... this is a footy sight not the "P.C. United Nations of Justice for all" like am I the only who doesn't give a f..k ?

No you are not the only person who doesn't give a #$%#, the others probably don't click on the thread though!

 

[ULYSSES]

What if Folau had used social media to say that AFL is the superior sport, and Rugby Union is a long way behind both AFL and Rugby League?

Do you think in that situation it would be ok for the ARU to request that he stop? And if he failed to do so, to terminate his contract?

I think tongue in cheek as long as the term 'behind' had no homosexual reference it would be fine.

 

[Iafeta]

Yea, but honestly who cares... this is a footy sight not the "P.C. United Nations of Justice for all" like am I the only who doesn't give a f..k ?

I was somewhat ambivalent to it all until the gofundme page. Only because there are better things to provide charity to than a millionaire football player. I feel it’s fairly audacious to ask the common punter for money when he’s got dosh of his own.

I disagree with his post regards homosexuals. But it didn’t keep me up at night.

 

[typicalfan]

No it's not, this is about freedom of expression which is a human right!

You could make an argument that clauses around disreputation could restrict the freedom for an employer to express themselves in certain ways. I can't give certain information about my workplace for example.

 

[unforgiven]

I was somewhat ambivalent to it all until the gofundme page. Only because there are better things to provide charity to than a millionaire football player. I feel it’s fairly audacious to ask the common punter for money when he’s got dosh of his own.

I disagree with his post regards homosexuals. But it didn’t keep me up at night.

I disagree with him trying to raise money for his defence, but that is a different issue to his right to say what he said!

 

[Iafeta]

As I've said what is being contested here is whether the organisation has a right to include this in their policies, I do not believe that they should!

That’s two separate issues though isn’t it.

If I read what you are saying correctly, then the only way to change that would be through legislation I imagine. But in saying that, if we all had carte Blanche to say as we feel, imagine how organisations who rely heavily on sponsorship funds will go. These sponsorship funds contribute heavily to the player payments. Imagine if players went on twitter and tweeted things that customers of Foxtel who contribute enormous monies to the NRL and therefore the players found offensive. Imagine if those customers took action by unsubscribing. They need to protect themselves commercially, otherwise how do to sustain the revenue to pay the players what they are paid?

I feel the real question is whether Rugby Australia has covered themselves either contractually or via their policies.

 

[unforgiven]

You could make an argument that clauses around disreputation could restrict the freedom for an employer to express themselves in certain ways

The ARU should have come out and said they disagree completely with his posts and that they do not represent their views.

 

[ULYSSES]

Yea, but honestly who cares... this is a footy sight not the "P.C. United Nations of Justice for all" like am I the only who doesn't give a f..k ?

What is a footy sight? Maybe it is a United Nations of Justice for all " like am I the only one that does not know how to spell SITE.

 

[typicalfan]

That’s two separate issues though isn’t it.

If I read what you are saying correctly, then the only way to change that would be through legislation I imagine. But in saying that, if we all had carte Blanche to say as we feel, imagine how organisations who rely heavily on sponsorship funds will go. These sponsorship funds contribute heavily to the player payments. Imagine if players went on twitter and tweeted things that customers of Foxtel who contribute enormous monies to the NRL and therefore the players found offensive. Imagine if those customers took action by unsubscribing. They need to protect themselves commercially, otherwise how do to sustain the revenue to pay the players what they are paid?

I feel the real question is whether Rugby Australia has covered themselves either contractually or via their policies.

Yep to me it is whether they made the right move to sack him or would negotiating an early payout be an "agree to disagree" and we both go our separate ways. Maybe Rugby didn't want to be seen as negotiating or maybe it wasn't in their best interests financially. Either way I think both parties are screwed.

 

[unforgiven]

That’s two separate issues though isn’t it.

If I read what you are saying correctly, then the only way to change that would be through legislation I imagine. But in saying that, if we all had carte Blanche to say as we feel, imagine how organisations who rely heavily on sponsorship funds will go. These sponsorship funds contribute heavily to the player payments. Imagine if players went on twitter and tweeted things that customers of Foxtel who contribute enormous monies to the NRL and therefore the players found offensive. Imagine if those customers took action by unsubscribing. They need to protect themselves commercially, otherwise how do to sustain the revenue to pay the players what they are paid?

I feel the real question is whether Rugby Australia has covered themselves either contractually or via their policies.

I feel that will be one of Folau's defences during his case.

To be honest I do not care about the reputations of big organisations, I have a greater concern for for people freedom of expression. Why should an organistion have a right to tell a person what they can say in their own time. If he was expressing these views in his interviews after the game or in his role as an ARU employee then they would have a point. When he is own his own time they can back out of people's lives.

 

[Saxon]

What is a God Botherer? Must be someone that annoys God. But you must consider yourself some sort of deity in order to presume who gave to cancer research and who didn't. Please quote your source .

Why so upset? Have I upset your invisible friend?