- Oct 19, 2020
- 24,268
- 34,123
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #301
What a ridiculous thing to say. You're hypotheticals are ridiculous as well.They'd have loved you at My Lai.....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Sydney v Port Adelaide - 7:40 / 7:10 Fri
Squiggle tips Swans at 57% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
What a ridiculous thing to say. You're hypotheticals are ridiculous as well.They'd have loved you at My Lai.....
No of course not, you only excuse workplace bullying and worker exploitation because you stan a rich white professional who says some things you agree with.Is that directed at me?
Rubbish. There was no finding of workplace bullying.No of course not, you only excuse workplace bullying and worker exploitation because you stan a rich white professional who says some things you agree with.
I'd never make fun of someone who has spent pages in this thread making bigger picture break a few eggs bog standard corporate greed arguments from a pedestal of what they believe to be moral superiority because climate change
The mind boggles really, if it is for climate change you could potentially commit a crime in his world and it would not be a problem.Jesus christ mate
Doing what every other MP does with their staff is no great crime.The mind boggles really, if it is for climate change you could potentially commit a crime in his world and it would not be a problem.
Doing what every other MP does with their staff is no great crime.
I don't think you and others understand what's going on in the world at the moment. Luckily I have a science background.
She got a payout for unreasonable hours. Every chief of staff can make the same claim and win. That's no reason to vilify Monique Ryan.Yes it is, all of it is wrong, and should be held to account, no worker should be treated badly, but it's clear you are ok with that as long as it suits your cause.
If your superstar climate guru did nothing wrong, why the pay out, why did she not stand on her convictions if she did nothing wrong.
apparently it is a reason to vilify Rugg though like you have for pages and pages because you think she should accept being treated poorly because Ryan might vote for action on climate changeShe got a payout for unreasonable hours. Every chief of staff can make the same claim and win. That's no reason to vilify Monique Ryan.
She got a payout for unreasonable hours. Every chief of staff can make the same claim and win. That's no reason to vilify Monique Ryan.
Depends if they ever want another job. Is it worth it for $100k?She got a payout for unreasonable hours. Every chief of staff can make the same claim and win. That's no reason to vilify Monique Ryan.
don’t think maurice blackburn is known for no win, no fee. or being light on fees generally. so, i’m not sure the ruggster will have much of the $100,000 left after she gets the invoice.To be honest there were people on both sides of the argument online that were so fervent in their opinion that either:
A. Rugg was after a quick dollar
Or
B. That there was so much evidence that the courts would rule in Ruggs favour and that would impact all staffers employed for MPs.
I would have like the case tested and for the courts to rule. I think that talk of improving work place conditions is an important thing. And this could have occurred.
Unfortunately that is not the case. Which is unfortunate because I got the impression that Rugg was invested in workers rights. But like all people ended up being human.
Not many of us going to sneeze at 100k.
not sure about the bullying as that wasn't tested and isn't in keeping with the person as i understand it.Then Ryan is no better than any other employer who treats their employees poorly, expecting your employee to work un reasonable hours is not acceptable behaviour from any boss or manager, and is a form of bullying in the workplace, and needs to be stamped out.
I have been through the exact same scenario many years ago, and know full well how the convo goes when the request is to work outside your hrs. I didn't go to court or anything, didn't want any mores stress , i just found a better job where i'm treated better, and always take a stand for my colleagues if i see shit treatment going on by managers.not sure about the bullying as that wasn't tested and isn't in keeping with the person as i understand it.
agree, that peeps shouldn't be asked to work long unremunerated hours. but she was no babe in the woods politically and she well knew the work requirements but still took the job. had her case been strong she wouldn't have folded.
much prefer the test case to be in health care and not only nurses. those working in aged care would be a good start.
you keep using the term bullying, it was never tested.I have been through the exact same scenario, and know full well how the convo goes when the request is to work outside your hrs. I didn't go to court or anything , i just found a better job where i'm treated better, and always take a stand for my colleagues if i see s**t treatment going on by managers.
Bullying a worker can come in all different forms.
I'm not criticising doing it, they never should have slashed the cross bench support staff in the first placenot that fussed either way, grales. the albo justification for reducing independents staff was aligning the staffing with those members who were associated with parties - of any persuasion. ipso facto equality. the changes lift staffing to all so it remains and even playing field.
A rock & roll approach to fluctuating work loads (hours) is fine if both parties agree to it, even in a unionised workplace. The key is respect all round.Then Ryan is no better than any other employer who treats their employees poorly, expecting your employee to work un reasonable hours is not acceptable behaviour from any boss or manager, and is a form of bullying in the workplace, and needs to be stamped out.
I'm not criticising doing it, they never should have slashed the cross bench support staff in the first place
their justification for it was bullshit to begin with, they were just trying to limit the effectiveness of the cross bench
I am, however, laughing at Albo trying to act like the Rugg v Ryan case had nothing to do with this decision when his treasurer said the exact opposite and the case was settled days before this was announced
Nah man, parties have resources independents don't this isn't equityyes grales, i get what you were hyped about. my opening bit saying i'm "not that fussed either way.." was addressing it.
my point is that it was inequitable for -say - you as the greens member for 'chiefville' having fewer electoral officers than an independent in another electorate. changing the arrangement so all were on an equal footing was fair and reasonable. now it's reasonable to ask why albo didn't find the millions of dollars necessary to equalise the electoral staff numbers at a time when he had a trillion-dollar debt to deal with. but you can bet your last pay packet from chief for being a super duper adjudicator that he’d have been criticised for that at the time.