Sally Rugg vs Monique Ryan

Remove this Banner Ad

sataris said:
Being an expert at one thing does not make you an expert at another thing.

She may be a brilliant surgeon / neurologist, that doesn't mean she'll be a brilliant politician.

I'm currently on a plane, Do I want a neurologist on the flight deck? * no.
Click to expand...
I'll back her as a trustworthy person, I didn't say she could fly a plane.
If we had decent major parties who acted on climate then neurosurgeons wouldn't have to become politicians.
 
Not Important said:
bc my observation from other posts is that the poster is not anti-worker. ipso facto it's most likely a rugg thing.
Click to expand...
I mean they seem to think only poor workers deserve to be protected from exploitation

apparently if you make a bit more money or have a bit of status its all gravy, especially if they like the person exploiting you

they're more worried about the coalition exploiting the situation than the situation itself

so yeah that's not solidarity with workers so much
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Gralin said:
I mean they seem to think only poor workers deserve to be protected from exploitation

apparently if you make a bit more money or have a bit of status it's all gravy, especially if they like the person exploiting you

they're more worried about the coalition exploiting the situation than the situation itself

so yeah that's not solidarity with workers so much
Click to expand...
"they"? insofar as Aristotle's posts go, my observation is "that" poster isn't anti-worker per se. anti rugg, probably.

i hope the case brings fairer conditions 4 all members of the parl't staff. as josh bornstein tweeted "excessive working hours have been normalised in many industries." and it's been accepted 4 too long. that said, rugg is a political person and has been 4 yonks. can't believe she wasn't aware of the long hours before she took the job on. btw that doesn't mean i'm condoning them, just in case you intend to make an attribution;)
 
All chief of staffs work 70 hours a week in Canberra ,why are people only pointing the finger at Ryan?
My position is basically I don't like to see Greens and Green independents attacked , imo, unfairly.
They already put up with daily Murdoch attacks and attacks from major parties.
I'm down on Rugg because she knew this would lead to attacks on Ryan.
She could have resigned then highlighted the working life in Canberra and campaigned for reforms imo.
 
Aristotle Pickett said:
All chief of staffs work 70 hours a week in Canberra ,why are people only pointing the finger at Ryan?
Click to expand...
You do realise you don't get to justify your unlawful behaviour by pointing to others people's unlawful behaviour?

The test is what is reasonable unpaid overtime. The fact that other people in your industry are being exploited doesn't dis-entitle you from seeking to enforce your rights.

I don't think many people would consider 30 hours per week to be "reasonable", but that is ultimately for the fair work to decide.
 
Hornberger said:
You do realise you don't get to justify your unlawful behaviour by pointing to others people's unlawful behaviour?

The test is what is reasonable unpaid overtime. The fact that other people in your industry are being exploited doesn't dis-entitle you from seeking to enforce your rights.

I don't think many people would consider 30 hours per week to be "reasonable", but that is ultimately for the fair work to decide.
Click to expand...
Fair enough but let's not pretend that Ryan is an evil onerous boss and lets admit that the chief of staffs in Canberra have jobs that pay very well and that they have influence on the political landscape that very few people have.
It's hard for me to sympathize with Rugg for those reasons and the personal attacks she made on Ryan, a neurosurgeon.
 
Aristotle Pickett said:
Fair enough but let's not pretend that Ryan is an evil onerous boss and lets admit that the chief of staffs in Canberra have jobs that pay very well and that they have influence on the political landscape that very few people have.
It's hard for me to sympathize with Rugg for those reasons and the personal attacks she made on Ryan, a neurosurgeon.
Click to expand...
Rugg wasn't being paid the CoS salary as mentioned in the court documents.

And it's not just the CoS that Ryan was expecting to turn up on a Sunday morning to a meeting called last minute.

As I posted earlier if you're paying me 136k for a 40 hour week and then another $30k for reasonable overtime, you're not getting another 30hrs a week out of that 30k
 
Gralin said:
Rugg wasn't being paid the CoS salary as mentioned in the court documents.

And it's not just the CoS that Ryan was expecting to turn up on a Sunday morning to a meeting called last minute.

As I posted earlier if you're paying me 136k for a 40 hour week and then another $30k for reasonable overtime, you're not getting another 30hrs a week out of that 30k
Click to expand...
Gralin said:
Rugg wasn't being paid the CoS salary as mentioned in the court documents.

And it's not just the CoS that Ryan was expecting to turn up on a Sunday morning to a meeting called last minute.

As I posted earlier if you're paying me 136k for a 40 hour week and then another $30k for reasonable overtime, you're not getting another 30hrs a week out of that 30k
Click to expand...
I agree with that but there was no need for Rugg to attack Ryan's character and I don't see this as having wider implications for other workers apart from the Chief of Staffs in Canberra.
There is already legislation protecting workers on this issue.
 
I will always support workers, especially above their bosses who think 70 hours a week is reasonable. I wonder how many people criticising Rugg have bothered to read any of the material.

Her evidence is strong - Ryan relies heavily on hearsay and unsubstantiated memory, Rugg backs her claims up with evidence in the forms of text messages, emails and media articles.

I am confident the court will find that Rugg was terminated, and she didn't resign. I'm confident the court will find that 70 hours a week is grossly excessive.

The question the court is going to have to deal with is how Rugg could possibly work for Ryan again, and how it can interpret a half-assed unprofessional performance management process. It actually would've been really easy to performance manage her out, assuming Rugg had the standard 6-month probationary period, but Ryan ****ed the process and she's lost that opportunity.
 
Aristotle Pickett said:
Rugg was fired ,that's what it's all about. It hurt her ego so she hired expensive lawyers to get back and discredit Ryan imo.
I don't think Ryan has done anything different to how any other MP would act at times.
If the truth came out about every MP , it would be a lot worse than this imo.
Frank Zumbo, Andrew Lamming, Linda Reynolds treated their staff a lot worse.
Again I find it very hard to bag a neuro surgeon.
Why on earth would Rugg mention supposed colonisation references, what does thar have to do with work hours?
I think Rugg sees herself as the righteous hero, others might see her as a disrepectful millenial ,vengeful, bitchy, gossipy and out to try and destroy the rep of a respected doctor because she got sacked .
Click to expand...

Your first sentence makes it clear you don't have a clue what the case is about. So why comment?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

nobbyiscool said:
I will always support workers, especially above their bosses who think 70 hours a week is reasonable. I wonder how many people criticising Rugg have bothered to read any of the material.

Her evidence is strong - Ryan relies heavily on hearsay and unsubstantiated memory, Rugg backs her claims up with evidence in the forms of text messages, emails and media articles.

I am confident the court will find that Rugg was terminated, and she didn't resign. I'm confident the court will find that 70 hours a week is grossly excessive.

The question the court is going to have to deal with is how Rugg could possibly work for Ryan again, and how it can interpret a half-assed unprofessional performance management process. It actually would've been really easy to performance manage her out, assuming Rugg had the standard 6-month probationary period, but Ryan ****ed the process and she's lost that opportunity.
Click to expand...
There's a real argument that the staff should report to the public service not the MPs directly.
Getting elected doesn't mean you have any understanding of people management or HR or anything.
Have a layer in between both parties to make sure works getting done but also that unrealistic expectations are being managed
 
Gralin said:
There's a real argument that the staff should report to the public service not the MPs directly.
Getting elected doesn't mean you have any understanding of people management or HR or anything.
Have a layer in between both parties to make sure works getting done but also that unrealistic expectations are being managed
Click to expand...
wouldn't that be politicising the public service?
 
Gralin said:
You think it's not currently?
Click to expand...
if you think those in the senior executive service aren't working excessive hours then you're misguided. in fact, that would apply to many public servants down the line too.

don't get me wrong, one of the worst things that has occurred to our system of gov't was the Americanisation of the public service with the gov't of the day appointing permanent heads. effectively bypassing the public service board.

however, going a step further and requiring the personal staff of members who are entirely party political peeps working almost entirely on party political matters to come under the purview of the public service is a step too far.

this matter is ensuring peeps are not required 2 work unreasonable hours. it has broad legislative implications which extend beyond this particular matter.
 
Aristotle Pickett said:
Tell me where I'm wrong. She was fired and offered 4 weeks pay .
Click to expand...

The court will decide whether she was fired - the Commonwealth and Ryan are claiming that she resigned.

It was also closer to 6 weeks.

So yeah... you don't even know the basics of the case champ.
 
If your work is important enough to expect your people to work 70 hours then it's hard to see why your work wouldn't be worth putting on enough people to staff your office properly, pay people overtime or time in lieu and respect that people are not at work when they are not at work.

One example of bootlicking you usually see reserved for tech start ups is that employees should be expected to work unpaid overtime because of the righteousness of the company, but the owners aren't called out for not paying their employees overtime at the expense of profit. I get the same vibes from this thread. If Dr. Ryan truly is the second coming, she can afford to staff her office properly.
 
Gralin said:
And yeah if you're saying she should just shut up and be exploited to save the planet then you're a tree tory as well Aristotle Pickett
Click to expand...
Alternatively as Ryan was generally a public hospital specialist maybe she is used to insane hours and (because surrounded by junior docs with similarly imbalanced work ethics) think this is normal work behaviour. I mean I work 28 hours a week clinically and about the same non clinical admin (but am only paid for 10 hours admin) but if I don’t do it then I fall behind on the things I need to do.
 
Aristotle Pickett said:
Can you stop saying anti-worker to me every post?
Rugg could of got her compo without all the nasty irrelevent undermining comments . Now Ryan is getting attacked by the Coalition.
I think you have solidarity with Rugg because you are Labor and Rugg headed the Labor 'Get Up' for years.
Tell me what Labor are doing for the worker at the moment? Nothing. Do nothing Albo.
It sounds like you know or have met Rugg before to me.
Click to expand...
Umm Gralin is definitely not Labor
 
Gralin said:
Supporting an anti worker position doesn't make someone anti worker?

do tell me more
Click to expand...
He’s anti the individual. Perhaps believes that the individual worker (rugg) was unable to do the job. Because he accepts one side’s affidavits entirely
 
Gralin said:
There's a real argument that the staff should report to the public service not the MPs directly.
Getting elected doesn't mean you have any understanding of people management or HR or anything.
Have a layer in between both parties to make sure works getting done but also that unrealistic expectations are being managed
Click to expand...
As long as that middle layer doesn’t leak like a sieve back to the government side of politics
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Sally Rugg vs Monique Ryan

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top