Sally Rugg vs Monique Ryan

[hawkman]

If Rugg had made this claim against anyone from the Lib/Nats or Labor, Aristotle Pickett would be completely backing their claims on exactly the same evidence and demanding the MP's resignation

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

That doesn't answer my question...

So if the courts rule in favour of Rugg, you'll accept that Ryan has done the wrong thing?

Yes, but every chief of staff could say the same thing. She's mainly taking the Commonwealth to court from now on as far as I see it.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

If Rugg had made this claim against anyone from the Lib/Nats or Labor, Aristotle Pickett would be completely backing their claims on exactly the same evidence and demanding the MP's resignation

Rugg wouldn't work for the Lib/Nats. She's attacking her own side of politics for a test case.
Ryan showed a lack of judgement hiring her.

 

[Big Papa Ted]

Yes, but every chief of staff could say the same thing. She's mainly taking the Commonwealth to court from now on as far as I see it.

Oh sweet case closed then. Well if the courts rule in favour of Rugg, I look forward to reading your retraction of all the character assassinations/anti worker stuff you've put in this thread.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Oh sweet case closed then. Well if the courts rule in favour of Rugg, I look forward to reading your retraction of all the character assassinations/anti worker stuff you've put in this thread.

Anti-worker my arse.
Do you think closing coal mines is anti-worker as well?

 

[Magnum27]

What do you think? Ryan hasn't sexually harrasssed anyone. At worse she was demanding boss. What an aborrent crime. Does she need to be dragged through the courts for months for that?

Their is a difference between a demanding boss and expecting your workers to work longer hours and not being remunerated correctly, and whilst i don't agree with everything a union does, it is shit like this that we need them there.

And if you cannot see that then i'm with Gralin , you are anti worker.

 

[Kwality]

Yes, but every chief of staff could say the same thing. She's mainly taking the Commonwealth to court from now on as far as I see it.

Rugg isn't the real deal as a Chief of Staff.
Both she & her boss are over rating their status.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Their is a difference between a demanding boss and expecting your workers to work longer hours and not being remunerated correctly, and whilst i don't agree with everything a union does, it is s**t like this that we need them there.

And if you cannot see that then i'm with Gralin , you are anti worker.

The CMFEU advocate for more coal and gas. How is that good for the majority of people? Can't you see the greed and hypocrisy and the destruction coal unions are doing in the name of workers rights?
All this does is enrich multi-nationals like Santos and makes the rich richer. It's a real blind spot that Labor people gloss over.
Labor MPs make me sick.

 

[Magnum27]

The CMFEU advocate for more coal and gas. How is that good for the majority of people? Can't you see the greed and hypocrisy and the destruction coal unions are doing in the name of workers rights?
All this does is enrich multi-nationals like Santos and makes the rich richer. It's a real blind spot that Labor people gloss over.
Labor MPs make me sick.

Once again you are talking about something that has nothing to do with this workplace dispute. And I'm far from a Labor stooge, i have more than once stated i have a dislike for all parties. They are all self serving assholes.

 

[Taylor]

The CMFEU advocate for more coal and gas. How is that good for the majority of people? Can't you see the greed and hypocrisy and the destruction coal unions are doing in the name of workers rights?
All this does is enrich multi-nationals like Santos and makes the rich richer. It's a real blind spot that Labor people gloss over.
Labor MPs make me sick.

Their families would selfishly appreciate being able to feed their children.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Sounds like a nightmare for Ryan the way Rugg was carrying on.

'High-performing staff often regard themselves as smarter or more talented than their supervisors. Seeing themselves as vital to their organisation, they may be reluctant to take directions, follow rules or do tasks they regard as menial. Believing they are too important to fire, they may become insubordinate.'

Monique Ryan, Sally Rugg and the star employee syndrome

One of any leader’s toughest jobs is managing an employee who believes, often with justification, that they are more skilled than their boss.

www.afr.com

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Their families would selfishly appreciate being able to feed their children.

Lol. Ridiculous coal lobby argument which reads 'we need more coal mines so children don't starve' gmab.

 

[Taylor]

Lol. Ridiculous coal lobby argument which reads 'we need more coal mines so children don't starve' gmab.

May as well just round up all the people who work in areas you don't like and shoot them and their families to solve the issue then.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

May as well just round up all the people who work in areas you don't like and shoot them and their families to solve the issue then.

Gmab.You know yr point was ridiculous.
What about all the asbestos workers who lost their jobs? Did you want to retain asbestos?

 

[Abers]

May as well just round up all the people who work in areas you don't like and shoot them and their families to solve the issue then.

Given the single greatest cause of climate change is overpopulation I’m sure he would be in favour of rounding up half the population and executing them. As long as the ends justify the means.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

What do you think? Ryan hasn't sexually harrasssed anyone.

I think you need to specify where the boundary is for you between acceptable and unacceptable conduct as an employer.

At worse she was demanding boss. What an aborrent crime. Does she need to be dragged through the courts for months for that?

If she contravened a workplace contract or forced her staff to work unreasonable hours, yes.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Do you think closing coal mines is anti-worker as well?

If they're not provided with opportunities for alternative jobs or a decent social safety net, yes. Why do you think environmental groups talk about a "just transition"? They recognise there are regular people who will lose out in the short term, and they need to be taken into account.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

I think you need to specify where the boundary is for you between acceptable and unacceptable conduct as an employer.


If she contravened a workplace contract or forced her staff to work unreasonable hours, yes.

There's been nothing proven at all so far.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

If they're not provided with opportunities for alternative jobs or a decent social safety net, yes. Why do you think environmental groups talk about a "just transition"? They recognise there are regular people who will lose out in the short term, and they need to be taken into account.

Gmab. There's 2 million people in poverty and your arguing to prop up coal jobs. No one is gonna starve. It's a ridiculous argument when you weigh up the consequences.
There is no moral argument for new coal mines or old coal mines.
That argument has meant 30 years of inaction.

 

[Cap]

Gmab. There's 2 million people in poverty and your arguing to prop up coal jobs. No one is gonna starve. It's a ridiculous argument when you weigh up the consequences.
There is no moral argument for new coal mines or old coal mines.
That argument has meant 30 years of inaction.

It's almost like they are calling for a better social safety net.

So why not start demanding that.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

There's been nothing proven at all so far.

And that's the purpose of going through the courts, to prove things. So yes, it should be dragged through the courts.

Gmab. There's 2 million people in poverty and your arguing to prop up coal jobs.

Are you saying we can only afford to look after one of those groups? We can either ensure coal workers continue to have secure livelihoods, or alleviate poverty, but we can't do both?

No one is gonna starve. It's a ridiculous argument when you weigh up the consequences.

How do you know they won't starve?

There is no moral argument for new coal mines or old coal mines.
That argument has meant 30 years of inaction.

Good thing I didn't make that argument then. I don't know who you're arguing this point with.

 

[Not Important]

None of that is a comment on the case, just on their relationship & how it would feasibly work (or not.)

admittedly, my reading of justice mortimer’s judgement was speedy. however, i detected little questioning of ryan's evidence. on the other hand, there was questioning of rugg’s evidence. doesn’t count 4 much if it goes 2 trial. nonetheless intriguing.

The applicant’s submissions to the contrary had a significant degree of unreality about them. They appeared to depend in part on a scenario in which Ms Rugg would set her own boundaries about what work she would do and how much work she considered reasonable….

This evidence contains an exaggeration. Ms Rugg and Dr Ryan did not work together “for a long time”. They worked together for five months. There is no detail in Ms Rugg’s affidavit to explain the basis for her asserted confidence. For example, despite being familiar with the role and demands of the position, she gives no detail about how she considers she could work on a day-to-day basis to manage any tensions or challenges, or how she considers her concerns about working hours could be addressed. There is nothing but an assertion. The assertion is contrary to the objective evidence. I do not accept it.

the judge also said rugg’s evidence “largely consists of emails”

i saw nothing that seriously questions ryan’s evidence

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

And that's the purpose of going through the courts, to prove things. So yes, it should be dragged through the courts.


Are you saying we can only afford to look after one of those groups? We can either ensure coal workers continue to have secure livelihoods, or alleviate poverty, but we can't do both?


How do you know they won't starve?


Good thing I didn't make that argument then. I don't know who you're arguing this point with.

No one is gonna starve because a coal mine is closed. I can't believe you are going with that zealousargument.
Why such love for coal miners? This is just propaganda from the coal lobby mate. Coal miners have transferrable skills just like asbestos miners and uranium miners.
Not that I give 2 shits about coal miners, they are all a-holes to me.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

No one is gonna starve because a coal mine is closed. I can't believe you are going with that zealousargument.

What if someone can't find another job after losing their job in coal mining? What if a community loses most of its economic activity after a coal mine shuts down, and the demand for other jobs falls as a result, putting them in danger? These are valid concerns, and hand-waving them away as not being worthy of consideration are a major reason why people and communities cling to coal so hard - they fear they will be left behind afterwards, and aren't being assured that they will be okay.

This is why I want a just transition for coal workers and investment in coal mining communities, so that they know economic activity will continue even after we make the necessary move to shut down the mines.

Why such love for coal miners? This is just propaganda from the coal lobby mate.

It's called acknowledging other people's concerns. Is that something you do, or are you only concerned with your own affairs and not those of others?

Coal miners have transferrable skills just like asbestos miners and uranium miners.

All of them? Every single one? And what about communities that depend on the demand for services from nearby coal mines?

Not that I give 2 shits about coal miners, they are all a-holes to me.

Do you think that attitude makes political change easier or harder to achieve?

 

[Gralin]

What if someone can't find another job after losing their job in coal mining? What if a community loses most of its economic activity after a coal mine shuts down, and the demand for other jobs falls as a result, putting them in danger? These are valid concerns, and hand-waving them away as not being worthy of consideration are a major reason why people and communities cling to coal so hard - they fear they will be left behind afterwards, and aren't being assured that they will be okay.

This is why I want a just transition for coal workers and investment in coal mining communities, so that they know economic activity will continue even after we make the necessary move to shut down the mines.


It's called acknowledging other people's concerns. Is that something you do, or are you only concerned with your own affairs and not those of others?


All of them? Every single one? And what about communities that depend on the demand for services from nearby coal mines?


Do you think that attitude makes political change easier or harder to achieve?

you're just going to go around in circles without getting answers and repeated ranting about the climate and coal miners and labor