Unions. Of No Use Anymore.

[pErvinalia]

Orly?!

A code of behaviour proposed by Catholic employers in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory could put teachers at risk of being disciplined for choices in their private lives, the Independent Education Union says.

The union has argued the code, contained in a clause in a new enterprise bargaining agreement put forward by the Catholic Commission for Employment Relations, is intrusive and will govern the lives of teachers outside of the classroom.

It is concerned that scrutinizing the private lives of teachers could put them at risk of suspension.

The union, which represents teachers in Catholic school, has been in negotiations with the Catholic Commission for Employment Relations for almost a year.

Gay and lesbian relationships, in vitro fertilisation, people who are not married... can be disciplined for doing that.

John Quessy, Independent Education Union

"(The code is) a series of statements that we believe are far too intrusive into the private lives of people merely because they work in a Catholic school," said union spokesman John Quessy.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-18/c ... ys/6138164

You better be careful, Jim!

[JimC]

I belong to a sister union, which covers teachers in independent and catholic schools in both Victoria and Tasmania. The union successfully negotiated a new award 2 years back, which brought better pay and conditions for all teachers in this sector, whether in the union or not. It has stopped any aspect of personal behaviour other than professional misconduct being brought into our award, and I have every confidence it will continue to do so.

As well, I can call on union support in any dispute I have with my employer. This could range from simply having the local union rep sit in on a meeting with the principal, up to legal representation if facing dismissal; this service, of course, is only available to paid-up members...

So, from my point of view at least, the thread title is definitely untrue...

[Seth]

If you work for a Catholic organization, then you can fairly be required to demonstrate Catholic values. If you don't want to demonstrate Catholic values, then don't work for a Catholic organization.

[JimC]

If you work for a Catholic organization, then you can fairly be required to demonstrate Catholic values. If you don't want to demonstrate Catholic values, then don't work for a Catholic organization.

Simply not true. There are many non religious people working in the catholic school system. Sure, I would not be expected to deliver an atheist rant in the classroom (although I've been known to in the staffroom), but I do not have to be a catholic, or espouse catholic values. I could be gay, I could be living with someone or have children without being married, and no one would bat an eyelid. There is absolutely no requirement for me to "demonstrate Catholic values", given that I do not teach R.E. All they require of me is to do a good job of teaching Physics and Maths.

It would be better if you stuck to talking about things you actually know about.

[pErvinalia]

But that wouldn't leave him with anything to talk about..

[Seth]

If you work for a Catholic organization, then you can fairly be required to demonstrate Catholic values. If you don't want to demonstrate Catholic values, then don't work for a Catholic organization.

Simply not true. There are many non religious people working in the catholic school system. Sure, I would not be expected to deliver an atheist rant in the classroom (although I've been known to in the staffroom), but I do not have to be a catholic, or espouse catholic values. I could be gay, I could be living with someone or have children without being married, and no one would bat an eyelid. There is absolutely no requirement for me to "demonstrate Catholic values", given that I do not teach R.E. All they require of me is to do a good job of teaching Physics and Maths.

It would be better if you stuck to talking about things you actually know about.

I know there are, but my point is that if you choose to work for a religious organization, then that religious organization has a perfect right to demand that you adhere to it's moral and ethical principles because you are a representative of that organization, because their right to be consistent in their religious practices and beliefs outranks your desire to work for them. I'm not saying that all religious organizations do have such requirements, merely that they have a right not to employ persons who will damage the reputation, morals, ethics or character of the organization through their private or public activities.

It's called "freedom of association" which necessarily includes the freedom NOT to associate with someone who is opposed to your values.

And yes, that means that religious organizations can, and must be permitted to discriminate against anyone they think doesn't represent their religious beliefs properly.

As it applies to unions, unions have absolutely no rights whatsoever to dictate to a religious organization whom they must hire, whom they can and cannot fire, and what rules of ethical and moral behavior employees must adhere to. Again, this is because the organization's right to be consistent in its religious beliefs and practices outweighs any desire a union might have to interfere.

[pErvinalia]

Thankfully we've decided in the civilised world that bigotry by employers is less important than an employee's right to freedom in their non-work time. Most people who understand what freedom actually means get this. You are only interest in anarcho-capitalism in this regard. Freedom of capitalists to exploit whoever the hell they want.

[Seth]

Thankfully we've decided in the civilised world that bigotry by employers is less important than an employee's right to freedom in their non-work time.

We're not discussing "employers," we're discussing specifically religious organizations.

Most people who understand what freedom actually means get this.

You mean the freedom to enslave the employer to the political, ideological and religious preferences of his employees? That's not freedom.

Freedom means that if you don't like your employer's political, ideological or religious preferences, you don't have to work for him. And if he doesn't like your political, ideological or religious preferences he doesn't have to let you work for him. You have no right to work for any particular employer, so you have no right to impose yourself on any particular employer who doesn't want to employ you, for whatever reason.

Anything else is enslaving someone to someone else's service against their will, which is typical of Marxist socialism.

[pErvinalia]

Thankfully we've decided in the civilised world that bigotry by employers is less important than an employee's right to freedom in their non-work time.

We're not discussing "employers," we're discussing specifically religious organizations.

Who are employing people. It's a shame you can't actually read.

Most people who understand what freedom actually means get this.

You mean the freedom to enslave the employer to the political, ideological and religious preferences of his employees? That's not freedom.

And you think the employees should be enslaved in their non-work time to the ideological and religious preferences of their employer?? That's not freedom either.

Freedom means that if you don't like your employer's political, ideological or religious preferences, you don't have to work for him. And if he doesn't like your political, ideological or religious preferences he doesn't have to let you work for him. You have no right to work for any particular employer, so you have no right to impose yourself on any particular employer who doesn't want to employ you, for whatever reason.

And freedom also means that an employer is free to do some other task if they don't like playing by the rules.

Anything else is enslaving someone to someone else's service against their will, which is typical of Marxist socialism.

The employer is ALWAYS free to do something else. Idiotic Marxist rant is idiotic.

[Seth]

Thankfully we've decided in the civilised world that bigotry by employers is less important than an employee's right to freedom in their non-work time.

We're not discussing "employers," we're discussing specifically religious organizations.

Who are employing people. It's a shame you can't actually read.

Religious organizations are different from non-religious employers. It's a shame you can't comprehend.

Most people who understand what freedom actually means get this.

You mean the freedom to enslave the employer to the political, ideological and religious preferences of his employees? That's not freedom.

And you think the employees should be enslaved in their non-work time to the ideological and religious preferences of their employer?? That's not freedom either.

As long as they are not being compelled to work for the employer and are free to seek employment elsewhere, it certainly is freedom.

Freedom means that if you don't like your employer's political, ideological or religious preferences, you don't have to work for him. And if he doesn't like your political, ideological or religious preferences he doesn't have to let you work for him. You have no right to work for any particular employer, so you have no right to impose yourself on any particular employer who doesn't want to employ you, for whatever reason.

And freedom also means that an employer is free to do some other task if they don't like playing by the rules.

The "rules" violate the employer's right to liberty and freedom of association, and therefore the rules are unconstitutional and therefore not rules at all.

Anything else is enslaving someone to someone else's service against their will, which is typical of Marxist socialism.

The employer is ALWAYS free to do something else. Idiotic Marxist rant is idiotic.

But the employer is not under any obligation to do something else, whereas he has a right to do business while comporting with his ideological, political and religious beliefs. There is no right to work for a specific employer that would give an employee a cause of action for being fired for opposing the employers job requirements. If you don't like the conditions of employment, seek employment elsewhere.

[pErvinalia]

Thankfully we've decided in the civilised world that bigotry by employers is less important than an employee's right to freedom in their non-work time.

We're not discussing "employers," we're discussing specifically religious organizations.

Who are employing people. It's a shame you can't actually read.

Religious organizations are different from non-religious employers. It's a shame you can't comprehend.

How in the fuck are they different concerning employee/employer relations? Own up to your idiotic assertion that "we're not discussing 'employers'". THAT'S specifically what we are discussing when we are talking about workplace relations laws.

Most people who understand what freedom actually means get this.

You mean the freedom to enslave the employer to the political, ideological and religious preferences of his employees? That's not freedom.

And you think the employees should be enslaved in their non-work time to the ideological and religious preferences of their employer?? That's not freedom either.

As long as they are not being compelled to work for the employer and are free to seek employment elsewhere, it certainly is freedom.

So, an organisation takes precedent over individual rights? Welcome to anarcho-capitalism libertarianism. Patently illogical form of libertarianism.

Freedom means that if you don't like your employer's political, ideological or religious preferences, you don't have to work for him. And if he doesn't like your political, ideological or religious preferences he doesn't have to let you work for him. You have no right to work for any particular employer, so you have no right to impose yourself on any particular employer who doesn't want to employ you, for whatever reason.

And freedom also means that an employer is free to do some other task if they don't like playing by the rules.

The "rules" violate the employer's right to liberty

Organisations don't have a right to "liberty"!! What sort of libertarian are you?? Liberty is a right for individuals.

and therefore the rules are unconstitutional and therefore not rules at all.

Except you know that's not true, not least because Merka isn't the only country in the world with a constitution. And even in Merka it ISN'T unconstitutional as a never ending number of court cases have shown.

Anything else is enslaving someone to someone else's service against their will, which is typical of Marxist socialism.

The employer is ALWAYS free to do something else. Idiotic Marxist rant is idiotic.

But the employer is not under any obligation to do something else, whereas he has a right to do business while comporting with his ideological, political and religious beliefs.

Except that's bullshit. An individual employer, let alone an organisation, has no right to do business blah blah blah.

If you don't like the conditions of employment, seek employment elsewhere.

If you don't like the business rules of the country, seek another country.

[Seth]

How in the fuck are they different concerning employee/employer relations?

Because they are religious organizations whose purpose it is to engage in freedom of religious expression, which includes protecting the public appearance and reputation of the organization. It would harm those goals to, for example, have a Satanist as a receptionist in the Catholic Archdiocese offices.

Most people who understand what freedom actually means get this.

You mean the freedom to enslave the employer to the political, ideological and religious preferences of his employees? That's not freedom.

And you think the employees should be enslaved in their non-work time to the ideological and religious preferences of their employer?? That's not freedom either.

As long as they are not being compelled to work for the employer and are free to seek employment elsewhere, it certainly is freedom.

So, an organisation takes precedent over individual rights?

Not in the least. No worker has a "right" to work for any particular employer, therefore no "individual rights" are being interfered with by refusing to employ someone. The employer however, does have a right to control the image, appearance, reputation and integrity of his company, even if doing so denies some individual or another a job.

Welcome to anarcho-capitalism libertarianism. Patently illogical form of libertarianism.

Strawman.

Freedom means that if you don't like your employer's political, ideological or religious preferences, you don't have to work for him. And if he doesn't like your political, ideological or religious preferences he doesn't have to let you work for him. You have no right to work for any particular employer, so you have no right to impose yourself on any particular employer who doesn't want to employ you, for whatever reason.

And freedom also means that an employer is free to do some other task if they don't like playing by the rules.

The "rules" violate the employer's right to liberty

Organisations don't have a right to "liberty"!!

Sez who? Organizations are made up of individuals who have rights. That they group together does not strip them of those rights, in particular the right to freely associate, or disassociate, from those they do not care for.

What sort of libertarian are you?? Liberty is a right for individuals.

Organizations are made up of individuals.

and therefore the rules are unconstitutional and therefore not rules at all.

Except you know that's not true, not least because Merka isn't the only country in the world with a constitution. And even in Merka it ISN'T unconstitutional as a never ending number of court cases have shown.

Ah, but it is unconstitutional, notwithstanding all those court cases. Anti-discrimination laws are inherently and unavoidably unconstitutional for the simple reason that they deny the First Amendment right to freedom of association...and freedom of disassociation.

That corrupt Progressive Supreme Courts have upheld anti-discrimination laws merely means that the courts are corrupt, because the Constitution is perfectly clear on that point and the Supreme Court has no authority to overrule the Constitution.

Anything else is enslaving someone to someone else's service against their will, which is typical of Marxist socialism.

The employer is ALWAYS free to do something else. Idiotic Marxist rant is idiotic.

But the employer is not under any obligation to do something else, whereas he has a right to do business while comporting with his ideological, political and religious beliefs.

Except that's bullshit. An individual employer, let alone an organisation, has no right to do business blah blah blah.

Of course he does.

If you don't like the conditions of employment, seek employment elsewhere.

If you don't like the business rules of the country, seek another country.

Nah, I'll just change the laws instead.

[pErvinalia]

Freedom means that if you don't like your employer's political, ideological or religious preferences, you don't have to work for him. And if he doesn't like your political, ideological or religious preferences he doesn't have to let you work for him. You have no right to work for any particular employer, so you have no right to impose yourself on any particular employer who doesn't want to employ you, for whatever reason.

And freedom also means that an employer is free to do some other task if they don't like playing by the rules.

The "rules" violate the employer's right to liberty

Organisations don't have a right to "liberty"!!

Sez who? Organizations are made up of individuals who have rights. That they group together does not strip them of those rights, in particular the right to freely associate, or disassociate, from those they do not care for.

Yay! Governments have the right to associate with whoever they want!! Another contradiction in your so called "libertarianism".

What sort of libertarian are you?? Liberty is a right for individuals.

Organizations are made up of individuals.

So what? Individuals are made up of atoms. Do atoms have rights?

and therefore the rules are unconstitutional and therefore not rules at all.

Except you know that's not true, not least because Merka isn't the only country in the world with a constitution. And even in Merka it ISN'T unconstitutional as a never ending number of court cases have shown.

Ah, but it is unconstitutional, notwithstanding all those court cases. Anti-discrimination laws are inherently and unavoidably unconstitutional for the simple reason that they deny the First Amendment right to freedom of association...and freedom of disassociation.

That corrupt Progressive Supreme Courts have upheld anti-discrimination laws merely means that the courts are corrupt, because the Constitution is perfectly clear on that point and the Supreme Court has no authority to overrule the Constitution.

"progressive supreme courts" You really are a kook! Seth knows more about the constitution than judges. So when will you and your teabilly mates be overthrowing this blatantly unconstitutional regime? Are you all talk and no game??

Anything else is enslaving someone to someone else's service against their will, which is typical of Marxist socialism.

The employer is ALWAYS free to do something else. Idiotic Marxist rant is idiotic.

But the employer is not under any obligation to do something else, whereas he has a right to do business while comporting with his ideological, political and religious beliefs.

Except that's bullshit. An individual employer, let alone an organisation, has no right to do business blah blah blah.

Of course he does.

Sorry, champ. The government is a bigger organisation of more individuals with rights, so you're tough out of luck. They say who they'd like to associate in a business sense, and the say they don't want to associate with bigots.

If you don't like the conditions of employment, seek employment elsewhere.

If you don't like the business rules of the country, seek another country.

Nah, I'll just change the laws instead.

More like you'll just whinge endlessly about them.

[Hermit]

The matter looks pretty simple to me. An employer is entitled to require an employee to be at least adequate in regard to how the employee performs and looks within the confines of the job, and fire that person if satisfactory standards are not met. I would even allow that any employee whose role is to be a public figurehead, such as say an athlete, politician, evangelist among others can be fired by the organisation that engaged him/her for that role.

As for the rest, the private thoughts or lifestyles are none of an employer's business. If anything the employee does that is actually illegal, the long arm of the law and the judiciary will deal with it. In Australia we have a raft of discrimination acts, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction, social origin, age, medical record, criminal record, marital status, impairment, disability, nationality, sexual preference, trade union activity and so on. They apply equally to organisations and individuals and cover areas such as employment, education, access to premises, accommodation, buying or selling land, activities of clubs, sport, administration of Commonwealth laws and programs, provision of goods, and services and facilities. Religious institutions have limited exemptions. For instance they may require a pastor to not be an atheist or a practising homosexual, but they can't make this requirement of someone whose task it is to sweep the church's floor or teach physics and maths.

Segregating the personal from the professional sphere sort of takes care of privately owned and operated theocracy as well as the governmental of yore, methinks.

[Seth]

The matter looks pretty simple to me. An employer is entitled to require an employee to be at least adequate in regard to how the employee performs and looks within the confines of the job, and fire that person if satisfactory standards are not met. I would even allow that any employee whose role is to be a public figurehead, such as say an athlete, politician, evangelist among others can be fired by the organisation that engaged him/her for that role.

As for the rest, the private thoughts or lifestyles are none of an employer's business. If anything the employee does that is actually illegal, the long arm of the law and the judiciary will deal with it. In Australia we have a raft of discrimination acts, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction, social origin, age, medical record, criminal record, marital status, impairment, disability, nationality, sexual preference, trade union activity and so on. They apply equally to organisations and individuals and cover areas such as employment, education, access to premises, accommodation, buying or selling land, activities of clubs, sport, administration of Commonwealth laws and programs, provision of goods, and services and facilities.

So, a Catholic organization must be required to employ an open and notorious member of NAMBLA? Or a Jewish organization must be required to employ a Neo-Nazi with a swastika tattooed on his head? Or a survivor of the Holocaust who rents a basement apartment must be compelled to rent to a Neo-Nazi, or a devout Catholic must be compelled to rent to a gay couple?

Really?

Discrimination is a civil right. We discriminate all the time, in private and in business. Discrimination is the essence of the right to freedom of association.

Religious institutions have limited exemptions. For instance they may require a pastor to not be an atheist or a practising homosexual, but they can't make this requirement of someone whose task it is to sweep the church's floor or teach physics and maths.

So the church must hire the known, convicted pedophile who is out on parole to work in the church? Really?

That's incredibly stupid.

Segregating the personal from the professional sphere sort of takes care of privately owned and operated theocracy as well as the governmental of yore, methinks.

But that's discriminating based on religious preferences. Which is to say that when the individual whose religious scruples forbid him from associating with or assisting a gay person is required to do so by the law, his religious rights are being discriminated against for reasons of religion, which is illegal.

The knife cuts both ways...or should.

And secularism is not "common ground" that can be established as the Atheist's dream "level playing field" because that discriminates against people of faith.