-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Essendon = Entitlement
- Thread starter Number8
- Start date
That's still religious discrimination. That sermon from 2013 was the position supported by Julia Gillard and Penny Wong.
We sprout being inclusive and then seek to banish those with different views
Ok.sooo…….. Let’s for a moment remove the religious aspect from this. Peoples beliefs are what they are and as long as they do not intrude on others - then there you go.
However. What I am more fascinated in - is the ‘process’ of how Thorburn was appointed.
He resigned from the NAB for good reason and for his attitude was singled out by Hayne in the Royal Commission hearings. For mine - that is not what I see as a quality I want in a CEO of any organisation. FWIW - I was 42 years in Banking. Not NAB and I am not having a crack at the NAB. Though the fees for non service for all organisations involved was a disgrace.
So - he, for whatever reason was heavily involved in the search for a new CEO at Essendon. Not 100% sure what he was bringing to the table in terms of his background but let’s accept he may have skills here. I do love how prominent people with no background in certain types of business fall onto well paid board positions from time to time.
Well into the process he decides….and…well after interviews have commenced, of which he was part of the interviewing panel, he has an epiphiny (sorry, I let a little religion in there) and believes he is the MAN for the job. He is better than the others, no-one thought of him, but he has thought of him and he now has the opportunity to take the best responses of all applicants and potentially use that himself. He removes himself from the “process”, says “I am in” (james Hird anybody?) is subsequently interviewed and WOWZA he is the MAN!
Well played Andrew. Surely as an ex CEO of one of the largest organisations in the Country he can’t see that a conflict of interest has occurred? Or, that he was, in a fashion, ‘insider trading”. I mean….WOW! Neither do Essendon. Probably how they have operated for the last 100 or so years.
Is it finished here? My Lordy NO, (little more religion thrown in)
Dorothy Hisgrove, current board member AND on the subcommittee tasked with finding a new CEO for Essendon, is, would you believe it? An ex colleague of an…..Andrew Thorburn? Gee. That name rings a bell? She was formerly GM of People engagement, culture, diversity and change at….um…the NAB. She was absolutely effusive in her praise after he was appointed as to how fantastic he would be.
EFF ME….
That is the wonderful debacle of the Essendon Football Club.
I am normally a bit flat and disappointed when footy season ends, but not this year. IT IS FASCINATING STUFF!!
However. What I am more fascinated in - is the ‘process’ of how Thorburn was appointed.
He resigned from the NAB for good reason and for his attitude was singled out by Hayne in the Royal Commission hearings. For mine - that is not what I see as a quality I want in a CEO of any organisation. FWIW - I was 42 years in Banking. Not NAB and I am not having a crack at the NAB. Though the fees for non service for all organisations involved was a disgrace.
So - he, for whatever reason was heavily involved in the search for a new CEO at Essendon. Not 100% sure what he was bringing to the table in terms of his background but let’s accept he may have skills here. I do love how prominent people with no background in certain types of business fall onto well paid board positions from time to time.
Well into the process he decides….and…well after interviews have commenced, of which he was part of the interviewing panel, he has an epiphiny (sorry, I let a little religion in there) and believes he is the MAN for the job. He is better than the others, no-one thought of him, but he has thought of him and he now has the opportunity to take the best responses of all applicants and potentially use that himself. He removes himself from the “process”, says “I am in” (james Hird anybody?) is subsequently interviewed and WOWZA he is the MAN!
Well played Andrew. Surely as an ex CEO of one of the largest organisations in the Country he can’t see that a conflict of interest has occurred? Or, that he was, in a fashion, ‘insider trading”. I mean….WOW! Neither do Essendon. Probably how they have operated for the last 100 or so years.
Is it finished here? My Lordy NO, (little more religion thrown in)
Dorothy Hisgrove, current board member AND on the subcommittee tasked with finding a new CEO for Essendon, is, would you believe it? An ex colleague of an…..Andrew Thorburn? Gee. That name rings a bell? She was formerly GM of People engagement, culture, diversity and change at….um…the NAB. She was absolutely effusive in her praise after he was appointed as to how fantastic he would be.
EFF ME….
That is the wonderful debacle of the Essendon Football Club.
I am normally a bit flat and disappointed when footy season ends, but not this year. IT IS FASCINATING STUFF!!
He is not a pastor. His role is likely financial governance. Being an active and involved member of his church should not be a disqualification for leadership in a secular organisation. Barham asked him to choose between his faith and this role. That’s religious discrimination.
You can make the same argument about the Catholic Church and misogyny. Like Harry said a lot of people should be resigning their position, including the AFLW footballer, if this is the standard.
He could have kept his faith without being chairman of the church or whatever role he had.
That wasn’t my point.
People should be able to live according to their convictions. It is supposed to be a free, tolerant society. People should not be bullied into some activist position they are uncomfortable with.
Believe he was told if you want to be CEO of the EFC you need to relinquish your position at the church.
He chose his church so he then ( stood down ) from his role as the EFC CEO.
*Pushed sorry to stand down*
*Prominent supporters were threatening to not support the club. Maybe even Sponsors.
So if one of our players next season refuses to wear the Indigenous guernsey or pay in Dreamtime at the G because they consider it discriminates against white people we are ok with that?
Or if they don't want to play in Maddie's match because people with cancer should fund their own treatment instead of relying on charity that's all good as well?
For me the point is you can have an opinion. But if you're in the business of fostering diversity, team culture and inclusivity I don't think you can have a person in charge that clearly has a conflict with some of those objectives. I don't blame Andrew I'd blame the club and board that voted him in without considering this key aspect. Not sure how I feel about the whole saga but glad it wasn't us.
Yes, one should question - intelligently and politely, not sarcastically and sneeringly - others’ beliefs. That way, you can win hearts and minds (and maybe even enrich your own understanding and beliefs). Forcing people to act against their beliefs just makes martyrs/victims of them, causes them to dig in, distracts from the core issues, and plays into the hands of the culture warriors at both extremes.
I’m not a Muslim, but I do know Mohammed was not an imaginary being.
Clever question tbr! I would definitely have a problem with players not wearing these jumpers yes.
I don’t see these as equivalent to wearing a jumper celebrating certain sexual preferences which I see as a private matter.
Yes, most definitely. They will be judged in the court of public opinion accordingly, as the GWS player is evidently happy to be.
Getting back to her (NOT TBR’s examples) I am surprised so many people agree that employers should have the right to force employees to wear a particular uniform that’s against their values - particularly if it’s not the uniform they signed up for; and it’s against values the employer should have known about when they employed them. Goes way too far.
I don't see how it is against her values? They aren't asking her to be gay, just to show support to people who are.
It's not as though it is encouraging people to be gay as a marketing tool.
No, I was suggesting one should constantly question their own beliefs. Because when your beliefs have no basis in science/logic/common sense then one should cast them aside and keep searching.
Thorburn ain't no martyr.
Muhammad was an illiterate goat herder. A slave owner, polygamist and probable child abuser. Not sure I'd be big on assuming beliefs from such a man.
