So does that mean that anyone who opposes The Voice is not welcome to attend games?
-
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.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
My personal take on what he was saying is that the AFL and the clubs stand for what they stand for and if someone is opposed to that then they aren't really connected to them.
Once again I say this. Is the statement reflecting the views of everyone who works at AFL headquarters.
How is he able to state a given political position without advising that his staff are totally in agreement.
I do not know if The Voice will succeed or not. If it does then good on the people who vote for it.
Still have some reservations about it and will await some more details before making up my mind on how to vote.
Why does an organization of any kind have to dabble in politics.
One would think that taking a stand one way or another might drive some customers with alternative views away from that firm.
He's the leader of the organisation. so I think he's able to set the agenda for it.
In terms of the staff I think he would say the same thing, if your values don't align with ours then this probably isn't the place for you to work.
The articles in The Age are very alarmist and I really can't see how they serve Australia's interests. China is asserting itself on the world stage, it has become richer and more militarily capable, and is looking for respect.
Provoking them and then wailing about the consequences is idiotic.
DS
Grieving mother says son's final social media post 'sums up exactly' the Robodebt inquiry
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03...e-government-royal-commission-fraud/102027838
Sad story that is one of many. Having never relied on Centrelink/welfare I found it difficult to grasp the real impact of this scheme. It’s staggering really that they went ahead with it.
Vulnerable people being illegally targeted. Surely Robert has some sleepless nights over this.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03...e-government-royal-commission-fraud/102027838
Sad story that is one of many. Having never relied on Centrelink/welfare I found it difficult to grasp the real impact of this scheme. It’s staggering really that they went ahead with it.
Vulnerable people being illegally targeted. Surely Robert has some sleepless nights over this.
It's funny, we never see these posts about leaving politics, or religion, or if sport, when players refuse to wear their teams uniforms because they are promoting equality.
Whatever has happened to democracy, free speech and entitlement to one's own opinion.
Just gotta follow the pre determined line now gray coz it's good for ya whether ya agree with it or not.
It's incredible that all communication between Australian public servants and politicians is always verbal. There's never a paper trail 
(such as robodebt) because that would mean the scumbag politicians would cop it in the neck.
(such as robodebt) because that would mean the scumbag politicians would cop it in the neck.
The way Dan Andrews answered the question in the press conference was an absolute disgrace. Not sure if he has done anything wrong or his government MP’s. But the way he referred to Robert Redlich shows he has no respect.
www.abc.net.au
Calls for overhaul of IBAC oversight committee as Andrews denies allegations of government interference
Integrity experts call for an overhaul of Victoria's Integrity and Oversight Committee, following allegations the Andrews government interfered with the state's anti-corruption watchdog.
www.abc.net.au
The whole thing is staggering, big insight into the evil of the previous government. Robo-debt was a living breathing example of the ugliest side of conservative ideology: If people are poor its their own fault, they aren't as good as rich people and deserve to be poor. There is an old adage in politics, that flies in the face of our alleged fair go, there are no votes in helping the unemployed. And they took it to the extreme, laying the boots into the poor played well with a sector of the Coalition voter base.
Can you imagine, just for arguments sake, Labor doing something similar to the rich? "Our ATO data shows that people earning over $400K on average dodge $30K pa annum in tax, so you must pay $30K, now, or we'll send the debt collectors around". For the rich, who could actually afford that and still pay the mortage and buy food, that scenario is beyond crazy, but for the poor, it happened. It beggars belief.
So mean, so blatant, and (thankfully), so illegal.
How is an organisation stance on a topic an infringement of any of those rights?
Those things are all great and not really at issue here.
Why would anyone want to work for an organisation if they didn't share the same values and beliefs?
I regularly question whether or not I should keep my Richmond memberships given we have pokies machines. The only reason I do is because I've had a personal chat with Brendon Gale about it and I believe our values are aligned and he wants out of them as much as I do.
If we hadn't of removed George Pell as a patron I would have done the same.
Personally if I was against the voice and Richmond were strongly in favour of it, I'm not sure I would continue with the club either. If you beliefs are so diametrically opposed then how can you really be connected to an organisation? It's hardly Richmond man philosophy.
We are supposed to be a democracy with the right to have a view about anything we so choose.
With say a staff of say 100 in a company or organization, there will not be everyone with the same point of view on any subject.
Is say, 60 of those have one view then should the other 40 walk away from work, even if that company or organization has expressed a company stance favouring the 60?
With say a staff of say 100 in a company or organization, there will not be everyone with the same point of view on any subject.
Is say, 60 of those have one view then should the other 40 walk away from work, even if that company or organization has expressed a company stance favouring the 60?
Not many companies are democracies. None that I've worked for.
Board or Executive leadership team make company decisions. If this is a particular stance on a social subject, so be it. That is what the company stands for. Employees don't need to agree, but they need to understand that's the company they work for. If they have a very strong objection to the stance, they are fully within their "democratic" right to choose to find another job elsewhere.
As for having the right to a view about anything you choose, that's cool. But that doesn't mean others can't have a view on your view.
I wouldn't work for any organisation that didn't align with my values, no matter what. I recognise it's easy for me to say that at my stage of life but I'd like to think I'd do the same if I was starting out again.
With an issue like the Voice however I don't think there is any question about where any decent social conscious would lie. I can't imagine any situation where any organisation whose values were important to them wouldn't declare support for the Voice.
