Is this unfair or self preservation?
Workmates cold-shoulder media bashers
Quote:
SCORES of factory workers say they don't want to work alongside the thugs who bashed cameramen outside a court where nine men were facing terrorism charges.
Three of five men who savagely beat a Channel 7 cameraman and hit a Herald Sun photographer outside the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on Tuesday work at the Safeway distribution centre in Broadmeadows.
The centre, which employs more than 500 workers, has twice been brought to a standstill this week as management tries to ease rising tensions.
At a crisis meeting yesterday dayshift workers were warned they faced the sack if caught bullying or harassing the men.
But one angry worker said he could not understand why parent company Woolworths was protecting them.
Are the workers being unfair to the men who bashed a camera man outside court? Should they wait until they have at least been charged?
Is the company under any obligation as far as duty of care is concerned to remove (potential) terrorist supporters from their payroll?
Re: Is this unfair or self preservation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Are the workers being unfair to the men who bashed a camera man outside court? Should they wait until they have at least been charged?
Of course they're, justice is supposed to be applied by judicial power, no individuals, at least in penal matter.
Quote:
Is the company under any obligation as far as duty of care is concerned to remove (potential) terrorist supporters from their payroll?
No, that's terrible profiling.
Re: Is this unfair or self preservation?
I agree. At this stage it is too early.
But what happens if they are found guilty of beating up the camera man (which wouldn't be hard since four other TV stations have full footage).
And their mates are found guilty of terrorism.
Would you want to be working with them then?
Re: Is this unfair or self preservation?
Re: Is this unfair or self preservation?
Sacking people who aren't even charged of something yet strikes me as taking justice in one's own hands. I can understand the sentiment of the workers but it's not their place to judge them.
Re: Is this unfair or self preservation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
But what happens if they are found guilty of beating up the camera man (which wouldn't be hard since four other TV stations have full footage).
Well here they get a penalty of money and should repair the damage. In Australia I don't know.
Quote:
And their mates are found guilty of terrorism.
Would you want to be working with them then?
The first question is a sure no, because you're treating people like guilty of something even before they've done anything, even if they think in doing something related to terrorism, ideas are not sufficient to found what you want, at least here, I repeat, laws vary a little from one point of the globe to the the exact extreme.
If you ask me personally I don't care. But if they were found guilty then they'll be punished right? Like we sadly do this days in modern society? Now if that doesn't happen then I must tell you, seriously, that as long as the person don't holds a great grudge against me and because of selfpreservance reasons, I'll not exclude him.
Re: Is this unfair or self preservation?
I don't think the workers are being unfair, but management needs to get a clue. They've got a huge potential liability hanging over their heads if anything happens. Best to find some way to get the accused (but uncharged) out of the workplace at least temporarily until the legal status becomes clear. Paid leave would seem an option. Afterall their actions apparently aren't in dispute, they just haven't been charged.
The guy that called in sick would be sacked pretty easily in the U.S.
Re: Is this unfair or self preservation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Are the workers being unfair to the men who bashed a camera man outside court? Should they wait until they have at least been charged?
No they're not being unfair, just because they haven't been charged doesn't mean they didn't do it and if 4 other TV companies caught it on film then it's entirely possible that some if not all of the other employers saw it as well. It does beg the question as to why the other TV companies, and workers, did nothing about it ~:confused:
Quote:
Is the company under any obligation as far as duty of care is concerned to remove (potential) terrorist supporters from their payroll?
Yes, the company should at least be investigating, maybe suspension on full pay, whether the court does or not.
The one who called in sick should obviously be sacked, seems a fair cop.
