On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:31:20 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:

> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> said:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:21:41 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:
>>
>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:56:06 GMT, Craig Welch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Alan Parkington" <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>From
>>>>>>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...007132,00.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A TELSTRA worker, sacked for taking part in a sex romp at a Sydney hotel
>>>>>>after a work Christmas party, has lost the right to receive compensation and
>>>>>>get her job back.
>>>>>
>>>>> Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>>>>
>>>>Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>>>>character of its employees?
>>>
>>> Moral standards that might cause damage to the employer, such as
>>> dishonesty.
>>
>>Do you mean financial damage (e.g., an employee dishonestly claiming
>>overtime for work not performed), or public relations damage (e.g., an
>>employee dishonestly claiming 62 separate Centrelink pensions under 62
>>fraudulent identities while all the time working for the company)?
>>
>>Or both?
>
> The former.

Surely the latter could cause public relations damage to the employer?
Especially if the employee managed to avoid a gaol sentence and remained an
employee?

If you were CEO of a company, and one of your senior employees became
politically active on the single issue of lowering the age of consent for
male-male sexual activity to 8 years of age, would your position change?

It's not illegal to urge politicians to make such a legislative change
(indeed, it's arguable that the Constitution prohibits such speech from
being made illegal), but it's a moral position that the vast majority of
your customers would find abhorrent.