Twist in Telstra sex romp case

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.

Carlie Streeter was sacked from her job at a Miranda Telstra store in
February last year after an investigation into a night of alcohol-fuelled
sex and partying with colleagues.

Telstra accused Ms Streeter of having sex with a male employee in the bath
tub of a hotel room at Cronulla's Rydges Hotel.

It was alleged another male employee was in the bath tub at the time when
the trio was interrupted by a female employee.

The two former male colleagues - Steve Hatzistergos and Aakash Sharma - also
lost their jobs over the scandal, along with another unnamed employee.

Bosses were alerted to the incident after another female employee made
complaints about Ms Streeter's behaviour on the night to a store manager.

Ms Streeter subsequently appealed against her dismissal and won her case.

But yesterday, Telstra won its own appeal against the ruling made in the
Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), which had ordered the
telco giant to reinstate Ms Streeter and pay her compensation for lost
earnings.

The successful appeal means Telstra has no obligation to give Ms Streeter
her job back or pay her compensation.

The decision, handed down by a full bench of the AIRC, ruled Ms Streeter's
termination was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

A Telstra spokeswoman last night said that Telstra welcomed the decision.

"We are pleased the Australian Industrial Relations Commission have upheld
our appeal," she said.

The sex-romp scandal ignited debate about the right of employers to sack
workers for bad behaviour while off the job.

In September last year a worker sacked by Allianz Australia Services,
following a drunken after-hours trivia night, won the right to a full bench
rehearing of his claim in the AIRC.

The AIRC had previously thrown out his unfair dismissal case, which followed
his sacking for threatening a manager with physical and sexual assault.

Ms Streeter has kept a low profile since her sexual exploits were revealed
by The Daily Telegraph in August.

Her lawyer Kelly Durant yesterday said his client was upset by the
commission's ruling and was keen to discuss whether she could launch a
further appeal in the Federal Court.

"Ms Streeter is unhappy about the decision and feels like justice hasn't
been served. This has been a long fight," he said.

"She understands that these are matters of law. But she's quite aggrieved by
the decision."

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.

Yeh, so what if 3 adults were having sex in bath tub, it's not as if
they were at work!


--
The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
<http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452>

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:10:46 +1100 Simon Templar <usenet@vk3xem.net>
wrote:

> > Telstra's actions in this case were reprehensible.
>
> Yeh, so what if 3 adults were having sex in bath tub, it's not as if
> they were at work!

Maybe they were?

How much did she charge? ;-)

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?

Or are you commenting on some procedural matter in the courts of which I'm
not aware ("Telstra's actions *in this case*...").

"Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1o3nff4hw9hes.lkr86ycwvhmw.dlg@40tude.net...
> 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?

They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no such standards have
been set or published. What is the employees moral standard to be measured
against?

--
Kwyj.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:26:44 +1030, Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com>
wrote:

>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?

Why the hell should Telstra care what its employees do outside of work
? If they want to fuck around then that's their perogative. Isn't it
enough that Telstra treats its employees like shit anyway ?

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:53:21 +1100 dave <dave@gtx.net> wrote:

> Isn't it
> enough that Telstra treats its employees like shit anyway ?

Do they?

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:50:13 +1100, Kwyjibo wrote:

> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1o3nff4hw9hes.lkr86ycwvhmw.dlg@40tude.net...
>> 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?
>
> They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no such standards have
> been set or published. What is the employees moral standard to be measured
> against?

Whatever moral standard Telstra wants to set for itself from time to time.

Are you suggesting that in order to apply a moral standard, a company (be
it Telstra, Woolworths, Adelaide City Coucil, or John Smith & Son
Stationery Supplies Pty Ltd) must first publish it?

Unfortunately, it's nigh on impossible to codify morality (at least with
any specificity).

Horry wrote:
> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
> character of its employees?
>
> Or are you commenting on some procedural matter in the courts of which I'm
> not aware ("Telstra's actions *in this case*...").

What moral standards apply here? There was no crime committed, the
three were consenting adults fucking in a bath tub. Big FUCKING deal,
good luck to them.

The stupid bitch that walked in on them obviously didn't knock before
she entered and it didn't happen during work or at work, so what FUCKING
business was it of Tel$tra anyway?


--
The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
belong to.

73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
<http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452>

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:53:21 +1100, dave wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:26:44 +1030, Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>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?
>
> Why the hell should Telstra care what its employees do outside of work
> ?

Why should it care? Because after hours behaviour by employees can reflect
poorly on a company.

Why should Telstra be permitted to impose its moral standards on its
employees? Because it's paying them.

Companies regularly impose conditions on their employees' behaviour outside
working hours. For example, requiring that they be contactable 24/7 and
remain able to come in to work any time at short notice.

Many companies have a "no drugs" policy.

Why shouldn't a company be able to do likewise respecting sexual behaviour?

After all, no-one in this country is forced to work for a particular
employer.

> If they want to fuck around then that's their perogative.

I wonder how quickly you'd change your tune if you were a service-oriented
business owner whose employees got caught red-handed by the Daily Telegraph
after your work Christmas party engaging in some engaging in some group
scat-play using cow dung in the local paddock.

Or if one of your employees became national spokesman for the Australian
equivalent of NAMBLA.

Or State President of Anal Gapers Anonymous.

You'd start "caring" what your employees were doing ourside of work quick
smart.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:45:19 +1100, Simon Templar wrote:

> Horry wrote:
>> Why? Surely a company is allowed to set standards as to the moral
>> character of its employees?
>>
>> Or are you commenting on some procedural matter in the courts of which I'm
>> not aware ("Telstra's actions *in this case*...").
>
> What moral standards apply here?

Many people don't approve of group sex.


> There was no crime committed,

So what? Criminal law and morality don't necessarily coincide. Indeed,
application of criminal law sometime *causes* immoral results. And much
immoral behaviour is not criminalized (nor should it be).


> the
> three were consenting adults fucking in a bath tub. Big FUCKING deal,
> good luck to them.

That's fine. When you're an employer you'll be free to hire employees who
practice after-hours bathtub-fucking.


> The stupid bitch that walked in on them obviously didn't knock before
> she entered

No. If this sorry story has a "stupid bitch", it'd be the stupid bitch in
the bathtub who obviously didn't lock the bathroom door. Of course, the
two stupid bastards were equally as stupid.

> and it didn't happen during work or at work, so what FUCKING
> business was it of Tel$tra anyway?

See my response to Dave.

Incidentally, how do you square the disclaimer in your sig file with the
views you just expressed?

I'm referring to: "The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any
organisation I may belong to."

What FUCKING business is it of any organization you may belong to?

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?

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:40:33 +1030, Horry wrote:

>> and it didn't happen during work or at work, so what FUCKING
>> business was it of Tel$tra anyway?
>
> See my response to Dave.

My response to Dave is only in aus.comms.mobile.

For some reason he removed the crosspost to aus.comms.

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
> dave wrote
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Craig Welch wrote
>>>> Alan Parkington <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> wrote

>>>>> 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?

>> Why the hell should Telstra care what its employees do outside of work ?

> Why should it care? Because after hours behaviour
> by employees can reflect poorly on a company.

Too bad. That does NOT give them the legal
right to control what employees do in their own time.

> Why should Telstra be permitted to impose its moral
> standards on its employees? Because it's paying them.

Wrong. That does NOT give the employer the right to have any
say whatever in what the employee does in their own time.

> Companies regularly impose conditions on their
> employees' behaviour outside working hours.

Not with legal activity without paying them more so they are for example available etc.

> For example, requiring that they be contactable 24/7 and
> remain able to come in to work any time at short notice.

Different matter entirely.

> Many companies have a "no drugs" policy.

But cant legally have a no grog or no smoking policy.

> Why shouldn't a company be able to do likewise respecting sexual behaviour?

For the same reason they cant tell you you have to attend church etc.

Or that you cant be in favor of a republic, or spruik for the labor party etc.

> After all, no-one in this country is forced to work for a particular employer.

Irrelevant to whether the employer has any legal right
to tell you what you can and cannot do in your own time.

>> If they want to fuck around then that's their perogative.

> I wonder how quickly you'd change your tune if you were a
> service-oriented business owner whose employees got caught red-handed
> by the Daily Telegraph after your work Christmas party engaging in
> some engaging in some group scat-play using cow dung in the local paddock.

Thats their problem legally.

> Or if one of your employees became national spokesman for the
> Australian equivalent of NAMBLA.

> Or State President of Anal Gapers Anonymous.

Or if you decide to advocate Greens policy without breaking the law.

The employer gets to like it or lump it, legally.

> You'd start "caring" what your employees were doing ourside of work quick smart.

Wrong, as always and whether he cares or not is completely irrelevant
to what the law allows the employer to have any say what so ever on.

"Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
newsxqg9wor51ah$.1vha758j847ii$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:50:13 +1100, Kwyjibo wrote:
>
>> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1o3nff4hw9hes.lkr86ycwvhmw.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> 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?
>>
>> They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no such standards
>> have
>> been set or published. What is the employees moral standard to be
>> measured
>> against?
>
> Whatever moral standard Telstra wants to set for itself from time to time.

Are you suggesting that people should be sacked based on a whim?

> Are you suggesting that in order to apply a moral standard, a company (be
> it Telstra, Woolworths, Adelaide City Coucil, or John Smith & Son
> Stationery Supplies Pty Ltd) must first publish it?

If people are to be measured against it, surely they must be notified as to
what they are being measured against. Even more so given the grey nature of
'morals'.

> Unfortunately, it's nigh on impossible to codify morality (at least with
> any specificity).

It's not a 'standard' then, is it, and any attempt to measure someone
against something that does not exist is nonsensical.

BTW - Most companies *do* codify their moral standards in a 'Code of
Conduct" or similar statement. AFAIK, no "Code of Conduct" mentions people
having sex outside of working hours.

--
Kwyj.

On Jan 25, 12:29*am, "Alan Parkington"
<alan.parking...@team.telstra.com> wrote:
> Fromhttp://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23105142-5007132,....
>
> 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.
>
> Carlie Streeter was sacked from her job at a Miranda Telstra store in
> February last year after an investigation into a night of alcohol-fuelled
> sex and partying with colleagues.
>
> Telstra accused Ms Streeter of having sex with a male employee in the bath
> tub of a hotel room at Cronulla's Rydges Hotel.
>
> It was alleged another male employee was in the bath tub at the time when
> the trio was interrupted by a female employee.
>
> The two former male colleagues - Steve Hatzistergos and Aakash Sharma - also
> lost their jobs over the scandal, along with another unnamed employee.
>
> Bosses were alerted to the incident after another female employee made
> complaints about Ms Streeter's behaviour on the night to a store manager.
>
> Ms Streeter subsequently appealed against her dismissal and won her case.
>
> But yesterday, Telstra won its own appeal against the ruling made in the
> Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), which had ordered the
> telco giant to reinstate Ms Streeter and pay her compensation for lost
> earnings.
>
> The successful appeal means Telstra has no obligation to give Ms Streeter
> her job back or pay her compensation.
>
> The decision, handed down by a full bench of the AIRC, ruled Ms Streeter's
> termination was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
>
> A Telstra spokeswoman last night said that Telstra welcomed the decision.
>
> "We are pleased the Australian Industrial Relations Commission have upheld
> our appeal," she said.
>
> The sex-romp scandal ignited debate about the right of employers to sack
> workers for bad behaviour while off the job.
>
> In September last year a worker sacked by Allianz Australia Services,
> following a drunken after-hours trivia night, won the right to a full bench
> rehearing of his claim in the AIRC.
>
> The AIRC had previously thrown out his unfair dismissal case, which followed
> his sacking for threatening a manager with physical and sexual assault.
>
> Ms Streeter has kept a low profile since her sexual exploits were revealed
> by The Daily Telegraph in August.
>
> Her lawyer Kelly Durant yesterday said his client was upset by the
> commission's ruling and was keen to discuss whether she could launch a
> further appeal in the Federal Court.
>
> "Ms Streeter is unhappy about the decision and feels like justice hasn't
> been served. This has been a long fight," he said.
>
> "She understands that these are matters of law. But she's quite aggrieved by
> the decision."

Large companies expect the company code of conduct be respected by
employees at company events and functions outside hours. The code can
often extend to company funded accommodation used by employees such as
hotel rooms.
Whilst the incident is basically about a bunch of young adults letting
their hair down after a night out on company expense, it became
unstuck when the other, possibly uninvited, female walked into the
bathroom. there may be more than meets the eye here. if the hedonistic
mob were more discreet in their activities, it would've remained in
company folklore only discussed in smoking areas outside the workplace.

Again you prove what pricks are in management at Telstra.

"Alan Parkington" <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> wrote in message
news:fp0mj.6703$421.5756@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> 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.
>
> Carlie Streeter was sacked from her job at a Miranda Telstra store in
> February last year after an investigation into a night of alcohol-fuelled
> sex and partying with colleagues.
>
> Telstra accused Ms Streeter of having sex with a male employee in the bath
> tub of a hotel room at Cronulla's Rydges Hotel.
>
> It was alleged another male employee was in the bath tub at the time when
> the trio was interrupted by a female employee.
>
> The two former male colleagues - Steve Hatzistergos and Aakash Sharma -
> also lost their jobs over the scandal, along with another unnamed
> employee.
>
> Bosses were alerted to the incident after another female employee made
> complaints about Ms Streeter's behaviour on the night to a store manager.
>
> Ms Streeter subsequently appealed against her dismissal and won her case.
>
> But yesterday, Telstra won its own appeal against the ruling made in the
> Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), which had ordered the
> telco giant to reinstate Ms Streeter and pay her compensation for lost
> earnings.
>
> The successful appeal means Telstra has no obligation to give Ms Streeter
> her job back or pay her compensation.
>
> The decision, handed down by a full bench of the AIRC, ruled Ms Streeter's
> termination was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
>
> A Telstra spokeswoman last night said that Telstra welcomed the decision.
>
> "We are pleased the Australian Industrial Relations Commission have upheld
> our appeal," she said.
>
> The sex-romp scandal ignited debate about the right of employers to sack
> workers for bad behaviour while off the job.
>
> In September last year a worker sacked by Allianz Australia Services,
> following a drunken after-hours trivia night, won the right to a full
> bench rehearing of his claim in the AIRC.
>
> The AIRC had previously thrown out his unfair dismissal case, which
> followed his sacking for threatening a manager with physical and sexual
> assault.
>
> Ms Streeter has kept a low profile since her sexual exploits were revealed
> by The Daily Telegraph in August.
>
> Her lawyer Kelly Durant yesterday said his client was upset by the
> commission's ruling and was keen to discuss whether she could launch a
> further appeal in the Federal Court.
>
> "Ms Streeter is unhappy about the decision and feels like justice hasn't
> been served. This has been a long fight," he said.
>
> "She understands that these are matters of law. But she's quite aggrieved
> by the decision."
>
>

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:47:55 +1100, Kwyjibo wrote:

> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
> newsxqg9wor51ah$.1vha758j847ii$.dlg@40tude.net.. .
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:50:13 +1100, Kwyjibo wrote:
>>
>>> "Horry" <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1o3nff4hw9hes.lkr86ycwvhmw.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> They probably are allowed, but as far as I am aware no such standards
>>> have
>>> been set or published. What is the employees moral standard to be
>>> measured
>>> against?
>>
>> Whatever moral standard Telstra wants to set for itself from time to time.
>
> Are you suggesting that people should be sacked based on a whim?

No. And no-one gets sacked on "whims". Only an insane employer would sack
an employee just for the hell of it.

I'm suggesting Telstra (or any other business) should be able to sack an
employee if that employee behaves in such a way which, in the company's
opinion, reflects badly on the company or might cause the company harm.

Furthermore, in some situations, a company must be seen to take
disciplinary action lest "doing nothing" be seen as tacit approval.


>> Are you suggesting that in order to apply a moral standard, a company (be
>> it Telstra, Woolworths, Adelaide City Coucil, or John Smith & Son
>> Stationery Supplies Pty Ltd) must first publish it?
>
> If people are to be measured against it, surely they must be notified as to
> what they are being measured against. Even more so given the grey nature of
> 'morals'.

What form of "notification" would you suggest (assuming you don't agree
that it always must be an after-hours moral free-for-all for all
employees)?


>> Unfortunately, it's nigh on impossible to codify morality (at least with
>> any specificity).
>
> It's not a 'standard' then, is it, and any attempt to measure someone
> against something that does not exist is nonsensical.

Yes it is. Everyone has moral standards. They're just impossible to write
down in a way that will prevent someone who wants to breach them.


> BTW - Most companies *do* codify their moral standards in a 'Code of
> Conduct" or similar statement.

And they're always expressed in airy-fairy language that's of no use when
an actual, but unusual, real life dispute about morality has arisen.

It's easy to cover the common ones (alcohol, drugs, criminality -- though
often these are included for reasons of safety rather than morality).

The problems arise when you get even slightly unusual behaviour.


> AFAIK, no "Code of Conduct" mentions people
> having sex outside of working hours.

No "Code of Conduct" mentions naked employees smearing animals turds over
their body while being photographed for magazines either.

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.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 16:27:01 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>> dave wrote
>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Craig Welch wrote
>>>>> Alan Parkington <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> 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?
>
>>> Why the hell should Telstra care what its employees do outside of work ?
>
>> Why should it care? Because after hours behaviour
>> by employees can reflect poorly on a company.
>
> Too bad. That does NOT give them the legal
> right to control what employees do in their own time.

We were discussing why Telstra should "care". Not the legal position.

But Telstra obviously did have the legal right, because the three of them
lost their jobs.


>> Why should Telstra be permitted to impose its moral
>> standards on its employees? Because it's paying them.
>
> Wrong. That does NOT give the employer the right to have any
> say whatever in what the employee does in their own time.

Huh? Employers do have rights over what employees do in their own time.


>> Companies regularly impose conditions on their
>> employees' behaviour outside working hours.
>
> Not with legal activity without paying them more so they are for example available etc.

You just contradicted yourself. Or are you making a legal/illegal
distinction?

Could an employer pay someone more to prevent them from wearing leather
shoes, even outside working hours?

(And why should they have to pay them more? Surely it could just be made
part of the normal conditions of employment?)

>> For example, requiring that they be contactable 24/7 and
>> remain able to come in to work any time at short notice.
>
> Different matter entirely.

Really?


>> Many companies have a "no drugs" policy.
>
> But cant legally have a no grog or no smoking policy.



>> Why shouldn't a company be able to do likewise respecting sexual behaviour?
>
> For the same reason they cant tell you you have to attend church etc.

Huh? Why not? They can make you attend Sunday morning "staff training"
sessions but not church?

(P.S. I said "should" not "can".)


> Or that you cant be in favor of a republic, or spruik for the labor party etc.

Different matters entirely. Those things are protected by IR legislation.
Fucking in bathtubs isn't.


>> After all, no-one in this country is forced to work for a particular employer.
>
> Irrelevant to whether the employer has any legal right
> to tell you what you can and cannot do in your own time.

You have the habit of responding to statements about what SHOULD be the
position as if they are statements about what LEGALLY IS the position.
I've used my words carefully and maintained a distinction throughout the
thread, but you've simply ignored that and treated the two things as one in
the same. And you've done it throughout your post.

(But they obviously DO have legal rights over what you can and cannot do in
your own time because the three employees no longer have jobs.)


>>> If they want to fuck around then that's their perogative.
>
>> I wonder how quickly you'd change your tune if you were a
>> service-oriented business owner whose employees got caught red-handed
>> by the Daily Telegraph after your work Christmas party engaging in
>> some engaging in some group scat-play using cow dung in the local paddock.
>
> Thats their problem legally.

No it's not.


>> Or if one of your employees became national spokesman for the
>> Australian equivalent of NAMBLA.
>
>> Or State President of Anal Gapers Anonymous.
>
> Or if you decide to advocate Greens policy without breaking the law.

Political association is protected by IR legislation.

Anal gaping is not even mentioned in IR legislation.


> The employer gets to like it or lump it, legally.

With the Greens example, sure.


>> You'd start "caring" what your employees were doing ourside of work quick smart.
>
> Wrong, as always

You're saying he wouldn't care?

> and whether he cares or not is completely irrelevant
> to what the law allows the employer to have any say what so ever on.

Which, of course, is completely irrelevant to the topic of this sub-thread.
("Why the hell should Telstra care what its employees do outside of work.")

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to killfile you now.

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
> Kwyjibo wrote
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Kwyjibo wrote
>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Craig Welch wrote
>>>>>> Alan Parkington <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> wrote

>>>>>>> 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?

>>>> They probably are allowed,

Nope, not with what the employees can get up to in their own time they arent.

>>>> but as far as I am aware no such standards have been set or published.
>>>> What is the employees moral standard to be measured against?

>>> Whatever moral standard Telstra wants to set for itself from time to time.

Telstra doesnt get to do that with what employees do in their own time.

>> Are you suggesting that people should be sacked based on a whim?

> No. And no-one gets sacked on "whims".

Plenty do.

> Only an insane employer would sack an employee just for the hell of it.

You dont have to be insane to do that. Plenty operate like that.

> I'm suggesting Telstra (or any other business) should be able to sack an
> employee if that employee behaves in such a way which, in the company's
> opinion, reflects badly on the company or might cause the company harm.

Welp, legally they cant. And its completely silly to claim that they should
be able to sack someone who doesnt say attend church or is into some
fruit loop cult as long as that doesnt interfere with their work etc.

> Furthermore, in some situations, a company must be seen to take
> disciplinary action lest "doing nothing" be seen as tacit approval.

Wrong with what is done in the employee's own time.

'tacit approval' isnt even relevant.

Telstra cant for example sack someone because they choose not to
bother with marraige or because they are a cricket tragic etc etc etc.

>>> Are you suggesting that in order to apply a moral standard, a
>>> company (be it Telstra, Woolworths, Adelaide City Coucil, or John
>>> Smith & Son Stationery Supplies Pty Ltd) must first publish it?

>> If people are to be measured against it, surely they must be notified as to what
>> they are being measured against. Even more so given the grey nature of 'morals'.

> What form of "notification" would you suggest (assuming you don't agree
> that it always must be an after-hours moral free-for-all for all employees)?

That last is precisely what it is, legally.

>>> Unfortunately, it's nigh on impossible to codify morality (at least with any specificity).

>> It's not a 'standard' then, is it, and any attempt to measure
>> someone against something that does not exist is nonsensical.

> Yes it is. Everyone has moral standards. They're just impossible to write
> down in a way that will prevent someone who wants to breach them.

And telstra gets no say what so ever on the moral standards of any employee outside the workplace.

>> BTW - Most companies *do* codify their moral standards in a 'Code of
>> Conduct" or similar statement.

> And they're always expressed in airy-fairy language that's of no use
> when an actual, but unusual, real life dispute about morality has arisen.

And they cant even do that with what individuals do in their own time anyway.

> It's easy to cover the common ones (alcohol, drugs, criminality -- though
> often these are included for reasons of safety rather than morality).

> The problems arise when you get even slightly unusual behaviour.

And telstra gets no say what so ever about what any employee does in that
regard in their own time, whether thats taking part in the Mardi Gras parade,
or being stupid enough to bother to listen to the dud waffling on Aust Day etc.

>> AFAIK, no "Code of Conduct" mentions people having sex outside of working hours.

> No "Code of Conduct" mentions naked employees smearing animals
> turds over their body while being photographed for magazines either.

And telstra gets no say what so ever on an employee of theirs doing that in their own time.

Or attending the cricket either.

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Maybe, but just like with advocating a republic, telstra gets to like it or lump
it as long as what the employee does is legal and done in their own time.

Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>> dave wrote
>>>> Horry <horacewachope@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Craig Welch wrote
>>>>>> Alan Parkington <alan.parkington@team.telstra.com> wrote

>>>>>>> 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?

>>>> Why the hell should Telstra care what its employees do outside of work ?

>>> Why should it care? Because after hours behaviour
>>> by employees can reflect poorly on a company.

>> Too bad. That does NOT give them the legal
>> right to control what employees do in their own time.

> We were discussing why Telstra should "care". Not the legal position.

We were clearly discussing whether telstra can legally sack
individuals for doing what they dont like to see in their own time.

> But Telstra obviously did have the legal right,
> because the three of them lost their jobs.

Mindlessly silly. Thats what is being legally disputed, whether telstra does have that legal right.

>>> Why should Telstra be permitted to impose its moral
>>> standards on its employees? Because it's paying them.

>> Wrong. That does NOT give the employer the right to have any
>> say whatever in what the employee does in their own time.

> Huh? Employers do have rights over what employees do in their own time.

No they dont with that sort of moral issue.

>>> Companies regularly impose conditions on their
>>> employees' behaviour outside working hours.

>> Not with legal activity without paying them more so they are for example available etc.

> You just contradicted yourself.

Nope.

> Or are you making a legal/illegal distinction?

I'm saying that on stuff like availability to work, they can choose to pay
them more so they can call them in at short notice if required, but they
cant legally tell you that you have to attend church, or get married if
you choose not to bother, or that you cant be a cricket tragic etc etc etc.

> Could an employer pay someone more to prevent them
> from wearing leather shoes, even outside working hours?

Irrelevant to whether they get any say on that if the
employee chooses to do what it wants shoes wise.

> (And why should they have to pay them more? Surely it could
> just be made part of the normal conditions of employment?)

Nope, the employer cant for example require that
you only ever fuck the individual you are married to.

>>> For example, requiring that they be contactable 24/7 and
>>> remain able to come in to work any time at short notice.

>> Different matter entirely.

> Really?

Yep.

>>> Many companies have a "no drugs" policy.

>> But cant legally have a no grog or no smoking policy.

>>> Why shouldn't a company be able to do likewise respecting sexual behaviour?

>> For the same reason they cant tell you you have to attend church etc.

> Huh? Why not?

Because no employer gets any say what so ever on that sort of thing in your own time.

> They can make you attend Sunday morning "staff training" sessions

Only if they pay you to work those hours.

> but not church?

Nope, because thats your own time, not theirs.

> (P.S. I said "should" not "can".)

More fool you.

>> Or that you cant be in favor of a republic, or spruik for the labor party etc.

> Different matters entirely.

Nope.

> Those things are protected by IR legislation. Fucking in bathtubs isn't.

What shoes you choose to wear in your own time isnt covered by any IR legislation.

Neither is church attendence in your own time either.

Or what you choose to watch sport wise either.

>>> After all, no-one in this country is forced to work for a particular employer.

>> Irrelevant to whether the employer has any legal right
>> to tell you what you can and cannot do in your own time.

> You have the habit of responding to statements about what SHOULD be
> the position as if they are statements about what LEGALLY IS the position.

You stupidly rabbit on about what SHOULD be the position
when the thread is clearly about what LEGALLY IS the position.

> I've used my words carefully and maintained a distinction throughout the thread,

And that is stupid when clearly what was being discussed was whether telstra has
the legal right to sack that individual when it didnt like what it got up to in its own time.

> but you've simply ignored that and treated the two things as
> one in the same. And you've done it throughout your post.

Because your mindless rabitting on about SHOULD
is completely irrelevant to what was being discussed.

> (But they obviously DO have legal rights over what you can and cannot
> do in your own time because the three employees no longer have jobs.)

Thats what is being legally challenged, stupid.

>>>> If they want to fuck around then that's their perogative.

>>> I wonder how quickly you'd change your tune if you were a service-oriented
>>> business owner whose employees got caught red-handed by the Daily
>>> Telegraph after your work Christmas party engaging in some engaging
>>> in some group scat-play using cow dung in the local paddock.

>> Thats their problem legally.

> No it's not.

Yes it is.

>>> Or if one of your employees became national spokesman for the
>>> Australian equivalent of NAMBLA.

>>> Or State President of Anal Gapers Anonymous.

>> Or if you decide to advocate Greens policy without breaking the law.

> Political association is protected by IR legislation.

What shoes you wear in your own time isnt. The employer doesnt get to decide
that those who wear thongs in their own time make the employer look bad either.

> Anal gaping is not even mentioned in IR legislation.

Neither is thong wearing.

>> The employer gets to like it or lump it, legally.

> With the Greens example, sure.

And with the thongs and what you do with cow shit too.

>>> You'd start "caring" what your employees were doing ourside of work quick smart.

>> Wrong, as always

> You're saying he wouldn't care?

I'm saying he gets to like it or lump it, legally.

>> and whether he cares or not is completely irrelevant to what
>> the law allows the employer to have any say what so ever on.

> Which, of course, is completely irrelevant to the topic of this sub-thread.

Nope.

> ("Why the hell should Telstra care what its employees do outside of work.")

You dont get any say what so ever on what is the topic of this sub thread, ever.

> I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to killfile you now.

Wota fucking wanker.

dave wrote...

>Why the hell should Telstra care what its employees do outside of work

If these guys come across as Telstra representatives there can be issues
about misrepresenting the company, particularly in "Michael's" case where
he can be abusive and offensive.

Not exactly a good look for a Telstra employee, is it?

Ask Tony Smith, aka Blue Healer and his mate Dave Canole (sp?) about using
work provided internet services and the consquences. While "Michael" may
not be using a work provided internet service to make his posts, if people
think that he's pushing the official Telstra line and his employer gets
wind of it, he and Dave C could end up chatting about how great Usenet is
while waiting for the Work for the Dole forms are processed...



--
A little knowledge is dangerous. So is a lot.