Eco views = Religion... in the eyes of the law
Discussion
Lefty Two Drams said:
He has accused the chief executive, Rupert Dickinson, of showing "contempt" for his concerns and claimed he once flew a member of staff to Ireland to deliver his Blackberry which he had left in London
I like that mans style.
If he want's to fly his blackberry to Ireland what's the problem, I wish these people would just fI like that mans style.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use."
Or more recently:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Or more recently:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. Q.E.D."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Lefty Two Drams said:
He has accused the chief executive, Rupert Dickinson, of showing "contempt" for his concerns and claimed he once flew a member of staff to Ireland to deliver his Blackberry which he had left in London
I like that mans style.
Boo fI like that mans style.

My ex used to be a manager of the local branch of the Body Shop. I'm sure we all know them for championing their organic / eco friendly / animal friendly womens product b

Some interesting comments by the judge via news24 a minute ago
(paraphrasing) this is a levelling of the playing field on employment law whereby factual-based ethics are being given the same chance as religious ethics. As things stood the more factual or scientific reasoning used to justify an ethical position the less likely it was to succeed as grounds for unfair dismissal - this gave unscientific religion-based ethics an unfair privelage.
discuss!
(paraphrasing) this is a levelling of the playing field on employment law whereby factual-based ethics are being given the same chance as religious ethics. As things stood the more factual or scientific reasoning used to justify an ethical position the less likely it was to succeed as grounds for unfair dismissal - this gave unscientific religion-based ethics an unfair privelage.
discuss!
kerplunk said:
Some interesting comments by the judge via news24 a minute ago
(paraphrasing) this is a levelling of the playing field on employment law whereby factual-based ethics are being given the same chance as religious ethics. As things stood the more factual or scientific reasoning used to justify an ethical position the less likely it was to succeed as grounds for unfair dismissal - this gave unscientific religion-based ethics an unfair privelage.
discuss!
Well in this instance both sides of the argument do have fats and scientific reasoning to support their POV. In that respect I'm inclined to agree with the Judge that it was a touch perverse that the less you could attempt to prove your belief the more protected it was.(paraphrasing) this is a levelling of the playing field on employment law whereby factual-based ethics are being given the same chance as religious ethics. As things stood the more factual or scientific reasoning used to justify an ethical position the less likely it was to succeed as grounds for unfair dismissal - this gave unscientific religion-based ethics an unfair privelage.
discuss!
Personally I think that this ruling has the potential to be a real floodgate for other claims and that worries me somewhat.
It'll be interesting to see the results of this case as I do wonder if the claimant is simply chancing his arms for money after his less essential role was made redundant during a downturn. Let's be honest a role that isn't providing immediate bottom line benefit to a company is always going to be lower hanging fruit in a recession...
any redundancy has to be backed up by a clear and fair selection process.
Provided that his former employer can show good cause for his selection he will loose his case.
If they can't then they were wrong regardless of his misguided notions of MMGW.
However
WFT has his religeous beliefs about MMCC got to do with his work?
If he was letting his beliefs get in the way of his work and effecting his performance then he should have been either fired of selected for redundancy on the basis of ability and performance.
MMGW is a complete red herring in this issue.
He was either fairly selected or he wasn't.
I hope his company have good records and a good selection process.
Provided that his former employer can show good cause for his selection he will loose his case.
If they can't then they were wrong regardless of his misguided notions of MMGW.
However
WFT has his religeous beliefs about MMCC got to do with his work?
If he was letting his beliefs get in the way of his work and effecting his performance then he should have been either fired of selected for redundancy on the basis of ability and performance.
MMGW is a complete red herring in this issue.
He was either fairly selected or he wasn't.
I hope his company have good records and a good selection process.
kerplunk said:
Some interesting comments by the judge via news24 a minute ago
(paraphrasing) this is a levelling of the playing field on employment law whereby factual-based ethics are being given the same chance as religious ethics. As things stood the more factual or scientific reasoning used to justify an ethical position the less likely it was to succeed as grounds for unfair dismissal - this gave unscientific religion-based ethics an unfair privelage.
discuss!
He's got a point.(paraphrasing) this is a levelling of the playing field on employment law whereby factual-based ethics are being given the same chance as religious ethics. As things stood the more factual or scientific reasoning used to justify an ethical position the less likely it was to succeed as grounds for unfair dismissal - this gave unscientific religion-based ethics an unfair privelage.
discuss!
If your allowed to f


The point here is that should you be allowed to argue that disobeying a direct order from your superior isn't grounds for dismissal because of your ethical or religious beliefs.
Given we're not talking about the military here my take would be no chance. You can refuse to do something because it's unsafe and you might be harmed in carrying it out. Or if it's well outside your job description, if you have one. But on ethical grounds? Time to change job - and it's NOT the employer's fault, IMO.
odyssey2200 said:
I hope his company have good records and a good selection process.
Absolutely critical, that.But if you do? Happy days. I have seen large organisations go through quite onerous reorganisations to create an opportunity to weed out the ill performing staff. But with every i dotted and t crossed? It's doable.
Eric Mc said:
I hope he wins his case. That will confirm that belief in MMGW is, indeed, more akin to a religion that proper science - which is what we all suspected anyway.
A very valid point! I hadn't actually thought of it in those terms.Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 3rd November 14:11
I wonder hopw THAT will be reported...?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff