Eco views = Religion... in the eyes of the law
Eco views = Religion... in the eyes of the law
Author
Discussion

hornetrider

Original Poster:

63,161 posts

222 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all

Marf

22,907 posts

258 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
What utter utter guff. furious

hondafanatic

4,969 posts

218 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
Is it not leaning towards the 'philosophical belief' rather than religion part of the regulation?

Darth Paul

1,654 posts

235 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
Can I use the same argument against 'Eco' taxes, as it is my belief that MMGW is load of balls?!

loltolhurst

1,994 posts

201 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
how the fk can these people afford to take such cases to court?!?

Lefty Two Drams

18,518 posts

219 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
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.

teapea

693 posts

203 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
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 fk off and die

RichBurley

2,432 posts

270 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
hondafanatic said:
Is it not leaning towards the 'philosophical belief' rather than religion part of the regulation?
Yes, it is.


Bing o

15,184 posts

236 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
"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.

Oakey

27,951 posts

233 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
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 fking hoo. So what? Their choice.

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 bks. Anyway, my ex was quite regularly (maybe 5- 6 times a year) flown (Business Class) all over the country for various Body Shop conferences. apparently so we're all the other managers that attended these things!

kerplunk

7,453 posts

223 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
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!

cottonfoo

6,022 posts

227 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
Let's hope the defence turn up in a Hummer per person.

Mannginger

9,898 posts

274 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
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.

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...

briSk

14,291 posts

243 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
all it does is confirm what we all know.

it's all belief and little fact.

no matter which side one is on.

odyssey2200

18,650 posts

226 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
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.




Don

28,378 posts

301 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
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.

If your allowed to fk your employer over because your religion says you can't do your job why shouldn't you be allowed to fk your employer over because your "ethics" say you can't do your job.

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.

Don

28,378 posts

301 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
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.

Jasandjules

71,262 posts

246 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
Hmm, I think that sounds like another law on the Repeal List (at least, the Philosophical side - I mean, where do we draw the line?)

Eric Mc

124,085 posts

282 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
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.

Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 3rd November 14:11

Lefty Two Drams

18,518 posts

219 months

Tuesday 3rd November 2009
quotequote all
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.

Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 3rd November 14:11
A very valid point! I hadn't actually thought of it in those terms.

I wonder hopw THAT will be reported...?