Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Moving right along?, in reply to Seamus Harris,
Not a crime, but in most workplaces this would be a sackable offense.
Others answered this better. What you're saying is true for employees in private companies, although it doesn't automatically get people sacked - if they're good at their jobs they are more likely to get a warning. It is definitely not true for people who own workplaces. And for elected representatives there's definitely no automatic sacking rule for sexual indiscretions.
-
Hard News: Moving right along?, in reply to Seamus Harris,
I’m mostly just amazed at the way Public Address readers seem interested in dissecting anything and everything other than the central issue – that Len Brown feels above being held to any kind of behavioral standards.
I doubt he feels above it. He thought he could get away with an affair (it seems, although we really don't know his side of the story yet), and hasn't. This is something hundreds, if not thousands of people do in this country every year, and have no ramifications on their work life. It's just not something the writers here tend to be judgmental about. The dissection is around whether there is any serious wrongdoing, a crime, or perhaps something injurious to the public good. There's only 2 things of any real interest at all on that score - the use of the workplace, and the giving of a reference for a job. Only the first one seems at all serious to me - it's cheeky to use a workplace for sex, although if it's a crime, it's a pretty damned minor one.
-
Hard News: Moving right along?, in reply to ,
gutlessly suggest the real problem is with the the other party who apparently needs to “get on with her life”
I'm curious where you think the harm done to her was, prior to her foolishly telling a porn merchant and a blogger notorious for ruining everything he touches. Prior to that, she had a good career and prospects. Now...well.
-
Hard News: Moving right along?, in reply to Andre Alessi,
He wouldn’t be the first “filmmaker” in this town to offer someone “a share of the profits” on a film that will never make its production costs back.
I'd say the mere asking of the question was the point of the question - if she didn't just walk away the moment he suggested that, then that looks bad for her - at least that's how he'd be playing it. It makes it look like she's considering it seriously, or at the very least, not offended by the suggestion, which is pretty much that she's a dirty ho getting sold to the highest bidder. If it went down the way he said at all, which is hardly something we can be sure about.
-
It's going to take 4 weeks. This issue will be well in bed by then.
-
Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli, in reply to Matthew Littlewood,
Whether this Government will fully play ball with Brown’s housing/City Rail Loop plans is another matter entirely, of course.
Whether they do or not is probably not going to hinge on who Brown had sex with.
-
Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli, in reply to Alex Coleman,
That's a sober look at it, Alex. I do question how it's actually working out for the political right in the USA, though. Yes, there are frothing wingnuts. But they seem to be losing power.
But I tend to agree. Unless Russell knows of some real impending blowback on Slater, I find it hard to think that it's even possible for him to suffer reputational damage. There's just nothing to lose. His key stat is attention, always has been.
-
Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
Its quite good to see Nactional grasping at hairs at the moment.
Ew. That's enough "mowing the berm" jokes, young lady.
-
Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli, in reply to Lisa_J,
Banks must be thanking his lucky stars that this happened when it did, to take the attention off his alleged criminal activity.
I don't think it will help him. Public opinion won't decide if he's a criminal, a court will.
-
Hard News: Everybody's Machiavelli, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
That would kind of defeat the purpose of “a reference”, wouldn’t it?
Well, it doesn't have to be glowing. So for people who were very poor employees, the reference can be limited to saying the barest minimum - what their dates of employment were, and maybe their job title. Which is effectively saying "this person was total crap" without actually saying it, thus avoiding any legal headaches whatsoever. It's effectively the same, but playing very safe.
You can refuse to give a reference, I think, or write a negative one. But that would invite a possible legal action. Why would you, if the employee had been OK at their job? The legal department in practically any large organization will instruct you to do so. If Chaung was OK at her job, she gets a reference, and that's just how things are. I can't see that part being unethical, even if it was handwritten by Brown himself.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 301 302 303 304 305 … 1066 Older→ First