This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Is political correctness going too far?

Jump to new
IFocus said:
So John Cleese hasn't been to the US then (neurotic society)
Click to expand...
He is very familiar with the U.S, I think he was married to an American:

Fawlty Towers star John Cleese claims a reported $23 million divorce settlement with this third wife will leave him poorer than her and bound to work well into his 70s.
 
This AMP (Mr Pahari) issue is starting to morph into another over the top issue IMO.
When does punishment get decided by the mob? He apparently was fined and spoken to by the company, for his sexually inappropriate suggestions to a co worker in 2017, at a later date he applied for and was given a promotion.
Then recently those who gave him the promotion were sacked, now there is a call for the person to be sacked.
It doesn't affect me in any way, but I can't help but think it is falling into mob rule, when someone acts badly but doesn't do anything illegal is it correct to chastise and punish the person or should the person be sacked?
It does open a can of worms, who decides what is punishable and what punishment should be metered out and after receiving the punishment and counselling should the person then be sacked which could affect future employment opportunities?
It is a bit like sending someone to jail for something, then when they come out, the mob saying oh well hang them anyway.
Interesting the way society is now being ruled by the very ones who call for compassion, yet are very reluctant to show it themselves IMO.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09...ak-up-company-profit-focus-backfires/12641742

Interesting times.
 

Nope , its business affect the bottom line / name / what every you are gone simple.
 
IFocus said:
Nope , its business affect the bottom line / name / what every you are gone simple.
Click to expand...
AMP's bottom line/name was gone long before any of this, it is just a new generation of control, whether it works out for the better or even gets traction remains to be seen. AMP was a soft easy target, on their knees, not a friend in the world, easy target for the outspoken self righteous social engineers. Smacks of the Isreal Folau situation.
Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
IFocus said:
Nope , its business affect the bottom line / name / what every you are gone simple.
Click to expand...
Whilst I agree that is true, should it really be so in a case like this? From a strict business perspective sure, but ethically?

Should someone be sacked if they say something about (for random examples) climate change or sugar being a problem? Drawing attention to either is, after all, not good for the bottom line of rather a lot of businesses so should employees be expected to deny the existence of such issues or at least not acknowledge them?

And so on. If the principle is valid then it stands in both directions.
 

It starts to get complicated, should everyone who works for Rothmans smoke to set a good example.

Should everyone who works for Tooheys have a beer or three every night

I could work for Peters or Streets, I eat enough ice cream to get a promotion and a bonus
 
macca said:
It starts to get complicated, should everyone who works for Rothmans smoke to set a good example.

Should everyone who works for Tooheys have a beer or three every night
Click to expand...
Or at least avoid any acknowledgement or inference that they don't smoke or drink.

Eg don't post anything on Facebook which suggests they go to gyms not the pub. Etc.

There's a million possible examples and the whole concept's a very slippery slope in my view and such matters are best dealt with by proper application of laws implemented by democratically elected governments not the mob.
 
The thing is the shareholders elect their board to run the company, the board disciplined an employee and financially punished him for extremely bad behaviour as far as the board was concerned the problem had been dealt with.
The shareholders were unhappy with the way the board handled the situation, therefore two of the board were basically stood down and the perpetrator of the original incident was demoted, now months later the shareholders have decided the person should have been sacked two years earlier when the incident happened and are demanding he be sacked now.
I can't see how that wouldn't be a case of unfair dismissal.
Also it wont be long, before boards have to send every decision they make, out to shareholders to vote on
Just my opinion, it should prove to be a very interesting issue to watch unfold.
 

Has this been put to a formal vote of any sort?

Presumably not every single shareholder would have the same view on this or any other matter so if the company's going to do something which will cost it even more money, via unfair dismissal and the reputational repercussions of that, then it would be inappropriate if there wasn't proof that a majority of shareholders supported that course of action given that it's overriding the board normally expected to run the company.
 
Smurf1976 said:
There's a million possible examples and the whole concept's a very slippery slope in my view and such matters are best dealt with by proper application of laws implemented by democratically elected governments not the mob.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree, but public opinion is a powerful weapon and anyone who can control it wields a big stick.

You can't really stop people not buying products that they might ethically disagree with , and this form of protest is pretty useful if you want to say, stop the ivory trade or stop killing endangered animals for furs, medicines etc.

But certainly people shouldn't be victimised for saying things that their employers disagree with, (back to the Folau case again). It just seemed to me that a lot of people's opinons on his case depended on whether they agreed with what he said, not on his right to say it.

As you pointed out there are lots of shades of grey in the whole freedom of speech debate , especially on social media and a lot of it is going into very dark places and will be difficult to untangle , even with the best will in the world.
 
At the moment it is only the media banging a drum, and politicians trying to get political mileage, but from this statement in the article the intent seems obviously to put pressure on shareholders. As one of the major shareholders comments indicate, it puts them in an awkward position.

Mr Pahari has since been demoted back to his old job, still earning millions of dollars a year.

Labor senator Deborah O'Neill, who two weeks ago revealed in Parliament further sexual harassment allegations directed at other senior staff at AMP, is in no doubt Mr Pahari should have been fired.

"Profit at any price is not commerce," she said, "it's exploitation.

"And what we've seen with the continuing engagement of Mr Pahari in that role is dollars trumping the reality of the human experience."
That has focussed attention on those same shareholders who forced out previous company chairman David Murray, and Mr Pahari's boss John Fraser.
"I think we are conflicted. I wouldn't like to hide behind that," Mr Mawhinney admitted.

Mr Mawhinney said he moved against the board of AMP because it underplayed the severity of what was revealed about Mr Pahari's behaviour.

As for concerns that investors have been protecting Mr Pahari, he points out the bad behaviour happened in 2017.

"It's incredibly unusual for boards and management teams to go back and retrospectively put their stamp on decisions made in the past," he said.

"And this whole concept of double jeopardy, where you don't try someone twice for the same crime, is potentially relevant."

However, Senator Deborah O'Neill wonders how AMP can move forward while Mr Pahari is still there.

I miss stated in the earlier post it is the shareholders calling for the sacking, when it is actually the Labor senator, my mistake.
It sounds as though the major shareholders realise they are skating on thin ice.
 
This is worth repeating IMO, so it isn't lost.
Priceless IMO.
 
The new Politically Correct world of Texas requires teachers who discuss “widely debated and currently controversial issues of public policy or social affairs” to examine the issues from diverse viewpoints without giving “deference to any one perspective”.

Indeed.. So of course schools are now required to ensure that all perspectives are given due coverage to any controversial issue.

Which leads us to some sticky questions.

Texas school official says classrooms with books on Holocaust must offer ‘opposing’ views​

In recording obtained by NBC News, curriculum director describes ‘political mess’ after passage of state law

The teacher training came after the school reprimanded a fourth-grade teacher over a book on anti-racism in her class. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

Dani Anguiano in Los Angeles

@dani_anguiano
Fri 15 Oct 2021 13.27 AEDT
Last modified on Fri 15 Oct 2021 13.52 AEDT

A Texas school district official told educators if they kept books about the Holocaust in their classrooms, they would have to also offer “opposing” viewpoints in order to comply with a new state law
.
In an audio clip obtained by NBC News, Gina Peddy, the executive director of curriculum and instruction for Carroll independent school district in Southlake, offered the guidance to teachers during a training on which books teachers can keep in classroom libraries.

Texas school official says classrooms with books on Holocaust must offer ‘opposing’ views

In recording obtained by NBC News, curriculum director describes ‘political mess’ after passage of state law
www.theguardian.com
 
2% of Americans believe that the world is flat. I reckon the percentage would be higher in Texas.

So I suppose in Texas now if a teacher has a globe of the world you will also have to have a flat world in the classroom based on the theory of the earth circled by the sun on a turtle on which elephants stand which, when they move, cause earthquakes.

 
Last edited:
Yeah but look at how many Victorians are of the #IStandWithMaoTseDan crowd
 
Is this law so that one ideology can't be pushed in schools?
And so students form free opinions?

And did a few teachers find loopholes to push agendas?

I don't trust the Guardian as a news source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...