The Daily Wire: Ban Morality Clauses - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Ban Morality Clauses

#1 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 10 March 2013 - 07:25 AM

In Australia the insertion of morality clauses in any contract should be legally banned.
What do you think?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#2 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 10 March 2013 - 08:17 AM

View Postdumbcluck, on 10 March 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

In Australia the insertion of morality clauses in any contract should be legally banned.


Who would be parties to the contract and an example clause?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#3 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 10 March 2013 - 04:04 PM

Icey I am under the impression (I could be wrong of course as I have not checked) that all sportsmen (esp Rugby League) in Australia are jurisdictional to "morality clauses" in contracts with their respective clubs. It would be a simple clause inserted in a contract which would prohibit any immorality on the part of the signatory who would be the sportsperson.
This is why every time a footballer is "naughty' (e.g caught drunk, smoking etc) there is a scandal breakout on the media.They are expected to be like "altar boys" in their chosen profession
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#4 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 14 March 2013 - 06:14 AM

View Postdumbcluck, on 10 March 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

Icey I am under the impression (I could be wrong of course as I have not checked) that all sportsmen (esp Rugby League) in Australia are jurisdictional to "morality clauses" in contracts with their respective clubs. It would be a simple clause inserted in a contract which would prohibit any immorality on the part of the signatory who would be the sportsperson.
This is why every time a footballer is "naughty' (e.g caught drunk, smoking etc) there is a scandal breakout on the media.They are expected to be like "altar boys" in their chosen profession

They are expected to be role models for children and younger players, this alone puts them on a metaphorical pedestal.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#5 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 14 March 2013 - 09:12 AM

View PostRoderick, on 14 March 2013 - 06:14 AM, said:

They are expected to be role models for children and younger players, this alone puts them on a metaphorical pedestal.

You got it wrong Roderick. It is not up to any club or player or anyone for that matter to dictate "role modelling" to the young. It's up to their parents. If players are quote "immoral" then the parents should explain to the children that it is wrong and should not emulate that behaviour. But...it must be left to the parents as they the most able to instruct their children on this issue.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#6 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 14 March 2013 - 09:40 AM

View Postdumbcluck, on 14 March 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

You got it wrong Roderick. It is not up to any club or player or anyone for that matter to dictate "role modelling" to the young. It's up to their parents. If players are quote "immoral" then the parents should explain to the children that it is wrong and should not emulate that behaviour. But...it must be left to the parents as they the most able to instruct their children on this issue.


Nothing wrong with your emphasis on parental responsibility, but to be so dismissive of anyone's part as a role model is peculiar indeed. Elite players, police, judges, politicians .... go ahead, frolic and cavort without any expectations of higher than bogan standards?

You like Julia don't you?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#7 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:06 AM

View Postdumbcluck, on 14 March 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

You got it wrong Roderick. It is not up to any club or player or anyone for that matter to dictate "role modelling" to the young. It's up to their parents. If players are quote "immoral" then the parents should explain to the children that it is wrong and should not emulate that behaviour. But...it must be left to the parents as they the most able to instruct their children on this issue.

Expecting some level of good conduct from prominent sportspeople is not unreasonable given that they are the most common role models for our children.

Another reason is that activities like excessive consumption of alcohol impairs performance, so being able to limit this by contract also allows sportspeople to perform better.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#8 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 14 March 2013 - 11:24 AM

View Postdumbcluck, on 14 March 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

You got it wrong Roderick. It is not up to any club or player or anyone for that matter to dictate "role modelling" to the young. It's up to their parents. If players are quote "immoral" then the parents should explain to the children that it is wrong and should not emulate that behaviour. But...it must be left to the parents as they the most able to instruct their children on this issue.

They are not being dictated to at all, the clauses to which you object are in a freely signed and binding legal document.
Note 'freely signed', that is they signed being fully aware of the contents of, and any obligations that were in the contract.
Part of the contract, or an implication of it, is that they wear the team/club uniform whilst playing and the off the field uniform when engaged in social activities related to the club; does it offend your sense of moral liberties that their employers also require that they don't get obviously and/or obnoxiously pissed on such occasions?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#9 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 14 March 2013 - 04:26 PM

View PostRoderick, on 14 March 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

They are not being dictated to at all, the clauses to which you object are in a freely signed and binding legal document.
Note 'freely signed', that is they signed being fully aware of the contents of, and any obligations that were in the contract.
Part of the contract, or an implication of it, is that they wear the team/club uniform whilst playing and the off the field uniform when engaged in social activities related to the club; does it offend your sense of moral liberties that their employers also require that they don't get obviously and/or obnoxiously pissed on such occasions?

Yes I realize what you are saying. We have become too much of a "nanny state" where organizations like sports clubs and others are not, as they used to be, only afraid of being tarnished by their employees being caught in criminal acts, which was quite understandable, but now they are also afraid of being tarnished in being caught in immoral acts as well which by the way are not exactly "immoral acts" (that is the religious term)...but "human flaws". This is the society we have become....and it is not only applicable to sports clubs,but to every situation
We have to start somewhere and reverse the trend....and go back to the way it was
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#10 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 14 March 2013 - 05:53 PM

View Postdumbcluck, on 14 March 2013 - 04:26 PM, said:

Yes I realize what you are saying. We have become too much of a "nanny state" where organizations like sports clubs and others are not, as they used to be, only afraid of being tarnished by their employees being caught in criminal acts, which was quite understandable, but now they are also afraid of being tarnished in being caught in immoral acts as well which by the way are not exactly "immoral acts" (that is the religious term)...but "human flaws". This is the society we have become....and it is not only applicable to sports clubs,but to every situation
We have to start somewhere and reverse the trend....and go back to the way it was

Morality plays far less of a role in life than it used to do, no club is going to sack a player because he and the woman that he lives with are not married.
There are many more formerly moral rules/situations that no longer count.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#11 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 15 March 2013 - 05:39 PM

View PostRoderick, on 14 March 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

Morality plays far less of a role in life than it used to do, no club is going to sack a player because he and the woman that he lives with are not married.
There are many more formerly moral rules/situations that no longer count.

Oh I do not know about that. This is my 57th. year of living in Australia and it is quite conservative and still is to a certain extent even in this day and age. From recollection were you not the one Roderick who was saying on othet thread on this forum that employers would want to employ "moral" employees rather than "immoral" ones?
Now there is another issue which ties in to this one and which cropped up here in the local shopping centre.
Woolworths sell liquor here in the local shopping centre. Now all of a sudden that liquor section of Woolworths has been taken over by another company with the name BWS. When I asked what is going on I was told that Woolworths does not want to be associated with the selling of alcohol. How is that for conservatism?When a large company like that is reluctant to be associated with the selling of alcohol, it means that it is of the view that it may effect it's business. This means only one thing. That Australian society looks down on the consumption of alcohol. This may be the only country in the world which does this.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#12 User is offline   lenxyz 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 19-January 11

Posted 15 March 2013 - 05:48 PM

View Postdumbcluck, on 15 March 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

Now all of a sudden that liquor section of Woolworths has been taken over by another company with the name BWS.


Woolworths owns BWS and is quite open about it. Seems just a rebranding exercise.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#13 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 15 March 2013 - 08:49 PM

View Postdumbcluck, on 15 March 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

When a large company like that is reluctant to be associated with the selling of alcohol, it means that it is of the view that it may effect it's business. This means only one thing. That Australian society looks down on the consumption of alcohol. This may be the only country in the world which does this.


View Postlenxyz, on 15 March 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

Woolworths owns BWS and is quite open about it. Seems just a rebranding exercise.


DC, in keeping with lenxyz's post, you need to also consider that Woolies are the largest operator of pokies in Australia (as I recall). A tarnished look IMHO and I'd expect, also in the eyes of green-eyed political followers on this site. I would hope they are not supporting anti-family Woolworths.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#14 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 16 March 2013 - 07:19 AM

View Posticey, on 15 March 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

DC, in keeping with lenxyz's post, you need to also consider that Woolies are the largest operator of pokies in Australia (as I recall).

It would be useful to provide a list of which companies have holdings in the poker machine industry.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#15 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 16 March 2013 - 09:07 AM

But this is what I am getting at.... take alcoholism and gambling. No one is talking about moderation. Education should be about moderation, not eradication. You cannot eradicate "human flaws".You can only minimize them.
The sooner society learns this the sooner companies like Woolworths would not have to bother about not being associated with either alcohol or gambling. Smoking on the other hand, even in moderation is harmful, so common sense tells you that aiming at it's eradication is sensible
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#16 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 16 March 2013 - 09:39 AM

View Postdumbcluck, on 16 March 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

But this is what I am getting at.... take alcoholism and gambling. No one is talking about moderation. Education should be about moderation, not eradication. You cannot eradicate "human flaws".You can only minimize them......

.....Smoking on the other hand, even in moderation is harmful, so common sense tells you that aiming at it's eradication is sensible


"Not eradication" .... except smoking?

View Postdumbcluck, on 16 March 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

The sooner society learns this the sooner companies like Woolworths would not have to bother about not being associated with either alcohol or gambling.


Hmm, after cancelling out the double negatives I can only say that I've seen nothing that suggests that Woolies are concerned by their dealing in grog and gambling let alone the resulting $$$$$.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#17 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 16 March 2013 - 11:19 AM

View Posticey, on 16 March 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

"Not eradication" .... except smoking?



Hmm, after cancelling out the double negatives I can only say that I've seen nothing that suggests that Woolies are concerned by their dealing in grog and gambling let alone the resulting $$$$$.


Some very interesting things in today's SMH about the alleged corruption within the Customs Service and the lack of action against allegedly corrupt employees on any grounds moral or just plain corrupt.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#18 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 16 March 2013 - 07:17 PM

View Postdumbcluck, on 16 March 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

Smoking on the other hand, even in moderation is harmful, so common sense tells you that aiming at it's eradication is sensible

Prohibition doesn't work. It only drives these sins underground, feeds the black market and denies the government taxation revenue. Prohibition of alcohol was a spectacular failure.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#19 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 17 March 2013 - 08:05 AM

View Posticey, on 16 March 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

"Not eradication" .... except smoking?



Hmm, after cancelling out the double negatives I can only say that I've seen nothing that suggests that Woolies are concerned by their dealing in grog and gambling let alone the resulting $$$$$.

They are sufficiently concerned in that they are trying to disassociate themselves from a public perception that they sell alcohol. This in itself tells a story. Clearly Woolworths must be of the view that this perception may harm their business interests. "Nothing to suggest that Woolies are concerned".......you are surely jesting Icey
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#20 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 17 March 2013 - 08:38 AM

View Postdumbcluck, on 17 March 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

They are sufficiently concerned in that they are trying to disassociate themselves from a public perception that they sell alcohol. This in itself tells a story. Clearly Woolworths must be of the view that this perception may harm their business interests. "Nothing to suggest that Woolies are concerned".......you are surely jesting Icey

Th local Woolworths has a liquor outlet attached and is still giving discount dockets for booze attached to the printed receipts at the checkouts.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

Share this topic:


  • 3 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3


Fast Reply