Hot Topic CARLTON SUPPORTERS ONLY - Carlton fires Captain Carlton

[Gethelred]

Carlton caught up in fresh storm over club mascot

A statement has been issued and the person at the centre of the incident has been sacked.

7news.com.au

This thread is for the discussion of the sacking of a club mascot after refusing to participate in a bar mitzvah which was allegedly sending money back to the IDF.

By taking this position and labelling the act racist, the club has taken a position on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

This thread concerns a discussion of the following:

• whether it is acceptable for the club to fire someone for taking a political stance.
• whether it is a good idea for the club to have taken a public position on this issue.

This thread is not a thread in which you should partake in expressing your political beliefs concerning the conflict, nor is it somewhere in which forum rules do not apply.

Should you seek to participate in conversation related to the war, you can do so here:

Mid East - Israel declare war after Hamas attack IV - Probable Case of Genocide

Continued from Part III https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/israel-declare-war-after-hamas-attack-iii.1381570/ Original Post, October 7, 2023: Israel declares state of war In response to the attacks, which appear to have caught the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) by surprise, Israel has...

www.bigfooty.com

There's also a thread on the SRP for a more robust discussion than can be permitted here:

Moved Thread - Blues mascot 'Captain Carlton' sacked after walking out of Bar Mitzvah and comments about Zionists.

Blues off to a flyer for the off season :D But surely one can criticise the actions of the IDF without being 'anti semitic' ‘Not doing this for f---ing Zios’: Captain Carlton mascot storms out of Bar Mitzvah celebration A man working as a mascot for the Carlton Football Club has stunned...

www.bigfooty.com

If you wish to participate in this thread, do so knowing that this will not be allowed to escalate beyond a point.

Thanks all!

 

[goreds]

Yes, but it's not incumbent on its citizens to support such organisations.
Or wounded ex-members.

I did hear a great comment on this last night Stamos , along the lines of 'its citizens'.

It was, CC had a choice which he made in relation to what he believed was a MORAL decision/obligation. Where the money was or was not going is the call of the person/people collecting it. CC was there (paid) to represent the Carlton FC, not as an invited guest (friend, relative, individual, other). That means his private opinion is just that, private. Because he made it about him and not his job, he was sacked.

I have nothing against his personal opinion but once you bring it into the workplace, you have a choice to leave or be sacked, no one is forcing him to be CC.

The question that was posed to me was, if CC was a devout Christian, who was anti LBGQTIA+ and it was a gay marriage celebration or a fundraiser for Mardi Gras and CC stormed out saying something offensive, should he be sacked??

The point was, it's not about the participants (both sides), it's about the job and your obligation to fulfil it when asked to. If you don't like the possible scenarios that you might be placed in, find another job.

It was an interesting argument as a person with no dog in the fight!

 

[mickelboy182]

The question that was posed to me was, if CC was a devout Christian, who was anti LBGQTIA+ and it was a gay marriage celebration or a fundraiser for Mardi Gras and CC stormed out saying something offensive, should he be sacked??

The problem is that comparison is a weak strawman for obvious reasons; one is funding something completely harmless and the other is funding an army who kill people. It's not really apt.

 

[Bletch]

I did hear a great comment on this last night Stamos , along the lines of 'its citizens'.

It was, CC had a choice which he made in relation to what he believed was a MORAL decision/obligation. Where the money was or was not going is the call of the person/people collecting it. CC was there (paid) to represent the Carlton FC, not as an invited guest (friend, relative, individual, other). That means his private opinion is just that, private. Because he made it about him and not his job, he was sacked.

I have nothing against his personal opinion but once you bring it into the workplace, you have a choice to leave or be sacked, no one is forcing him to be CC.

The question that was posed to me was, if CC was a devout Christian, who was anti LBGQTIA+ and it was a gay marriage celebration or a fundraiser for Mardi Gras and CC stormed out saying something offensive, should he be sacked??

The point was, it's not about the participants (both sides), it's about the job and your obligation to fulfil it when asked to. If you don't like the possible scenarios that you might be placed in, find another job.

It was an interesting argument as a person with no dog in the fight!

There are some protections under law for employee's expressing political views. See the recent Antoinette Lattouf vs ABC case. The ABC argued that she had been told to avoid "controversial" topics in her online posting. She then shared a post by the HRC that was critical of Israel's actions in Gaza. Pro-Israel lobbyists bombarded ABC management with requests for her dismissal, and they caved. She sues and wins. ABC's handling of the issue was abysmal.

This issue does not seem to be that far removed from the Lattouf case. What will be relevant will be exactly what was said, and to whom, and how that was said. If he expressed his opinion on the matter in a non-abusive manner, it's likely he will have a case for unfair dismissal. If he used the words and tone of expression as reported in the press (and I'm not taking what the media has reported here as fact), then his dismissal probably stands.

 

[goreds]

The problem is that comparison is a weak strawman for obvious reasons; one is funding something completely harmless and the other is funding an army who kill people. It's not really apt.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with the job, its a personal opinion. Employment law takes precedence in this case. Your personal opinion is just that, personal, so find another job that suits.

It always comes back to the same point.

 

[Juddernaut08]

The problem is that comparison is a weak strawman for obvious reasons; one is funding something completely harmless and the other is funding an army who kill people. It's not really apt.

you are missing his point. in both cases the unprofessional behaviour gets CC sacked, regardless of political views.

 

[mickelboy182]

Again, this has NOTHING to do with the job, its a personal opinion. Employment law takes precedence in this case. Your personal opinion is just that, personal, so find another job that suits.

It always comes back to the same point.

I think you might not have that great a grasp on employment law if you think it provides carte blanche for the employer to dismiss someone with a dissenting opinion who has been put in a compromising position by the employer.

 

[mickelboy182]

you are missing his point. in both cases the unprofessional behaviour gets CC sacked, regardless of political views.

Which again, none of us here actually have enough information to determine that. It has been well established that the manner of his departure is a sticking point.

 

[RPCB]

The mods making a list of all the posters they would need to ban if this thread stayed open overnight…

 

[Juddernaut08]

There are some protections under law for employee's expressing political views. See the recent Antoinette Lattouf vs ABC case. The ABC argued that she had been told to avoid "controversial" topics in her online posting. She then shared a post by the HRC that was critical of Israel's actions in Gaza. Pro-Israel lobbyists bombarded ABC management with requests for her dismissal, and they caved. She sues and wins. ABC's handling of the issue was abysmal.

This issue does not seem to be that far removed from the Lattouf case. What will be relevant will be exactly what was said, and to whom, and how that was said. If he expressed his opinion on the matter in a non-abusive manner, it's likely he will have a case for unfair dismissal. If he used the words and tone of expression as reported in the press (and I'm not taking what the media has reported here as fact), then his dismissal probably stands.

perfectly put. it's not about his political views, it is whether his behaviour overall warranted it.

thats why imo the OP is so poorly written (labelling it as ONLY political dissent) and has contributed to the partisan direction of the convo.

 

[Stamos]

I did hear a great comment on this last night Stamos , along the lines of 'its citizens'.

It was, CC had a choice which he made in relation to what he believed was a MORAL decision/obligation. Where the money was or was not going is the call of the person/people collecting it. CC was there (paid) to represent the Carlton FC, not as an invited guest (friend, relative, individual, other). That means his private opinion is just that, private. Because he made it about him and not his job, he was sacked.

I have nothing against his personal opinion but once you bring it into the workplace, you have a choice to leave or be sacked, no one is forcing him to be CC.

The question that was posed to me was, if CC was a devout Christian, who was anti LBGQTIA+ and it was a gay marriage celebration or a fundraiser for Mardi Gras and CC stormed out saying something offensive, should he be sacked??

The point was, it's not about the participants (both sides), it's about the job and your obligation to fulfil it when asked to. If you don't like the possible scenarios that you might be placed in, find another job.

It was an interesting argument as a person with no dog in the fight!

The issue would be that he was employed to do a job (the bah mitzvah), but the nature of that job changed without him being made aware of it (raising money for IDF), which presumably the Club would have said no to beforehand, or at least allowed CC to refuse.

 

[MoodyBlues26]

Club hasn't chosen a side at all. Man was employed to do a job. Handled walking out poorly and made a scene. End of.

Affiliations and purpose are secondary to the above for an employer employee relationship

You're being way too rational

 

[JustaBattler]

As for the sacked person - we don't have enough information to comment - so the whole thread has been a straw man exercise - guaranteeing what has transpired.

 

[goreds]

The issue would be that he was employed to do a job (the bah mitzvah), but the nature of that job changed without him being made aware of it (raising money for IDF), which presumably the Club would have said no to beforehand, or at least allowed CC to refuse.

Collecting/raising money was not the purpose of the job. It was the bah mitzvah. Just because someone was passing around a hat (which people don't have to place anything in by the way), still has nothing to do with the job CC was hired to do. It wasn't a party where drugs were being passed around (which he would have every right to walk out of, being illegal). CC's moral compass kicked in (which is totally fine) but he still had a job to do.

Separating church and state has always been a difficult place to play in!

 

[slashin_velvet]

nope

an no MMs either

glory days well and truly over

Just hope this is different to when we cleared out the BB's - Brendon Bolton and Blaine Boekhorst

 

[Stamos]

Collecting/raising money was not the purpose of the of job. It was the bah mitzvah. Just because someone was passing around a hat (which people don't have to place anything in by the way), still has nothing to do with the job CC was hired to do. It wasn't a party where drugs were being passed around (which he would have every right to walk out of, being illegal). CC's moral compass kicked in (which is totally fine) but he still had a job to do.

Separating church and state has always been a difficult place to play in!

Depends on circumstances, like:

Was CC on stage/directly part of the ceremony etc. directly implicated when the funding to IDF was announced?

How common is it for CC to do private parties as part of his job? Is it a twice a week thing, or an occasional favour?

It also depends on how dramatic and loud him leaving was.

We don't have any of these details.

 

[GoBlues!]

The question that was posed to me was, if CC was a devout Christian, who was anti LBGQTIA+ and it was a gay marriage celebration or a fundraiser for Mardi Gras and CC stormed out saying something offensive, should he be sacked??

The point was, it's not about the participants (both sides), it's about the job and your obligation to fulfil it when asked to. If you don't like the possible scenarios that you might be placed in, find another job.

It was an interesting argument as a person with no dog in the fight!

Probably not the best analogy goreds - Fair chance he would have known that he was attending a gay marriage celebration or a fundraiser for Mardi Gras before accepting the gig - and with that knowledge could decide whether it was an issue for him.

Sounds like he was caught unawares that the Bar Mitzvah event had a component he was unhappy to be part of - Again this is not condoning his actions, he should have been professional enough to complete his performance and leave politely.

 

[mickelboy182]

You keep harping on about it being raising money for the IDF which it wasn’t. Take your blinkers off.

We still don't actually know as far as I'm aware.

As with the vast majority of these things, it all turns on the facts of which there are scarcely any in the public domain.

 

[Bletch]

We still don't actually know as far as I'm aware.

As with the vast majority of these things, it all turns on the facts of which there are scarcely any in the public domain.

Agree.

We're likely only hearing one side of the story at this point. But I doubt we hear anything more unless CC lodges an unfair dismissal claim. And then it would get... interesting.

 

[branedotorg]

It is bizarre the club sacked him so quickly, rather than a standing down and investigation - you might read into that there was overwhelming justification, or the more cynical might read into it as the event in question was for some powerful benefactors...

Totally agree that there are too many gaps to ascertain if the sacking was justifiable. The only thing that is certain is that this was a completely ill advised venture...

suspect he is a non-permanent employee anyway, sacked for a labour hire performer like a lot of these kind of roles doesnt equate to sacked for an employee with a contract

 

[mickelboy182]

suspect he is a non-permanent employee anyway, sacked for a labour hire performer like a lot of these kind of roles doesnt equate to sacked for an employee with a contract

He still has protections under Fair Work, and if he can prove the club put him into a position he was uncomfortable with (particularly as it appears to be a blindside) then he has a pretty credible case.

 

[branedotorg]

He still has protections under Fair Work, and if he can prove the club put him into a position he was uncomfortable with (particularly as it appears to be a blindside) then he has a pretty credible case.

depending on his employment status that may be directed to a labour hire firm, instead but yeah - i wonder if we get a deal with MC Labour Hire?

 

[mickelboy182]

depending on his employment status that may be directed to a labour hire firm, instead but yeah - i wonder if we get a deal with MC Labour Hire?

Typically the employer entity would bear the burden of the OH&S/workplace safety aspects, the labour hire firm is mostly on the hook for payroll/super obligations.

 

[Blue and Silver]

I did hear a great comment on this last night Stamos , along the lines of 'its citizens'.

It was, CC had a choice which he made in relation to what he believed was a MORAL decision/obligation. Where the money was or was not going is the call of the person/people collecting it. CC was there (paid) to represent the Carlton FC, not as an invited guest (friend, relative, individual, other). That means his private opinion is just that, private. Because he made it about him and not his job, he was sacked.

I have nothing against his personal opinion but once you bring it into the workplace, you have a choice to leave or be sacked, no one is forcing him to be CC.

The question that was posed to me was, if CC was a devout Christian, who was anti LBGQTIA+ and it was a gay marriage celebration or a fundraiser for Mardi Gras and CC stormed out saying something offensive, should he be sacked??

The point was, it's not about the participants (both sides), it's about the job and your obligation to fulfil it when asked to. If you don't like the possible scenarios that you might be placed in, find another job.

It was an interesting argument as a person with no dog in the fight!

I think this is a reasonable point, but there is a clear problem.

Is it a reasonable expectation of CC's job that he participate in a politically charged event without prior knowledge.

If he was asked to attend a function which turned out to be for the Communist party, but which was not described to him as such, would he have recourse for being unreasonably tasked with participating in a group which he disagrees?

 

[BluStreak]

only certain posts are being deleted.

 

[branedotorg]

only certain posts are being deleted.

only certain posters are unable to keep within the narrow confines of the topic at hand.