Sally Rugg vs Monique Ryan

Remove this Banner Ad

Aristotle Pickett said:
Is that directed at me?
Click to expand...
No of course not, you only excuse workplace bullying and worker exploitation because you stan a rich white professional who says some things you agree with.

I'd never make fun of someone who has spent pages in this thread making bigger picture break a few eggs bog standard corporate greed arguments from a pedestal of what they believe to be moral superiority because climate change
 
Gralin said:
No of course not, you only excuse workplace bullying and worker exploitation because you stan a rich white professional who says some things you agree with.

I'd never make fun of someone who has spent pages in this thread making bigger picture break a few eggs bog standard corporate greed arguments from a pedestal of what they believe to be moral superiority because climate change
Click to expand...
Rubbish. There was no finding of workplace bullying.
If you want to dismiss climate action as moral superiority that's a reflection of the low importance you put on the research of climate scientists and what they are telling us.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Magnum27 said:
The mind boggles really, if it is for climate change you could potentially commit a crime in his world and it would not be a problem.
Click to expand...
Doing what every other MP does with their staff is no great crime.
I don't think you and others understand what's going on in the world at the moment. Luckily I have a science background.
We all know who the real criminals are and those that bury their heads in the sand for short term political gain.
Rugg's behaviour made me feel a bit sick in the guts to be honest.
Anyway she got her compensation for unreasonable hours, hopefully Ryan can do her job to hold Albanese and his pathetic climate policies to account now.
 
Last edited:
Aristotle Pickett said:
Doing what every other MP does with their staff is no great crime.
I don't think you and others understand what's going on in the world at the moment. Luckily I have a science background.
Click to expand...


Yes it is, all of it is wrong, and should be held to account, no worker should be treated badly, but it's clear you are ok with that as long as it suits your cause.

If your superstar climate guru did nothing wrong, why the pay out, why did she not stand on her convictions if she did nothing wrong.
 
Magnum27 said:
Yes it is, all of it is wrong, and should be held to account, no worker should be treated badly, but it's clear you are ok with that as long as it suits your cause.

If your superstar climate guru did nothing wrong, why the pay out, why did she not stand on her convictions if she did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...
She got a payout for unreasonable hours. Every chief of staff can make the same claim and win. That's no reason to vilify Monique Ryan.
 
Aristotle Pickett said:
She got a payout for unreasonable hours. Every chief of staff can make the same claim and win. That's no reason to vilify Monique Ryan.
Click to expand...
apparently it is a reason to vilify Rugg though :think: like you have for pages and pages because you think she should accept being treated poorly because Ryan might vote for action on climate change

How's that working out btw?

Like there's a lot of talk about how Labor are proposing bad policy but I'm not seeing this action on Climate change happening currently are you?
 
Aristotle Pickett said:
She got a payout for unreasonable hours. Every chief of staff can make the same claim and win. That's no reason to vilify Monique Ryan.
Click to expand...

Then Ryan is no better than any other employer who treats their employees poorly, expecting your employee to work un reasonable hours is not acceptable behaviour from any boss or manager, and is a form of bullying in the workplace, and needs to be stamped out.
 
Some mental gymnastics going on here. Cannot stand when people put politicians on pedestals and make excuses for poor behaviour.

News flash. Good people can make bad decisions.
 
Saint Shags said:
To be honest there were people on both sides of the argument online that were so fervent in their opinion that either:

A. Rugg was after a quick dollar

Or

B. That there was so much evidence that the courts would rule in Ruggs favour and that would impact all staffers employed for MPs.

I would have like the case tested and for the courts to rule. I think that talk of improving work place conditions is an important thing. And this could have occurred.

Unfortunately that is not the case. Which is unfortunate because I got the impression that Rugg was invested in workers rights. But like all people ended up being human.
Not many of us going to sneeze at 100k.
Click to expand...
don’t think maurice blackburn is known for no win, no fee. or being light on fees generally. so, i’m not sure the ruggster will have much of the $100,000 left after she gets the invoice.
 
Magnum27 said:
Then Ryan is no better than any other employer who treats their employees poorly, expecting your employee to work un reasonable hours is not acceptable behaviour from any boss or manager, and is a form of bullying in the workplace, and needs to be stamped out.
Click to expand...
not sure about the bullying as that wasn't tested and isn't in keeping with the person as i understand it.

agree, that peeps shouldn't be asked to work long unremunerated hours. but she was no babe in the woods politically and she well knew the work requirements but still took the job. had her case been strong she wouldn't have folded.

much prefer the test case to be in health care and not only nurses. those working in aged care would be a good start.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Not Important said:
not sure about the bullying as that wasn't tested and isn't in keeping with the person as i understand it.

agree, that peeps shouldn't be asked to work long unremunerated hours. but she was no babe in the woods politically and she well knew the work requirements but still took the job. had her case been strong she wouldn't have folded.

much prefer the test case to be in health care and not only nurses. those working in aged care would be a good start.
Click to expand...
I have been through the exact same scenario many years ago, and know full well how the convo goes when the request is to work outside your hrs. I didn't go to court or anything, didn't want any mores stress , i just found a better job where i'm treated better, and always take a stand for my colleagues if i see s**t treatment going on by managers.

Bullying a worker can come in all different forms, and should never happen in any work place.
 
Last edited:
Magnum27 said:
I have been through the exact same scenario, and know full well how the convo goes when the request is to work outside your hrs. I didn't go to court or anything , i just found a better job where i'm treated better, and always take a stand for my colleagues if i see s**t treatment going on by managers.

Bullying a worker can come in all different forms.
Click to expand...
you keep using the term bullying, it was never tested.

i've worked in that scenario. many times during the end of a parliamentary session i was in the house until the early hours then back in the office a few hours later. they were unreasonable hours but i was fully cognisant of them before i took the job on and could have walked at any time. doesn't make it right or fair but i had options.

as i said, a test case in the health field, particularly among low-paid workers who have fewer/no options, would have received more public sympathy.

had her case been strong she wouldn't have folded.
 
not that fussed either way, grales. the albo justification for reducing independents staff was aligning the staffing with those members who were associated with parties - of any persuasion. ipso facto equality. the changes lift staffing to all so it remains and even playing field.
 
Not Important said:
not that fussed either way, grales. the albo justification for reducing independents staff was aligning the staffing with those members who were associated with parties - of any persuasion. ipso facto equality. the changes lift staffing to all so it remains and even playing field.
Click to expand...
I'm not criticising doing it, they never should have slashed the cross bench support staff in the first place

their justification for it was bullshit to begin with, they were just trying to limit the effectiveness of the cross bench

I am, however, laughing at Albo trying to act like the Rugg v Ryan case had nothing to do with this decision when his treasurer said the exact opposite and the case was settled days before this was announced
 
Magnum27 said:
Then Ryan is no better than any other employer who treats their employees poorly, expecting your employee to work un reasonable hours is not acceptable behaviour from any boss or manager, and is a form of bullying in the workplace, and needs to be stamped out.
Click to expand...
A rock & roll approach to fluctuating work loads (hours) is fine if both parties agree to it, even in a unionised workplace. The key is respect all round.
 
Gralin said:
I'm not criticising doing it, they never should have slashed the cross bench support staff in the first place

their justification for it was bullshit to begin with, they were just trying to limit the effectiveness of the cross bench

I am, however, laughing at Albo trying to act like the Rugg v Ryan case had nothing to do with this decision when his treasurer said the exact opposite and the case was settled days before this was announced
Click to expand...

yes grales, i get what you were hyped about. my opening bit saying i'm "not that fussed either way.." was addressing it.

my point is that it was inequitable for -say - you as the greens member for 'chiefville' having fewer electoral officers than an independent in another electorate. changing the arrangement so all were on an equal footing was fair and reasonable. now it's reasonable to ask why albo didn't find the millions of dollars necessary to equalise the electoral staff numbers at a time when he had a trillion-dollar debt to deal with. but you can bet your last pay packet from chief for being a super duper adjudicator that he’d have been criticised for that at the time.
 
Not Important said:
yes grales, i get what you were hyped about. my opening bit saying i'm "not that fussed either way.." was addressing it.

my point is that it was inequitable for -say - you as the greens member for 'chiefville' having fewer electoral officers than an independent in another electorate. changing the arrangement so all were on an equal footing was fair and reasonable. now it's reasonable to ask why albo didn't find the millions of dollars necessary to equalise the electoral staff numbers at a time when he had a trillion-dollar debt to deal with. but you can bet your last pay packet from chief for being a super duper adjudicator that he’d have been criticised for that at the time.
Click to expand...
Nah man, parties have resources independents don't this isn't equity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top