Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

What would jesus say? That'll be €70K

24

Comments

  • #32
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    Would be interesting if his employer decided to appeal. Doubt they will though, probably just cut their losses at this point.


  • #33
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    This MUST be appealed ! What an absolutely shocking piece of utter nonsense.


  • #34
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Custardpi wrote: »
    Would be interesting if his employer decided to appeal. Doubt they will though, probably just cut their losses at this point.

    I think they have to. It's a local council so hopefully they can get government support.


  • #35
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    I think they have to. It's a local council so hopefully they can get government support.

    I know, that's why I would have thought they wouldn't appeal. Given that one, the decision was made by a state funded body & two that there's the potential for them to be even more out of pocket should an appeal fail at a higher level I can't see them being enthusiastic about such a prospect given the cash-strapped status of local government at present.


  • #36
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,253 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    Feel like Daniel among the lions here, but here goes....
    I've no problem sharing my faith with people if an opportunity arises and they are open to a discussion.
    When I'm working I'm paid to do a job, an opportunity might arise in the course of conversation but I'm primarily there to work. If I spend all day talking about my faith and not doing my job it's a poor testimony and my words won't mean very much.

    We don't know how often this guy spoke to people or in what context so we can't judge it from soundbites in the papers.
    if a member of staff made it clear he didn't want to discuss religion and he persisted then he was wrong in his persistence.
    From what I've read a complaint was made by a third party about him speaking to a client while on the road. We don't know the clients response. There's no indication he made the complaint which got the guy sacked.
    What I do see wrong is him being forbidden while on his breaks. As I said, if he's meant to be working and not performing in his job, that's another story and worthy of discipline.
    ,
    As a note, a lot of comments here are speculative as we don't know the full story and my opinion is based on generalities and based on 30 years experience.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Jade Fluffy Sugar wrote: »
    Feel like Daniel among the lions here, but here goes....
    I've no problem sharing my faith with people if an opportunity arises and they are open to a discussion.
    When I'm working I'm paid to do a job, an opportunity might arise in the course of conversation but I'm primarily there to work. If I spend all day talking about my faith and not doing my job it's a poor testimony and my words won't mean very much.

    We don't know how often this guy spoke to people or in what context so we can't judge it from soundbites in the papers.
    if a member of staff made it clear he didn't want to discuss religion and he persisted then he was wrong in his persistence.
    From what I've read a complaint was made by a third party about him speaking to a client while on the road. We don't know the clients response. There's no indication he made the complaint which got the guy sacked.
    What I do see wrong is him being forbidden while on his breaks. As I said, if he's meant to be working and not performing in his job, that's another story and worthy of discipline.
    ,
    As a note, a lot of comments here are speculative as we don't know the full story and my opinion is based on generalities and over 30 experience.

    We do know the facts as presented to the equality agency. He was disciplined over 3 years. Not one incident.


  • #38
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Jade Fluffy Sugar wrote: »
    ,
    As a note, a lot of comments here are speculative as we don't know the full story and my opinion is based on generalities and based on 30 years experience.

    The background and statement of judgement is covered at length in the press.


  • #39
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,622 ✭✭✭swampgas


    From the IT article, Ms Duffy is quoted as saying:
    She said the ban placed on him from sharing his faith between 9am and 5pm impacted disproportionately on people of his religious faith.
    (My bold)

    What is curious to me is that she considers that he must be allowed to share his faith - in other words, that others must listen, or at least cooperate, in his prosletyzing to them. Frankly, I find this imposition on everyone else rather bizarre.


  • #40
    Immanuel
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 39 ✭Immanuel


    swampgas wrote: »
    From the IT article, Ms Duffy is quoted as saying:

    (My bold)

    What is curious to me is that she considers that he must be allowed to share his faith - in other words, that others must listen, or at least cooperate, in his prosletyzing to them. Frankly, I find this imposition on everyone else rather bizarre.

    If you replace the word faith with opinion, it's an interesting take

    In my experience, public sector management in Ireland actively discourages and coerce members of staff from voicing their opinion concerning malpractice and inefficiency in the public service, its punished far quicker than actual malpractice and inefficiency, so perhaps it stems from that mentality.


  • #41
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Immanuel wrote: »
    If you replace the word faith with opinion, it's an interesting take

    This is what I was thinking. His faith is just his opinion. Its no different then me annoying people telling them my mother thinks they are annoying and should listen to me. If I replace mother with a religious book it all of a sudden become acceptable.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    This is what I was thinking. His faith is just his opinion. Its no different then me annoying people telling them my mother thinks they are annoying and should listen to me. If I replace mother with a religious book it all of a sudden become acceptable.

    Yes, but it isn't. It is proselytising his religion and carrying out what effectively is a religious campaign while he is in work.


  • #43
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,250 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    €70K to be rid of him was probably cheaper than shuffling him into a back office.


  • #44
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,622 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Immanuel wrote: »
    If you replace the word faith with opinion, it's an interesting take.

    It's rather more than him expressing his opinion though - he said himself (in as many words) that he feels compelled to evangelise to others while at work. At minimum, it's very unprofessional, grounds enough in my view for dismissal after repeated warnings to desist.


  • #45
    Immanuel
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 39 ✭Immanuel


    swampgas wrote: »
    It's rather more than him expressing his opinion though - he said himself (in as many words) that he feels compelled to evangelise to others while at work. At minimum, it's very unprofessional, grounds enough in my view for dismissal after repeated warnings to desist.

    Sure, but as I say, I've seen employees in the public sector do far far worse and not even receive any disciplinary action, never mind dismissal of any sort, so maybe there is more to the story than is being reported. A lot of people seem to feel compelled to continually repeat their opinions at work, and it might as well be evagelisation.


  • #46
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    An interesting point. I suppose if it could be shown that previous incidents in the council where other employees say canvassed for political parties or causes repeatedly & did not receive any sanction that would be an argument for discrimination against the evangelist having occurred.


  • #47
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,622 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Custardpi wrote: »
    An interesting point. I suppose if it could be shown that previous incidents in the council where other employees say canvassed for political parties or causes repeatedly & did not receive any sanction that would be an argument for discrimination against the evangelist having occurred.

    However that was not the argument made by his counsel, nor was it the case made by Ms. Duffy of the equality commission. Her judgement was based on her interpretation that an employee must be accommodated in sharing his religion in the workplace.


  • #48
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    I know, it was more of a reply to the issues raised in post #45 than the judgement itself. That said I would be very surprised if either his counsel or Ms Duffy would have taken the same line if he had been "evangelising" on behalf of a political party on the council's time. Religion getting special privileges again it would seem.


  • #49
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,032 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    What you make of this? Some Judge awards a Evangelical Christian 70,000 for before dismissed "unfairly" from work. Apparently, he had a right to Bible bash aka share his faith during work.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/born-again-christian-awarded-70-000-in-discrimination-case-1.1873468

    Mods:
    This can be deleted. Just saw other thread. Sorry.


  • #50
    Greenmachine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,063 ✭✭✭Greenmachine


    Speak to people about your faith during your personal time. Customer don't want to be lectured.


  • #51
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 38,708 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    So an employer must prevent sexual harrassment from occurring in the workplace, but must facilitate religious harrassment?

    Bat-doodoo insane decision.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra,

    I'm raptured by the joy of it all.



  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Custardpi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    So an employer must prevent sexual harrassment from occurring in the workplace, but must facilitate religious harrassment?

    Bat-doodoo insane decision.

    Looks like it. Begs the question of what to do if an employee's religion requires him to constantly talk to people about his penis.


  • #53
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    What if this just a PR stunt by the equality authority to appease religious types before acknowledging pastafarians head gear is acceptable for licence photos?
    A smokescreen.


  • #54
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Immanuel wrote: »
    Sure, but as I say, I've seen employees in the public sector do far far worse and not even receive any disciplinary action, never mind dismissal of any sort, so maybe there is more to the story than is being reported. A lot of people seem to feel compelled to continually repeat their opinions at work, and it might as well be evagelisation.

    That's what came to mind for me also. For example if some employee was persistently vocal in, say, their repulsion at Israel's current campaign in Gaza (or indeed, the other way around—was vocally supportive of Israel), would they be disciplined and ultimately dismissed? Possibly. My guess is that it would probably be more likely to result in dismissal if it were an unpopular/contrarian position that they persisted with (because the other employees would probably find it annoying/uncomfortable).

    Religious chatter should be treated the same as any other IMO.

    (the caveat here is that bigoted/offensive language will rightly result in disciplinary action; but again that doesn't apply specifically to religiously-inspired evangelism)


  • #55
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    There's an active thread here, Tim

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057253553


  • #56
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,622 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Hmmm - I've been thinking about this case a bit, and there's a different way to look at it. And that is that this man has a medical issue somewhere between a personality disorder and mental illness. He is (IMO) actually delusional. The problem he really has is that his medical issues are being dealt with as religious rights rather than as mental health issues, and that's because culturally most people won't accept that religious belief is delusional.

    Had this man being saying that aliens from the planet Zog were talking to him and insisting he spread the word, he would be treated very differently. However as the alien in this case is in fact Jesus, everyone bends over backwards to assist his self-deception.

    It's one of the biggest problems we have with religion: that it normalises delusional beliefs. Anyone who is unfortunate enough to take such delusional beliefs too seriously can easily end up in a similar situation.

    I suspect (warning: speculation alert!) that this man is effectively unemployable and was awarded the 70k as a lump sum out of sympathy/compensation for the the fact that he lost his job. The justification for the 70k really sounds dodgy to me, from a legal perspective at any rate. It does set a poor precedent - I would imagine the equality tribunal is not supposed to dress up sympathy payouts as legal entitlements.

    .


  • #57
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Deleted User wrote: »
    €70K to be rid of him was probably cheaper than shuffling him into a back office.

    This may be right, but the issue is more about the precedent it sets. To me it seems like they have really picked up the EU jurisprudence wrong on this. This cannot be the correct judgement.

    MrP


  • #58
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 53,872 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    my wife works with someone of a different approach - the 'religious organisation' he is a member of does not permit him to talk to co-workers, except to discuss matters pertaining to work. he cuts a rather lonely figure, i believe.


  • #59
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,744 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Jade Fluffy Sugar wrote: »
    What I do see wrong is him being forbidden while on his breaks. As I said, if he's meant to be working and not performing in his job, that's another story and worthy of discipline.
    I have to say that if I couldn't have my lunch without someone blathering on at me about how sinful I am and how I need to accept their invisible friend as my saviour I'd be annoyed to the point of getting HR involved. I do not think it's unreasonable to tell him to be quiet about his religion during work hours if his co-workers are fed up of hearing about it.


  • #60
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,469 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Turtwig wrote: »
    What if this just a PR stunt by the equality authority to appease religious types before acknowledging pastafarians head gear is acceptable for licence photos?
    You're not the only one wondering that ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    keane2097
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 17,835 ✭✭✭✭keane2097


    If he wants to evangelise at work he should work as a preacher, otherwise shag off.


Advertisement