3 ms·
""The implication is that for any employee-employer relationship, if the employee is critical of the employer's position on some politically relevant social iss
by nickthemagicman 7y ago
""The implication is that for any employee-employer relationship, if the employee is critical of the employer's position on some politically relevant social issue, they can be sacked.""
Being in America where you can get fired for anything or laid off with zero notice, this doesn't seem too unusual.
Maybe I'm missing something.
- CogitoCogito 7y ago> Being in America where you can get fired for anything This is false. There are many circumstances when firing is illegal.
- tomatotomato37 7y agoBeing a state level issue, it does tend to be all over the place. I think in California though political opinion is a protected class in the context of employment.
- kube-system 7y agoEmployment law is a mixed state and federal issue. There are some very significant federal employment protections, such as the Civil Rights Act.
- shakna 7y agoAustralia has a lot more protections in place around the employee<->employer relationship. A lot more. For instance, you can't legally be sacked without notice[0], or pay[1]. (Unless you're not an employee. Contractors can have other stipulations in place.) However, all casuals, employees and contractors alike are protected by the National Employment Standards. [2] Which includes, in the Fair Work Information Statement, a right to freedom from association from your employer. That part of the statement is what this ruling attacks. [0] https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/notice-and-final-pay/dismissal-how-much-notice https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/notice-and-fin... [1] https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/notice-and-final-pay https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/notice-and-fin... [2] https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employee-entitlements/national-employment-standards https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employee-entitlements/national-e...