maxdacat
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Interesting way to run things from a disciplinary point of view. Holding dirt on players with the implied threat that it might get escalated if they step out of line again. Not sure it's a great approach.
- Status
Interesting way to run things from a disciplinary point of view. Holding dirt on players with the implied threat that it might get escalated if they step out of line again. Not sure it's a great approach.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
*sigh* again I reiterate as a disclaimer before the rest of this post: BEALE IS GUILTY. FUCKING GUILTY. I'M NOT ABSOLVING HIM OF ANY BLAME. HE SHOULD BE FIRED.
OK, so looking at it from another angle: Holding something over another employee is fucking despicable in my book. It is what some would refer to as blackmail. Its what my Mum would do when I was a kid if I still wanted to have Christmas.
If you were going for a good promotion with another employee at your company, and you had some dirt on them, would you use it to get ahead? If the company was downsizing and it was between the two of you, would you use it to stay employed?
Because what you're saying is it was perfectly acceptable for Patston to hold information of a personally offensive nature close to her chest, for use at her discretion at a later time. Over a remark about a t-shirt, over a spilled cup of coffee, over any perceived slight.
Beale is a dickhead (to the point where he probably thought it was forgotten about), but would YOU want your employment hanging by a thread for months because one of your peers knew something?
Imagine a universe where that text DIDN'T go to Patston, but only his team mates. They have a laugh and think no more of it (again, a mistake, but go with it). Then Beale does something to one of those blokes that isn't very nice. That bloke decides to go to Link with the "evidence" and this situation blows up from a different instigator.
Is that OK too?
As we were speculating in the office: if you pranged your Dad's car, or smashed your Mum's favourite keepsake, you'd better go fucking tell them straight away, because the arse kicking you'll get for trying to hide it will be far worse.
The preferred alternate universes stack up like this:
A) Beale should never have sent that shit
I'm not trying to make Patston the villian here, but when the ARU combs through the ashes and tries to put down the cause, they sure as fuck would want to communicate to their direct employees, in no uncertain terms, that sending this shit will not be tolerated, and failing to notify management about receiving this shit will be viewed with extreme prejudice.
The former should take care of the latter with any luck. It really depends on the fuckwit count.
OK, so looking at it from another angle: Holding something over another employee is fucking despicable in my book. It is what some would refer to as blackmail. Its what my Mum would do when I was a kid if I still wanted to have Christmas.
If you were going for a good promotion with another employee at your company, and you had some dirt on them, would you use it to get ahead? If the company was downsizing and it was between the two of you, would you use it to stay employed?
Because what you're saying is it was perfectly acceptable for Patston to hold information of a personally offensive nature close to her chest, for use at her discretion at a later time. Over a remark about a t-shirt, over a spilled cup of coffee, over any perceived slight.
Beale is a dickhead (to the point where he probably thought it was forgotten about), but would YOU want your employment hanging by a thread for months because one of your peers knew something?
Imagine a universe where that text DIDN'T go to Patston, but only his team mates. They have a laugh and think no more of it (again, a mistake, but go with it). Then Beale does something to one of those blokes that isn't very nice. That bloke decides to go to Link with the "evidence" and this situation blows up from a different instigator.
Is that OK too?
As we were speculating in the office: if you pranged your Dad's car, or smashed your Mum's favourite keepsake, you'd better go fucking tell them straight away, because the arse kicking you'll get for trying to hide it will be far worse.
The preferred alternate universes stack up like this:
A) Beale should never have sent that shit
then
B) He should have gone to Link as soon as he realised, then apologised to her in front of him and the other managers. The process could have been done behind closed doors, fines/bans could have happened in June, controversy could have been avoided. Most importantly, it would have gone on Beale's record officially, and not been held by another employee only.then
C) What we have now.I'm not trying to make Patston the villian here, but when the ARU combs through the ashes and tries to put down the cause, they sure as fuck would want to communicate to their direct employees, in no uncertain terms, that sending this shit will not be tolerated, and failing to notify management about receiving this shit will be viewed with extreme prejudice.
The former should take care of the latter with any luck. It really depends on the fuckwit count.
Man on the hill
Alex Ross (28)
Thursday we laughed cause this beast cracked the magical 5 0 pages. I went off air for Friday & the weekend - blinked as it were and here we are sprinting towards 100 with no new news...
This is as bad the school scholarship pages for wasting time.
This is as bad the school scholarship pages for wasting time.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
The other point I'll make is Beale's mates who got the material can't have been very fucking good mates, because the first thing you should do is say "Look, that's not cool." and then advised him to go to Link, double-time as soon as everyone involved knew that Patston was onto him.
Thinker
Darby Loudon (17)
The fact Di has resigned doesn't change much. The same if she lied on her CV or was having it off with Link everyday in the office. This stuff is not in the top 50 issues about the case.
She has resigned due to stress caused by bullying and sexual harassment in the work place. She doesn't have to still be an employee to pursue this, and in fact, the fact she felt forced to quit will only add to the case given she has
1. Previously shown a willingness to forgive and move on
2. 3 years in a HP rugby union program interacting with players on a daily basis with no issue.
You would imagine the single text would be more than enough cause for the ARU to sack Beale, or any employee for that matter.
The more you read this stuff the more murky the ARU's liability becomes. On paper they seem like how they handle it will determine how they fare. But having a spokesperson come out and says unequivocally that Beale shouldn't lose his job might complicate things further.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
And just as an aside: in the unlikely scenario you ever find yourself working for me, don't try this. Because I'll fire both of you
Thinker
Darby Loudon (17)
The scariest part about this is that in 2015 ANYBODY needs to be told this, let alone a bunch of blokes getting paid to represent their country.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
Holding dirt?
The only person who gained anything from this was Beale. Or not gained, but rather didn't lose. His contract specifically which is what would have been the result escalating it.
If Beale didn't want his past indiscretions coming back to haunt him, he shouldn't have done them. As said, Patson gave Beale the opportunity to move on from this with no punishment. He failed to hold up his end of the agreement to do this.
Are you at all aware of general policies companies have regarding disciplining and usually getting warnings and multiple strikes before being terminated?
Woah, woah, woah - reality check
Crawling through someone's garbage (or hacking their iCloud account) to find sneaky, incriminating evidence of something that's not their business and then using that for leverage is "holding dirt on someone"
Being the victim of vicious workplace harassment, but letting it slide as long as that boofhead doesn't do it again is called "doing someone a favour"
Not really sure how you can get those two mixed up
Crawling through someone's garbage (or hacking their iCloud account) to find sneaky, incriminating evidence of something that's not their business and then using that for leverage is "holding dirt on someone"
Being the victim of vicious workplace harassment, but letting it slide as long as that boofhead doesn't do it again is called "doing someone a favour"
Not really sure how you can get those two mixed up
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Are you aware of the general policies companies have of reporting discriminatory or offensive material to HR representatives or managers as soon as practicable?
Because Patston apparently skipped this bit "as a favour".
blues recovery
Billy Sheehan (19)
Pfitzy my position on Beale is also clear but i tend to agree that Di did completely the wrong thing not highlighting this issue to senior management. However having witnessed this enviroment first hand and the way that the players behave towards someone that dares break their Lord Of The Flies code I understand why misguidedely she did this.
I have seen players ostracised from the group for daring to bring to Managements attention very organisation threatening behaviour. Let alone someone from outside their boys club.
I have seen players ostracised from the group for daring to bring to Managements attention very organisation threatening behaviour. Let alone someone from outside their boys club.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
*sigh* again I reiterate as a disclaimer before the rest of this post: BEALE IS GUILTY. FUCKING GUILTY. I'M NOT ABSOLVING HIM OF ANY BLAME. HE SHOULD BE FIRED.
OK, so looking at it from another angle: Holding something over another employee is fucking despicable in my book. It is what some would refer to as blackmail. Its what my Mum would do when I was a kid if I still wanted to have Christmas.
I understand you're not absolving him of blame.
But you are saying potentially that Patson had unethical motives. What exactly would she gain from holding something like this over a player?
The only thing I can see based on Beale's record, is his fear of breaking any rules. Which he should be fucking fearful of anyway, because he was already on a tight leash.
It's not exactly going to get her climbing up the corporate ladder. It's a player, somebody who is really low lying fruit in the org structure, not anybody that can do anything to get her head.
Yes it's possible there was sinister motives. But it seems unlikely. If Beale, however, was unhappy about having his career hanging by a thread, over actions that mind you would have ended said career, he could have at any point in time gone to the people he begged Patson not to tell and come clean.
Let's remember, she's complied with his requests which were part of his apology in all this.
What's the old saying? Be careful what you wish for?
Thinker
Darby Loudon (17)
This is one of the biggest ironies of this. A lot of people are happy with Hoopers comments as he was supporting a mate. A mate who continues to perform unlawful acts while representing his country.
Link gets crucified for supporting his mate who is the victim of unlawful acts.
None of the Fairfax narrative makes sense and you have to wonder if "senior players" isn't code for "senior journalists" upset with their access and Patstons role as a "gate keeper".
Link is the bloke who takes team culture so seriously, he'd ban tatts if he could. Waited 8 years to get Wallaby gig and is going to throw it all away by failing to act on this or running around with another staffer.
I also think there are a few management experts out there getting workplace warnings confused to yellow cards - workplace warnings don't re-set to zero when given.
If someone grossly fucks up, and you say "you're not boned, but don't do that again", the first incident is not expunged from history. It happened and should be able to be revisited (especially within just 4 months) as it clearly proves repeat behaviour.
If someone grossly fucks up, and you say "you're not boned, but don't do that again", the first incident is not expunged from history. It happened and should be able to be revisited (especially within just 4 months) as it clearly proves repeat behaviour.
T
Train Without a Station
Guest
Gagger that was my exact point in regards to my response to maxdacat.
Granted Patson didn't follow the right procedures, but given Beale likely would have been terminated on the spot, did she really have a choice if she thought he deserved a second chance?
Granted Patson didn't follow the right procedures, but given Beale likely would have been terminated on the spot, did she really have a choice if she thought he deserved a second chance?
Even if the motive of keeping the text messages secret in June was entirely altruistic, we're seeing very starkly how doing someone a favour is not necessarily for the best.
If this situation had come to light in June, Beale would have almost certainly been fired and everyone else would have moved on.
As it's coming to light now, the fallout is far worse. The person who did Beale the favour, Patston has lost her job and McKenzie is under huge pressure in terms of what he knew about the situation and how he handled it and Pulver is copping it for being asleep at the wheel.
If this situation had come to light in June, Beale would have almost certainly been fired and everyone else would have moved on.
As it's coming to light now, the fallout is far worse. The person who did Beale the favour, Patston has lost her job and McKenzie is under huge pressure in terms of what he knew about the situation and how he handled it and Pulver is copping it for being asleep at the wheel.
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
So how do you feel about suspended sentences then?
Because what Patston did basically amounts to a suspended sentence.
- Status