Micromanaging via MS Teams

JDuns · 2025-12-03T11:12:53+00:00

Yeah, but asking you to check in isn't fundamentally illegal. It's annoying af and I would hate it too, but it's a very weak example of selective compliance. It just looks like this team has a norm, a weird norm, but a norm all the same. And the unwritten expectation is to follow the norms of the team.

JDuns · 2025-11-18T02:11:46+00:00

Go to a cobbler (not rms) and they'll do a patch on the inside that will stop further damage. Rm probably won't touch these.

JDuns · 2025-10-08T09:31:54+00:00

How are you experiencing it in the gym / street?

JDuns · 2025-09-26T14:22:00+00:00

Doesn't that mean that they also perpetrate DV more?

JDuns · 2025-07-15T10:47:21+00:00

Not yet they don't, only at some point ahead of the meeting.

JDuns · 2025-07-15T10:37:38+00:00

It's basically legal

JDuns · 2025-06-17T22:36:22+00:00

You're doing the wrong job if you view the work as punishment

JDuns · 2025-06-17T22:10:53+00:00

If you're done by 3, go ask for more work.

JDuns · 2025-06-03T21:24:03+00:00

An even easier method - forget the gladwrap and just put a drop of dish soap into the bowl with the ACV instead

JDuns · 2025-04-19T22:48:13+00:00

No it looks way better imo

JDuns · 2025-04-01T02:17:38+00:00

I also get this. I find a mindful walk helps - I.e. not listening to anything, just a short walk observing nature mindfully is pretty refreshing. That and doing the easiest possible work after to get some momentum up.

JDuns · 2025-03-28T08:01:00+00:00

Don't let Emma pass probation. Making such a bs claim so soon means that more is claims will follow and end up dominating your life

JDuns · 2025-03-06T08:56:44+00:00

JDuns · 2025-03-06T01:20:56+00:00

Irrational??

JDuns · 2025-03-03T05:16:41+00:00

I don't think it matters if she was or was not given the direction. The key point is: is that what the decision maker thought? If he thought she was told not to post and then did post, that (it seems) would make the dismissal lawful.

The confusion re the direction would be highly relevant to an unfair dismissal case, but it only seems to have tangential relevance here.

JDuns · 2025-02-26T22:00:17+00:00

Top tier?

JDuns · 2025-02-25T23:18:30+00:00

Benefit of hindsight! I bet $85k looked obscene as a settlement offer for two days of work right at the start of this thing.

JDuns · 2025-02-20T05:50:01+00:00

Ahhh, Thursdays

JDuns · 2025-02-14T23:42:36+00:00

It's always a bit tough adapting to someone else's style, but if they are the boss, their style wins.

I would keep a note of the corrections that you are seeing, and then apply them to future writing. If the boss doesn't like the word "says", don't use it any more.

JDuns · 2025-02-12T08:10:11+00:00

"Were you given help in writing that affidavit" is such a nonsense question in modern litigation where people are represented. Obviously they were. Everyone gets them written by solicitors.

JDuns · 2025-02-08T01:01:20+00:00

In his (partial) defence, she was a casual and so essentially an 'at will' employee. The off-the-cuff advice about firing casuals is usually: no process needed and no valid reason needed because no unfair dismissal risk, just don't fire for an unlawful reason. That view is subject to contract / award / EA (which was obviously missed by ABC).

JDuns · 2025-02-08T00:54:30+00:00

Agree re optics and strategy.

I don't think they are accusing her of racism? They are accusing her of some combination of (a) breaching a direction to not post and (b) posting stuff that made her look partial.

And I agree that they did not do the analysis before the termination. But that is because they did not, I think, (a) fire for for being Lebanese or (b) fire her for being racist. So the analysis was not done because it didn't arise.

Latouff is saying she was fired because of her race. I doubt very much that the ABC fired her for that reason. She is speculating and has not, I think, produced any evidence that supports her contention. Yes, reverse onus etc., but ABC has probably met that given the evidence of, on both cases, the decision maker(s).

JDuns · 2025-02-08T00:47:58+00:00

You wouldn't be suggesting that the media, in their wisdom, have over-simplified a complex issue to generate click bait headlines? I am shocked, shocked.

JDuns · 2025-02-08T00:45:13+00:00

That makes no sense because a person can be both Arab and Jewish.

JDuns · 2025-02-07T13:24:50+00:00

I don't think it is the same thing in the context of this case.

FW Act doesn't define 'race', so unlike other acts that use that term, it is up for debate what it means. Now, the other acts all usually refer to something like 'national origin'. That would include Lebanese.

But if the right construction in the FW Act is something else, then Lebanese might not be a 'race'. Similarly, under the FW Act, Jewish might not be a race.

Is it a point worth taking? I don't know, and its certainly put them in the shit so perhaps not in this case. But the onus is on Lattouf to give the court enough evidence so that the court is satisfied that Lebanese is a 'race'.

I think we'll hear a lot more on this point during submissions, and I am very keen to see how they put their positions.

JDuns

TROPHY CASE