Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

One great brand after the next

The right to post on YouTube: Is what you do outside work your own business?

balmainboy 5 March 2009 66

With the dazzling Sydney Mardi Gras parade exploding in colour and pageantry along Oxford Street again this Saturday night, I have heard a disturbing report from my partner’s friend in Canberra.

Apparently an employee who enjoyed shedding his clothes in his spare time and putting the footage up on YouTube for others to enjoy was told to remove the video clip by management.

This is truly outrageous and a gross violation of gay rights.  What he does in his spare time is surely his own business, as long as it does not impinge upon his work.

To the disappointment of more than a thousand people, he complied and the footage was taken down.  Fortunately, an overseas supporter had kept a copy and put it back up, and you can clearly see that it is hardly offensive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PqnicgX510

At a time when Mardi Gras allows us to express ourselves without fear or inhibition, and be proud of what we are, why do we still have to be subjected to draconian measures like these?

Be part of the new Mardi Gras: Our freedom, Your freedom.

Saturday 7 March 2009, 7:45pm, Hyde Park, Sydney

See: http://www.mardigras.org.au

[ED – Readers are warned that the subject here is not their views on homosexuality, but whether an employer should have this level of control over the private lives of their employees]

Tags

What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
66 Responses to The right to post on YouTube: Is what you do outside work your own business?
Filter
Order
jakez jakez 10:48 am 06 Mar 09

Ozpuck said :

jakez said :

That implies that someone has a right to lie. Don’t sign a contract if you don’t mean it.

It’s not just, don’t sign it if you don’t mean it; it’s don’t sign it without reading and understanding it. Just because you think you have a right doesn’t mean you actually do, you may have given it away.

That is exactly what I am saying. What you have just said is not in accord with the last paraagraph of your previous post.

Ozpuck Ozpuck 10:01 am 06 Mar 09

jakez said :

That implies that someone has a right to lie. Don’t sign a contract if you don’t mean it.

It’s not just, don’t sign it if you don’t mean it; it’s don’t sign it without reading and understanding it. Just because you think you have a right doesn’t mean you actually do, you may have given it away.

jakez jakez 9:39 am 06 Mar 09

Ozpuck said :

For most people, their time off work is purely private time. However, many employment contracts and/or workplace codes of conduct require employees to reflect the brand/image/values of their company outside working hours. This means if you do something outrageous, have a visual/audio record, post it on You-Tube or Facebook and people know who you work for, your employer may have a right under your own contract to ask you to take it down.

People’s rights are more wished for than actual. That’s the sad reality.

That implies that someone has a right to lie. Don’t sign a contract if you don’t mean it.

Ozpuck Ozpuck 9:30 am 06 Mar 09

For most people, their time off work is purely private time. However, many employment contracts and/or workplace codes of conduct require employees to reflect the brand/image/values of their company outside working hours. This means if you do something outrageous, have a visual/audio record, post it on You-Tube or Facebook and people know who you work for, your employer may have a right under your own contract to ask you to take it down.

People’s rights are more wished for than actual. That’s the sad reality.

monomania monomania 12:35 am 06 Mar 09

What 2CA and the Raiders have in common is that money to run their businesses comes from outside sources. Right or wrong, players and radio announcers not only need to meet the expectations of their organizations and supporters but also their sponsors. Who knows were the pressure came from on this occasion. Lets face it, it is hardly a gross infringement of the man’s civil rights.

imhotep imhotep 10:43 pm 05 Mar 09

Apologies, for Boomcat read ‘Smoothcat’.

imhotep imhotep 10:36 pm 05 Mar 09

This post reminded me of a few other unusual posts on this topic. A quick trawl of the archives reveals this:

An odd post from ‘Boomcat’ about 2CA coming out of the closet. http://the-riotact.com/?p=8726

And another strange one from ‘The Professsor’ railing about an announcer referring to his ‘girlfriend’ on air. The ‘Professor’, in high dudgeon, seemed awfully miffed by this. http://the-riotact.com/?p=10754

I get the feeling there is more to this story than gay rights. (Also, must learn to hotlink)

Thumper Thumper 10:08 pm 05 Mar 09

Viral marketing.

2CA is still crap.

PsydFX PsydFX 9:59 pm 05 Mar 09

I heard a story recently regarding a government department forcing a group of employees to disband a Facebook group as the Facebook group identified the name of the department. This was deemed by most to be acceptable, as parts of peoples profiles were not in keeping with the values of the department, and due to the nature of the department would have brought the department into disrepute.

How is this different? There is a video clearly identifying the workplace, and
portrays adult themes that may not be in keeping with the image that 2CA is trying to
portray.

Not everything has to be made into some kind of rights abuse, sometimes common sense should prevail.

boomacat boomacat 8:52 pm 05 Mar 09

If you aint breakin the law, it’s none of your employers business. Tell them to get F*CKED. They pay you a salary in exchange for services rendered, that’s it. It’s a simple arms length economic relationship. Quit and find a better employer I say.

Grail Grail 3:17 pm 05 Mar 09

IMHO, the employer’s image has been tarnished by this action – unless they already had the image of being stuck up prudes who can’t resist sticking their fingers in everyone else’s business.

chewy14 chewy14 3:02 pm 05 Mar 09

my point is that different company’s can have apply different levels, as to what is acceptable in public by their employees.
So that if a:
Archbishop did this- booted out of the church immediately.
Primary School teacher did this- parents would be outraged, teacher probably sacked.
This Case- presenter asked to remove the footage.
Todd Carney did this- High Fives all around at the Raiders.

And Jakez,
I have decided to retroactively boycott 2CA for the last 20 years.

A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster A Noisy Noise Annoys An Oyster 3:02 pm 05 Mar 09

Is this another attempt at viral marketing by 2CA? Remember they allegedly used this site last year with a post claiming to be “the gay station”. This latest post seems to go against that original post. And a few days out from Mardi Gras, as well. All too convenient, isn’t it?

jakez jakez 2:48 pm 05 Mar 09

I think the difference here chewy is that while I personally don’t believe there should be such laws against discrimination in this context (public stripping etc), most others do. As such while I say they have the right but it is wrong, most would say it is wrong so they do not have the right.

In the context of believing in anti-discrimination laws, the difference is that people don’t accept discrimination on the basis of gender, sexuality, or race. Battery by urination is an entirely different matter.

I of course also draw this distinction, however if I did not I would still apply the same remedy (boycotting and ostracism).

Jim Jones Jim Jones 2:34 pm 05 Mar 09

“What I am saying is that an employer gets to decide what is acceptable behaviour for an employee that is in the public eye and representing the employer’s brand.”

Yes, but in this case, the corollary of your argument is that it’s okay for an employer to act as if stripping was morally equivalent to pissing on someone.

The employer needs to abide by reasonable standards of acceptable (private) behaviour rather than acting in order to ‘head off any (in this case, probably homophobic) criticism at the pass’.

Regardless, 2CA is sh1t.

chewy14 chewy14 2:07 pm 05 Mar 09

Jim Jones said :

chewy14 said :

Who Cares.

There is no difference. It’s the employer’s image that is important.
Saying that people strip at the mardi-gras and it’s part of the event is a cop out.
What if Todd Carney just stripped, would that be OK?
I don’t remember Todd Carney being charged with assault either.

You think pissing on someone is morally equivalent to stripping?

No Jim,

What I am saying is that an employer gets to decide what is acceptable behaviour for an employee that is in the public eye and representing the employer’s brand. For a recognisable public figure this can be while at work or not at work. I am not comparing the morality of the two, of course Todd Carney’s was worse.

jakez jakez 1:49 pm 05 Mar 09

chewy14 said :

Jakez,
im not listening to 2CA right now as type in protest.

Excellent, you should email them and let them know.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 1:47 pm 05 Mar 09

chewy14 said :

Who Cares.

There is no difference. It’s the employer’s image that is important.
Saying that people strip at the mardi-gras and it’s part of the event is a cop out.
What if Todd Carney just stripped, would that be OK?
I don’t remember Todd Carney being charged with assault either.

You think pissing on someone is morally equivalent to stripping?

chewy14 chewy14 1:45 pm 05 Mar 09

Jakez,
im not listening to 2CA right now as type in protest.

jakez jakez 1:35 pm 05 Mar 09

chewy14 said :

Yes,
but it is the employer who gets to specify what they consider acceptable behaviour for a public figure representing their brand.
Some company’s would accept his behaviour, others wouldn’t but it is up to them.

That’s right, and I’m going to use my power of protest and ostracism to punish them for their decision.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site