Hi Whitemouse,
I don't disagree with you, but I have a fairly decent BS detector.
Not saying I'm smarter than anyone else, but I probably have a better understanding of the way the great game is actually played rather than take things on their face value, and I was already somewhat attuned to it way-back-when in The war in Syria before either of these conflicts started.

Just as often than not it's video not just images.
Often the mis-labelled images get quickly caught out and there are community notes, and I'm not going to share something I'm not certain of or that I think may make me look foolish later, I'm no guru by any means but I didn't come down in the last shower either.

Hi NathanJ

Yes, there are many instances of employers treating employees badly. At least two of the examples you cite are illegal – and rightly so. There are laws to protect employees from bad employers, and there are laws to protect employing organisations and professional associations from harmful activity by employees/members.

I agree employees should be entitled to fair process. The rules they are expected to comply with should be clear, and the issues on which their freedom of speech is constrained should be material and directly related to the operation and/or objectives of the organisation they work for or the code of conduct of their profession. That is pretty much what the law requires. I have no problem with nurses complaining about exploitation of garment workers. I do have a problem with them threatening to murder patients.

Also, many organisations prohibit staff from wearing uniforms when participating in political activity. Former SAS soldier and Liberal MP Andrew Hastie was sacked from the army reserve for using a photo of himself in army uniform in his election campaign material.

I don't know how good or bad things are right now, but I remember a few years back and it seemed like employees private lives and what they post on facebook was in many ways scrutinised by their employers.

I disagree with this.
If you are just a regular employee, then the only thing an employer owns is your time, in return you have a duty to do your work to the level that is expected.

Your may be employed BY them, but you don't essentially work FOR them.
You're going to work FOR YOU, to improve YOUR own lot and take care of YOUR own family. You wouldn't show up for work if you weren't getting paid. You go there for the money you get to use in YOUR OWN life.

What you think, do or say is none of their business.
The only requirement is that you do your set employment related tasks in an expected manner.

So if you work for a vegetarian restaurant on minimum wage and want to post selfies of yourself at some event where everyone including yourself is chowing down on a pig on the spit, (a potential conflict) it's none of their business and they have no right to even bring the topic up with you, if they do, then they are discriminating against you just for raising the issue with you..

Dear Critic,

«So if you work for a vegetarian restaurant on minimum wage and want to post selfies of yourself at some event where everyone including yourself is chowing down on a pig on the spit»

What you post is not the issue, but the fact that you bring in, inside your stomach, partially-undigested pig into the vegetarian restaurant which claims to be meat-free.

The bottom line, people should be able to forge any contract between them and include whatever conditions and caveats they agree on within this contract. The detail that the conditions of this contract happen to include some form of what government considers "employment" should not change this basic fact.

This thread, however, deals with public/government employees, so that's a very different ball-game.

"This thread, however, deals with public/government employees, so that's a very different ball-game."
- Yeah that's fair, but I was just speaking generally about employee / employee relationships.

"What you post is not the issue, but the fact that you bring in, inside your stomach, partially-undigested pig into the vegetarian restaurant which claims to be meat-free."
- It's not about what the staff eat at home or elsewhere, it's about what they serve the restaurants customers.

The employer is merely buying their time in which the employee completes his or her task, whether that's the cook, the dishy, the waiter or waitresses or the person behind the bar. (if licensed)

I could be a tyrannical employer that sets a contract mposing 10 lashes for every 1 minute late, but that doesn't mean the contract is fair, legal or ethical, my contract would be illegal because it includes a right to assault the staff member and your contract would discriminate against meat eaters.

Australian defence force officer stripped of security clearance over loyalty to Israel
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/feb/24/australian-defence-force-officer-stripped-of-security-clearance-over-loyalty-to-israel-ntwnfb

>>The man told Asio interviewers he did not view Israel as a foreign government and that he would share classified information with the Israel Defense Forces if they asked for it.

He also stated “Zionism is an essential theme within Judaism. Judaism mandates the loyalty of a Jew to his people and to the Land of Israel.”

“Allowing Jews to serve within the ADF must come with an understanding that the Jew will have a level of loyalty for the Jewish Nation and for [the] State of Israel.”

He said if the ADF preferred not to enlist or commission Jews, “it would then be argued that this policy may be discriminatory to the Jewish People”.<<

What if a member of Hamas applied for a job with the IDF?
After being denied he claims discrimination?

How can Australia employ people in our armed forces if they're openly loyal to a foreign nation?

Should we discriminate for disloyalty?

What if the cook gets on social media and says that he will spit on certain peoples food?
Answer = He gets fired because he brings the restaurant into disrepute.

Same story for the nurses.
They have a duty of care to all the hospitals 'customers'.
Take note that in regards to NathanJ's original discussion, I'm on the side of the Jews.