Outbursts become rude reminders of Kevin Rudd's past

Published in : The Australian    
Date: August 23, 2013 12:00AM

Written by: Rachel Baxendale, Reporter, Melbourne and Sid Maher, National Affairs Editor, Canberra

A RETIRED air vice-marshal has accused Kevin Rudd of "bully standover tactics" and a make-up artist has declared he was rude as she prepared him for the people's forum debate, reviving questions about the Prime Minister's character that emerged in his first stint in the role.

Air Vice-Marshal Peter Criss revealed Mr Rudd had warned him in a private meeting that funding for veterans would be at risk if he "bagged" the Labor government. He accused Mr Rudd of using "classic bully standover tactics" and threatening veterans with getting nothing if they criticised Labor's military superannuation indexation policy.

The air vice-marshal's comments came to light as Brisbane make-up artist Lily Fontana posted a message on Facebook that suggested Mr Rudd had been rude to her in the lead-up to Wednesday night's people's forum in Brisbane.

The revelations blunted Labor's attacks on Tony Abbott's character, after the Opposition Leader snapped during the forum debate, asking of Rudd "does this guy ever shut up?"
Ms Fontana, who lives in Mr Rudd's electorate of Griffith, wrote in her post: "Just finished doing Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott's make-up for the People's Forum at the Broncos Leagues Club. One of them was absolutely lovely, engaged in genuine conversation with me, acknowledge (sic) that I had a job to do and was very appreciative. The other did the exact opposite! Oh boy, I have ever (sic) had anyone treat me so badly whilst trying to do my job. Political opinion aside ... from one human being to another ... Mr Abbott you win hands down."

The post echoed claims that Mr Rudd had been rude to air force staff during his first term as prime minister. In the lead up to his failed February 2012 leadership challenge against Julia Gillard, an expletive-laden video was leaked of him losing his cool as he prepared a Chinese-language video.

As news of yesterday's Facebook post spread, prompting a string of government ministers to have to defend Mr Rudd's character, the Prime Minister's office was confronted with fallout from Air Vice-Marshal Criss's revelations in an interview on Brisbane radio on Wednesday.

The retired airman alleged that at a meeting in the Prime Minister's office on July 11, attended by Mr Rudd, Defence Force Welfare Association national president David Jamison, DFWA executive director Alf Jaugietis and Defence Materiel Minister Mike Kelly, Mr Rudd warned the DFWA against bagging the Labor government.

"I told him I was going to have to point out to our members that what Labor is offering is not a good deal," Air Vice-Marshal Criss said.

"I'm the national media manager, so I told him I would be putting together policy comparisons of what each party is offering. Rudd said, 'That's fine, but don't bag us, because if you bag us, we'll pull up the drawbridge and you'll get nothing'."

Air Vice-Marshal Criss told The Australian yesterday he had been intending to stay quiet about the incident, but chose to speak out after becoming infuriated with what he termed Dr Kelly's "untruths" about military superannuation indexation during an interview with ABC News Breakfast's Michael Rowland on Monday.

On July 30, the government announced it would boost the military pension of more than 26,000 retired Australian Defence personnel by indexing their payments in the same way as aged and service pensions from next July. But the measure only applies to those aged 65 and over, which according to the DFWA leaves more than 200,000 servicemen and ex-servicemen on insufficient payments.

Dr Kelly said the way Air Vice-Marshal Criss had characterised the meeting was "absolutely untrue". "He's basically saying that the Prime Minister was threatening," Dr Kelly said.

"That's completely untrue. He was there to engage and support (the DFWA representatives) and they were very happy that they were there having the meeting.

"The only way he could have construed that was perhaps that we emphasised the importance of acknowledging the changes to the system that had been made by Labor."
A spokesman for the Prime Minister said he did not accept Air Vice-Marshal Criss's characterisation of the meeting.

"The Prime Minister had a productive meeting with members of the Defence Force Welfare Association, including Air Vice-Marshal Peter Criss," the spokesman said.

"The outcome of the meeting was that the Prime Minister agreed to support the next step of the DFWA's proposal for indexation and we look forward to ongoing constructive engagement with the DFWA on this matter."

Ms Fontana's Facebook post yesterday was shared more than 1000 times on the social networking site before Sky News ordered the freelance make-up artist to take it down.
She contacted Mr Rudd's office and offered an apology to the Prime Minister. By mid-morning, Ms Fontana had posted a new, regretful message.

"Didn't think my personal page/opinion of my day would get so much attention," she wrote. "What a lesson to learn. I've removed the post and regret making the comments I did."
Another Brisbane-based make-up artist, Abigael Johnston, who has worked for the Nine Network, had posted on Ms Fontana's wall about a "similar experience" with Mr Rudd, noting John Howard and Peter Costello were "gentlemen". "The other, I could not even face book (sic) how he treated the crew. Just abhorrent!" she wrote.

When contacted, Ms Johnston said: "That post has been taken down. I have no comment."
Employment Relations Minister Bill Shorten defended Mr Rudd's character, saying he believed the Prime Minister had changed. "I have no doubt that not only is Kevin Rudd a more consultative person, but he is the right leader for these times," he said.

Former prime minister Bob Hawke, in Adelaide for a state Labor event, said voters did not care whether Mr Rudd was rude.

"If you're an intelligent voter, what's going to be more important to you: the fact that, under a great deal of pressure, the Prime Minister was just in passing a bit rude to a person, or that he is going to have for you and your kids and your grandchildren, a better education policy, a better health policy a better economic policy?" Mr Hawke said. Asked about the Facebook post, Mr Rudd said he understood "the person concerned has withdrawn their remarks from Facebook, and they regretted making those comments".

"When you are preparing for a debate with two or three minutes to go and someone walks in and puts stuff on your face, you smile, you are in the zone, you're ready to go," the Prime Minister said. "I don't know about you folks, but I'm not happy about having make-up put on at the best of days.

"You smile, then two or three minutes later out on the stage to participate in the debate - I think a misunderstanding has occurred and I have no hard feelings in terms of the comments which this person has now withdrawn."

Mr Abbott fumbled Ms Fontana's name - calling her "Tilly" - but he praised her professionalism and said the pair had an enjoyable conversation prior to the contest.
He played down his "does this guy ever shut up" remark during the people's forum. "Look, one contest that I can never win against Mr Rudd is a talkathon," the Opposition Leader said.

Mr Abbott said Mr Rudd suffered from being "all talk and no action".
Mr Albanese said Mr Abbott's response to Mr Rudd was "aggressive, was angry, and it reminded me of a leader we used to have, Mark Latham".

"I thought his handshake during the first debate was his first Mark Latham moment, and last night we saw his second Mark Latham moment ... People are right to be worried about this bloke, about whether he is up to the job," Mr Albanese said.

Additional reporting: Sarah Elks
Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/outbursts-become-rude-reminders-of-pms-past/story-fn9qr68y-1226702470808

Horror in UK Hospital as Bully Nurses are 'struck off' after worst hospital scandals in living memory!

The bullies who will never nurse patients again: Pair who ruled A&E unit at scandal-hit Stafford hospital 'with fear' and covered up neglect are struck off

• Sharon Turner and Tracy White falsified A&E discharge times
• They wanted to hit target for patients to be dealt with in four hours
• Hearing told some racist staff even forced black patients to wait longer

Sharon Turner, left, and Tracy White, right, falsified Accident and Emergency discharge times to avoid missing a government goal for patients to be dealt with within four hours. A string of allegations was found proved including Turner instructing nurses to ‘lie’ about waiting times in A&E and saying she planned to make another nurse’s life ‘hell and get rid of him in six months’.

Two senior nurses at the centre of one of the worst hospital scandals in living memory have been struck off.
Sharon Turner, 48, and Tracy White, 52, stood accused of ruling the A&E unit at Mid Staffordshire ‘with fear’ by bullying other nurses into covering-up the appalling neglect of patients.
They are the first two nurses from the trust to be struck off. Up to 1,200 patients are feared to have died there unnecessarily between 2005 and 2009.

 

 

Disciplined: Tracy White, left, and Sharon Turner, right, faked patient records to meet targets at scandal-hit Stafford Hospital. Today, they were struck off 

This year a damning report into the scandal concluded that ‘appalling and unnecessary suffering’ was inflicted on hundreds of patients who were left ‘unwashed, unfed and without fluids’.
But until now, not a single doctor or nurse had been struck off or even lost their job over the failings, to the dismay of grieving families.

More...

• Whitehall's straight talk: Civil servants told to stop using jargon that confuses people about what the Government are doing

Yesterday the Nursing and Midwifery Council banned the two nurses from ever practising again for undermining the public’s faith in the profession.
The panel ruled they had conspired to fiddle the figures on waiting times ‘with sheer dishonesty’ and had ‘coerced and frightened’ other more junior nurses to do the same.

Horrific: Up to 1,200 people died unnecessarily at the 'horror hospital' as managers put benchmarks above patient care

Mrs Turner, who lives in Cannock, Staffordshire, admitted to the three-strong panel she had once said she ‘did not give a flying f***’ about one of her patients.
When told by other staff that a patient had requested something, she said: ‘They want to get f****** real’, the panel heard.
Mrs Turner, who qualified as a nurse in 1993, also allegedly branded Asian junior doctors ‘suicide bombers’ and ‘Osama’s mate’, in a reference to the late Al Qaeda leader.
The former ward sister, who worked in the A&E department between 2003 and 2009, also vowed to make one male nurse’s life ‘living hell’ leading him to take an overdose – which he survived.
Mrs White, who has been a registered nurse since 1992, bullied staff into lying about the length of times patients waited in A&E to meet the Government’s maximum four-hour target.
Astonishingly she is still working at the hospital and since leaving the A&E unit in 2009 had been promoted to one of the most senior management positions.
She is currently clinical site manager – in charge of allocating patients to beds – on a salary of up to £47,000, about £10,000 more than her previous nursing role.

Whistleblower: Helene Donnelly said Sister Turner - along with Sister White - would demand junior nurses falsify the times recorded for when patients were discharged

Whistleblowing nurse Helene Donnelly revealed Sister Turner – along  with Sister White – would demand junior nurses falsify the times recorded for when patients were discharged. She recalled: ‘They would frequently lie about discharge times, and pressurise members of staff to lie. They would speak nastily and swear at people who did not change the times, or would change the times themselves.
‘The drive for targets was obviously a huge thing at the time. We were told that jobs might be on the line if we didn’t do it.’
Stephen Redmond, who chaired the hearing at the Old Bailey, told the two nurses that they had failed to put patients and their care first.
‘Instead you made the achieving of statistical targets, by honest or dishonest means, your primary aim. This was not a one-off failing, rather it was at the heart of the way you worked over a sustained period.’
He said they had resorted to ‘sheer dishonesty’ by altering paperwork and said they had ‘coerced and frightened other, often junior, members of staff into doing the same. You shouted and swore at them if they did not comply when you should have been setting an example.’
Julie Bailey, who helped expose the appalling neglect at Mid Staffordshire following the death of her mother in 2007, said: ‘This is the start of accountability in the NHS. We’re all very pleased at the outcomes. But there is clear evidence these nurses should have been suspended long ago by the trust.’
She also said it was ‘frightening’ that despite being struck off, the pair could still work in hospitals as healthcare assistants.
The cases began in March but had been repeatedly adjourned and had only begun considering evidence against the pair this week.
Another five nurses from Mid Staffordshire are having their cases considered by the NMC including the former chief nurse, Jan Harry.
Maggie Oldham, chief executive at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, said: ‘Tracy White is still employed by the trust. We will need to take some time to consider the Nursing and Midwifery Council panel’s findings.’
The trust said Mrs Turner had stopped working for it in 2009.

SHE MADE THOSE IN PAIN WAIT

Among the most repellent examples of the behaviour of Tracy White was her lack of care and respect for an elderly woman in her final 24 hours.
She reprimanded the seriously ill patient by calling her a ‘naughty little monkey’ for not taking her laxatives, and refused to help lift her from a wheelchair to a bed, saying: ‘I’m not doing this. I’m not hurting my back.’
Whistleblowing nurse Helene Donnelly said the woman, who died the next day from a pulmonary oedema, or fluid on the lungs, had been given ‘a very uncared-for and undignified last 24 hours’. Another patient, who arrived at A&E suffering from bleeding after having an abortion, was refused immediate treatment by Sister White, who said: ‘She can wait, if you can do that to your baby.’
The whistleblower also claimed: ‘Sister White would deliberately make patients wait. Black patients were being made to wait.’
When junior nurse Mrs Donnelly was scathingly told off by another manager for faking a discharge time, she said she looked at the paperwork and recognised White’s handwriting.
But the senior nurse did not come forward to admit the forgery and was later promoted to her current role as clinical site manager.

FIGURE OF FEAR FOR HER STAFF

On the wards, Sharon Turner sent waves of fear through junior staff afraid to challenge her expletive-ridden diktats.
When one bullied male nurse took an overdose in despair, she said he ‘should have taken a few more and done the job properly’.
The Nursing and Midwifery Council was told Sister Turner had vowed to ‘make his life hell and get rid of him in six months’ and ‘drive him to drink’ so that ‘he would be out of here’.
When a colleague was taken to hospital with  a head injury, the mother of two is said to have told staff: ‘I don’t care if she lives or dies.’
Asian junior doctors had to put up with appalling racist abuse from the senior nurse.
She asked one, ‘What have you got in your rucksack doctor, is it a bomb?’ and referred to others as ‘him in the turban’ and ‘her with the yashmak [veil]’.

source

NEWS - USA, Vance v Ball State University, US supreme court has ruled that job harassment only counts if it's from a 'supervisor'!

The real supreme court stunner: sometimes workplace harassment is OK

In Vance v Ball State University, the US supreme court has ruled that job harassment only counts if it's from a 'supervisor'

The US supreme court. Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP

 

Every June a few US supreme court cases get a reputation for being blockbusters, and this year has been no different. We're still awaiting decisions on cases concerning gay marriage and the Voting Rights Act. But the blockbusters can obscure smaller cases with profound effects. On Monday, the court quietly delivered a destructive, toxic decision on workplace harassment that is as significant as anything else this year.
Vance v Ball State University, which concerned the interpretation of a section of the Civil Rights Act, shouldn't have even reached America's highest court – but it did, and the court's right wing grabbed ahold and used it to further gut workplace protections.
The petitioner was Maetta Vance, the only African-American woman working in the catering department of Ball State University in Indiana. Her supervisor, a white woman, appears to have made her work life a living hell. The supervisor assigned her to perform menial tasks, such as slicing vegetables, even though Vance had worked at the caterer for years and frequently prepared formal dinners for the university. According to Vance, she faced not only frequent racial harassment, including references to the Ku Klux Klan, but sometimes physical threats as well. On one occasion, at least, the supervisor allegedly slapped her.
Vance sued the university for permitting a hostile work environment, but there was a catch: although the harasser controlled Vance's day-to-day responsibilities at the catering department, she didn't have the power to demote or fire her.
For Sam Alito, writing for the five members of court's conservative bloc, that distinction meant that Vance had no case. Ball State can't be held liable, since the harasser wasn't really a "supervisor", only a "coworker". An employer can only be held responsible for a harasser's actions, the court ruled, if it has empowered the harasser "to take tangible employment actions against the victim" – such as demotion, a change in benefits, reassignment, or dismissal. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency responsible for investigating discrimination complaints, had long espoused a more realistic understanding of how workplaces are organized, but Alito had no time anything so "nebulous".
Until Monday, the court had accepted that someone who directs an employee's daily activities is a supervisor. No more. Now, according to the court, unless your harassers have the explicit, formal power to hire and fire you, then they don't count as a supervisor – and therefore you can't bring a suit against your employer. But as Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained in an understandably exasperated dissent, joined by the other liberal justices, such an extremely narrow definition fails to account for the realities of the workplace:

"Supervisors, like the workplaces they manage, come in all shapes and sizes. Whether a pitching coach supervises his pitchers (can he demote them?), or an artistic director supervises her opera star (can she impose significantly different responsibilities?), or a law firm associate supervises the firm's paralegals (can she fire them?) are matters not susceptible to mechanical rules and on-off switches. One cannot know whether an employer has vested supervisory authority in an employee, and whether harassment is aided by that authority, without looking to the particular working relationship between the harasser and the victim."

Justice Ginsburg goes on to detail all sorts of recent harassment cases,– including one concerning a female truck driver bullied into having sex with her male colleagues, that will no longer qualify for judicial remedy under the court's new principle. The result, she concludes, is that the terrain for harassment cases "has shifted in a decidedly employer-friendly direction. This realignment will leave many harassment victims without an effective remedy and undermine Title VII's" – that is, the relevant section of the Civil Rights Act – "capacity to prevent workplace harassment".
In one way, the decision in Vance shouldn't surprise us too much. A comprehensive study published earlier this year by the Minnesota Law Review concluded that the Roberts court is the most pro-business bench since World War II. In the last three years alone the court has limited companies' exposure to class-action lawsuits, diminished corporations' responsibility for environmental damages and human rights abuses, and (most notoriously) allowed corporations to spend as much as they want in political campaigns.
Yet even by the pro-business standards of our conservative high court, Vance is a breathtakingly cruel decision – one that leaves many victims of harassment and discrimination without any legal recourse. By narrowing the definition of who counts as a supervisor, the court has let businesses and corporations off the hook for all sorts of abuses, siding once again with the powerful at the expense of the powerless.
And it means that women like Maetta Vance, who live and work in fear, will have nowhere to turn.
source

COMMENTS

• 

  Zakida

  24 June 2013 7:00pm

  Recommend

  48

  I don't even have a comment for that ruling. It has rendered me speechless.
  

  
  • HansBader Zakida

    25 June 2013 3:45pm

    Recommend

    6

    Maybe you are speechless, because -- like the author of the above article -- you did not even read the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling.
    This article's basic premise is false, as legal commentator Walter Olson has noted elsewhere, criticizing this very article. U.S. employees can indeed sue over co-worker or peer harassment even after this decision, as any knowledgeable American employment lawyer would tell you.
    Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, employers ARE liable for negligence towards even co-worker peer sexual harassment, under the Supreme Court's past decision in the Faragher v. City of Boca Raton case. But the employee needs to prove such negligence when the harassment is by a co-worker. By contrast, when the harassment is by a supervisor, the employer is presumed liable unless the employer meets the burden of proving a two-part defense, one of which is that the employer is not negligent. Thus, it is a little easier to win when the harasser is categorized as a supervisor.
    Every federal appeals court -- including the courts cited with approval by Justice Alito's majority opinion in this case -- has said that employees can sue over co-worker harassment, if they show that the employer was negligent in responding to that harassment, or caused that harassment to occur through its carelessness.
  • 

    HapDiam HansBader

    25 June 2013 11:05pm

    Recommend

    1

    Very disappointing quality in too many articles here. This one shows complete misunderstanding, or else accuracy was not a concern.
    
• 

  martin1000

  24 June 2013 7:03pm

  Recommend

  45

  So the university/employer has no incentive to discipline any of its workers for misbehavior (including violence), unless the perpetrator can fire the person they are abusing? I wish I could say this is an unbelievable decision from the Court, but I cannot.
  

  
  • alfredel martin1000

    25 June 2013 3:45pm

    Recommend

    1

    No, actually. Alito explicitly said that employers can be held responsible when they are negligent in correcting the harassment. This article leaves out that bit. Whether the harasser is the victim's supervisor makes a difference in determining negligence, but either way, it is still possible for them to be negligent.
    
• 

  Guswfla1

  24 June 2013 7:19pm

  Recommend

  4

  The Supreme Court only counts because people are too stupid to ignore it. It has no enforcement powers, people!
  
  • 

    davidabsalom Guswfla1

    24 June 2013 7:27pm

    Recommend

    30

    Surely the point is that if you take a similar case to court it will be thrown out immediately. The Supreme Court doesn't need to enforce this, it's the lower courts that do.
    
  • 

    Zakida Guswfla1

    24 June 2013 7:28pm

    Recommend

    30

    What this does is create a precedent. The next time a similar case comes to the justice system, it will be found in favour of the business.
    
  
  DeleteThisPost Guswfla1
  25 June 2013 7:11am
  Recommend
  1
  @Guswfla1 24 June 2013 7:19pm.
  
  The Supreme Court only counts because people are too stupid to ignore it. It has no enforcement powers, people!
  
  You sound like Andrew Jackson.
  OR
  
  The Supreme Court only counts because people are too stupid to ignore it. It has no enforcement powers, people!
  
  The same could be said of Congress.
  
• 

  Nicetime

  24 June 2013 7:21pm

  Recommend

  12

  it means that women like Maetta Vance, who live and work in fear, will have nowhere to turn.
  

  Apart from another job. I fell foul of a boss a few years back at a time when I had a weight problem. I was moved off a shift role I enjoyed into a non-job thus losing my 25% shift allowance, bellowed at from across the office and had everything I did put under a microscope. The union were, of course, useless. I fought back in various ways, but to cut a long story short, eventually took a redundancy package and another job. These things are always going to be one persons word against another, they clog up the courts, are a payday only for lawyers and most importantly, put good people and businesses in fear of malicious action . Most people behave decently and if your boss is a c---, move on
  
  • 

    Spartacus Maori Nicetime

    24 June 2013 8:15pm

    Recommend

    37

    All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.
    
  • 

    sevenpin Nicetime

    24 June 2013 8:31pm

    Recommend

    29

    @Nicetime 24 June 2013 7:21pm. Get cifFix for Chrome.
    Not everyone has the possibility of getting another job that easily. More to the point, if someone can get away with making someone's worklife a misery, they should be held accountable for it. Clearly the supreme court is not accountable for their stupidity. Damn shame, they should be. There should be punitive damages awarded from their own pockets for their incompetence. We would soon see a little more brain being used when making decisions.
    Incompetent Supreme Court Judges, the people should have the redress to fire them. What use are the current supreme court judges?
    
  
  KeepItInContext Nicetime
  24 June 2013 8:33pm
  Recommend
  22
  We are talking here about a black woman in a country that has no jobs. Move on? Easy enough for a white guy to say. Actually not, given the economic situation. You should remove the rose-colored glasses once in a while. Empathy is a positive character trait, but some clarity is required to develop it.
  And what are the courts for, if not serving the cause of justice?
  
• 

  A Man Called Da-da

  24 June 2013 7:31pm

  Recommend

  15

  The Supreme Court becomes yet another U.S. Government oxymoron. All branches of government have now failed, and need be replaced.
  
• 

  onlyanorthernsong

  24 June 2013 7:38pm

  Recommend

  13

  A Supremely stupid ruling.
  
• 
  LakerFan

  24 June 2013 7:42pm

  Recommend

  8

  Yet even by the pro-business standards of our conservative high court, Vance is a breathtakingly cruel decision – one that leaves many victims of harassment and discrimination without any legal recourse. By narrowing the definition of who counts as a supervisor, the court has let businesses and corporations off the hook for all sorts of abuses, siding once again with the powerful at the expense of the powerless.
  And it means that women like Maetta Vance, who live and work in fear, will have nowhere to turn.
  

  Well, IMO, they're just re-booting The Sixties and challenging the people to undertake another great cultural revolution. The real problem, IMO, is that decent people decide to live in awful and repressive places like Indiana. It's obviously a more hostile and backward place than Somalia.
  
  • 

    AVoiceFromAmerica LakerFan

    24 June 2013 8:54pm

    Recommend

    1

    The real problem, IMO, is that decent people decide to live in awful and repressive places like Indiana.
    

    Indeed.
    There is a place in California for all who have had enough of Indiana.
    
  • 

    Nicetime LakerFan

    24 June 2013 9:03pm

    Recommend

    3

    The real problem, IMO, is that decent people decide to live in awful and repressive places like Indiana. It's obviously a more hostile and backward place than Somalia.
    

    That's the most sensible thing you've ever said
    
  
  Phillyguy AVoiceFromAmerica
  24 June 2013 10:02pm
  Recommend
  1
  Yes- because California is well run- their pension system is such a timebomb even Jack Bauer would throw in the towel.
  
• 

  Insirgentz

  24 June 2013 7:53pm

  Recommend

  15

  "A comprehensive study published earlier this year by the Minnesota Law Review concluded that the Roberts court is the most pro-business bench since World War II. In the last three years alone the court has limited companies' exposure to class-action lawsuits, diminished corporations' responsibility for environmental damages and human rights abuses, and (most notoriously) allowed corporations to spend as much as they want in political campaigns."
  The secret banking cartel [FR], corporations and the Military Industrial Complex run the show.....and the have the SC to approve it.
  Dark days ahead.
  
• 

  ibneadam

  24 June 2013 8:02pm

  Recommend

  19

  "Until Monday, the court had accepted that someone who directs an employee's daily activities is a supervisor. No more. Now, according to the court, unless your harassers have the explicit, formal power to hire and fire you, then they don't count as a supervisor – and therefore you can't bring a suit against your employer."
  Judge Alito, probably will have a different opinion if Vance was white, and her supervisor an african-american.
  It is called turning back the clock, and taking country "back to the past." to the time of plantation, and granting license to harass.
  
  • 

    alansugarswindscreen ibneadam

    24 June 2013 8:37pm

    Recommend

    4

    Scalia is a lot of things. But I don't think you could count racist as one of them.
    
  • 

    Pucifer alansugarswindscreen

    24 June 2013 8:52pm

    Recommend

    17

    Oh dat Scalia shore does luv him sum black folk!
    Almos' as much as he luv dem homesectionals.
    Seriously, would you like to buy a clue?
    
  • 

    vastariner ibneadam

    25 June 2013 8:25am

    Recommend

    0

    It is called turning back the clock, and taking country "back to the past." to the time of plantation, and granting license to harass.
    

    
    You're not far out, the fellow servant rule was used in the English court to stop workplace lawsuits. But it was abolished a hundred years ago.
• 

  Impishparrot

  24 June 2013 8:05pm

  Recommend

  8

  Well, the court leaves no alternative action to justice but for the harrassed to wait for the bee-acht "non-supervisor" in the parking lot, and beat the ever-living crap out of her. Go Supremes!
  
  • 

    LakerFan Impishparrot

    24 June 2013 8:16pm

    Recommend

    7

    LOL. Perhaps this is what SCOTUS wants. Like The Sixties, they want people to be angry and powerless. After all, nothing really changed in The Sixties until people started burning the cities; then social climates changed real fast. Here in Los Angeles, it took five straight days of city-burning to mostly fix LAPD. There is a long-term benefit. Once a city has been burned, the trheat remains to hang over The Establishment.
    
  • 

    KrawuziKapuzi LakerFan

    24 June 2013 11:19pm

    Recommend

    0

    Still a wee little bit sore that you did not get dabs a a real revolution but only a bit play-fighting with much whining about police brutality afterwards. My heart goes out to you.
    And if you honestly think 5 days of riots sorted out LAPD or that it is sorted out in the first place than you are even more dim than I gave you credit for.
    Growing up in Austria and Germany you remind me, and this is really frightening, of the family gathering when my mom and my my aunt were going "shoosh kids, Grand Pa is telling you about the war". Weird...
    
  • 

    LakerFan KrawuziKapuzi

    25 June 2013 5:03pm

    Recommend

    1

    Actually I sort of like anything that makes people very very angry on a hot day, with feelings of powerlessness, in large numbers. Mubarak can tell you about the sort of change that occurs.
    Such SCOTUS decisions take us back to The Sixties and this is actually a good thing. Real social change happened in The Sixties and every opportunity to re-boot that decade is appreciated. America needs something like a major cultural revolution on a very large scale.
• 

  Rob Lowe

  24 June 2013 8:15pm

  Recommend

  23

  It still boggles my mind that it is not illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender, race and especially sexuality across lots of America. The scumbag Republicans consider basic human dignity as a liberal policy.
  

  
  • Phillyguy Rob Lowe

    24 June 2013 10:05pm

    Recommend

    3

    Race- everywhere- gender- almost everywhere I believe-
    Sexuality is tough- I had a girlfriend in the fashion trade in Pennsylvania (yes - they have one- very practical).
    The gay men in the industry are in the closet- yes- they actually fear that their bigoted owners might fire them for it-
    

    
• ZachRowan

  24 June 2013 8:37pm

  Recommend

  15

  I wonder if this decision could backfire. Employees no longer need to obey their supervisors, unless they hold the power to fire them...
  
• 

  SirVicSpoundar

  24 June 2013 8:41pm

  Recommend

  5

  strange world we live in.
  sometimes I do wonder if it is actually 2013
  
  • 

    marshwren SirVicSpoundar

    25 June 2013 12:16am

    Recommend

    7

    A.D. or B.C.? There certainly is an unmistakable odor of Bronze Age chauvinism among 'conservatives' these days.
    
• 

  phillylefty

  24 June 2013 8:54pm

  Recommend

  3

  Hard to believe.
  
• 

  discuz

  24 June 2013 9:44pm

  Recommend

  11

  I'm not surprised. The corporations now have full control of the US. SCOTUS was the last front.
  That means citizens have lost any protection under the law. By denying the people lawful opposition, only illegal means are left. Sooner or later, the silent majority wil rebel, and it won't be pretty.
  
  • 

    DeleteThisPost discuz

    25 June 2013 7:22am

    Recommend

    3

    @discuz 24 June 2013 9:44pm.
    Just what makes you think that the Supreme Court is controlled by corporations? They are appointed for life and so don't need money for a campaign, and they earn a really good salary, so I doubt many of them are hurting for cash.
    Did you write that just because they've made decisions with which you disagree?
    
• 

  Cubsgirl

  24 June 2013 9:54pm

  Recommend

  19

  Respectfully, this article somewhat distorts the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling today. There are two types of sexual harassment claims in the United States - quid pro quo, which is essentially a strict liability statute for supervisors (under which the Vance case was filed), and co-worker harassment. The decision does not, as the article suggests, state that an employer can never be liable for harassment by an individual with partial supervisory authority if the individual in question is not involved in hiring or firing decisions. Rather, the decision clarifies the parameters for quid pro quo harassment (i.e., the definition of the term "supervisor"), and still allows employees to file claims against supervisors who are not involved in tangible employment actions under the co-worker harassment theory. Thus, it is not accurate to say that "unless your harassers have the explicit, formal power to hire and fire you, then they don't count as a supervisor – and therefore you can't bring a suit against your employer." Rather, employees still have the ability to bring such a suit under a co-worker harassment theory.
  
  • 

    John Broomfield Cubsgirl

    24 June 2013 11:35pm

    Recommend

    7

    I agree with you. This story is biased in its determination to say the Supreme Court is cruel. The case should have been filed as co-worker harassment but the plaintiff's lawyer screwed up.
    
  • 

    marshwren John Broomfield

    25 June 2013 12:20am

    Recommend

    8

    But can one really blame the plaintiff's lawyer for filing under the wrong section of the statute when the lower court ruled it was properly filed? Just another example of 'activist judges overturning settled law and long-standing precedent to legislate a partisan agenda from the bench'.
    
  
  TheYoungerMouse Cubsgirl
  25 June 2013 1:57am
  Recommend
  0
  I hope you are right that there is also protection against co-worker harassment, which applies whether the victim is senior to, co-equal with, or junior to the harasser, or doesn't even works in the same chain of command.
  I know little about the position in the US, but in the UK Civil Service (where I used to spend my time, a serving of whoever was Home Secretary), as senior manager I didn't have the right to fire, or demote anyone, but would be held responsible if I let harassment go undealt with or reported, in my Section. I had to report a junior manager for homophobic 'banter' directed at a colleague, after first warning him that it was unacceptable. None of us had the right to fire or dismiss anyone! Failing to ensure a safe and comfortable working enviironment for anyone is - in a sense - harassment, even if you leave the banter to junior staff.
  
• 

  joseph1832

  24 June 2013 10:04pm

  Recommend

  2

  It is based on a statute. Propose an amendment focused on the particular issue.
  Will the Republicans block it? Enough are worried about the gap in the female vote that it would be surprising if they dug heels in on this.
  The truth may be that some statutes are worded so as to create bad results. It can be that judges are inclined to find such meanings to suit their politics.
  But partisan misreading of a statute is not as bad as the partisan misreading of the constitution championed by liberals.
  It is a statute. Easy to amend.
  
  • 

    marshwren joseph1832

    25 June 2013 12:25am

    Recommend

    1

    Will the Republicans block it? Enough are worried about the gap in the female vote that it would be surprising if they dug heels in on this
    

    This Republican Party?!? Perish the thought*--with these Klown Kar Karnival barkers, it's 'damn the polls, full misogyny ahead'...
    
    *try reading the article here on what the GOP wants Texas's new 'abortion' law to be to refresh your memory of exactly what the rest of U.S. have to put up with.
    
• 

  larcen007

  24 June 2013 10:43pm

  Recommend

  2

  Well - there is an easy way around this. Maetta Vance reports to her supervisor (the one that can fire her) about the actions of her supervisor (the one that can't fire her). After a few times reporting (I didn't read the opinion - I find it hard to believe that her supervisor's action went unreported to her real supervisors)
  1. if no action has taken place by the supervisor that can fire people, they have basically adopted by proxy the behavior of the supervisor that can't fire her. therefore she can bring suit
  2. If an action is taken and that action is Vance being fired, then she has a case.
  Granted, this makes life MORE difficult for Vance - we are living in an age where people's lives are made more difficult by the government.
  
  • 

    David Schwartz larcen007

    26 June 2013 1:34am

    Recommend

    0

    There are actually three ways. The third way is she can show her employer was negligent,
    
• 

  jjtree

  24 June 2013 10:53pm

  Recommend

  1

  The Supreme Court is a bunch of old white people that are out of touch with most of society (except the other old white people) and should not be in charge of anything.
  
  • 

    Voodootoyoutoo jjtree

    24 June 2013 11:09pm

    Recommend

    5

    …and they are supremely beyond imagining anyone harassing them at work.
    
  • 

    CautiousOptimist jjtree

    25 June 2013 2:54am

    Recommend

    4

    There are many reasons to criticise the Court, but "bunch of old white people" isn't really one of them.
    The US is 11% African-American. The Court is 14%. Also 14% Hispanic.
    Yes, they are old-ish. Such is the nature of Courts and Judges.
    
• 

  artressa

  24 June 2013 11:44pm

  Recommend

  3

  Is it any wonder that workplace violence in the form of workers snapping and shooting up their workplace/former workplace is becoming more commonplace?