• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

'No God' campaign draws complaint

ScepticMike said:
It could be interpreted in that way by some but I doubt that will be a significant group.

I think the subtle and non confrontational wording will connect with the large numbers of those that have doubts but are perhaps too timid or uncertain to voice their views. That has to be the target population (you know the meek lot that’ll inherit the earth) because the really religious people are a bit of a lost cause as are most of us to religion (with exception of the Tea religion which seems to be converting Atheists at an alarming rate).

If the adverts make a couple of thousand people think about the principle behind the message or gives a handful of people the courage to admit that they don’t believe, it will be worth it.

In some towns, the local church puts up a big cross on a hillside and lights it up at night, I was wondering what Atheists should put up in response, a black hole? Oh hang on, that’s what we are doing with the Large Hadron Collider.....
Click to expand...

off topic deleted
 
Last edited:
Francesca R said:
No, he would not have been. You can't just fire someone if there isn't gross misconduct or somesuch.
Click to expand...

I agree that refusing to drive a bus as a bus driver looks like "gross misconduct or somesuch" to me.

I don't ow a bus company or any other company. In reality, I would consult a lawyer if it was legal to fire him or, failing that, what other ways I'd have to discipline that employee.

From your earlier link:

This section does not affect any right of either party to a contract of employment to treat the contract as terminable without notice by reason of the conduct of the other party.
Click to expand...

I don't have the time to read all of it, and you may well be right that even the employee refuses to do their work out of purely personal reasons (as opposed to saftey concerns, e.g.) it might not be legal to outright fire them. But I think any employer who tried would not be acting unreasonably.

Of course it depends on how the situation was handled at the time. It appears he did approach management before walking out of his shift, and he did walk out under the exact same conditions that he later accepted: There was no other bus!

What kind of conduct am I supposed to expect from that employee in the future when he finds the next thing to object to?

Re: the slippery slope:
What can you do? It seems to me there are many ads that individual drivers might object to - religious ads, ads for homoeopathy, etc. I as an employer would simply not even start to look into it - especially not if all ads on the busses would have to follow guidelines that ensure they are not too offensive in the first place.

Nobody has to even abuse the opportunity to object to driving specific busses, but if only a few people do use it, the company faces a lot of extra work. (Also, it would limit what the company could sell to advertisers, doesn't it? "Sorry, Jimmy is doing Line 9 in the inner city and he's a vegetarian, so we can't have commercials for your restaurants there.")
 
A "Gross misconduct" clause in a contract usually covers stuff like wilful damage to company property, theft, physical assault, working under the influence of alcohol and drugs that type of stuff. I've never seen one that would have allowed you to sack him given the information we have of his actions.
 
Last edited:
Rasmus said:
In reality, I would consult a lawyer if it was legal to fire him or, failing that, what other ways I'd have to discipline that employee. [ . . . ]
Click to expand...
Indeed. Flying off the handle and exercising summary dismissal is not to be advised for a sensible employer, and would suggest an unreasonable and unaccommodative emotional (angry) reaction based on the manager's personal views. If I was a shareholder in the bus company I would not be impressed by zealous atheist managers tying the company up in costly legal or arbitration dealings with the employee's representatives (union, the law) when they could just have allocated another bus. I'd take some convincing that they were acting in my interest "by nipping such objections in the bud because this is the thin end of the wedge".
 
TragicMonkey said:
But surely Liz Windsor and her family are living proof that if there is a god at all, he's at best indifferent and more likely downright hostile towards Britain. I enter Prince Charles as Exhibit A in the case for the nonexistence of God.
Click to expand...

No. Prince Charles just proves that God has a twisted sense of humor.
 
Rasmus said:
Re: the slippery slope:
What can you do? It seems to me there are many ads that individual drivers might object to - religious ads, ads for homoeopathy, etc. I as an employer would simply not even start to look into it - especially not if all ads on the busses would have to follow guidelines that ensure they are not too offensive in the first place.

Nobody has to even abuse the opportunity to object to driving specific busses, but if only a few people do use it, the company faces a lot of extra work. (Also, it would limit what the company could sell to advertisers, doesn't it? "Sorry, Jimmy is doing Line 9 in the inner city and he's a vegetarian, so we can't have commercials for your restaurants there."
Click to expand...

You're forgetting that religion has special status. There's no slippery slope, religion is the key.
 
Darat said:
A "Gross misconduct" clause in a contract usually covers stuff like wilful damage to company property, theft, physical assault, working under the influence of alcohol and drugs that type of stuff. I've never seen one that would have allowed you to sack him given the information we have of his actions.
Click to expand...

But not refusal to do the work he was hired to do in perfectly safe conditions? :boggled:
 
Darat said:
A "Gross misconduct" clause in a contract usually covers stuff like wilful damage to company property, theft, physical assault, working under the influence of alcohol and drugs that type of stuff. I've never seen one that would have allowed you to sack him given the information we have of his actions.
Click to expand...

Insubordination seems to me like gross misconduct. I have seen people fired on the spot for refusing a foreman's order.

I live in the USA where employment-at-will is the law in most states.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
But not refusal to do the work he was hired to do in perfectly safe conditions? :boggled:
Click to expand...

tsig said:
Insubordination seems to me like gross misconduct. I have seen people fired on the spot for refusing a foreman's order.

I live in the USA where employment-at-will is the law in most states.
Click to expand...

It depends on what is in his contract. Certainly as I said I would have thought he could be subject to disciplinary action for what he did. And what he did as far as his contract would be concerned was to not work his shift.


(Remember this is all based on the tiny amount of information we have in the reports so it is only just a step above baseless speculation in his specific case.)
 
What next? Muslim bus drivers refusing to drive because of a beer advert. Catholics refusing to drive if there's a contraception advert.
 
Darat said:
It depends on what is in his contract. Certainly as I said I would have thought he could be subject to disciplinary action for what he did. And what he did as far as his contract would be concerned was to not work his shift.


(Remember this is all based on the tiny amount of information we have in the reports so it is only just a step above baseless speculation in his specific case.)
Click to expand...

Without baseless speculation this forum would grind to a lol

Many times it's not what someone does but how they do it.

And yes it depends on the specifics of the contract, there might be a provision that allows him to turn down a bus for any reason.

IMHO he probably just came from a meeting where his pastor exhorted him to stand up for Jesus and the spirit took him.

(I note that baseless speculation has the initials B.S. coincidence, I think not.)
 
Sounds like a great premise for a Honeymooners episode. Ralph Kramden refuses to drive the bus, Norton comes to the rescue, they deface the ad, turns out to be the wrong one, Alice bails them both out, etc....
 
Darat said:
Is your question based on anything?
Click to expand...
Sorry Darat I couldn't get back on the forum earlier - it kept timing out.
I'm just a little surprised anybody wouldn't consider this to be a clear cut case of instant dismisal. An employee refuses to do his job then goes home. In any job I've ever had that is a sacking offence.
I'm sure his work colleagues are now thrilled at having to work round his fragile sensibilities.
One other thing, who ran to the press?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom