Wentworth Sold!

[Peter Pallotta]

Anyone remember the film The Paper Chase? John Houseman plays the brilliantly forbidding Harvard law professor, Charles W Kingsfield. Timothy Bottoms plays 1st year law student James Hart. In class, Kingsfield asks a question; Hart offers a flippant answer. Kingsfield stares at him, and then slowly walks towards him while fishing a dime from his pocket. He hands Hart the dime and says:
"Call your mother, Mr. Hart. Tell her there is serious doubt about your ever becoming a lawyer."

I mention it, you know, apropos of nothing really....

[Jon Wiggett]

From the International Bar Association concerning UK/EU labor law:



Social media misconduct may – as with any other form of misconduct – lead to disciplinary actions by the employer against the employee who has committed such misconduct. In the event of an employee’s social media misconduct, for example, the employee’s [/size]disloyal comments about the employer or the employer’s products/services, or revealing confidential information, such actions will as a starting point be considered equally severe whether they are made on social media or otherwise made public. The issue will therefore often be whether comments via social media are considered public or not, [/size]and whether they are severe enough to constitute grounds for dismissal with or without notice.[/size][/font]





Here is the link.
https://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=78137209-857a-48c6-a068-33454f18611b


Doesn't appear that an employee disparaging their organization is considered "protected speech"

In the case of Wentworth which is what my original comment was about I very much doubt that if a member were to say 'I much prefer the original course to the present one which I think is poor' that they would end up being expelled. After all, the membership have been very critical of the new owner and yet none have been expelled.


SL_Solow, if you care to look at whistleblowing tribunal cases to start with.


Except for Adrian, here in the UK we still live in an open society which allows people to be critical even of their employers, etc.

[SL_Solow]

Jon;  Whistle blower cases generally relate to specific statutes where the whistleblower is given special protection to protect public policy.  The whistleblower is protected if he/she raises issues where the employer has violated statutes and permitting his or her termination would chill the reporting of violations.  A very different case from a voluntary association creating rules of conduct or an employer seeking to restrict criticism; not violations of law.  If I engage in a discussion regarding agronomy, I suspect you would not accept a statement that "some chemical" could solve a particular problem.  Someone with your training would ask for specific analysis related to the problem.  Those of us who are engaged in the practice of law require similar rigor in our field of endeavor.

[Jon Wiggett]

SL Solow,


but you didn't ask for an example about a voluntary association. Talk about not liking the answer so changing the goal posts


So, why don't you give me an example of where a member has said a none slanderous but critical comment about the their club, has been thrown out and has then lost the court case.

[SL_Solow]

Jon,  Reread the question.  It has not been changed and it refers to a" private voluntary association". I try my best to be precise when I ask questions. Second, one need not prove a negative in my line of work.  I don't have to prove that the challenged activity is "not prohibited" which is what you suggest.  With all due respect, if these arguments were advanced in the law school classes I teach, they would not be well received.  I have had enough of what is essentially an OT discussion.  Happy to engage via PM if you like.  My initial foray was an attempt to put to rest some common misconceptions.  Apparently I am unable to do so.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Here are 2 cases- 1 from the USA and the other from Australia:


http://www.golfdisputeresolution.com/?p=5849


http://www.golfdisputeresolution.com/?p=5781


And an interesting byproduct on Wentworth:


http://www.golfdisputeresolution.com/?p=5418

[SL_Solow]

Let me make one thing clear; although I have suggested that the policies in question are likely to be upheld in court if challenged, that does not imply that I endorse them.  The Louisiana case cited by Steve is particularly reprehensible as, based upon the report, it was strictly internal and should not have created any problems.  The Aussie case was an easy one.  As for Wentworth, if the members don't own the club they are subject to rules imposed by the owner.  Even if they do own it, they are subject to rules and regulations passed by their Board.  There are limits but asking the members to keep criticism "in house" does not appear to be one.

[John Kavanaugh]

As someone who once had an employee of a club print out every comment I made on GCA I can assure you that losing a membership is entirely possible. Though only the grace of God I am still a member and the employee is gone.


If you open your yap be prepared to shoot the gap.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Someone lost their entire career on here for posting their negative comments and opinions on here and on other sites.

[David_Tepper]

Words having consequences:

http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Tomic-s-Wimbledon-words-draw-15K-fine-racket-11269783.php

[Daryl David]

Words having consequences:

http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Tomic-s-Wimbledon-words-draw-15K-fine-racket-11269783.php

I thought free speech was protected in the U.K.   

[Jon Wiggett]

David,


it had nothing to do with what he said but what he did. Deeds, not words led to consequences.


Daryl,


can you explain what Tomic's fine has to do with freedom of speech?

[David_Tepper]

Jon -

The article reads:

 Bernard Tomic was fined $15,000 at Wimbledon and dropped by his racket sponsor Thursday — not for something he did during his first-round loss, but for what he said during a news conference afterward.

If Tomic had not commented on his actions, he almost certainly would not have been fined. Do you agree with that?

DT

[Jon Wiggett]

David,


he was fined for admitting he did not try. The ACT of not trying was deemed to be unprofessional conduct for which hw was sanctioned. He was NOT fined for what he said but what he admitted DOING. Had he not commented on his ACTIONS then no he probably would not have been fined but again it was what he admitted DOING that was the reason for the fine not what he said.


Jon

[Mike_Clayton]

And he admitted faking an injury to try and unsettle his opponent.