Because one day, I aim to sue for injuries incurred having sex at work as well!
July 27, 2011
I’m 100% Behind this Litigation Claim
Posted by faustusnotes under Art, Meat Life | Tags: chicks mate!, sexuality |[3] Comments
[3] Comments
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- July 27, 2011 at 9:13 pm
- Category :
- Art, Meat Life
- Tags: chicks mate!, sexuality
- Do More :
- You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Compromise and Conceit
%d bloggers like this:
July 30, 2011 at 8:46 am
I’m more worried this opens the door to employers having an opinion about their employees having sex. This should fall into the category of stuff we don’t tell our employers and that they keep their nose out of.
Or do you want to bring back those enlightened days when the Tasmanian government had an opinion on Bob Brown’s antics in the bedroom? Stuff that.
July 30, 2011 at 10:19 am
Yeah the idea that employers could define a list of authorized activities for your spare time when you’re on a business trip is pretty disturbing. It would be unlawful for them to do so though, I think.
Incidentally, the Federal Government does do that to Bob Brown as his employer. He’s not allowed to take his partner overseas on the government purse. No big deal, one might say, since we can’t either. But heterosexual parliamentarians can take their non-married partners – there was a famous example where some South Australian mole talk her boyfriend of a week on an official trip, and it caused a bit of a stir but was all legal. I don’t know if Labor changed the rules in 2007, but I doubt it.
July 31, 2011 at 5:49 pm
If this case gets through then it shows that her employers had a duty of care to prevent her having sex. And not freaky swinging from the rafter sex, just random hook-ups. Potentially including with your partner not just “an acquaintance” [1]. The articles on this say the case actually references the lack of a policy as a reason she should be covered, so if she wins “Keep it in your pants” becomes a valid (and important) policy for a company to have.
As for Brown, given that I’m favour of homosexual and polygamous marriages
[2], I’m in favour of the government funding either zero or one [3] “friend” per trip regardless of the nature of whether or how you sex them up. Personally I’d prefer zero given that other companies have an enlightened policy called “If you want your partner to go then work out where your credit card is an pay for it buddy.” [4]
[1] You go girl! You pulled, didn’t ya? Well done getting some country “acquaintance” 🙂
[2] I decided that as far as the government is concerned marriage should be between zero or more tax payers over the age of majority. And as such all the marriage laws should concern themselves with is tax and property implications.
[3] Accepting polygamous marriage means I need to specify an upper limit on the number of partners flown, otherwise a star marriage could result in a small clan being flown on the government dollar.
[4] I’m willing to make an exception for the PM’s partner. That poor person seems to get stitched up with all sorts of semi-official duties, especially if female. The current guy seems to escape a fair bit of it [5]
[5] Typical sexist distribution of labour, right? 🙂