Prank death DJ sues her employer

[Hiro Protagonist]

This just gets better.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/expresenter-could-receive-huge-payout-20130710-2pqnd.html

 

 

"...could get a "six- or seven-figure payout" by accusing 2Day FM's parent company, Southern Cross Austereo, of "failing to provide a safe workplace".

"Sources say she wants to terminate her employment with Austereo, despite the company offering her several jobs over the past six months."

 

"The amount Greig is claiming could comprise medical expenses, loss of future income and damages."

 

So part of her damages claim is 'loss of future income' even though she's refused to take up several positions within the company.

 

[Nepenthe]

This just gets better.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/expresenter-could-receive-huge-payout-20130710-2pqnd.html

 

 

"...could get a "six- or seven-figure payout" by accusing 2Day FM's parent company, Southern Cross Austereo, of "failing to provide a safe workplace".

 

"Sources say she wants to terminate her employment with Austereo, despite the company offering her several jobs over the past six months."

 

"The amount Greig is claiming could comprise medical expenses, loss of future income and damages."

 

So part of her damages claim is 'loss of future income' even though she's refused to take up several positions within the company.

 

Well, in a technical sense, you don't have to work for a company that "fails to provide a safe workplace" even if it gets a lot more vague when you are dealing with the mental aspect as opposed to physical of "safe". I still don't think her case is wholly without merit or even absurd - partially because of my extreme suspicion towards journalists and especially their need to sensationalise court cases.

[BruceVC]

 

This just gets better.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/expresenter-could-receive-huge-payout-20130710-2pqnd.html

 

 

"...could get a "six- or seven-figure payout" by accusing 2Day FM's parent company, Southern Cross Austereo, of "failing to provide a safe workplace".

 

"Sources say she wants to terminate her employment with Austereo, despite the company offering her several jobs over the past six months."

 

"The amount Greig is claiming could comprise medical expenses, loss of future income and damages."

 

So part of her damages claim is 'loss of future income' even though she's refused to take up several positions within the company.

 

Well, in a technical sense, you don't have to work for a company that "fails to provide a safe workplace" even if it gets a lot more vague when you are dealing with the mental aspect as opposed to physical of "safe". I still don't think her case is wholly without merit or even absurd - partially because of my extreme suspicion towards journalists and especially their need to sensationalise court cases.

 

 

Nep explain to me again why she can claim the company failed to provide a safe work place? A safe workplace for who and what has this got to do with the fact they chose to make a hoax phone call. I honestly don't get it but clearly there is some legal precedent or she wouldn't be even attempting to take this legal action?

[Walsingham]

No win no fee?

 

For the record, i accept I came at this slightly fact-wonky. But I still say she's an arse.

[Nepenthe]

 

 

This just gets better.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/expresenter-could-receive-huge-payout-20130710-2pqnd.html

 

 

"...could get a "six- or seven-figure payout" by accusing 2Day FM's parent company, Southern Cross Austereo, of "failing to provide a safe workplace".

 

"Sources say she wants to terminate her employment with Austereo, despite the company offering her several jobs over the past six months."

 

"The amount Greig is claiming could comprise medical expenses, loss of future income and damages."

 

So part of her damages claim is 'loss of future income' even though she's refused to take up several positions within the company.

 

Well, in a technical sense, you don't have to work for a company that "fails to provide a safe workplace" even if it gets a lot more vague when you are dealing with the mental aspect as opposed to physical of "safe". I still don't think her case is wholly without merit or even absurd - partially because of my extreme suspicion towards journalists and especially their need to sensationalise court cases.

 

 

Nep explain to me again why she can claim the company failed to provide a safe work place? A safe workplace for who and what has this got to do with the fact they chose to make a hoax phone call. I honestly don't get it but clearly there is some legal precedent or she wouldn't be even attempting to take this legal action?

 

 

 

Eh, I have no specifics of the case or even how that particular (almost universal) rule is interpreted there, but I'd say that if it's station policy to make those kinds of calls and then leaving individual employees to carry the (emotional etc.) burden in public, perhaps even claiming to fire them while, in fact, secretly offering them new positions in the firm, it would definitely qualify as a "hostile work environment" where you couldn't be reasonably expected to work.

 

I've been picked on by slightly more senior co-workers envious of my advanced degree to the point where I got arrhythmia, so I can sympathise to a degree.

 

Again, this is pure speculation on my part, based on personal experience that few lawsuits are as frivolous as they are made to be in media.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Nepenthe

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

This just gets better.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/expresenter-could-receive-huge-payout-20130710-2pqnd.html

 

 

"...could get a "six- or seven-figure payout" by accusing 2Day FM's parent company, Southern Cross Austereo, of "failing to provide a safe workplace".

 

"Sources say she wants to terminate her employment with Austereo, despite the company offering her several jobs over the past six months."

 

"The amount Greig is claiming could comprise medical expenses, loss of future income and damages."

 

So part of her damages claim is 'loss of future income' even though she's refused to take up several positions within the company.

 

Well, in a technical sense, you don't have to work for a company that "fails to provide a safe workplace" even if it gets a lot more vague when you are dealing with the mental aspect as opposed to physical of "safe". I still don't think her case is wholly without merit or even absurd - partially because of my extreme suspicion towards journalists and especially their need to sensationalise court cases.

 

 

Nep explain to me again why she can claim the company failed to provide a safe work place? A safe workplace for who and what has this got to do with the fact they chose to make a hoax phone call. I honestly don't get it but clearly there is some legal precedent or she wouldn't be even attempting to take this legal action?

 

 

 

Eh, I have no specifics of the case or even how that particular (almost universal) rule is interpreted there, but I'd say that if it's station policy to make those kinds of calls and then leaving individual employees to carry the (emotional etc.) burden in public, perhaps even claiming to fire them while, in fact, secretly offering them new positions in the firm, it would definitely qualify as a "hostile work environment" where you couldn't be reasonably expected to work.

 

I've been picked on by slightly more senior co-workers envious of my advanced degree to the point where I got arrhythmia, so I can sympathise to a degree.

 

Again, this is pure speculation on my part, based on personal experience that few lawsuits are as frivolous as they are made to be in media.

 

 

Actually that's a very informative and reasonable answer, nice one. I knew you could decipher this one with your lawyer decoder

 

I can see how she can now make this a viable legal case

[GhostofAnakin]

A radio station should prank call her house and pretend they're representing the company she's suing and agree to a settlement of $1 billion dollars.

 

Then when she gets excited about the sum, they say "Gotcha!" and hang up on her.

[Walsingham]

I do like the idea of ringing up her lawyers, pretending to be a firm of no win no fee lawyers and trying to steal their client.

 

But truth to tell I keep remembering that somebody died over this.

 

As I think has been said before, I'd like to see the family sue this cretin for real damages.

[Zoraptor]

Actually that's a very informative and reasonable answer, nice one. I knew you could decipher this one with your lawyer decoder

 

I can see how she can now make this a viable legal case

 

The company also promoted the call extensively when it was just a Haha So Classic hoax call and were happy to grab all the publicity at that time. That certainly contributed significantly to the problems once there was blowback. I don't have much sympathy for her though, the hoax call was moronic even before it was tragic- but I equally have little sympathy for a company that was happy to take the credit and publicise to the four winds when it was still 'funny' then trotted out the DJs to carry the can when it suddenly wasn't.

[Hiro Protagonist]

The old 'boss made me do it' excuse. No backbone to stand up and say this is wrong. She wasn't left out to dry by the company. Both DJs were offered jobs back within the company and one has taken his job back and even named the network's "top jock" last month in June according to newspaper reports.

 

She could have taken any job back within the company and moved on like her co-host has done. She didn't have to be in the spot light and could have worked behind the scenes and eventually worked her way back to a DJ if she choose to do so once everything blew over. She could have done a lot of things for her career.

 

This rumour that she was made a scape goat is just all that, a rumour. Both were in the media at the time and heavily criticised as well as the radio station and its management. One has moved on, back at work on Sydney's airwaves as a DJ, as if nothing has happened. There's been no indication that there's an unsafe work environment. Questionable standards of decency which she was happy to be a part of, yes. Unsafe work environment, no. 

[Volourn]

I don't think they should ahve been fired and could have understood albeit disagree if the alwsuit was about that... but, how was the work environment 'unsafe'? I don't think that word means what the suer thinks it means.

[Gorth]

This rumour that she was made a scape goat is just all that, a rumour. Both were in the media at the time and heavily criticised as well as the radio station and its management. One has moved on, back at work on Sydney's airwaves as a DJ, as if nothing has happened. There's been no indication that there's an unsafe work environment. Questionable standards of decency which she was happy to be a part of, yes. Unsafe work environment, no.

She enjoyed the limelight and "popularity" (notoriety?) before things turned sour, not sharing any of the back patting with anybody else. Now suddenly looking for somebody to share blame with? Either there is something else going on or it's just hypocrisy of the worst kind.

[Zoraptor]

There were- as always- people going slightly over the top in response, along the 'kill yourself plz'/ 'get cancer and die' variety to outright threats of personal violence. OK, we all know that 99% of such threats are just some anonymous moron blowing off steam on the internet, but it's easy to say that as someone it wasn't aimed at. The company's promotion of the prank call contributed to the extent and intensity of backlash once it all went sour, and it all happened on their time and ultimately it is at least partially their responsibility. If prank calls had been against station policy or they hadn't promoted the call it would be open and shut, as it is though neither was the case.

 

But as I said, I don't personally have much sympathy for her, unless they were ordered to make the call. As much as the company promoted it a lot the DJs were hardly shrinking violets either. It's certainly a far different situation sympathy wise than someone falling off some scaffolding because it was old, poorly maintained and the company knew about it but ignored it, which is what such legislation is really aimed at.

[babaganoosh13]

You know what are good DJ pranks? Danny Dumps from Hirsty's Daily Dose.

 

 

As far as those DJ's who pranked the nurse whom killed herself...

 

They should never have been fired for that. You can't assume that if you prank somebody, they'll end their life. If their ratings dropped after that, they should have been fired for that.

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

They should never have been fired for that. You can't assume that if you prank somebody, they'll end their life. If their ratings dropped after that, they should have been fired for that.

 

You need to get permission from the person you're prank calling before you broadcast it. If you don't get permission, it's against the law,

 

So if two employees are told by their boss to break the law and go ahead with it, then they shouldn't lose their jobs according to you?

[Walsingham]

I have to agree with Hiro - and this is me speaking having been the cowardly underling on some occasions - not only is it philosophically wrong to excuse people for following dumb orders. It is practically wrong, because it merely encourages the enacting of dumb orders.

 

Huge public condemnation is a helpful aid to counterbalancing all the pressures on an employee when faced with a choice between obeying and refusing. IMO.

[Nepenthe]

 

 

They should never have been fired for that. You can't assume that if you prank somebody, they'll end their life. If their ratings dropped after that, they should have been fired for that.

 

You need to get permission from the person you're prank calling before you broadcast it. If you don't get permission, it's against the law,

 

So if two employees are told by their boss to break the law and go ahead with it, then they shouldn't lose their jobs according to you?

 

I do this a lot myself, but let's not try to assume that the law, especially regarding privacy questions such as you just mentioned here, is the same everywhere.

[JFSOCC]

Pranks in general aren't funny, not sure why people enjoy them.

I agree, most of the time they're not funny.

 

A funny prank has the following aspects:

The victim can logically know it's a prank, if they pay attention and use their mind. the prank fools them because of who they are.

The prank is harmless. this includes not having a five hour cleanup

The prank is linked to some charcter flaw the victim has. For instance someone obsessing over leaving the toilet seat down may find all toilet seats in the building ducttaped up.

There is purpose behind the prank, ridiculing an aspect of a person without making that person feel bad.

 

This is why punk'ed is so fundamentally unfunny. What's fun about a really scary joke, one you could have no way to know was not real, which isn't even close to making fun of your character.

 

However, when someone 'has it coming' I'll chuckle at their misfortune. Some ape who always dances on the stairs andacts the buffoon and then faceplants on the stairs... I'll laugh, as long as he's unharmed.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

I do this a lot myself, but let's not try to assume that the law, especially regarding privacy questions such as you just mentioned here, is the same everywhere.

 

 

Well we are talking about these DJs in this thread in Australia. Not sure why you're bringing up what you do in your own time and in your own country, different countries in general and the difference of those laws in other places. Try and keep it on topic and relevant. eg. the DJs in question.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Hiro Protagonist II

[BruceVC]

I have to agree with Hiro - and this is me speaking having been the cowardly underling on some occasions - not only is it philosophically wrong to excuse people for following dumb orders. It is practically wrong, because it merely encourages the enacting of dumb orders.

 

Huge public condemnation is a helpful aid to counterbalancing all the pressures on an employee when faced with a choice between obeying and refusing. IMO.

 

What about in services like the military or police? Don't you have to do what you are told even if you feel the orders are dumb?

[Gfted1]

Dumb = yes. Unlawful = no.

[BruceVC]

 

 

I do this a lot myself, but let's not try to assume that the law, especially regarding privacy questions such as you just mentioned here, is the same everywhere.

 

 

Well we are talking about these DJs in this thread in Australia. Not sure why you're bringing up what you do in your own time and in your own country, different countries in general and the difference of those laws in other places. Try and keep it on topic and relevant. eg. the DJs in question.

 

 

Hiro can we please stay on topic, what has the 2 DJ's got to do with the rise and fall of Babylon?

 

You'll notice I tend to keep people focused on the topic at hand, that's a difficult skill to acquire but once you learn it you'll find people very easy to interact with when discussing politics and books on Anthropology

[Walsingham]

Dumb = yes. Unlawful = no.

 

This.

 

Big surprise in my military training. Week one. RSM tell us NOT to always obey orders. Stressed that we were personally responsible for everything we did. Told us it wasn't easy, and times had changed, but ultimately the basics stayed true: if everyone is professional and doing their job then orders should be good and should be followed 100%. If someone gets confused or angry and orders you to break the law or do something just wrong, then don't do it. He emphasised we'd get in s***, and it wouldn't be much fun. But it would always be better than doing the wrong thing and regretting it.

 

For tohse who don't know, the RSM is, like, somewhere between Pope and Jesus in the British Army. Generals are polite to RSMs.

[Nepenthe]

 

I do this a lot myself, but let's not try to assume that the law, especially regarding privacy questions such as you just mentioned here, is the same everywhere.

 

 

Well we are talking about these DJs in this thread in Australia. Not sure why you're bringing up what you do in your own time and in your own country, different countries in general and the difference of those laws in other places. Try and keep it on topic and relevant. eg. the DJs in question.

I wasn't aware my basement was in Australia.

[babaganoosh13]

 

 

They should never have been fired for that. You can't assume that if you prank somebody, they'll end their life. If their ratings dropped after that, they should have been fired for that.

 

You need to get permission from the person you're prank calling before you broadcast it. If you don't get permission, it's against the law,

 

So if two employees are told by their boss to break the law and go ahead with it, then they shouldn't lose their jobs according to you?

 

My assumption was that it was a live prank call. I've never read anything that said it was a taped call, and nothing I've heard on TV implied that.

 

Oh well. Either way, it just seems like the people running the station are a bunch of deeks.

Edited July 12, 2013 by babaganoosh13