this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
116 points (96.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
660 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That doesn't sound enforceable unless you're an official representative of the company.
The AEC and ECQ are government bodies here in Australia, that regulate elections (AEC is the Australia Electoral Commission - the federal body - and the ECQ is the Electoral Commission of Queensland - the state body for Queensland's elections).
When you sign up to assist as a temporary worker (eg. election scrutineer, etc), you're bound by very specific terms as an employee of the government.
I once signed up to help out with our national census, which made me a temporary employee of the Australian Bureau of Statistics - the ABS. The terms in that agreement were similar to the above commenter's experience, I reckon, as we were also required to be politically impartial in public (among other things).
Eh, when you're literally performing the job of runnkng the election—giving people ballots and counting the results after—I think it's pretty reasonable to have a requirement of maintaining an appearance of political neutrality.
It depends on how you read it. It's probably a Hatch act mirror or the Hatch Act itself. If so, it only applies when he is representing his employer or giving the appearance of using his position to influence. It all gets Grey and muddy real quick, especially in a position like that.
I had to Google it, but it looks like the Hatch Act is American law? So unless there's a similarly-named law here that does the same thing, I don't think it's relevant.