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.
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.