She said she wouldn’t do any presser.
Not just one.
We’ll never know if she’d have done another. In actual fact she skipped one.
Osaka entered the French Open knowing that press conferences were a part of playing in the tournament. Something she has done many times before. This is normal and usual stuff.
Then, part way into the tournament, she said she was not going to do press conferences. Not just skip one…skip them all. Add in that those press conferences became all the more important as the tournament progressed.
IIRC she said she would not do any.
And agreed to pay the fine for the one she skipped. The rules were being followed and there would have been no serious repercussions had the organizers left it at that.
That is called gaming the system. Something I would be shocked if the French Open lawyers didn’t fix for next year and beyond.
There’s nothing unethical or immoral about using the options that have been agreed to.
Well that’s just not true.
Think about that for a minute.
Lots of people, perhaps you, have suggested that she should not have to do press conferences if she claims to be depressed. That’s not nuanced
Not at all. It’s a ridiculous straw man that suggesting that an athlete can be compelled to take part in press conferences means we must be arguing they can be compelled to do anything, and the press can be rude / sexist etc
Sure, but again remember the topic of this thread. If you want to advocate for better mental health understanding, then great. I’ve supported such advocacy too.
But in terms of typical work contracts right now, there’s no particular reason to condemn the French Open over this.
Is it unethical to ask employees to work 40 hours a week, just because I have decided that in an ideal world the most we’d work is 30 hours?
…I’ve made several posts in this thread and have made a case for my position that couldn’t be condensed into a single sentence. My position is nuanced. Your paraphrase is both not nuanced, nor accurate.
Not a strawman.
The players are compelled to have to put up with rude, racist and misogynistic questioning from the press. The example I’ve already cited:
That was the question directed to a 17 year-old Coco Gauff last week. There was no option to skip that press conference, the reporter was not sanctioned, the media they worked with kept their credentials. The tournament didn’t come out and condemn that line of questioning.
The players just have to deal with that.
I think that’s wrong. And discussing this is entirely on topic. Not a strawman.
I think a thread where people who have displayed ignorance of the realities of the difficulties of mental health in the workplace is an ideal place to correct them on those realities in regards to why Osaka has decided to withdraw from this tournament and future tournaments. This is bad for Osaka and its bad for tennis.
Yeah there is. I condemn them for what they have done. If the typical work contract doesn’t accommodate for mental illness, then the current work contracts are bad. I condemn them, I condemn the French Open, I condemn the Grand Slams for not being able to recognize that one of their players needs assistance and instead of offering assistance threatened to ban them.
Now this is a strawman. I’m not arguing ethics. Is it reasonable to ask employees to work 40 hours as week? Sure. Is it unethical to ask them that to do that? Nope. If an employee lost use of their legs while on the job, and asked for a reduction of hours to 30 hours a week because they were physically unable to work longer than that, would that be a reasonable thing to ask? Sure. Can the workplace reasonably accommodate that request for a reduction in hours? Well it depends. And the courts (in places with the appropriate legislation in place) can provide a mechanism to test the reasonableness of that decision that the company makes in the end.
The courts in this particular case is the court of “public opinion.” And I think I’ve made my opinion clear.
Osaka won? She was fined the most money ever for skipping a press conference, withdrew from a Major, just withdrew from another tourney, and may skip Wimbledon.
Sure, in some circles she is seen as the more sympathetic party, but that’s about it. She lost income, and isn’t playing the sport she spent her life training to excel at.
It’s not about you and I don’t see anything positive in the discussion with the comparison.
If she can’t handle her obligations because of mental illness then it’s compromised. There really isn’t any wiggle room on that point.
Comply or die!
This is practically the working definition of a disability. Per the ADA
Granted the French Open isn’t technically in the USA, but the US Open is, and their name is on that shitty communiqué.
The fact is, granting a temporary accommodation, or even simply continuing to fine Osaka without comment would have been trivial for the tournament to provide, and nobody anywhere would have been asking why she wasn’t being suspended.
…I’m not making it about me. I’m using me to illustrate a point. That same point can be made about any person with depression or social anxiety. Having bouts of depression say nothing about anybody’s “mental stability.”
What exactly is compromised?
her ability to fulfill her contract.
…she was able to fulfill the most important parts of the contract. The playing the tennis part. There was a financial penalty for not attending the press conferences and Osaka had no problem with paying the penalty.
So…I’m not seeing the problem.
Except you’re not a mental health expert and a mod has explicitly said this was off topic.
So, putting this back in the general case, I would say that exceptions can be made for exceptional circumstances, but that doesn’t make it wrong to make the requirement (to talk to the press) in the first place.
In terms of what counts as “exceptional”, well obviously it depends on a number of factors, but an employee claiming their personal situation requires not talking to the press / getting time off / not being asked to do unpleasant job X, does not automatically and immediately count.
You call it a strawman then completely agree with the point that I was making.
…I have re-read the mod note and didn’t see anything that said what we are discussing is not allowed.
And you don’t need to be a mental health expert to talk about the realities and struggles of dealing with mental health in the workplace.
Why “exceptional” (a standard almost never used in similar circumstances) and not “reasonable”?
The point you are making has nothing to do with the discussion. Asking an employee to work 40 hours isn’t unethical. Nor is asking an employee to take part in a press conference. Demanding an employee must do either when asking for reasonable accommodation though may be against the law.
the most important part of her job between matches is to talk to the press.
So… I’m not seeing your point