| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
member34258
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
| Post subject: Work(NO)choices. Howards law screws workers again |  |
|
http://www.abc.net.au/news/items/200705/1937471.htm?goulburnmurray
| Quote: | Under the contract they will be paid $26,000 a year to work a 38-hour a week.
But it requires them to be available all the time, with no pay for additional hours worked.
Managers will also need permission to leave the site if they need to.
|
The managers are required to be on call 24/7. They get no overtime, allowances etc. They are paid for only 38 hours no matter what they work.
This equates to $2.76 per hour.
Plus, they have to ring head office if they want to go to the footy!
Anyone care to defend/justify this one?
John Howard, you are the weakest link. Give us an election now! |
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Well, considering they live on site so they don't have to travel and it doesn't say how much rent they have to pay so I assume it's minimal..............................
Awwww who the &*( am I kidding. $26k pa for 24hr on call, sucks big time. Can't defend the employer there.
It doesn't say what kind of contract they're on tho. If there's no Award covering the roles and they're on common law contracts, then it's nothing to do with Workchoices. Just a &*( greedy employer.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
member34258
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
New employer stui, as these homes have been taken over after the previous investment house decided to off-load them.
Workchoices allows this new offer to occur as they are considered to have "changed employment" even though they physically haven't. Workchoices protects your current rates/conditions, but does not if you are considered to have changed employment. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| member34258 wrote: | New employer stui, as these homes have been taken over after the previous investment house decided to off-load them.
Workchoices allows this new offer to occur as they are considered to have "changed employment" even though they physically haven't. Workchoices protects your current rates/conditions, but does not if you are considered to have changed employment. |
Yeah, pre workchoices the test for whether there was a "transmission of business" when moving work from one employer to another is tougher. Generally though, your employment contract doesn't transmit to a new employer although your conditions of employment may. In the situation of the work moving from one employer to the other, you would generally be required to either resign from the 1st employer and commence employment with the new employer or be retrenched from he first employer. That was the case prior to workchoices anyway.
The transmission of business is (in a nutshell) when the work is deemed to be the same work and it is determined by the AIRC that the conditions of employment with the first employer transmit to the second employer. There's lots of clauses and detail around how it hapens and for how long and who it applies to etc.
Without knowing what the details of their employment arrangement was with the first employer and having a direct comparison with the new ones offered, it's really hard to defintively say they're being screwed over but on the surface, it's not a good look.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| What specifically brings in a nutshell when the work is deemed to be the same work and it is determined by the AIRC that the conditions of employment with the first employer transmit to the second employer to mind? Are we still talking about PUSHtransmission of business? |
|
|
|
|
member34258
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| HAL, I thought you were apolitical? |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I haven't heard anything like that before: member34258 said I you thought me were apolitical. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
