Integrity test, how are your standards????

[HavinaGo]

On the "getting more than you paid for" topic: I'd like to think I'd do 4, reality is that the little voice takes time to realise what is going on, so 3 is the one. Sometimes that is harder. Especially like the petrol case where one points out that maybe the person should check ... Oh well I'll keep trying.

I've had mixed reactions from "you are mad" to "thanks for telling me .. keep it". I always feel better in the long run.

On the employment thing .. gotta say that working for a big company, the approach to negotiations on conditions is : "we encourage you to take a negotiated contract. Here it is. No term may be changed. Sign now". Mr Howard's proposals don't sit comfortably.

I guess I'll have to get to the next stage of personal development where I am comfortable with change. At my current stage, it is OK if I have some say. It is NOT ok if it is outside my control.

There that should keep the thread off topic.

[Grunt]

I'm an employer. We had to sack someone last year. Just fricken lazy.
For $56 he put in a claim to the IR Commission for wrongfull dismissal.
It doesn't matter what hoops you go through, the employer is always in the wrong. It ended up costing us about $5k with a small payout to the employee and a few grand to an IR Relations company for representation. We also had to say we didn't sack the bloke but made him redundant so he could get another job. It turns out he'd been through this before. He said he had been made redundant from his last employer. He's got another job and probably ripping off that one now.

We thought we were a caring and sharing kind of employer but this has turned me a little more bitter and twisted.

I don't know if we should drop the wrongfull dismissal stuff because there are a lot of asrehole employers out there. Removing them isn't going to make me hire anyone either. I would like to see that they go hard on vexatious claims and maybe make it a little more difficult to apply.

[Cliff Rogers]

I'm with you on that one Grunt.

Everyone I put on now is presented with 2 copies of an offer.
They sign both, I sign both & we keep a copy each.
It says that they are on a 3 months trial period to be reviewed on the pay day closest to the end of the trial period (dated inserted)
At that time they either get a new letter extending the trial with new expectations noted, or a letter offering them fulltime employment or they are terminated.

That has worked best for me but I did have one lazy buga that did nothing for the last month of his trial period.... he got a fairly ordinary (strange) ref & if anyone rings me I tell them that it was 'hard to find anything for him to do.'

[DanP]

Put simply, IMO if you are a lazy prick or otherwise useless, the boss should be able to sack you. Why should you get any sort of entitlements for being lazy.

Dan

[The Hornet]

My opinion is, if it is a multi national company, then stuff them, they can cop it, but if its a small operator, then i return the extra item, or extra change.
I have been in both situations, where a large company i bought an item from wouldn't refund my money, even though they were in the wrong, legally too. I have also been on the recieving end of about a $50 windfall at a local shop, and i went back to the shop an hr later, and let them know what happened, as soon as i realised it.

[doug the slug]

I am an employer too. but these days i dont need a lot of time from an employee. before the government introduced GST, there was plenty of work though and i had two blokes working vor me for about 30 to 40 hours a week. even at that level of employment, i would only ever employ them as casuals. no way would i make them full or part-time cos then you have all the hassles of industrial relations when you want to get rid of them if anything goes wrong. casuals you just dont phone to call them in. this was bad for the workers because they couldnt claim continuity of employment and get home loans or anything, but a small business like mine couldnt take the risk of giving them fulltime status. i therefore believe that when the wrongful dismissal laws are removed theres going to be a hell of a lot of workers who will be better off because they will be given full time status, and the resultant benefits. as a n employer i would have been better off too, not having to pay casual loading, but then the workers would have had holiday and sick pay entitlements too. all in all i think the majority of workers will not be worse off, and the ones that are worse off will be mainly the lazy, useless and otherwise non-productive

[E. maculata]

G'day fella's, interesting discussion for me as I will be following the reality of
these changes, especially given that even the subtle tweaks that have been enacted since '96 have changed some things drastically for thousands of people, but I shall keep my opinions to myself on them(don't really feel like starting another ideaological argument tonite). And are you all sure that the Current(soon to be previous) unfair dismissal laws in reality apply to yourself, possibly employers with less than 20 employees? or is it just a furphy perpetuated by industrial representatives and others whom stand to gain monetary advantage in such a situation.
(subtle hint I've been to the IRC on more than one occasion to bear witness in such cases & you should see the glee in eyes when certain "facts" of law are exposed as heresy)

[Grunt]

We have less that 20 employees and it applied to us.

[Sturdee]

i had two blokes working vor me for about 30 to 40 hours a week. even at that level of employment, i would only ever employ them as casuals. no way would i make them full or part-time cos then you have all the hassles of industrial relations when you want to get rid of them if anything goes wrong.

Sorry to disappoint you Doug, but under all awards ( which then applied to all workers before AWA's ) casuals could only be employed for up to 20 hours a week, over 20 hours a week they were regular part time employees with all the provisions and protection to regular workers under the awards.

They were entitled to regular rostered hours, sickleave, holiday pay, public holidays, superannuation, notice pay and covered for wrongfull dismassal.

That you paid them the " casual loading" only meant you paid them over award payments and you should have paid termination pay on the rate you paid, including the "casual loading".

If it was in Vic and they went to the Department they would not only recover it for them they would automatically prosecute you unless you could convince them ity was an isolated error.

So far you are lucky that your workers did not know their rights but they still have a few years to claim their back pay. It really should be mandatory for new employers to learn the laws relating to employing workers, including their dismissal, so that they know their obligations.

Peter.

[doug the slug]

this is queensland peter its different up here, either tha t or i need a new accountant

[Driver]

Doug

Peter's right - he's talking about the federal system. It applied in all states before AWAs. You need a new accountant.

Incidentally, what made you think an accountant would be an expert in IR law?

[echnidna]

this is queensland peter its different up here,

yer not kidding

[Sturdee]

this is queensland peter its different up here, either tha t or i need a new accountant

I think you may need a new Accountant.

I think you'll find that all awards, in respect of these specific details, are virtually identical with each other and with federal awards. State awards were usually copied verbatum from decision of the Arbitration Commission.

These decisions were usually incorporated 3 to 6 month later as it took some time before the State bodies had time to do it. It may be that Queesland is different but I doubt it.

The last place I worked full time I was responsible for the payroll etc of about 50 employees, half full time and the rest part time and casuals, who were employed under 5 different awards. Some awards were State and some Federal. In all pertinent aspects regarding conditions they were identical, the only difference was in the descriptions and rates of pay for the various entitlements.

Thus to simplefy things we paid the highest applicable rate for the entitlements but it was essential that we strictly kept the hours worked to the award classifications.

Like I said it is essential that employers learn the laws relating to employing workers, including their dismissal, so that they know their obligations which are in fact law and failure to comply, at least in Vic if brought to the attention of the Department, will be prosecuted as a matter of course.


Peter.

[doug the slug]

Like I said it is essential that employers learn the laws relating to employing workers, including their dismissal,

yes peter and i remember the day it was changed, if you scroll up you will find that i was talking about pre-GST days, and that was 2000. teh push for permanent employment status for long-term casuals was after then

[Sturdee]

.....you will find that i was talking about pre-GST days, and that was 2000. the push for permanent employment status for long-term casuals was after then

Doug, not to belabour the issue but so am I. The period I was referring to was between 1986 and 1997. I have had the privelige of not having to work fulltime since.

I agree with the push for permanent status for casuals, but the point I was making is, because of the weekly hours they worked for you,you were not employing casuals because they exceeded the hours allowed to be worked by the award for casuals. Thus they in fact became permanent part time employees notwithstanding that neither you nor those employees were even aware of it.

Therefore award conditions applied to them. In fact we had to pay pro-rata LSL when a casual, never having worked more than 1 shift a week for 11 years, left our employ.


Peter.