Question in regard to new IR Laws

[neville_nobody]

Saw on the news and on the 730 report that under the new IR laws an employee with a company who has less than 100 empoyees can be fired for "Operational Reasons" Howard has also fielded questions on this in Question time recently.

The ACTU are claiming that this will encourage rouge employers to fired people who don't tow the line.

So what would happen under the new IR if you were told to fly an aircraft overloaded and refused. You then get fired for operational reasons what comeback do you have?? YOu can't challenge the employer on unfair dismissal so do you have to take it up with CASA and get them to act??

You endorse an MR with a defect, so the boss fires you for operational reasons what can you do???

[Woomera]

Nev, Whilst I will not express an opinion on the proposed IR reforms, isn't the scenario you describe which you feel may occur under the proposed reforms, exactly what occurs under the current legislation????

Woomera

[tinpis]

W.....exactly.

:rolleyes:

[neville_nobody]

As I understand we currently have unfair dismissal laws so you could challenge a dismissal on those grounds. What do you when all these have been removed?? I don't have the answer so that is why I am asking.

[tinpis]

The unfair dismissal laws still apply to companies employing over 100 staff.
In whatever case you will require a lawyer to pursue the matter.
Hiring lawyers is dumb.
:*

[7balja01]

You all just convinced me not to go in the civil direction

ADF here i come!!!

jacob.

actually i just realised something.... maybe its howards plan, no job prospects in civil so join his army.

[Mr.Buzzy]

Yep. Exactly. Learn to goosestep with Johnny or march overseas with the rest of the talent!

bbbbbbbzzzzzzzbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[No Further Requirements]

The proposed changes are to do with unfair dismissals - where there are differing opinions on why the person was fired.

There are no changes to illegal dismissals. If you are fired because you woudn't break the law, that is illegal, not unfair.

Note the subtle difference - not that I am a supporter one way or another.

Cheers,

NFR.

[Woomera]

NFR is correct. Legal remedies will exist for any dismissal which occurs as a result of failing to carry out an illegal act.

I suggest you read the literature which is available from both sides of the debate and form your own opinion. The reforms are not only about dismissal, but reform and simplification of the existing estimated 25,000 State and Federal Awards, EBAs, AWAs etc.

If the current plethora of State and Federal Awards are ideal employment instruments for both employers and employees, why are there thousands of registered EBAs and AWAs designed to provide workplace flexibility outside and above the traditional Award structure???

Woomera

[7balja01]

you haven't read the fine print.

[ITCZ]

.....and you haven't looked too hard at the military either. Think they will look after you better than a civvy employer?

Maralinga tests. Vietnam vets. Agent orange. HMAS Sydney. F111 fuel tank resealing. Duntroon b@astardisation.

Don't believe all that the glossy brochures have to say..............

[Woomera]

............. from both sides of the debate!

:E

Woomera