Work Choices Legislation - What does it really mean to us?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: all over the shop
Posts: 986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Work Choices Legislation - What does it really mean to us?
Hi All
This whole Work Choices debacle occurred whilst I was in lands afar, so I missed it all. I have searched and not found a thread that relates to it, and I tried reading the workchoices website but as per any government publication it was a totally unhelpful, uninformative waste of time.
Can anyone who actually understands it tell me the FACTS and what they really mean to Airlines - the good, the bad and the ugly?
Am I right to think we are being screwed by the government, who have changed the system for no good reason? Is it similar to the legislation that the French Government are trying to bring in that caused massive riots?
Thanks
This whole Work Choices debacle occurred whilst I was in lands afar, so I missed it all. I have searched and not found a thread that relates to it, and I tried reading the workchoices website but as per any government publication it was a totally unhelpful, uninformative waste of time.
Can anyone who actually understands it tell me the FACTS and what they really mean to Airlines - the good, the bad and the ugly?
Am I right to think we are being screwed by the government, who have changed the system for no good reason? Is it similar to the legislation that the French Government are trying to bring in that caused massive riots?Thanks
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very good question:
A convoluted, ill conceived and dangerous piece of ideological claptrap. Part of the reason there are no replies is that it is very complicated!
For us at QF my reading is
1 We are protected by unfair dismissal provsions, due our status as flightcrew....
next paragraph we are not protected as our income exceeds $94000.00
Union deductions will stop (Dixon will do that next week)
Annual leave can't be cashed out for QF.
I have read the website too....
All I can say is that it is time for a change
A convoluted, ill conceived and dangerous piece of ideological claptrap. Part of the reason there are no replies is that it is very complicated!
For us at QF my reading is
1 We are protected by unfair dismissal provsions, due our status as flightcrew....
next paragraph we are not protected as our income exceeds $94000.00
Union deductions will stop (Dixon will do that next week)
Annual leave can't be cashed out for QF.
I have read the website too....
All I can say is that it is time for a change
I'm afraid the devil is in the detail - which is the regulations made under the Act. The 400 odd pages of these have only just been released. Indications are that they are quite draconian.
My own guess is that the regulations and the Act are god's gift to the trade union movement which will find people flocking to join.
People forget what it was that caused the growth in unionism in the first place - rotten bosses, rotten pay and rotten working conditions.
People also forget, or do not understand, that the actual power relationships in a business are the reverse of whats perceived. An employee can make more trouble for the Boss than the Boss can make for the employee.
All a boss can do is sack you. But you can drive his customers away and ruin his business.
Are you listening QF staff?
My own guess is that the regulations and the Act are god's gift to the trade union movement which will find people flocking to join.
People forget what it was that caused the growth in unionism in the first place - rotten bosses, rotten pay and rotten working conditions.
People also forget, or do not understand, that the actual power relationships in a business are the reverse of whats perceived. An employee can make more trouble for the Boss than the Boss can make for the employee.
All a boss can do is sack you. But you can drive his customers away and ruin his business.
Are you listening QF staff?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: peripatetic
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For us at QF my reading is
1 We are protected by unfair dismissal provsions, due our status as flightcrew....
next paragraph we are not protected as our income exceeds $94000.00
1 We are protected by unfair dismissal provsions, due our status as flightcrew....
next paragraph we are not protected as our income exceeds $94000.00
Exclusion from federal unfair dismissal laws
Employees that are excluded from federal unfair dismissal laws include:
seasonal workers;
employees engaged under a contract of employment for a specified period or a specified task;
employees on probation;
casual employees engaged for a short period;
trainees; and
employees earning $94,900 or above.
Employees who are dismissed for a genuine operational reason are also not allowed to pursue an unfair dismissal claim. Genuine operational reasons include economic, technological, structural or similar matters relating to the employer’s business.
Employees that are excluded from federal unfair dismissal laws include:
seasonal workers;
employees engaged under a contract of employment for a specified period or a specified task;
employees on probation;
casual employees engaged for a short period;
trainees; and
employees earning $94,900 or above.
Employees who are dismissed for a genuine operational reason are also not allowed to pursue an unfair dismissal claim. Genuine operational reasons include economic, technological, structural or similar matters relating to the employer’s business.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: The Future
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trainees! That will be an interesting test case. Next sim when they ask what training we would like to do... "Um, I would like to practice my taxiing for fear of being classed as a trainee under the new work place provisions thanks."
Interesting too, they have come up with a figure of $94,900. I wonder if that is indexed or how often it is to be reviewed? Probably not in the governments interest to review it, the more people for them over the figure, and not protected the better.
FOs to be protected in most cases, and captains not eh? Interesting.
Sunfish, I think the QF flight attendants heard you a long time ago. The QF frequent fliers should be renamed "the battered wives club". "I know he treats me badly, but I just cant bring myself to leave!"
Interesting too, they have come up with a figure of $94,900. I wonder if that is indexed or how often it is to be reviewed? Probably not in the governments interest to review it, the more people for them over the figure, and not protected the better.
FOs to be protected in most cases, and captains not eh? Interesting.
Sunfish, I think the QF flight attendants heard you a long time ago. The QF frequent fliers should be renamed "the battered wives club". "I know he treats me badly, but I just cant bring myself to leave!"
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: A previous life
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfair dismissals regs
To all you bush lawyer types, A couple of questions.
Caught the tailend of a news report on the radio about persons who earn more than 95K can now be legally summarily sacked and have no recourse to any process of "fairness".
Can anybody advise what the state of play is for Pilots and ATCers who earn more than $95000 pa and whether they are "exempted" from the unfair dismissals??, ie. could Dixon and co just sack you, and you would have no recourse to being treated "fairly"??
Also, can anyone confirm a rumour I heard that the new Airservices CEO wanted to sack the Controller who slept in in Canberra Twr one morning last year, but his minders reportedly stopped him? If it happened again, would they stop him now?
Caught the tailend of a news report on the radio about persons who earn more than 95K can now be legally summarily sacked and have no recourse to any process of "fairness".
Can anybody advise what the state of play is for Pilots and ATCers who earn more than $95000 pa and whether they are "exempted" from the unfair dismissals??, ie. could Dixon and co just sack you, and you would have no recourse to being treated "fairly"??
Also, can anyone confirm a rumour I heard that the new Airservices CEO wanted to sack the Controller who slept in in Canberra Twr one morning last year, but his minders reportedly stopped him? If it happened again, would they stop him now?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 Slips,
Immediately above the paras you quote, on the same page, is the following which specifically includes most aircrew:
Yeah sure so we might be OK but there are a lot of workers out there who won't be.
Australia, the New Phillipines (no offence to any Fillipinos reading...)
Immediately above the paras you quote, on the same page, is the following which specifically includes most aircrew:
Unfair dismissal
Under WorkChoices, employers who employ up to and including 100 employees* will be exempt from unfair dismissal laws.
An employee may lodge an unfair dismissal claim with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), if he or she has worked for the employer for six months or more and is:
employed by a constitutional corporation (see the ‘WorkChoices and who is covered’ fact sheet); or
employed in Victoria or a territory; or
a Commonwealth employee; or
employed in interstate or overseas trade or commerce as a waterside worker, maritime employee or flight crew officer.
Under WorkChoices, employers who employ up to and including 100 employees* will be exempt from unfair dismissal laws.
An employee may lodge an unfair dismissal claim with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), if he or she has worked for the employer for six months or more and is:
employed by a constitutional corporation (see the ‘WorkChoices and who is covered’ fact sheet); or
employed in Victoria or a territory; or
a Commonwealth employee; or
employed in interstate or overseas trade or commerce as a waterside worker, maritime employee or flight crew officer.
Australia, the New Phillipines (no offence to any Fillipinos reading...)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would expect that the reason the radio guy could be sacked would be the number of employees that the company has. There are no unfair dismissal protections for a company with less than 20 employees. I recall that there was a Federal protection for people earning less than $90K(indexed) a few years ago. Perhaps this is what it is related to. I dunno. RE the controller thing, he would have never been able to be sacked over that single incident. Imagine that every time some one was late for work they got sacked? I would be in deep deep trouble.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Wanna Be Up There...
Age: 53
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
It would appear that if you are covered by an Award and work for an employer who has more than 100 people (not including casuals with less than 12 months service) you are able to pursue an action for unfair dismissal. It does not matter what you earn if you are covered by a Federal Award.
Remember folks the real sting in the tail is going from the Independent Contractors Act which will be before parliament in about August. With this legislation your employer could well say "go get an ABN and you will be paid on invoices submitted".
Don't expect your hourly rate to go up by much though...
Remember folks the real sting in the tail is going from the Independent Contractors Act which will be before parliament in about August. With this legislation your employer could well say "go get an ABN and you will be paid on invoices submitted".
Don't expect your hourly rate to go up by much though...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: peripatetic
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah saw that Bendo. Could the the $94K caveat be interpreted as being able to overide the fact that one is...employed by a constitutional corporation; or employed in Victoria or a territory; or a Commonwealth employee; or employed in interstate or overseas trade or commerce as a waterside worker, maritime employee or flight crew officer.(???)
My line of thought was, for example, if one is an Air Traffic Controller, Pilot, Mariner etc on $93999pa you're OK, but earn over that and the safety net may be gone (Bueller?). Bit like the AND/OR parts of AIP etc.
There seems to be a lot of low-vis grey and camouflaged exit doors for the employer maybe members of the learned legal profession need no interpret and comment. Buggered if I know.
Makes you wonder how something like this heavily tilted towards the employer can come out and yet Federal Labor is taking a pasting in the opinion polls.
My line of thought was, for example, if one is an Air Traffic Controller, Pilot, Mariner etc on $93999pa you're OK, but earn over that and the safety net may be gone (Bueller?). Bit like the AND/OR parts of AIP etc.
There seems to be a lot of low-vis grey and camouflaged exit doors for the employer maybe members of the learned legal profession need no interpret and comment. Buggered if I know.
Makes you wonder how something like this heavily tilted towards the employer can come out and yet Federal Labor is taking a pasting in the opinion polls.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfair dismissal and the 90K limit
In summary, if you are covered by an AWA or Certified agreement you have access to unfair dismissal provisions no matter what you earn.
protection for employees earning over $94,900 is specifically
excluded. However, as existed in the previous legislation, where employees are employed under award derived conditions (and this includes AWA’s or collective agreements) the financial limit does not apply.
excluded. However, as existed in the previous legislation, where employees are employed under award derived conditions (and this includes AWA’s or collective agreements) the financial limit does not apply.
