your rights at work

[wazza]

Seems like you're taking it well so thats great....However, I can't see how the IR laws got you sacked? You were unfairly dismissed and legally still took your boss to court and won the hearing because of your circumstances.

Two people lied and that lowered your entitlement which definitely sux, but that has nothing to do with the IR laws either.

It's my understanding of your post that you were only paid for lost remuneration, not for stress etc?

I've always thought getting paid for stress was a big joke anyway. It's the same as those stupid multi million dollar public liability claims that seemed to only happen in the US but we're now seeing more over here. It's bullshit!

In my mind, you seem to have been reimbursed in a logical manner - for lost remumeration. If you wanted to challenge the ruling you could have and maybe won more, however I believe the new laws treated you pretty fairly. It's just a pity those other two decided to lie for their boss. He sounds like a pussy whipped wanker to me.

I just pointed out that with the IR law changes, he would not have "had the balls" to sack me before the reforms due to the worry of being penalised for doing what he did. I caught him "by surprise" because he thought I would be too busy to worry about the unlawful dismissal law (which states I only have 21 days from the date of sacking to act and _only_ have that court case/mediation to try to show I was unfairly (for the legal reasons stated in the Unfair dismissal act).

I've almost gone through the basics of what happened but for the rest of it, I was told by the judge in a personal meeting during the break of the court case that I had 2 options left. To call his bluff (about the stat decs) and *hope* the other 2 workers would say in a new higher court case (one that would cost me thousands+ for lawyer(s) etc) to go for a flat out win + big payout vs the small sum finally offered.

I'm copping all that on the chin but each time I talk about it, I just keep typing and typing cause it's kinda something that is personal to me Being on the "other side" of the I.R laws, I can see why they were there to protect workers (for employers with less than 100 employes) just being tossed around and sacked "for nothing" so to speak. Anyway, it's happened, I personally don't like how a scumbag like him did something like that (there's a lot more to it but if I was to go into everything, I'd have to spend a few hours typing it all) and plus then, it's still only from my side so it's hard to know if it's an objective view or a subjective view from a "bitter employee" telling his story to make his ex boss look bad and himself look good yada yada. And as I've said, the worst thing to come out of it was the loss of a one strong friendship (with one of the workers who signed the stat dec). I'm moving on/moved on with life, just well, someone mentions to tell a story about the I.R. law reform, I kinda can get started.

 

[420star]

a little history lesson for today

1856 April 21: Stonemasons working at the University of Melbourne marched to Parliament House to press their claims for an eight hour working day. Agreement with employers for a 48 hour week was reached.

 

[L2R]

^interesting

now get your arse to hyde park

 

[MR Candyslut]

1856 April 21: Stonemasons working at the University of Melbourne marched to Parliament House to press their claims for an eight hour working day. Agreement with employers for a 48 hour week was reached.

Stonemasons were actually highly involved with the early unionism movement across the country. I am not really sure why, but interesting nonetheless.

I also heard a rumour that there were quite a few Masons who help negotiate the Accord. Although i have no idea how they got this information.

 

[420star]

^would love to but i live in melbourne. sorry L2R

 

[420star]

Stonemasons were actually highly involved with the early unionism movement across the country. I am not really sure why, but interesting nonetheless.

are you talking stonemasons the society or the trade?

 

[Bent Mk2]

 

[Samadhi]

we doooooo, we dooooo

 

[yossarian_is_sane!]

Well my workplace tried to sneak an "all future pay rises will be determined by arbitrary performance measures - no we don't care about inflation" clause into the new EBA. I bet they weren't expecting my 2000 word response. Take that corporate Australia! haha!

 

[Samadhi]

We just got a nationwide email sent to us yesterday, stating that we were no longer covered if we are injured on our way to or from work, or on any lunch break.

I actually never thought we were covered to/from work, but on our lunch break? Why the fuck else would be be on a lunch break - we're at work!

 

[Samadhi]

Well my workplace tried to sneak an "all future pay rises will be determined by arbitrary performance measures - no we don't care about inflation" clause into the new EBA. I bet they weren't expecting my 2000 word response. Take that corporate Australia! haha!

I just found out we're in the same situation as well... and i work for one of the largest federal govt. organisations in Australia.

 

[Bent Mk2]

I actually never thought we were covered to/from work, but on our lunch break? Why the fuck else would be be on a lunch break - we're at work!

Sorry, but why the hell should you be covered if you're a lunch break? If you injure yourself in the course of work, far enough, but if you break a leg tripping up the steps at McDonalds, how the hell is that your bosses' fault?

I'm amazed you were ever covered!

 

[Samadhi]

Right, so if, on the way to the amenities room from my desk (which is in the same building), i'm injured, or, while on a lunch-break, i'm in the work carpark, getting something from my car, and i get hit by a car (alot of people hoon in our carpark) then i'm not covered...

I see your point about tripping up the stairs at Maccas - i wouldn't even claim for that, for your information - but if i'm injured on work premises, i'm not covered...because i'm on a lunch-break. If i slip on water spilled on the tiles in the kitchen, i'm not covered - because i'm on a lunch break.

yeah, that's really fucking fair.

What say you about the pay-rise situation, bent?? Do you think that's fair? BTW, this will affect over 30,000 employees - and we're federal government... so much for "a few isolated incidents... hardly anything massive", or however you phrased it.

 

[Bent Mk2]

I'd say that a hell of a lot of people out there don't get pay rises every year with inflation, and that a hell of a lot of people get performanced based payrises.

I'd almost say welcome to the real world...but I'd also ask whether that clause has been agreed to and passed by 30,000 employees or whether its still in discussion?

 

[Samadhi]

you think we need to agree to it before it's passed? bless.

* I should have clarified my initial post regarding performance-based pay-rises. It won't be based on individual performance...i know i do a really good job, evidenced by cracker performance reviews, feedback from clients etc. If the whole of my organisation don't meet KPI's, then none of us get the pay-rise. That's not fair, IMO. Do you think it is?

 

[Bent Mk2]

If the whole of my organisation don't meet KPI's, then none of us get the pay-rise. That's not fair, IMO. Do you think it is?

You mean like when footballers for example don't win because of a few individual performances? Wow. Who'd have thought that when a business doesn't do well people don't get pay rises/bonuses??

When you say the whole of your organisation, do all 30,000 effected have to meet KPIs? Or just your department.

I think half the problem 'union' people have is they have no grasp of the real world. Their predecessors worked so hard and do so much for them (and the rest of us) that its now just assumed we deserve all we get. Guess what, you've got to work for a living. Its called a job, its called a business.

Going back to workcover...if you cut your arm off whilst using a machine for work, fair enough...but if you burn yourself on the kitchen toaster, how is that your bosses fault?

 

[Samadhi]

Nope, the WHOLE of the organisation. Fantastic that i am now also responsible for the KPI's of people in Northbridge, on the other side of the country, who i've never met, in an area i have no idea about.

Yeah, i'm absolutely stoked at that.

You know what, Bent? I could fully understand if they wanted to open this whole KPI thing up a little more. I did get pay increment increases based on my performeance, and yep, they've gone up every year i've been there. I'd even be happy if they went up based on my team's or departments KPI's. I'm fine with that, but to base whether i get a very small salary increase (we're talking 2% here) based on what people are doing in (i won't mention what area, due to privacy issues) a business line that i have nothing to do with sucks.

I'm not money hungry, i've been injured while working and NEVER rorted the system. I was off work for 2 months, and Comcare fucked me around so badly, i didn't get paid for that entire time. Thank god we're a 2 income household, or else i would have starved, been evicted, on my arse. I never demanded more that what i was owed - which was my fortnightly pay - nothing more, nothing less.

I feel the same way about this pay-rise issue. If i work my arse off, but Jo Q Public Servant in Rundle Mall sits on his fat arse all day and does nothing, my pay-rise, which will barely match inflation and that cost of living, isn't given to me.

I just don't think that's very fair.

 

[Samadhi]

Going back to workcover...if you cut your arm off whilst using a machine for work, fair enough...but if you burn yourself on the kitchen toaster, how is that your bosses fault?

Of course it's not the bosses fault. There's a little something called personal responsibility that people have to apply to their lives at work. It annoys the hell out of me when people try to rort comcare or workcover.

My injury was caused by a hand-trolley overbalancing while i was pushing it, and me bulging my L5/S1 disc, just so you don't think i burned myself on toast.

I know how fortunate i am (some may disagree) to be in a secure job, and i get paid bloody well for what i do, i'm not a whingey person, but these new laws scare me... not SO much for what is happening now, but for the future.

Anyway, speaking of work, i have to get ready to go there...

 

[L2R]

^talk to your union samadhi. those conditions are fucked.

We have performance based pay rises, but ours are individual, so I never have a problem in that regard.

 

[Samadhi]

This has been an ongoing issue L2R.

You're right though... i've been with my organisation for the past 4 years, and have never had a problem in that regard. My performance reviews have been exemplary, so now because some other department on the other side of the country doesn't meet certain service, etc standards, i'm punished.

Do you think that's fair, Bent?