Technophobes
Why can’t I get an electronic copy of the WorkChoices booklet? I’m at the website, I want to save a couple of taxpayer dollars in postage, but I can’t. Now I have to wait a few days to find out how I’ll be shafted. (Seriously, if anyone has access to a PDF copy, I’d be most grateful.) Update: I found it, by ignoring the WorkChoices site and instead googling for “workchoices 68″. Anyway, here it is.
Why would you want a copy of the booklet? I mean–it’s not as if the TV ads are being vague, dissembling and dishonest about the IR changes, right?
Hey Rob,
I think this is it: PDF
Found it under “our plan” on the site.
Whenever I see smiling faces in government propaganda, I reach for my metaphorical gun.
Ergh, graphic design to strangle puppies by.
Rob, in your wisdom, could you explain to us all the difference between “unfair dismissal” and “unlawful dismissal”? I’m just trying to work out if the broshure contains blatent lies, or if it’s just engaging in semantic tricks.
Hammy, you’re right, that’s the one you can order. Dammit, I was hoping I could get the full, 50-something page booklet (a chapter of my honours thesis — due next week! — is on these issues, and I’d like to refer to the best official source available, in the absence of the legislation).
gjw: yeah, the design’s pretty bad. Did you see the (pages and pages of) newspaper ads? They didn’t learn: they’re almost exactly the same as the previous print ads.
Unfair dismissal is protection against unfair treatment by your employer. It encompasses discrimination, but goes further: your sacking must not have been “harsh, unjust or unreasonable”. It includes procedural fairness, which means the employer must give you some warning that your work is bad, and a chance to improve, before they sack you. If you’re accused of misconduct, you must be given a chance to respond (but if your response is unsatisfactory they are within their rights to sack you without a notice period). Importantly, unfair dismissal claims are brought in the Industrial Relations Commission, so they’re cheaper and speedier.
Unlawful termination is much narrower. It protects you against discrimination (on grounds race, gender, religion, politics, union membership, family responsibilities) but that’s about it. If you can make out a prima facie case, the onus shifts to the employer, who will need to show (on the balance of probabilities) that your sacking was not for an unlawful reason. You need to make your claim in the federal court, which will cost you around $25,000 — $30,000. And remember, you’re unemployed now.
Actually, there’s a good example of the difference in the papers today:
I notice the PDF file on the WorkChoices site was screwy. I consciously decided to do nothing about it. I figured that it was an important message – that the Government can not even get a PDF file right :-)
I wouldn’t mind a copy either thanks Rob :-)
Check your emails – I’ve sent you a copy.
Rob, are you going to renew your domain name or do we all have to update our blogrolls?
Fuckers. I did renew that domain name. Fuck.
This all makes my head hurt. Billy in particular.
It gets worse and worse by the minute. Now there is a risk that unions could face a $33 000 fine for meeting a single member…
I hadn’t realised that I’d moved to South America overnight.
so which one is it? the former or the latter?
Sorry, Vee, what are you asking?
The booklet is the one in the comments I take it. The latter one.
If so I’ve skim speed read it and 99.9% of it says nothing changes.
The other 0.1% says it’ll change the bargaining power in all agreements.
So you can either false conclude from the 99.9% why change the laws at all or everything will be okay.
Or you can see the obvious – that bargaining shifts heavily to the employer but its only briefly mentioned.
There’s two booklets. The one now linked to in the post is the 68-page document that the business community, and later the press, was given. The one in the comments is the 15-page document that the general public gets to see. Crikey reports that the poor sods answering the phones on the WorkChoices hotline only have the short booklet, which raises serious concerns about the quality of the information you’ll get if you ring up with a question.
Say… has anyone considered ringing up and presenting situations – in the context of them happening to you – which show serious flaws in the legislation? If we ahhh, if we manage to convince the people manning the phones that the legislation is horrific…? :P
As I understand it from people who have rung the Hotline, it is essentially a clearing house where you can either order the 15 page booklet or they try and refer you to the Department or the Office of the Employment Advocate. The person I know contacted the Hotline today and the person answering the phone was in Hobart. They were not able to answer a question about what happens to a workforce under a transmission of business scenario.
Is that Workchoices 19 or 18 68?
Actually, serious question, is there a missing third choice of
1)Accept AWA
or
2)Keep award conditions
which combines with 3) look for work elsewhere.
Workchoices.