Comments on: Australia: “Bosses rapped for valid sacking”

By: nevins

nevins — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:22:33 +0000

So jobs get moved behind another layer of corporate protection, the temp agency for life. The principal corporation hires a contract worker from the temp-for-life company. Now they don’t have to fire anyone, just not renew the contract with temp-for-life for next weeks. The man is not unemployed, he is still an independent contractor working for temp-for-life, but has no current assignment and no current salary and access to the office/plant has been revoked. Just like being fired, except that he was never hired. And temp-for-life company takes 10% of his salary, which is run by the brother-in-law of the corporate chief.

By: Mikee

Mikee — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 18:49:17 +0000

No, tenure at your job is not the result of this case. Refusal to hire will be the result of this case. If you cannot fire someone, the safest thing to do is to avoid hiring anyone in the first place.

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:33:33 +0000

If you live in Australia.

By: Ed

Ed — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:12:12 +0000

So, now you can get tenure at any job?

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:34:03 +0000

“If the applicant had substantially lesser service; had not been a middle-aged man with very poor employment prospects for whom the dismissal has such serious personal and economic consequences;

So according to the government it is the responsibility of the employer to provide welfare.

or if it had been brought home to him at any time on 2 September, 2009, that a further breach would have serious consequences, I would not have concluded that the dismissal was harsh,” vice-president Michael Lawler found.

And why would this additional warning be treated differently by the government than all of the other warnings he ignored?

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:50:32 +0000

Another protected class.