If you are sick from work?

[thisisit05]

with all these new IR laws what is the deal do you have to porovide a certificate if you are sick from work only one day??Is that the new law and has it come to effect already?

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Yep it has. Thank Barnaby.

 

[thisisit05]

so yu do have to provide a certifcate for one day, what a ********in joke.Thats ridiculous.It only passed the other day christ my boss is on top of things.

 

[whythelongface]

so yu do have to provide a certifcate for one day, what a ********in joke.Thats ridiculous.It only passed the other day christ my boss is on top of things.

Really it is upto your employer to enforce it. But yes if an employer asks you for a certificate for a day off and you don't produce one then they have the right to not pay you for that day. They could probably dismiss you for operational reasons as well if they really wanted to. A fair and equitable system.

 

[Monkster]

It got passed already? I didn't even hear anything about it?

 

[thisisit05]

but what I am asking is with new IR reforms is that part of the law now? so every emploeyr can demand it. because befor the new iR reforms I heard it was two days off and you had to provide a cert.Anyway just asking

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Impossible to get in to see a doctor who bulk bills on the same day in some areas and considering people need certificates, they will be even busier.

So you go to a doctor who doesn't bulk bill and spend half a days wage to get the certificate. Or you go to work sick and spread it to others. Or you stay home until you get an appointment and get the doctor to backdate the certificate to the first day. Use half your sick leave in one go.

Most employers won't ask for it but some people that might already work for difficult employers are going to be that much more stressed.

I thought this was going to be one of the changes.

 

[- PC -]

Or you go to work sick and spread it to others. .

Or you go to work for 5 minutes and go home and not be required to produce a certificate.

Is that possible under the new laws?

 

[Andre]

Employers have the right to ask, but like most of these changes 99% would leave it as it currently is. Most employers couldn't be stuffed chasing certificates for RELIABLE staff. The only ones I can see it affecting is employees who take an excessive number of sickies - they are likely to have to start showing they are true sickies.

 

[Joffaboy]

Doesn't it matter whats in your current terms of employment?

For example I get cumulative 10 days per year and need a certificate for 2 days or more sick or one for a friday or monday (this is not enforced though and only applies to people taking long weekends).

My employer has no right to enforce new conditions on me without my consent or a change in the terms of employment that i signed.

 

[- PC -]

Employers have the right to ask, but like most of these changes 99% would leave it as it currently is. Most employers couldn't be stuffed chasing certificates for RELIABLE staff. The only ones I can see it affecting is employees who take an excessive number of sickies - they are likely to have to start showing they are true sickies.

As in the recent case of Shane Connors??? he can claim discrimination due to the policy not been workplace wide but a policy of selective use

 

[whythelongface]

Doesn't it matter whats in your current terms of employment?

For example I get cumulative 10 days per year and need a certificate for 2 days or more sick or one for a friday or monday (this is not enforced though and only applies to people taking long weekends).

My employer has no right to enforce new conditions on me without my consent or a change in the terms of employment that i signed.

I believe that that is the case, however once your current contract/ EBA runs its course then the new legislation takes effect. That is, unless you negotiate a different contract whereby this clause is omitted or changed.

 

[Half Back Flanker]

It's passed the house allright, but I dont think the GG has signed it yet, a formality for sure but the law does not take effect until this occurs at least.

 

[crazy_big_al]

thats just crap

 

[crazy_big_al]

I have been just told i am cover for mine until 3 day under my EPO

 

[arrowman]

The laws come in to effect on from 31 March 2006 (I believe).

And as has been noted above, the effect will be progressive as various EBAs etc expire. The laws do not automatically override existing employemnt contracts, they only change the rules under which new contracts are negotiated.

And on the sick leave thing - the laws ALLOW employers to require a certificate for one day off, they don't REQUIRE it as part of IR law itself. It's up to your employer. Some employers have this policy already, most don't. And most don't for the very good reason that it is ridiculous and impractical. I doubt that their views would change just because of the new IR laws.

 

[Andre]

I doubt that their views would change just because of the new IR laws.

This applies across the whole IR law changes. Why is it so many are expecting employers to suddenly on mass apply the most unappealing parts to every employee? Are these people so disconnected from the real world, that they don't realise every person isn't interchangable and the majority of employers realise keeping the good staff means more then providing the minimum pay and conditions ?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

This applies across the whole IR law changes. Why is it so many are expecting employers to suddenly on mass apply the most unappealing parts to every employee?

I guess the concern on this particular issue is that if the employer does apply it, you are automatically out one day's pay. Something that many could not afford to lose.

Are these people so disconnected from the real world, that they don't realise every person isn't interchangable and the majority of employers realise keeping the good staff means more then providing the minimum pay and conditions ?

I have probably had about 6 employers in my life and I'd say that two of those were sadistic ego trippers who thought they owned you. I think they would happily apply anything they could to reduce the wage they had to pay. My current employer is safe as houses but I can't help but think of some of the bastards I have met and how they might affect other workers. Most people would be in the same boat, we all know at least one bad employer and recognise you wouldn't want to be working for them when the changes are in.

 

[Weaver]

This applies across the whole IR law changes. Why is it so many are expecting employers to suddenly on mass apply the most unappealing parts to every employee? Are these people so disconnected from the real world, that they don't realise every person isn't interchangable and the majority of employers realise keeping the good staff means more then providing the minimum pay and conditions ?

The problem, as I see it, is that the workers who will be most effected by these changes are the ones who are already struggling with poor employers.

It won't make a good employer turn bad. But it will give a lot more licence to an employer who is already treating their workforce badly. The people most effected by these changes are likely to be those that are least able to fight for their rights - casaul, part-time and low paid workers.

I think the government has a duty to protect those who can't protect themselves and instead they are making things tougher for those who are already struggling.

If you work for a multinational in a CBD office you won't even notice the changes. If you work in a textile factory on the city edges your life got tougher. That to me is not what the government should be doing.

 

[Andre]

If you work in a textile factory on the city edges your life got tougher. That to me is not what the government should be doing.

It's not governments job to artificially constrain the market either. The governments job is to provide a safety net for those who fall through the cracks.

Personally I'd be going along the lines of reducing the minimum wage, so that employment is boosted, BUT offsetting that with Tax Credits and increased family payments. The problem, as I see it, is BOTH Labor and Liberal are stuck in ideological positions. The Liberals won't do tax credits or the like as they see it as big government. The Labor side won't reduce the minimum wage as their union mates would scream.

Call me crazy, but surely it's better allround to have, say a million more people employed full time on $20k a year, with $10k from the government, then having them on unemployment / 'dodgy-back' disability pensions getting say $15k a year from the government ? (figures plucked out of thin air - the intent is the point). People at the bottom end of the income scale would remain on the same amount of money in hand, except you now have more of them in work.

There are other advantages to this of course. You get more in work, you reduce crime and drug use. A large amount of crime is perpetrated by those bored ********less, who are out of work, who turn to drugs.

If there was a party who'd be willing to ditch their sacred cows and embrace the best policies of each parties point of views, they'd get my vote. Too much hand-in-sand reflexive 'No's' from all parties at the moment.

 

[- PC -]

Personally I'd be going along the lines of reducing the minimum wage, so that employment is boosted,

Just on this . This is the bit that confuses me no end. I know of a company that paid no OT or penalties. The drivers work 12-16 hours a day. Is it your contention that reducing the minimum wage would suddenly see those drivers hours cut in half, and 2 drivers employed?

Call me crazy, but surely it's better allround to have, say a million more people employed full time on $20k a year, with $10k from the government, then having them on unemployment / 'dodgy-back' disability pensions getting say $15k a year from the government ? (figures plucked out of thin air - the intent is the point). People at the bottom end of the income scale would remain on the same amount of money in hand, except you now have more of them in work.

Crazy

Those ''dodgy back'' people have dodgy backs because they are too lazy to work. The others are just as lazy, but there is no real incentive for them to look for work. My solution... squeeze the unemployment benefits to force people into a choice... work or starve. When I was 16/17 it was a bludge I admit... government gave me money to sleep in and go to the beach etc. Why work? Making more jobs available wont get people to work. If that was the case fruitpickers would not need to employ Somalians etc

 

[Andre]

Those ''dodgy back'' people have dodgy backs because they are too lazy to work. The others are just as lazy, but there is no real incentive for them to look for work. My solution... squeeze the unemployment benefits to force people into a choice... work or starve. When I was 16/17 it was a bludge I admit... government gave me money to sleep in and go to the beach etc. Why work? Making more jobs available wont get people to work. If that was the case fruitpickers would not need to employ Somalians etc

Yeah, but if you reduce the minimum wage and squeeze unemployment benefits (as opposed to welfare for those on low wages, which are boosted under my plan) at the same time, then you get the double whammy of more incentive to work, plus easier for businesses to take on work. Should have qualified that I wouldn't be increasing the dole/disability pension.

There are genuine disability pensions, but I'd be a lot stricter on assessing them - like "Hello Mr. Johnson, where just going to hook you up to this polygraph machine whilst we ask if you are putting that neck brace on just when you visit us" - something that certainly happens. I know of a case just like this where the bloke only ever wore his brace into Centrelink.

A job of any sort, beats no job. Joblessness is soul destroying for the person and bad for soceity as a whole.

 

[TheGhostOfJohnBelushi]

My work has had this policy for three years. Good thing I'm not one who takes a lot of sickies. Had one sicky in my first six months, because I was working five day shifts but had like three days on, one off, two on, one off, so I never had two consecutive days off work. Took a Monday off (was a casual, mind you) and didn't get paid.

My next day off (other than annual leave) was yesterday for a funeral. I better get frickin paid!

 

[littleduck]

Imagine if they banned the use of "medical condition" type doctors certificates. You get those just for turning up!