They will be dirt cheap you would probably be able to book a few
Business & Finance Workforce & Business Changes, Layoffs, BCPs
- Thread starter Caesar
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus covid-19
- Tagged users None
You'd have to pay me to go on a cruise...even then, I probably still wouldn't do it
My SiL loved them you didn't have to carry your luggage, everyone spoke English, the food accommodation and entertainment was familiar and everyone around you was middle class and when you went to see the natives it was organised and at arms length
- Jun 22, 2008
- 24,580
- 21,276
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Before the s**t really hit the fan, you could get a 27 night circumnavigation of Australia about the Queen Elizabeth for $1,700 twin share. I was very tempted, luckily I didn't do anything about it. They were also advertising south pacific cruises for around $50 per person, per day.
If I cruise it will either be the Hawaii via Bora Bora and Tahiti or from Argentina to Antarctica. I'd do Antarctica from Tassie or New Zealand but they're just way too expensive.
I looked at River Cruises from Ho Chi Minh City to Siem Reap
but then thought too much money to be on holiday with rich scared middle class westerners in a 3rd world country.
and it only works if the wet season is on and its all connected
PoppedCorn
Saints
- Dec 29, 2009
- 19,601
- 37,718
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Have been told to use the annual leave thats accumulated between now and end of june plus 20% of any i have accrued
Company wide for all wage earners.
Company wide for all wage earners.
Jobkeeper 'loophole' could leave millions of employees without leave entitlements, Labor warns
“If you’re stood down, it’s already the case that employers can say you’ve got to use up your leave first, and they start running down your leave,” he said. “What it looks like will be possible is: if the employer gets the wage subsidy, instead of passing it through to you as a wage, they collect it and still have you running down your leave entitlements.
“So effectively, instead of the government subsidising someone’s wage, they’re subsidising the balance sheet for an employer while the employer simply runs down all the leave entitlements of their employees.”
Burke said he was “shocked” and “stunned” by the revelation – because Labor thought the jobkeeper payment was “meant to flow through to the workers to give them an extra payment, not [flow] through as they collect entitlements they had already earned”.
Jobkeeper 'loophole' could leave millions of employees without leave entitlements, Labor warns
Tony Burke says treasury briefing shows workers could be forced to exhaust leave while receiving new payment
PoppedCorn
Saints
- Dec 29, 2009
- 19,601
- 37,718
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Yup
Takes me thru to june 31
After that ill see what happens
Takes me thru to june 31
After that ill see what happens
- Thread starter
- #134
I think at this point, employees using up any leave entitlements they have is just their contribution to society getting through this.Jobkeeper 'loophole' could leave millions of employees without leave entitlements, Labor warns
“If you’re stood down, it’s already the case that employers can say you’ve got to use up your leave first, and they start running down your leave,” he said. “What it looks like will be possible is: if the employer gets the wage subsidy, instead of passing it through to you as a wage, they collect it and still have you running down your leave entitlements.
“So effectively, instead of the government subsidising someone’s wage, they’re subsidising the balance sheet for an employer while the employer simply runs down all the leave entitlements of their employees.”
Burke said he was “shocked” and “stunned” by the revelation – because Labor thought the jobkeeper payment was “meant to flow through to the workers to give them an extra payment, not [flow] through as they collect entitlements they had already earned”.
Jobkeeper 'loophole' could leave millions of employees without leave entitlements, Labor warns
Tony Burke says treasury briefing shows workers could be forced to exhaust leave while receiving new paymentwww.theguardian.com
Whether the employers should receive the wage subsidy whilst that is happening is I guess up for debate. It doesn’t really seem in the spirit of the program, but given the cash situation most businesses are facing it’s not something I really begrudge them.
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,554
- 118,374
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
I've been offered a new contract that includes the extra hours I've been doing over the past year. The catch is if I accept it, it makes the annual leave I've built up drop by about half of it
. Which means that if there is a shutdown, I'd be likely sitting at home for $0 for most of it, instead of comfortably being paid via annual leave for a few months.
Jobkeeper 'loophole' could leave millions of employees without leave entitlements, Labor warns
“If you’re stood down, it’s already the case that employers can say you’ve got to use up your leave first, and they start running down your leave,” he said. “What it looks like will be possible is: if the employer gets the wage subsidy, instead of passing it through to you as a wage, they collect it and still have you running down your leave entitlements.
“So effectively, instead of the government subsidising someone’s wage, they’re subsidising the balance sheet for an employer while the employer simply runs down all the leave entitlements of their employees.”
Burke said he was “shocked” and “stunned” by the revelation – because Labor thought the jobkeeper payment was “meant to flow through to the workers to give them an extra payment, not [flow] through as they collect entitlements they had already earned”.
Jobkeeper 'loophole' could leave millions of employees without leave entitlements, Labor warns
Tony Burke says treasury briefing shows workers could be forced to exhaust leave while receiving new payment
I don’t think this quote is correct, as it’s talking about companies receiving the “subsidy” and not passing it on. That’s not actually how JobKeeper will work. Employers must pay the employee first and then as part of regular single touch payroll reporting to the ATO, they will be reimbursed for what they have paid through JobKeeper the following month. I’m sure there will be unscrupulous people who will exploit it, but this article doesn’t seem to understand how JobKeeper will actually work.
Employers also can’t make you take your annual leave entitlements unless you have an excess annual leave balance (which is 8 weeks and higher)
Do you and your fellow staff currently have an excess balance of 8 weeks? If not, I would be checking the enterprise agreement to see if your employer can do this, as annual leave typically has to be at an excess level for you to be directed to take it. I would also forward the request to your union rep and ask them to look into this.
- Mar 11, 2018
- 8,149
- 12,482
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I've been offered a new contract that includes the extra hours I've been doing over the past year. The catch is if I accept it, it makes the annual leave I've built up drop by about half of it
To be honest Xtreme - I've always been amazed that you were allowed to build up such a cache of annual leave. Most companies I've worked at, typically you end up on some middle manager's report from HR once you hit 15 days. And once you get too far north of 25, they start talking about "reduction plans".
Sounds like you've got some sums to do. Good luck!
- Thread starter
- #140
No, it’s not.
Employers can only direct employees to take excessive leave, which is totally fair.
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,554
- 118,374
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
You are right. Its theft
- Thread starter
- #142
Again, it’s not.
The money doesn’t belong to the employee. It’s given from the government to the business on the stipulation that they comply with certain conditions.
If your employer is directing you to take leave it means you have accrued excessive entitlements, which is your own fault. It is called annual leave for a reason - you have an obligation under most awards and employment contracts to take leave within 6-12 months of it falling due.
GreyCrow
TheBrownDog
- Mar 21, 2016
- 74,554
- 118,374
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Sturt, White Sox
Lets leave the annual leave from this
Company claims money from government for paying workers
Company keeps money as employees instructed to use annual leave
Its fraud or theft. Choose one
As an aside I work for a company - and I am one of many around Australia in the same boat - who have to use 2 weeks annual leave over Christmas-New Year break because of shutdown.
That leaves 2 weeks to be taken during the year
There are no excessive entitlements in many of those industries around Australia.
For us it's anything over 8 weeks/40 days that should sound alarm bells. I only used 4 days in a 2 year period, before I then started having 4-6 weeks off per year and even then it would be in a 2 week burst or just a sneak 2-3 day period off here and there. In other jobs I would copy the summer school holiday period (my favourite time to have off, good weather + tennis to watch!!). Others are happy to use a month straight, I'd rather save it for when I really am on the verge of work burn out.
With the Corona situation, I reckon IF we don't get shut down via a Stage 4 Lockdown protocol, we'll end up shutting down ourselves by the end of April regardless.
- Thread starter
- #145
If you don’t have excessive entitlements then you can’t be directed to take it and there is no problem.
On the other hand, if I was running a small business with cash flow problems and I asked employees to be team players and take extra annual leave to help keep it alive... I’d be lying if I said their responses didn’t affect my loyalty to them down the track when deciding who to keep and who to lay off.
and then there is no leave left and the tourism industry dies when the lockdown finishes
Sorry I only just saw this. It’s not considered a break in service.
Normal rules don’t apply at the moment so I’d double check that annual leave clause.
Gralin
Super Moderator
- Moderator
- #149
Your employer is meant to keep money to pay out any leave entitlements that have accrued.
As they can force you to take leave if too much has accrued and don't have to approve your leave request how much leave you have and how much money businesses are meant to have in the bank to pay entitlements is not something you can just say is the employee's fault.
You're going to get people forced to take all their leave then be stood down. When this is all over they won't have any banked days.
Mind you this doesn't affect over a third of the workforce who doesn't get leave already.
They are making changes to fair work at the moment so they can make you take leave regardless of your balance.
The overall issue here is that businesses can potentially use this subsidy to get leave liabilities off the books and then make employees redundant at a much cheaper cost to the business.
At the same time legislation is being passed to allow the above to happen.
Might be an unintended consequence but it's there.
Messenger
No, I’m just disappointed
You must offer staff an opportunity to use their entitlements before you stand them down But if you have a cash flow issue sending people out on AL or LSL does not fix your problem.
