|
Zenithe posted:As far as I can see from the two relevant areas of the EBA, the 'break' is a legit part of the agreement, and phones not being used is also part of the agreement, but it does not specify about breaks. Critical to the argument is the “crib breaks count as time worked” portion of the excerpt. Unless that changes the company are following the rules. You could argue that if you’re not customer facing (in situations with two people in store) that it’s unreasonable to impose the rule, but first you’d need to see if they enforced it whilst you weren’t in front of customers. Comments above suggest it’s about looking unprofessional as opposed to just not wanting you to use your phone during work hours.
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
CrazyTolradi posted:If that's the case, maybe the "rules" are stupid and wrong? Given the circumstance, the rule isn’t excessive. I’d imagine most of us technically can’t check their phone when being paid either. The complexity here is that this is a period of time where the person can eat whilst being paid. I know I’m verging into the whole “I hate the working class” that everyone assumes I believe. But as I said in the bit you didn’t quote, are the company going to enforce this when staff aren’t customer facing? If that’s the case then yes, the union should address it; otherwise I’d consider it an acceptable rule for a customer focussed business.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:buddy i work in the public service and approximately 1/3 of the time i bill the australian taxpayer for is spent on my phone That’s why I said technically. Laserface posted:lmao that you can have a job, have a 'break' and still be expected to not only work but also not actually be able to do any of the things they give you the break for. There are two types of breaks described by the FWO. First is a rest break (a crib break falls in this category), these are short periods of time during work hours where you are allowed to rest. In this case, you can eat but the break is only allowable when the servo is quiet. Everyone else in the thread is referring to a “meal break” which is uninterrupted (and normally unpaid). They have clearly stated in the EBA that they are getting a paid “crib break” and therefore are still counted as working. It’s completely hosed, but the company are working in-line with the EBA and FWO rules.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
The Peccadillo posted:I'm losing my mind about this, there exists the resources to feed, house and clothe every man woman and child in the world, gently caress off with your keepaway games The irony is that if you provide those resources to everyone, there won’t be the workforce to maintain or provide the food, housing and clothing for everyone in the world. Maybe in another 20 years when robots become more sophisticated and can manage these tasks with no human interaction.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 06:30
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:that’s the point; there’s no way to comprehensively trial UBI without actually doing it. If you read into the Finland model they have provisions which reduce the amount of UBI received by those not actively working or studying for work purposes. In 2018 this is just under a 5% difference over workers. But it highlights the issue of people being able to make a decision to not work and still survive comfortably. For the system to really work on a large scale, it’s likely that you’d need to structure it to “force” people into labour markets which aren’t enjoyable. I don’t personally believe it can be introduced overnight without creating labour shortages. I do believe a progressive UBI introduction could work as it would stabilise the labour losses in higher-risk industries. The model does work, and we could create a situation where no-one in the country lives below the poverty line; but not with a single sweeping introduction.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 13:20
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:I believe the only "forcing" would be UBI, by its inherent nature, forcing industry to finally pay people in undesirable or high risk jobs at a much higher rate. The problem is that most undesirable jobs are part of the food supply chain (and others but food would be most problematic). Farming, truck driving, warehousing, store clerks as examples. The moment the wages are forced to go up here, the more the companies selling will charge which leads to higher UBI requirements. The alternative is further automation, but I said before. We aren’t there yet. Until undesirable roles are removed from the supply chains of food, clothing and education; UBI is not something that’s an instant fix all. GoldStandardConure posted:well if we can't do it like that then what's the loving point?! lets all just sit here and wait for the rising beach to consume us all By introducing UBI slowly, you can focus on making it actually work. The Finland model is continually being developed and I imagine the above is one of the primary reasons why.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 14:17
|
|
|
Denominational school funding appears to remain under their current policies. Still can’t vote green.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2018 10:24
|
|
|
Am I the only person still waiting on a picture of the “name and shame” board? I really want to liken this to previous experience of unions “having evidence” of something but never being able to substantiate. I won’t though until we’ve confirmed there is no picture of the board.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 13:43
|
|
|
Periphery posted:(but this feels like it kinda defeats the whole simplicity of a UBI) UBI is not simple. It’s actually the complete opposite. You have to balance tax to pay for the system whilst maintaining a large working population. Then you need to actively promote working through the system to save on the large population that simply would not work. Read into the Finland model and the modifications they’ve made since its introduction. SMILLENNIALSMILLEN posted:That's an evil twist and then to brag about it like it isnt evil It’s a psychological trick. The long term tenant clearly wanted the property cheap and appeared to be happy to wait. The moment competition is introduced, the tenant bought it. The estate agent is just pointing out that he worked out how to benefit his client best; this is rule number 6 of being an estate agent in NSW.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2018 11:24
|
|
|
bandaid.friend posted:Sydney's light rail extension is going to cost more and finish years later than expected. The company subcontracted for construction says they weren't told how much stuff was under the roads, or where, and they're suing the state. The brand-new rail line between Epping and Chatswood is going to be shut down for a year, replaced by buses, to convert it for "metro” cars On the subject of light rail. This is what happens when you don’t spend money on the project feasibility studies and assessments. On the subject of Epping to Chatswood. It’s less than a year and the “new” 10 year old rail line is being upgraded to provide a better service. Short term pain for long term gains.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
bandaid.friend posted:Yeah seven months is a lot less than a year, huh. I was lazy and put that in off memory. I don't think the metro is a bad idea but I do think it's real odd the line is being redone so soon after being built Epping to Chatswood had infrastructure issues and I believe was identified for the northwest metro when the project was first discussed 15+ years ago. Given how pressing it was, they built it first. This isn’t atypical for massive rail projects as it provides proof of feasibility for these projects. People give NSW transport divisions a bad rap, but they have very good long term strategy right now. *edit* A report from 2009 containing the ECRL identified for metro to the northwest. https://www.opengov.nsw.gov.au/download/11875 prior to this, it would have been identified outside of the “metro” remit and I don’t have the patience to search. Pinball Jizzard fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Apr 14, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 10:13 |
|
|
froglet posted:Buying a house (and an investment property at that) seems like a really dumb thing to do at that age. It’s literally the best thing he can do at his age for his future financial security. Why can’t he buy another house? The equity in his investment property will be considered a massive plus on any future home loan, this is why old mate baby boomer has 6 properties on an average income. And why wouldn’t he use a real estate agent anyway? It’ll likely be managed by a property agent regardless. The whole 6% they charge is worth it for the removal of costs and to diminish responsibilities as the landlord.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2018 10:27
|
|