I'll tell you what I'm gonna be watching with some interest in the next few weeks - that employment bill that ACT has just introduced to Parliament that would make it a lot easier for employers to fire staff who earn more than $180,000 because those high earning staff would not be able to take personal grievance cases for justified dismissal.
Now, I say high earning with air quotes, because while yes, these people do earn a lot more than the average wage, I don't think that they earn so much that they can be considered, I don't know, rich pricks and treated so callously as to simply fire them without them having any recourse.
Many of these people, I think, will probably be raising families - because you don't earn $180,000 plus if you're in your early 20s, do you?
These are people who are in management, maybe even in upper management, and I'd imagine that they've got families to feed and families to look after, so I imagine these people would be amongst the most stressed if they could just lose their jobs all of a sudden.
I think ACT is taking something of a political gamble here, because I would have thought that this is a case of ACT screwing over some of its own voters.
Because remember, ACT does well in well-heeled places like Epsom, which is where people earning more than $180,000 a year live.
Now, I'm not sure what's made ACT feel like they have to do this, because it's not as if there has been this huge public debate about how people on $180,000 plus have been terrible employees who need to have their employment rights stripped.
And if anything, this is just going to provide work for lawyers because people on this kind of money will have the means, and if they have families to feed, the motivation as well, to litigate, and I suspect that they will.
So I'm very keen to see if ACT actually goes through with this part of its plan, because from where I'm sitting, this just looks like a really weird idea with more downsides than upsides.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Episode Transcript
I tell you what I'm going to be watching with
some interest in the next few weeks. It's that employment
bill that actors just introduced to Parliament that would make
it a lot easier for employers to fire staff who
earn more than one hundred and eighty thousand dollars because
those quote high earning staff would not be able to
take personal grievance cases for unjustified dismissal. Now I say
(00:20):
high earning with air quotes, because while yes, these people
do earn a lot more than the average wage, I
don't think that they earn so much that they can
be considered I don't know, rich pricks and treated so
callously as to simply fire them without them having any recourse.
Many of these people, I think will probably be raising families,
because you don't earn one hundred and eighty thousand dollars
(00:41):
plus if you're in your early twenties, do you. These
are people who are in management, maybe even in upper management,
and I'd imagine that they've got families to feed a
lot of them and families to look after. So I
imagine these people would be amongst the most stressed if
they could just lose their jobs all of a sudden,
I think actors taking something of a political gamble here,
because I would have thought that this is a case
(01:02):
of ACT screwing over some of its own voters, because
remember ACT does well in well healed places like EPSOM,
which is where people earning more than one hundred and
eighty thousand dollars a year live. Now, I'm not sure
what's made ACT feel like they have to do this,
because it's not as if there has been this huge
public debate about how people on one hundred and eighty
thousand dollars plus have been terrible employees who need to
(01:23):
have their employment right stripped. And if anything, this is
just going to provide work for lawyers, because people on
this kind of money will have the means and if
they have families to feed, the motivation as well to litigate,
and I suspect that they will. So I'm very keen
to see if ACT actually goes through with this part
of its plan, because from where I'm sitting, this just
looks like a really weird idea with more downsides than upsides.
(01:46):
For more from Heather Duplicy, Allan Drive listen live to
news talks. It'd be from four pm weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Burden
The Burden is a documentary series that takes listeners into the hidden places where justice is done (and undone). It dives deep into the lives of heroes and villains. And it focuses a spotlight on those who triumph even when the odds are against them. Season 5 - The Burden: Death & Deceit in Alliance On April Fools Day 1999, 26-year-old Yvonne Layne was found murdered in her Alliance, Ohio home. David Thorne, her ex-boyfriend and father of one of her children, was instantly a suspect. Another young man admitted to the murder, and David breathed a sigh of relief, until the confessed murderer fingered David; “He paid me to do it.” David was sentenced to life without parole. Two decades later, Pulitzer winner and podcast host, Maggie Freleng (Bone Valley Season 3: Graves County, Wrongful Conviction, Suave) launched a “live” investigation into David's conviction alongside Jason Baldwin (himself wrongfully convicted as a member of the West Memphis Three). Maggie had come to believe that the entire investigation of David was botched by the tiny local police department, or worse, covered up the real killer. Was Maggie correct? Was David’s claim of innocence credible? In Death and Deceit in Alliance, Maggie recounts the case that launched her career, and ultimately, “broke” her.” The results will shock the listener and reduce Maggie to tears and self-doubt. This is not your typical wrongful conviction story. In fact, it turns the genre on its head. It asks the question: What if our champions are foolish? Season 4 - The Burden: Get the Money and Run “Trying to murder my father, this was the thing that put me on the path.” That’s Joe Loya and that path was bank robbery. Bank, bank, bank, bank, bank. In season 4 of The Burden: Get the Money and Run, we hear from Joe who was once the most prolific bank robber in Southern California, and beyond. He used disguises, body doubles, proxies. He leaped over counters, grabbed the money and ran. Even as the FBI was closing in. It was a showdown between a daring bank robber, and a patient FBI agent. Joe was no ordinary bank robber. He was bright, articulate, charismatic, and driven by a dark rage that he summoned up at will. In seven episodes, Joe tells all: the what, the how… and the why. Including why he tried to murder his father. Season 3 - The Burden: Avenger Miriam Lewin is one of Argentina’s leading journalists today. At 19 years old, she was kidnapped off the streets of Buenos Aires for her political activism and thrown into a concentration camp. Thousands of her fellow inmates were executed, tossed alive from a cargo plane into the ocean. Miriam, along with a handful of others, will survive the camp. Then as a journalist, she will wage a decades long campaign to bring her tormentors to justice. Avenger is about one woman’s triumphant battle against unbelievable odds to survive torture, claim justice for the crimes done against her and others like her, and change the future of her country. Season 2 - The Burden: Empire on Blood Empire on Blood is set in the Bronx, NY, in the early 90s, when two young drug dealers ruled an intersection known as “The Corner on Blood.” The boss, Calvin Buari, lived large. He and a protege swore they would build an empire on blood. Then the relationship frayed and the protege accused Calvin of a double homicide which he claimed he didn’t do. But did he? Award-winning journalist Steve Fishman spent seven years to answer that question. This is the story of one man’s last chance to overturn his life sentence. He may prevail, but someone’s gotta pay. The Burden: Empire on Blood is the director’s cut of the true crime classic which reached #1 on the charts when it was first released half a dozen years ago. Season 1 - The Burden In the 1990s, Detective Louis N. Scarcella was legendary. In a city overrun by violent crime, he cracked the toughest cases and put away the worst criminals. “The Hulk” was his nickname. Then the story changed. Scarcella ran into a group of convicted murderers who all say they are innocent. They turned themselves into jailhouse-lawyers and in prison founded a lway firm. When they realized Scarcella helped put many of them away, they set their sights on taking him down. And with the help of a NY Times reporter they have a chance. For years, Scarcella insisted he did nothing wrong. But that’s all he’d say. Until we tracked Scarcella to a sauna in a Russian bathhouse, where he started to talk..and talk and talk. “The guilty have gone free,” he whispered. And then agreed to take us into the belly of the beast. Welcome to The Burden.