Teenagers on AWAs at a restaurant chain are being required to fork out their own money to cover customers who skip away without paying the bill.In addition to picking up the tab of customers who do a runner, the young workers were expected to kick in $50 of their own money at the beginning of each shift for cash floats.
Employees would only start to get paid once customers arrived, with some waiting up to 45 minutes after clocking on before the $13.44* per hour started to kick in.
Many were often only offered shifts that lasted two hours in total. "Most of the time I was given only two-hour shifts, meaning I got just $26.88 a night," former employee Alice McCarthy told the Daily Telegraph.
"I was excited to land a job at Chili's...(but) sadly, my enthusiasm and excitement over my new job was quickly dampened by the harsh realities of the conditions of my employment," she said.
"I didn't really understand the implications of the AWA at first, " Alice said. "I thought it would not really make a difference to my working conditions. I also believed that the whole fuss about the WorkChoices laws was created by politicians wanting votes. But I was wrong because the AWA I had signed really did make a difference to the job."
The ACTU described the situation as "further evidence of how vulnerable young workers have lost rights under John Howard's IR laws," as they launched a new advertisement highlighting the growing concerns of older Australians and working parents.
The ad portrays three generations of the same Australian family, with a grandfather character explaining that his generation 'fought for things like regular working hours, penalty rates and redundancy pay' while his daughter and grandson worry they are losing their rights at work.
"There are very strong concerns about the IR laws among older Australians and parents who are worried about how their children are being treated in the workplace under the new IR laws," ACTU President Sharran Burrow said.
* Following a recent decision by the Fair Pay Commission, the minimum wage will jump to $13.92, effective 1 October 2007.
4 comments:
It's very sad that I'm becoming less surprised by these stories of unfair treatment of workers, younger workers in particular. Dodgy bosses can and will do what they like under Howard's unfair laws. But while I am less surprised, I am no less outraged and angry. I have personally sent Chili's management a letter saying that I will never eat there again and will tell all my friends about this story.
my 18 year old grandson was very excited about being offered what he regarded as his first "real" job at $20 per hour. then he told us that all he had to do before he started on monday was get an ABN number. his grandad and i went through the implications with him - explaining that he would be, in fact, a sub-contractor and the $20 per hour was a gross figure from which he would have to pay his own tax, super and insurance. mean trick to play on a kid, i think.
Another example of employers taking advantage of the Industrial relations laws which are heavily weighted in favour of the employer. Youth getting into the workforce for the first time in relatively unskilled areas have no bargaining power at all. Anyone working in any area where there is someone else who could do your job has little bargaining power.
Naturally, employees want the best pay and conditions they can get. Employers want the cheapest labour they can get. It has always been that way. In the past we have had industrial relations legislation to protect employees. Employees could not be sacked without good reason, people doing the same job got the same rate of pay and overtime rates would be paid to staff expected to work extra hours.
If employers can legally reduce pay and conditions for its' staff and there is always someone else ready and able to take your job, this type of thing is inevitable.
People need jobs and businesses need staff. It is a symbiotic relationship in which one cannot survive without the other. In order to get the fairest outcome for all involved, a careful balance needs to be maintained. Unfortunately the IR laws have tipped the scales in favour of employers, interfering with the balance that once existed.
In the past legislation protected workers. Employees could not be sacked without good reason, people doing the same job got the same rate of pay and overtime rates would be paid to staff expected to work extra hours.
With past laws designed to protect the vulnerable now gone we will no doubt see more unbalanced behaviour.
Who is protecting the worker now that the legislation does not? What can we do to make up for the shortfall in protection that now exists? Joining your union is about the only thing you can do. Unions will go in to bat for the little guy, to maintain some kind of balance between the individual worker and corporate might. Without the support of your union and the voice it give you, it really is you versus the rest of the world.
The IR laws totally favour employers and this allows them to exploit employees financially and emotionally. Australia has regressed in terms of industrial relations and has created an unsafe, unpredictable environment and destroyed the work life balance.
Post a Comment