Recently I became aware of a way that big organisations screw over low paid workers while giving the impression of holding the high moral ground.
A big organisation closes a facility and announces to the world that there will be no redundancies and that all employees will be offered positions elsewhere.
I used to think:
how nice.
How kind.
How considerate.
Recently I discovered this was essentially how an organisation can essentially avoid paying redundancies.
So one redepoys the low paid workers to a even lower paid position at a facility far from their home, either with not much parking or inconvenient public transport.
And they resign.
Money saved.
High moral ground maintained.
In general, I like the idea of minimal government with government setting the rules for business to get on with business and p
In general I would like to see simpler employment law however there is, in my view, a role for government to play in setting the rules and protecting the weak and powerless. This seems to be an unfair situation.
I think make it an
A THOUGHT
The less a person is paid, the less power they have AND the less life resilience they have. Probably no savings, crappy car, few if any useful academic qualifications and so on. Essentially harder for them to get a job and that difficulty magnified if they are old.
A SECOND PROBLEM
As a small business owner, the complexity of over a hundred awards and the fear of legal retaliation in the event of firing someone.
A SOLUTION
Imagine if when a big company closes a facility, they have to pay out a redundancy?
Or possibly they have to make an offer of the new job including position, location and pay and also give the redundancy option.
Further more, I'm going to suggest that the redundancy amount be a fixed amount. So in a way, the less a person was being paid, and likely the tougher life is, then the proportionally the better the hand shake.
No comments:
Post a Comment