Mr Gerrit

With regards to your comment on unfair dismissal I am the first to agree that there are some rotten eggs on both sides of the fence. However, what you have not pointed out were the costs that were associated with the defence of the employer’s innocents. Firstly, he had to replace himself at the workplace. He then had his travel expenses to and from court then there would have been his lawyer’s bills as no doubt there would have been many letters to and frow prior to the case. You see it is quite simply much easier to avoid these situations rather than place ones self in a position whereby you may experience some conflict from an employee down the track. This is why I feel you will see some dire consequences should the unfair dismissal laws be re-introduced should we have a change of government.

As for super, this was introduced back in the early 90’s at 3% of the gross pay. At that stage a butchers wage (gross) was around $12.00 per hour. The introduction of super was also in lue of a pay increase at the time. So here we are now contributing 9% of $18.00 per hour and people say that we are wingers for not wanting to support our staff. In real terms the super contributions have increased by over 350% in this time.

Super should be contributed to employees who contribute themselves. After all, why should we contribute when they don’t have to.
rehctub

Has anyone collected statistics on how many men have suicided because of the viciousness of the Child Support Agency? I think many guys have been so hounded to death by the Agency for back maintenance that we would be stunned if we knew the number.

No Gibo I don't know how many men have although I know there have been several and in my opinion just there meer fact that it has happened at all is unacceptable.

While you're at it try to find out how many women have done this, if any at all.

I have several mates that are going through this as we speak and as amicable as they may try to make things there always seems to be the interferring freind who has to put her two bobs worth in and cause havic.

I know one case where the children were all adults when these freinds seperated after being married for 30 years. One would have thought that the judge would award 50-50 to the couple considering the kids were adults but, his x claimed that since they met she had never worked a day therefore due to the fact that she was now in her 50's and never worked the judge supported her case that she was to old to have to seek work now so he awarded her 85% of their welth.

Sad considering they had agreed on an amicle split of 50/50 until a freind of a freind put her intouch with a man hater lawyer.

This man, now in his 60's should be enjoying his retirment but now works full time. Just to rub salt into the wound he has also been ordered to provide her with $400 per week as she is incapable of earning an income. Ah, and did I mention that it was she who decided to seek an alternative as her hard working partner was at work all day and she got boared. Sucks hey!
rehctub

Lets consider this issue.
Husband and wife separate, after a long marriage and while the wife never worked the husband does take the view that she was as much part of the earnings as he was because after all, when he came home she had meals ready. She looked after the children, the house, was his companion, etc. Even so the children are now grown up, still he views that she should be entitled to half all assets, basically the house and furniture and half of the superannuation. The wife agrees with this. So, it seems for this that they have acted reasonable. Well, just that something is overlooked. The judge order the husband to pay out the wife’s superannuation at settlement as the house will not be sold because albeit they have separated and are to divorce neither want the house, where the children grew up in, to be able to visit their parents. So, the man is told by the judge that he has to cash on his superannuation and pay half of the current value of the superannuation to his wife. The man obviously protest and through his lawyer submits that it would be better that the Court orders that at retirement half of the superannuation value as applicable at the time of the orders, so that the superannuation is not severely reduced and in fact the man would have to pay the wife half of the superannuation now while by cashing in getting far less then that due to the early cashing in of the superannuation. The wife’s lawyers however argue that this does not suit the wife and the trail judge orders the monies to be paid out at settlement and failing this the house will be sold also.
One-would-ask-why-would-the-wife-as-asvised-by-her-lawyers-pursue-such-a-line-of-settlement if this is in fact risking that the house has to be sold also? While superannuation is for retirement, the Family Court ignores this Government policy! The lawyers are interested to make a buck out of any case, and in the end the husband and wife suffer both!

Yes I agree Mr Gerrit. This couple had ammassed quite a nest egg in property, as for super I don't know as his working life was all but over before comp super was inplimented. Furthermore, this was a gental loving man who was fully aware and accepted that his wife contributed to their situation, hence their initial agreement for a 50/50 split.

I know for a fact that the wife was given most of the assetts and I also know that they were sold at way below fair market value, not out of spite but rather that the wife had no idea of the values of these assetts at the time. This was also prior to the 2002 boom.

You see a man may be able to get over being screwed for most of his assetts and having to cough up his super NOW, but what really stinks in this case is the fat that this man, at 60, has to continue to support his x becasue she is deemed as being incapable of supporting herself.

And remeber, she sought another partner becasue he was out working hard to support her and build their retirement nest egg, then asked for a divorce. This is a true case and I know them personally.
rehctub

Gibo, that is very hard to do. CSA can't/won't release usefull figures.

I spent some time looking at that issue some years ago. From what I could see the only figures they are likely to have are the numbers of early terminations of child support because of the death of a parent - the gender and age breakups of those groups compared to the general population in similar age brackets would be indicitave of the overall impact on family breakup on death rates.

Even then CSA is not an island, they sit as part of a system that hurts people. My impression is of a system that empowers the schemers and manipulators regardless of gender but with some maternal bias built in as well. CSA may be more about the amount of money changing hands than about gender. Ocasionally women get done over by them as well.

Many suicides will be hard to be certain about - is a single vehicle accident a suicide or just a motor vehicle accident?

A few years ago a figure of about 30 male suicides a week resulting from family breakup was floating around but I never managed to get an understanding on what it was based on. I think it was an educated guess based on info the various mens support groups could gather.

It's a topic that needs serious research but I suspect that politically it's one that governments are unwilling to touch.

R0bert