The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Safety regulations and employee protection laws

Safety regulations and employee protection laws

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Issy I thought it was a John Howard Waistcoat. on special this week at Target. And if its a 7-eleven you cant work for award wages either, it as the ATO require, all cash in hand!

BTW; Issy can you provide evidence for your claim? I still have a shot load of PORKY AWARDS awaiting you! The clock is ticking.
Posted by Paul1405, Thursday, 4 June 2020 6:34:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, some of you must be joking...really. In Australia, in 2020 as a contract, casual or prospective full time/ permanent worker under "probation" you can & will be sacked for bringing to the notice of your employer any unsafe practice, condition or PPE that is not suitable. If you want to keep your job it's a simple case of "turn up, shut up & put up". Anyone thinking other wise is off with the pixies. Employers, for the most, will provide PPE up to and including work shirts with their logo sewn on, (sometimes but not always) trousers, hard hat, gloves, clear & tinted safety glasses and very rarely, boots. Many labour hire companies will provide the minimum hard hat, glasses and a couple of shirts. There are some Pilbara based crews who provide "Pre-loved PPE", that is: it has been previously worn by someone and washed before they re-issue it for the next shutdown/crew. Lend Lease is one of those companies. When asked what "safety" is at the work site, it is best not to answer: "Safety is the risk mitigation strategy that your company employs. It is written by your lawyers at the behest of your insurer to minimise the losses to your ordinary shareholders." Rio Tinto's recent "House Rules home renovation" of a 46,000 year old rock shelter is probably not a good example to quote at a pre-start/toolbox meeting, if you don't want a 'Window seat' back home (at your expense).
Posted by Albie Manton in Darwin, Thursday, 4 June 2020 1:49:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Albert,

«Should privately owned companies inform workers of dangerous conditions and provide or at least suggest suitable protection to said dangers?»

Since you mentioned "companies", that would be a legitimate demand.

The term "privately owned companies" is a misnomer because there is nothing private about them, all it really means is that the company's shares are not listed on the stock-exchange - the people who own a company have appealed to government to be incorporated, to be recognized as something other than individuals, hence they have no grounds to complain. Nobody forced them to incorporate: they did so because it gave them certain privileges, thus there is nothing wrong about having to pay for them in return, including by being required to offer protections to their employees.

While private individual "employers" and "employees" ought to be able to agree on their work-conditions in whatever manner they see fit (including to not even label their relationships as "employer" and "employee"), companies are fair-game to be showered with government regulations.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 4 June 2020 11:47:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

There are private companies, a very small minority but they exist.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 5 June 2020 12:23:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Is Mise,

Thanks, so what is the difference then between a "private company" and just a private business? Isn't it the fact of incorporation, in other words of asking government for recognition and certain privileges?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 5 June 2020 12:32:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Do you guys think that the company can require employees to wear PPE?

Yes, because if the company is negligent in it's dealing with members of the public it can be sued for failing to protect customers in it's retail stores if one of it's staffmembers has a virus.

- But notification of being made to wear them should form part of the job description and contract.

Should privately owned companies inform workers of dangerous conditions and provide or at least suggest suitable protection to said dangers?

Yes, because if the company is negligent in it's dealing with staff it too can be sued for failing to provide reasonable protection for them in their duties.

I think a company should be able to force staff to wear PPE if the staff member wants to keep a job.
And I think staff themselves have a right to PPE if they request it, and are in contact with others during their work shift.
(Assuming we're talking about face-masks, and a staffmembers right to protect themselves from / not be exposed to - viruses while at work)
Posted by Armchair Critic, Sunday, 7 June 2020 7:59:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy