http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/jurien-bay-iga-supermarket-fined-for-employing-11-year-old-girl/story-fnhocxo3-1227185811604

Um, hello....

I wonder if they paid her.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 12:58pm:

I wonder if they paid her.

They would have had to, for her to be classified as 'employed'.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 12:58pm:

I wonder if they paid her.

sticky question...  ::)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 1:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 12:58pm: I wonder if they paid her. They would have had to, for her to be classified as 'employed'.

Penalty rates?
Pay slip?
TFN declaration?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 1:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 12:58pm: I wonder if they paid her. They would have had to, for her to be classified as 'employed'.

How could she be classified if there is no box to tick for the bubblehead charged with her duty and care?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 1:03pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 1:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 12:58pm: I wonder if they paid her. They would have had to, for her to be classified as 'employed'. Penalty rates?

There was a mild penalty to give everyone the impression: "meh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 1:03pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 1:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 12:58pm: I wonder if they paid her. They would have had to, for her to be classified as 'employed'. Penalty rates? Pay slip? TFN declaration?

Probably none of those....however, if she wasn't being at least paid in cash, then she's just a kid hanging around at mom's work and packing shelves or what ever for fun.

Basically the same as school work experience (remember that??).

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 15^th, 2015 at 1:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 12:58pm: I wonder if they paid her. They would have had to, for her to be classified as 'employed'.

No, that's not correct.

Under the law, they are considered 'employed' even if they don't receive payment.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 9:49am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 1:03pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 1:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 12:58pm: I wonder if they paid her. They would have had to, for her to be classified as 'employed'. Penalty rates? Pay slip? TFN declaration? Probably none of those....however, if she wasn't being at least paid in cash, then she's just a kid hanging around at mom's work and packing shelves or what ever for fun. Basically the same as school work experience (remember that??).

11 year old kids doing work experience?  Nah.

Anyway:

"When is a child considered to be employed?
If a child is engaged to carry out work, whether or
not the child receives payment, or any other kind
of reward, the child is considered to be employed."

https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fact_sheet_-_employment_of_children_laws.pdf

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 10:22am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 9:49am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 1:03pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 1:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 12:58pm: I wonder if they paid her. They would have had to, for her to be classified as 'employed'. Penalty rates? Pay slip? TFN declaration? Probably none of those....however, if she wasn't being at least paid in cash, then she's just a kid hanging around at mom's work and packing shelves or what ever for fun. Basically the same as school work experience (remember that??). 11 year old kids doing work experience?  Nah. Anyway: "When is a child considered to be employed? If a child is engaged to carry out work, whether or not the child receives payment, or any other kind of reward, the child is considered to be employed." https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fact_sheet_-_employment_of_children_laws.pdf

Ok, that's odd. How do they deal with kids helping at the family shop, or (e.g) Dad's lawn mowing business then??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 10:44am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 10:22am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 9:49am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 1:03pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 1:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 12:58pm: I wonder if they paid her. They would have had to, for her to be classified as 'employed'. Penalty rates? Pay slip? TFN declaration? Probably none of those....however, if she wasn't being at least paid in cash, then she's just a kid hanging around at mom's work and packing shelves or what ever for fun. Basically the same as school work experience (remember that??). 11 year old kids doing work experience?  Nah. Anyway: "When is a child considered to be employed? If a child is engaged to carry out work, whether or not the child receives payment, or any other kind of reward, the child is considered to be employed." https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fact_sheet_-_employment_of_children_laws.pdf Ok, that's odd. How do they deal with kids helping at the family shop, or (e.g) Dad's lawn mowing business then??

"Children of any age may work:

•       in a family business where the business is
carried out by a parent or relative of the child"

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 10:00am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 1:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 12:58pm: I wonder if they paid her. They would have had to, for her to be classified as 'employed'. No, that's not correct. Under the law, they are considered 'employed' even if they don't receive payment.

You're joking?

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 10:48am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 10:44am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 10:22am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 9:49am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 1:03pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 1:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 12:58pm: I wonder if they paid her. They would have had to, for her to be classified as 'employed'. Penalty rates? Pay slip? TFN declaration? Probably none of those....however, if she wasn't being at least paid in cash, then she's just a kid hanging around at mom's work and packing shelves or what ever for fun. Basically the same as school work experience (remember that??). 11 year old kids doing work experience?  Nah. Anyway: "When is a child considered to be employed? If a child is engaged to carry out work, whether or not the child receives payment, or any other kind of reward, the child is considered to be employed." https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fact_sheet_-_employment_of_children_laws.pdf Ok, that's odd. How do they deal with kids helping at the family shop, or (e.g) Dad's lawn mowing business then?? "Children of any age may work: •       in a family business where the business is carried out by a parent or relative of the child"

Under current law it is illegal for businesses in the retail industry to employ children under 13.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 10:57am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 10:00am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 1:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 12:58pm: I wonder if they paid her. They would have had to, for her to be classified as 'employed'. No, that's not correct. Under the law, they are considered 'employed' even if they don't receive payment. You're joking?

I never joke.

"When is a child considered to be employed?
If a child is engaged to carry out work, whether or
not the child receives payment, or any other kind
of reward, the child is considered to be employed."

https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fact_sheet_-_employment_of_children_laws.pdf

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 10:58am:

Under current law it is illegal for businesses in the retail industry to employ children under 13.

"Children of any age may work:

•       in a family business where the business is
carried out by a parent or relative of the child"

https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fact_sheet_-_employment_of_children_laws.pdf

.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 11:00am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 10:58am: Under current law it is illegal for businesses in the retail industry to employ children under 13. "Children of any age may work: •       in a family business where the business is carried out by a parent or relative of the child" https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fact_sheet_-_employment_of_children_laws.pdf

So the article is incorrect?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 11:35am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 11:00am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 10:58am: Under current law it is illegal for businesses in the retail industry to employ children under 13. "Children of any age may work: •       in a family business where the business is carried out by a parent or relative of the child" https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fact_sheet_-_employment_of_children_laws.pdf So the article is incorrect?

No, the article is correct.

The person running the business was not the child's parent.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 10:00am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 1:01pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 15th, 2015 at 12:58pm: I wonder if they paid her. They would have had to, for her to be classified as 'employed'. No, that's not correct. Under the law, they are considered 'employed' even if they don't receive payment.

Indeed - there is a case extant in Australian law of an inmate stockman on a prison farm receiving compensation for injury.

Look up Dietrich.... there are two 'Dietrich Decisions' - the other says that a lack of legal represntation renders a matter moot and to be placed on 'permanent hold' - that is precisely why, Grasshoppers, EVERY indigent defendant in NSW will receive 'legal aid' sufficient to get him into prison.

I am seeking to extend Dietrich to 'a lack of meaningful legal representation'.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 16^th, 2015 at 11:38am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 11:35am: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 11:00am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 16th, 2015 at 10:58am: Under current law it is illegal for businesses in the retail industry to employ children under 13. "Children of any age may work: •       in a family business where the business is carried out by a parent or relative of the child" https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fact_sheet_-_employment_of_children_laws.pdf So the article is incorrect? No, the article is correct. The person running the business was not the child's parent.

lol, it's good to know stuff  ;)