|
greggerypeccary
|
Setanta wrote on Aug 2 nd, 2019 at 9:59pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2 nd, 2019 at 9:52pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2 nd, 2019 at 9:49pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2 nd, 2019 at 9:45pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2 nd, 2019 at 9:39pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2 nd, 2019 at 9:33pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2 nd, 2019 at 9:26pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2 nd, 2019 at 9:20pm: Setanta wrote on Aug 2 nd, 2019 at 9:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 2 nd, 2019 at 9:08pm: rhino wrote on Aug 2 nd, 2019 at 9:04pm: Thats not mine or others interpretation of the award. They would have to be getting paid for travel if that was the case. Show me where it says in the Award that they must complete 2 hours (or a shift) at one location. In fact, show me where it says that they must complete 2 hours of work. Are you suggesting an employer would not want his pound of flesh and gives people money they have not worked for? In my experience it's the opposite. Seems a very strange stance to take Greg, your pedantry is showing through. They don't want to pay for work not done, but they have to by law. And, it happens every single day. The Awards state minimum payments, not minimum times spent at work. Why would they not just make them work then? That seems to me to be what they would do. You'd be out of a job if bosses were that magnanimous. Wherever they can, they do. When there is no work to be done, however, they're sent home and paid for the minimum time specified in the Award (or Agreement). A good example, which happens every single night, is casuals stocking shelves in supermarkets. If all the pallets are empty, and all the floors are swept, before the end of a casual's minimum 3 hour shift (say, within 90 minutes for example), they're sent home early and paid for the full three hours. The managers hate doing it, but they want to get home too, so they don't have much choice. I thought were were talking about this... Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 2 nd, 2019 at 8:39am: Mum has a carer for 1 hour each morning and they are all telling me their hours are cut to base and they can't cover their bills
Spot Why would the boss tell the help to go home for a paid hour instead of staying and working? It's up to the client, not the boss. If the client - Spot's mum - says she doesn't need any more help, the carer leaves her house. If the carer then calls the office and the office says they have no other clients booked, the carer is sent home. However, they're paid for the minimum two hours. Doesn't look like Spot's mum is sending them home but they don't have the time to stay to do any more. Isn't that how you'd read his post? One hour at Spot's mum's place, and one hour at Greg's mum's place (instead of two hours at each place). What's so hard to understand? I can understand that no probs but the carer is not being sent home with pay. That's just not going to happen in that industry. More likely the employer wants two pounds of flesh for the one he is paying for. Happens every day, I can assure you. I have carers for my parents when I'm away, so I know exactly what goes on. If there is no other client booked, and the carer is finished at my parents' house, they are sent home. They don't make them go back to the office and clean the toilets or wash the mangers' cars. Moreover, it happens every single night in shopping centres across the country. e.g. A store manager is told that a truck is arriving at 10pm with 20 pallets of stock. The manager arranges for 5 casual workers to do a 3 hour shift. When the truck arrives, it only has 8 pallets (not an unusual occurrence - mixup at the warehouse, whatever). The pallets are emptied and the shelves are stacked by 11.30pm. With no further work for the shelf stackers to do, they are sent home but paid for the minimum period (3 hours). These are just two examples. There are many, many more in many other industries.
|
Forum
Pages: 
