Why oh why . . . Regulation Watch # 7,456

The AIRC website reassures readers that:

An employee who believes he or she has been unfairly or unlawfully dismissed has 21 days from the dismissal date to lodge an unfair or unlawful dismissal application with the AIRC. There is an application lodgment fee of $55.70. However, this fee may be waived in cases of financial hardship.

Which is nice. Below the fold is what you have to fill out to be considered for a fee waiver.

Well that didn’t work, so I’ve uploaded the Word file to this link.

This entry was posted in Economics and public policy, regulation. Bookmark the permalink.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
5 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Link
14 years ago

Not sure what your point is Nicholas. I downloaded the (bloody) form. Why, I’ll never know. Its not as though I’m planning on unfairly dismissing myself.

I found it to be pretty standard stuff really and easy to fill in when you have no shares, no property, no assets, no income to speak of, no super (worthy of mention that you haven’t already pilfered) no savings, no investments, . . . etcetera. Certainly its nosey and demeaning, but that’s part and parcel of how you can expect to be treated if you are poor. I’m waiting for it to become a criminal offense.

I read a report today (sorry no link) that all this kerfuffle about unfair dismissal laws being wound back under Labor is a well just that, a kerfuffle. Few if any small business employers are particularly concerned about it, as well as few if any are concerned about union heavies stirring up the workplace. Its all just a load of bullshit and fear mongering.

BTW did you hear Robert Reich on Big Ideas? Very interesting. ‘Social equity’ is not a term we hear very much in Australia.

Bannerman
14 years ago

Bloody hell!!! I don’t ask for that much detail on a home loan app. Of course, we all know it’s purpose designed to confuse and frustrate the unfairly dismissed, don’t we.

derrida derider
derrida derider
14 years ago

Bureaucrats discount compliance costs heavily, especially where those complying don’t have political clout (their forms for employers may be a lot easier to fill out!). They’d rather impose a big cost on all applicants by getting all of them to itemise details so as to make a small saving in staff time. Their staff can just look at the bottom line for 99% and do an instant spot check on the other 1%.

The alternative is that they want to make it deliberately hard to claim the exemption so that people self-select – only those “that really need it” will be willing to undergo the trial by ordeal. I often think that’s the thinking behind a lot of Centrelink applications. The trouble with that is that the painfulness of the ordeal varies greatly – it’s systematically worse for semiliterate or easily intimidated people, who are more likely to be amongst those who do “really need it”.

I’m not excusing it, just explaining it.

Link
Link
14 years ago

derrider derrider I think you’ve got it in one. It is characteristic if not actually an (unknown, known), policy of this government’s to discourage people by making it an ordeal to fill in just these sorts of forms.

Nicholas, $55 is a lot of money, relatively speaking, when you were earning say, $350 (net) per week and you’re about to go on the dole and try and subsist on $250 per week or thereabouts. Definitely worth the effort, especially when its quite a simple thing, to be filling in a lot of no, no, no’s and none-to-speak of type answers, where no money is spent on chemists, doctors, dentists, insurance, childcare, rates, school fees, clothes or shoes.

It would take me about five minutes to fill it out. Unfortunately at this end, and I’m sorry to labour the point, one actually does tend to expect the Spanish Inquisition, but one tries not to get too haughty about it.

I don’t go around naked or shoeless btw, I shop at Vinnies, where the range is fabulous and I can dress in silk and cashmere for under ten smackers.