High Court Challenge
I base this view on these grounds;
1) The Australian Constitution Act specifies that the States have jursidiction over Industrial Relations matters in their own States.
2) The corporations powers given to the Commonwealth Parliament by the States do not say that the Commonwealth Parliament has absolute and unrestricted powers to enact any laws it likes with regards to corporations.
3) The High Court has previously ruled that even in cases where the Commonwealth Parliament has jursidiction over certain matters it must still comply with State laws (eg. the Department of Defence is obliged to register vehicles that make use of roads built by State Governments).
In the unlikely event that the High Court dismisses the challenge by the State Governments all is not lost. If all six State Parliaments decide to repeal the relevant laws that gave the Commonwealth Parliament those corporations powers then the current Commonwealth Industrial Relations laws will then have to be declared null and void by the High Court. So either way the States cannot lose.
I'm not going to bore everyone to tears here by telling my sad story why I didn't continue on to Uni to get a law degree. It's not my style to play the victim.
I still read lots of law publications and online articles which helps me 'sort out the wheat from the chaff' so to speak
In my view, so many barristers are nothing but glorified law clerks and aren't worth the exhorbitant fees they charge, but try telling that to a multi-national corporation who is blinded by the accolades given to undeserving practitioners.
Perception is what helps those same barristers overcharge their clients. Having said all this, there are still barristers out there who go beyond the hype and actually deliver results for their clients. They are the ones who get my respect.
hehe just joking...anyway as far as i know we have a lawyer here on the forum 'leage-eagle' :)
I
The great thing about Australia's State and Federal constitutions is that they don't use as much legal jargon as constitutions from other states/countries. If you need proof of this then you can read some of the comments made by Magistrates prior to rendering their judgements.
They are often asked to make rulings which require interpretations of the constitutions of the States that they reside in. Keep this in mind: every QC had a humble beginning as a law student. The fact that they charge $10,000 per day doesn't put them in some priveleged legal position (other than being allowed to state their client's case before the supreme courts). They are still bound by the judgements handed down by the judges of the supreme courts that they work in.
My point is this: we should not let some wig-wearing no-hopers take away our power.
I am an employer, and you can not begin to understand the frustrations that i encounter not knowing that i do not have any "real" rights on who i want to employ and how i want to structure my business.
I have never fired anyone, i have been a lot more diplomatic than that, i make life really difficult and by the end of the 3rd or 4th week of my excessive demands i might be lucky to receive a resignation.
Despite having said the above, to date, we have NEVER denied any of our employees their rights, if anything, we pay them well above the award rate and forster a great deal of "team work" via social functions that bonding sessions where i personally foot the bill.
I do not want people working for me because they have a mortgage and it is a means to an end. Our company dynamics does not have room for people like that. It is part of my charter to ensure that everyone "adds value" to my business. Otherwise there is NO point them being there. Unfortunately i have seen so many people rort the system which costs this country millions of years per annum.
I know that there are some employers out there that are ruthless and that we need to protect the workforce from these people, but they are definitely in the minority.
If Australia wants to compete globally we need to restructure and it is a long time overdue.
I hate paying Bludgers! Unfortunately they too are a fact of life, but i can tell you my tolerance level is ZERO!!
I welcome the new reforms
But what pisses me off is how much of the tax payers money will be consumed by the High Court challenge where that money could be spent on health, education and infrastructure.
There are a few points I think need to be understood by both employers and employees;
1. It has been shown time and time again that employees are more productive when they perceive their workplace to be enjoyable and not a Nazi concentration camp. The new laws have gone way too far. Anybody can see that - even some senior Liberals hold that view.
2. Instead of dictating what employees can and cannot do, it would be far more productive to offer them incentives to produce the results desired by employers.
3. There are good reasons why the Australian Constitution was designed the way it was. States' rights need to be protected and the Commonwealth should not dictate to the States how to manage their Industrial Relations affairs.
4. You said "But what pisses me off is how much of the tax payers money will be consumed by the High Court challenge where that money could be spent on health, education and infrastructure." In a civilised society taxpayers understand and accept that to maintain some kind of order money has to be spent on seemingly 'trivial' matters. If we took this same view about other cases brought before the High Court then we might as well just pack up and go home and let the Commonwealth steamroll their way over our legal rights. The Constitution should be treated as a serious legal document. To do otherwise places our whole future as a united country at risk.
Our workplace is NEVER run like a NAZI camp, and if you are not enjoying your work find another job, it is that easy.
I do not rule with an iron fist, and i am always working with everyone even at "ground level" and i am always accessible to every staff member. I see them and their family socially and every member of your team is nurtured to enable them to reach their maximum optimum, not just for the good of the company but for their own satisfaction. This is always rewarded handsomely.
But i do not enjoy any employee having me over a barrel on a legal technicality, it ruins the morale of the whole team.
Is this topic ONLY about AU Legal System or in general, and Sidneyguy what is your purpose for this Topic, are you giving us a lecture or you are posing issues ONLY about AU Courts work ethics?
But previous to the reforms as an employer i had NO rights.
Sasha, with consideration to the topic, it is a HUGE impact on the AU Legal system, it is not everyday we have a case reach the High Court of Australia, and everyone is watching with great interest if and how our Legal System will deal with the multi-prong assault on the Commonwealth.
I for one would like to see some Constitutional changes to legislation, but alas, none are forthcoming
that i agree on.| quote: |
| Originally posted by Sasha Is this topic ONLY about AU Legal System or in general, and Sidneyguy what is your purpose for this Topic, are you giving us a lecture or you are posing issues ONLY about AU Courts work ethics? |
I am the last person on earth who thinks I am fit to give anybody a lecture about anything. At best I just ask people to consider a different point of view. We all have a conscience and intelect (though some don't choose to excersise them) and we can all decide for ourselves what is right and what isn't.
You can't have be humble like myself and be a legal practicioner - the two are mutually exclusive :) Some will disagree with this and that's fine. Diversity of opinions is what makes this world go round.
So why did I post this? In the hope that some people in Australia will read it and hopefully spread the word around if they agree with some of my points. If this place is not appropriate for local issues then I'll stop posting these kind of topics. I'll respect the wishes of the people who run this website.
| quote: | ||
Originally posted by SydneyGuy
I am the last person on earth who thinks I am fit to give anybody a lecture about anything. At best I just ask people to consider a different point of view. We all have a conscience and intelect (though some don't choose to excersise them) and we can all decide for ourselves what is right and what isn't. You can't have be humble like myself and be a legal practicioner - the two are mutually exclusive :) Some will disagree with this and that's fine. Diversity of opinions is what makes this world go round. So why did I post this? In the hope that some people in Australia will read it and hopefully spread the word around if they agree with some of my points. If this place is not appropriate for local issues then I'll stop posting these kind of topics. I'll respect the wishes of the people who run this website. |
The Topic is fine. I just asked what is the purpose of it, so I can cintribute. I just wanted to know if this topic is only for AU, and if you are giving us some insights or u are posing issues, thats all.We shell continue, no doubt.:)
Can you please tell us if an employee in America has any legally protected rights with respect to 'unfair dismissal'? If so, where does a person go to get a court order to be re-instated if s/he has been dismissed from their job?
I watched a news program recently that covered this subject but the discussion about it was very limited. There was a brief mention on the show about women being protected against a dismissal from their job if they are pregnant. Under what other circumstances would an employee be protected?
If anybody else is reading this from America then I would welcome their comments too.