Up Front: The Up Front Guide to Plebs
34 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Moz, in reply to
My understanding of the current law in Australia is that if one spouse transitions, the couple has to divorce.
That link again: http://www.gendercentre.org.au/resources/polare-archive/archived-articles/the-marriage-amendment-act.htm
The law does not directly require it, but in the past it was "to get you change recognised you have to comply with our demands, and those include getting divorced", so it wasn't illegal per se, it was just a requirement of the legally mandated process. I hope the situation has changed, and my impression from the article is that it has.
-
Moz, in reply to
boggled me a bit with the US as well: there are still thirty-odd states where you can be legally fired from your job for your sexuality or gender identity
Also, "employer assumptions about your sexuality". While you could in theory be fired for being straight, in practice people are fired because their employer thinks they're queer way more often. But then, much of the USA is "fire at will" anyway. I am mildly surprised that more employers don't use that loophole, TBH. Why risk an unfair dismissal case when you can zero-hour someone or just say "fired for not being straight enough".
The PWC report I am mostly impressed with because someone actually asked them to cost the mental health aspects of it. Who knew accountants could be so caring (if you pay them enough).
-
Sister Mary Gearchange, in reply to
>>This 'order of things' has boggled me a bit with the US as well: there are still thirty-odd states where you can be legally fired from your job for your sexuality or gender identity. And yes, because these aren't specifically protected grounds in the Constitution.<<
You're right on the first part, but wrong on the second. Employment in the US is almost universally 'at will' employment: you can be fired for any reason or no reason so long as it isn't a protected category under federal or state law. The US Constitution provides no protections within employment at all so it doesn't bear referencing. All protection is within employment, civil rights, and to small degree, case laws.
-
Sister Mary Gearchange, in reply to
>>Why risk an unfair dismissal case when you can zero-hour someone or just say “fired for not being straight enough”.<<
Zero hour contracts are unlawful in most of the US. You /can/ have 'on call' contracts, but most states (only 4 exceptions, IIRC) require the employee to be paid for all time while on call, albeit usually at a reduced rate of 50-75%.
-
Danielle, in reply to
I take issue with that characterisation of US labour regulations. The US Dept of Labor has a pretty strict definition of "on call" and if the employee is able to do "personal activities" while waiting to be called in to work then the "on call" pay provision doesn't apply. Additionally there is no federal provision for notice for changes to hours and so employers can quite easily create de facto "zero hour contracts" by telling the employee an hour beforehand. "...an employer may change an employee's work hours without giving prior notice or obtaining the employee's consent".
-
I thought we could take it as read that this was a very general discussion. :)
Case law defines 'personal activities" as those preventing the employee from answering a call in within whatever time frame the contract may require. The fact of doing, say, your washing doesn't count, for example. Going to a movie or the dentist and being unavailable would. Etc. And yes, they can certainly cancel your on call hours on short notice, barring the contract saying otherwise. But they do have to actually cancel, and once cancelled you are no longer on call. They can't bring you back in. Again, there's case law on that sort of thing. Do it repeatedly and you'll see a lawsuit simply because creating a de facto zero hours contract /is/ a zero hours contract. I know the 9th Circuit has ruled on exactly that and I'm pretty sure others have. Obviously, there is grey area in there & that is where canny @hole employers try to stay. (And the 5th Circuit disagrees as usual.)
-
Danielle, in reply to
No, I'm saying they can cancel your *regular* hours. It's called precarious employment and it's what low-wage retail and fast food workers in the USA manage with on the reg. I find the idea that case law governs how it works for low status and wage employees a bit... weird? Most exploitative employers in the USA know their workers aren't likely to rock the boat or take cases to court because of at-will employment law. They'll put up with anything, mainly because they have to.
-
Moz,
Turns out I was insufficiently pessimistic about the Liberals liberal-ness. They've bullied the education minister into wrecking the program.
-
Moz,
New Matilda has a better article: https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/19/chaos-in-canberra-week-in-politics/
Post your response…
This topic is closed.