Anthony Albanese's huge workplace changes to come into force within days
The second stage of 'right to disconnect' laws comes into effect next Monday, exactly one year after the Albanese government enforced the rule for companies with more than 15 employees.
The controversial laws give employees the right to refuse to monitor, read, or reply to contact outside their working hours, unless doing so is unreasonable.
This includes contact from an employer, colleagues and third parties such as clients and suppliers.
But the laws don't make it unlawful for an employer to contact an employee outside working hours.
'Instead, they give employees a right to refuse to monitor, read or respond to the contact, unless doing so is unreasonable,' the Fair Work Ombudsman website states.
Whether or not a refusal is unreasonable will depend on the circumstances.
Factors could include the nature of the worker's role and level of responsibility, their personal circumstances and extra pay, or compensation received for working additional hours or being available after hours.
Ahead of the major change, the NSW Small Business Commissioner has urged employers and employees from the outset to have a conversation about what out-of-hours contact might mean.
'They should set expectations about contact and responding to contact when either party is not working,' the website states.
However, many questions remain, including what is considered unreasonable.
There isn't any advice in the legislation, which encourages businesses to consider whether employees are being paid for this time after-hours or if the request is urgent.
Those who don't comply with the laws have been threatened with hefty fines of up to $18,780 for individuals and $93,900 for companies per breach.
However, no cases involving large companies have yet made it to court in the first year of legislation.
The laws have reignited online debate among employees and small business operators.
'I'm a manager and constantly get calls and texts after hours, weekends and holidays. Staff wanting to swap shifts, calling in sick, and security call-outs,' one woman posted online.
'Wow, I'm gonna be getting paid 24/7. Shouldn't this work both ways? Staff should respect their bosses' time off also.'
A worker added: 'Your boss is only your boss during work hours, after work hours he's just another person & I decide if I answer their calls or not.'
Workers on call 24-7 were concerned about the potential impact the laws could have on their role.
'I work a job doing supermarket refrigeration service, does this mean I can ignore emergency breakdowns, even though I'm on call 24/7?' one wrote.
'Or can I ignore texts telling me which job I will be at next morning? Or what about important information about jobs I need to pass onto my boss? Can I just not do that because it's out of hours?'
However, others had no problems with being contacted after hours by their bosses.
'I work for a small company and sometimes it just happens. If you have a respectful relationship with your management it shouldn't be an issue from time to time,' one woman commented.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
41 minutes ago
- The Guardian
IIt's time Australia ditched the ‘winners and losers' mentality and built an economy that's best for us all
As pens and notepads were being laid out for start of the much-touted economic roundtable on Monday, the chair of the Productivity Commission, Danielle Wood, made a number of dark observations in an address to the National Press Club. People in their 30s today, Wood told us, are the first generation to be worse off than those born in the previous decade in terms of earnings, housing affordability, budget burden and climate impacts. Her comments laid bare how important reform of so many aspects of the economy and regulation are if this situation is to change. The flipside of the situation facing millennials is the largesse that has been laid out for the boomers, such as tax breaks on housing and superannuation that benefit those with already substantial resources, but add to the tax burden of lower-income households who can't get their foot in even one door. Quite obviously, not every boomer in Australia is sitting back with multiple investment properties and a multimillion dollar super balance. But boomers were three times more likely to own their own home in their 30s than their counterparts today are. And so, while millennials cry out for change, boomers resist even reasonable adaptation such as the removal of tax exemptions on super balances over $3m or phasing out negative gearing. And it's not just millennials v boomers. Before seats had been taken at the roundtable, business and unions were firing off at each other over issues such as working from home, work week length and AI adoption. Then add to all that the intense bipartisanship we now see in politics and it's a wonder anyone sat down together at all. And this is the rub. When it comes to policy decisions, too many are too quick to focus on what's in it for them instead of what is best for society as a whole. So, if we make housing more affordable for younger generations, those who are already on the housing merry-go-round cry 'unfair'. Increased density proposals are met with cries of 'Not in my back yard!' If we set much-needed strong climate targets to contribute to reducing the horror show of unnatural disasters that have already become much more frequent, and encouraging investment in green industries, then a narrow segment of vested interests (mainly fossil fuel polluters) focus only on the jobs that will be lost. They conveniently ignore the many more green jobs that will be created, not to mention the vast costs from failure to act imposed on individuals, the economy and the budget bottom line each time these exacerbated disasters unfold. We cannot deny that some policies, even as they contribute to national wellbeing overall, come with a cost to specific sectors or regions or even individuals. The go-to book in Canberra at the moment is Abundance, written by two American journalists, and described by the treasurer as 'a ripper'. Much of the book is devoted to the costs associated with trying to keep everybody happy, but ultimately only delivering increased regulation that leaves us all worse off. And the Abundance authors are perhaps right in saying we have moved too far in the direction of trying to prevent every possible loss at the expense of collective societal gain. (The authors are also silent on the deliberate spread of disinformation around supposed harms which also create barriers to progress. Think of the nonsense around whales and windfarms). Much like the Abundance authors, Danielle Wood says: 'Ministers should always weigh up the impacts of new policies on economic growth and productivity.' This is true, particularly when it comes to 'regulatory burden'. (As an aside, it's worth noting that for all the hype about 'red tape' – and there certainly are complex and duplicative processes facing business – Australia rates very highly by international standards in terms of regulatory quality. On one measure at least, we are second only to Singapore). But I'm not entirely convinced that a 'growth mindset', to use another current Canberra buzz phrase, doesn't risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If we only look at policy from the overarching perspective of growth and productivity, as important as these are, then we overlook other important considerations and by doing so add fuel to the 'us and them' fire. And that makes building a widespread consensus of support extremely difficult. The most critical of these considerations is distributional impacts. Inevitably, big policy reforms will rarely deliver a 'win' for everyone. But instead of pretending this is not the case, governments should be upfront both around the challenges and how they intend to address the impacts on those who may be disproportionately disadvantaged and unable to adjust without support. For example, when we introduced a carbon price scheme in Australia in 2012, widespread compensation was designed for trade-exposed industries and low-income households. When the costly support for the domestic car industry was finally removed, state and federal governments brought in a raft of programs to support workers and businesses in the supply chain. Such solutions may not be perfect but without them we are doomed to be stuck in an economy and society that delivers worse results for successive generations. Surely, we have had enough of that. The two defining crises of Australia today, I believe, are housing affordability and climate change. Required policies on both fronts involve trade-offs for some individuals, while delivering overall benefits to society. Let's stop the 'us and them', 'winners and losers' mentality and focus on planning for solutions such as density done well, credible biodiversity management schemes and regional economic development. Instead of placing barriers to reforms with a narrow, vested-interest mindset, I hope those at the roundtable discussions this week will focus on what is best for all of us. And, if it helps, keep the situation facing today's 30 year-olds in sharp focus and let that not be your legacy. Nicki Hutley is an independent economist and councillor with the Climate Council
The Guardian
41 minutes ago
- The Guardian
How do we decide if a tax is good or bad? And which ones are ‘damaging' Australia's economy?
How do we judge whether one tax is better than another? That question will lie at the heart of the tax reform agenda at the economic reform roundtable on Thursday. Four principles have guided tax reform over the decades: efficiency, equity, simplicity and sustainability (or revenue adequacy). All are important. But with productivity growth the name of the game, let's focus on the first: efficiency. Stephen Bartos, a professor of economics at the University of Canberra and a former deputy secretary at the Department of Finance, says taxes inevitably affect behaviour – but 'some taxes are a lot better for the economy than others'. When it comes to efficiency, a core concept is to design a tax system as simple as possible to not discourage productive activities such as work and investing. Chris Murphy, an honorary senior lecturer at the Australian National University, has for decades been a central figure in modelling the impact of tax reform, including the introduction of the GST and the landmark Henry tax review. Murphy has updated his estimates of various taxes' 'marginal excess burden' – the additional economic cost of a tax beyond the revenue raised. His modelling suggests raising the rate of the GST imposes an additional 30c cost to the economy for every dollar raised. Broadening it, he says, comes with a marginal excess burden of 13c. That makes the GST more efficient than personal income taxes (a 48c loss of economic welfare for every $1 of revenue raised) and company taxes (65c). Sign up: AU Breaking News email Speaking at the National Press Club this week, Danielle Wood, the chair of the Productivity Commission, explained that 'generally, anything that switches out higher cost, higher economic-drag taxes for lower cost, more efficient taxes will give you a productivity dividend'. 'Equally, anything that broadens the base of a tax, which winds back concessions but then reduces the rate, will give you an economic kicker.' Four of the five least efficient taxes are at state and territory level. This makes it difficult to coordinate shifts away from more damaging but highly lucrative taxes. The 'worst' taxes on Murphy's measure are the land tax on investment properties (92c of economic damage for every $1 in revenue raised), followed by stamp duties on the purchase of homes (74c) and taxes on insurance (69c). Wood said it was 'very clear' from modelling that 'stamp duties stand out as kind of exceptionally economically damaging taxes'. When experts talk about switching from inefficient stamp duties to a land tax, they are talking about a broad land tax that applies to all homeowners. Murphy says a broad land tax is equivalent to municipal rates – which, as the analysis shows, is a very efficient tax (a 4c offset in extra economic welfare per dollar of revenue raised). Efforts to transition to a more stable and less distortionary land tax have proved a step too far for even the most willing of state leaders. That's why any commonwealth-led discussion on tax reform has to include the states and territories, Bartos says. 'The only way to get the states on side is if you compensate them,' he says. 'Probably the only way to do that is to increase the GST rate or broaden its base' to include excluded items such as fresh food, education and health services. 'Broadening the GST would have the added benefit of simplifying the system.' Luke Yeaman, the Commonwealth Bank's chief economist and a former Treasury deputy secretary, says there is theoretically a strong case for using increased GST revenue to pay for income tax relief – a switch that has wide support among many experts. But cash-strapped states were unlikely to want to make this deal with the commonwealth. 'If you want lower income taxes, you'd have to do some other broader deal with the states, for example, around health funding or education funding, where you agree to provide less on the health and education side, and they claim the extra GST revenue,' he says. 'I think that proves very difficult at the moment in a world where the states are cash-constrained.' Yeaman agrees there could, however, be scope to use any increase in GST revenue to pay for states to get rid of inefficient taxes such as stamp duties. While state-level mining royalties schemes are lucrative for governments such as Queensland, Murphy's analysis shows they are much more inefficient than federal mining 'rent' taxes, which target excess profits. The petroleum resource rent tax, for example, has an offsetting 8c for the economy for every dollar raised. That's in part because foreign owners of the gas companies pay the tax, Murphy says. Bartos explains that 'the problem with royalties is basically you are taxing production, and so that acts as a direct disincentive'. 'A rent tax taxes super profits over and above normal profits, and in that sense they don't distort production at all. That makes them a much better form of tax.' Bartos' high level verdict on Australia's broad tax settings echoes the expert consensus: 'Australia's tax system is weighted too heavily to taxing income and not wealth. 'That encourages people to salt away wealth in unproductive things.' Labor is already chipping away at overly generous tax concessions for Australians with more than $3m in superannuation. But it has balked, at least so far, at suggestions for trimming tax breaks for residential property investors, which also overwhelmingly favour the rich. 'Sadly, the least likely to be on the agenda is inheritance taxes,' Bartos says. 'That doesn't distort behaviour – people are not going to put off dying because they have to pay tax. 'And it actually is a very efficient tax to levy and Australia is really unusual to be one of the few countries to not have some form of inheritance tax. It is very much a political no-no in Australia.' Patrick Commins is Guardian Australia's economics editor
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Cry us a river! How the Commonwealth Bank - worth $300BILLION - is secretly trying to fight a push to axe annoying credit card surcharges
Australia's biggest bank has been secretly leading a campaign against plans to ban credit card surcharges. The Commonwealth Bank is so worried about the Reserve Bank's proposals to remove surcharging fees on EFTPOS, Mastercard and Visa cards that it has secretly been co-ordinating a campaign with the banking industry's peak body. A confidential draft letter, obtained by Capital Brief, had CBA - with a $289billion market capitalisation - arguing the Reserve Bank proposal would 'jeopardise' Australia's payments system and hamper innovation. 'The speed at which proposals have been tabled means the proposals themselves are sitting on unsteady data and analysis,' the bank argued in one version of the letter. 'The short time frame of the consultation process has not allowed sufficient alignment between policy objections and likely outcomes.' The letter was addressed to Reserve Bank of Australia Governor Michele Bullock after the RBA last month released a consultation paper arguing debit and credit card surcharges were costing ordinary Australians $1.2billion a year. 'Surcharging is no longer achieving its intended purpose of steering consumers to make more efficient payment choices: avoiding surcharges has become harder as cash usage has declined, businesses are increasingly charging the same surcharge rate across debit and credit and there are significant challenges with enforcing the current surcharging rules,' the RBA said. 'Removing surcharging would make card payments simpler, more transparent and help to increase competition in the card payments system.' The Commonwealth Bank which recently announced a record profit is worried about the Reserve Bank proposals to remove surcharging on EFTPOS, Mastercard and Visa cards The letter was apparently shared with the Australian Banking Association, with submissions to the RBA consultation due by August 26. A Commonwealth Bank spokesman told Capital Brief cutting card fees would deprive Australian banks of a revenue stream that could be invested back into the payments system. 'The net result would be domestic institutions have less to invest as the infrastructure providers in Australia and overseas institutions will have more to harvest,' he said. 'If we have too little funding on one side of the payment system, we're going to find it a lot more difficult to keep up and stay ahead of the rest of the world.' Daily Mail Australia understands the Commonwealth Bank had drafted a letter encompassing the views of banks and payment providers that could convey a position to the Reserve Bank review. The letter is at odds with the Reserve Bank's consultation paper. That concluded that efficiency and competition in Australia's payments system would be encouraged by removing surcharging on all designated debit, prepaid and credit card systems. 'Removing surcharging, combined with reductions in interchange fees and greater transparency of payment costs, would make card payments simpler, more transparent and more efficient for consumers and merchants,' it said.
