884

Rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 1 year ago by Persona3Reload@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 points 1 year ago

Wait are you Australian?

Because I don’t know where that quote is from, but that’s the date that Australia updated its laws to ban pay secrecy clauses. But the text there doesn’t look correct based on my memory from the time. I read the legislation back when it first passed, and my understanding was that:

From the date the bill became law, having a pay secrecy clause in any new contract would be illegal, regardless of whether or not there was ever an attempt to enforce it.
From the date the bill became law, pay secrecy clauses in any existing contracts should be considered unenforceable, and thus it would be illegal to attempt to enforce them.

[-] RedReaper@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Indeed I am, however that quote was taken from Fairwork (https://www.fairwork.gov.au/pay-and-wages/pay-secrecy), which is hope is correct considering it's the main government sure for these sorts of things ahahaha. It's under the "When these rights apply" section.

I also variety remember looking at the legislature itself at the time and coming to the same conclusion.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah that text seems very misleading based on my reading of the legislation (PDF link).

333C

A term of a fair work instrument or a contract of employment has no effect to the extent that the term would be inconsistent with subsection 333B(1) or (2) (about employee rights relating to pay secrecy).

333D

An employer contravenes this section if:

(a) the employer enters into a contract of employment or other written agreement with an employee; and
(b) the contract or agreement includes a term that is inconsistent with subsection 333B(1) or (2) (about employee rights relating to pay secrecy).

The term in the contract that says you may not disclose payment information "has no effect". The only thing about December 2022 that's relevant is that the employer hasn't contravened the law by having a contract older than that with such a term in it; the term still has no effect (i.e., it would be illegal to enforce).

[-] RedReaper@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago

333C would seem to indicate that you are correct, however as it pertains to me making a living, it's not something I'm entirely willing to test out, even if losing my minimum salary job wouldn't exactly be the end of the world.

In any case, the fact that it was legal up until less than a year ago is egregious.

[-] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

the fact that it was legal up until less than a year ago is egregious

Yeah it really sucks.

There actually was a Bill before the Senate for years under the LNP government, brought by Larissa Waters of the Greens. Unfortunately the LNP almost never scheduled it any time for debate, and never scheduled it for a second reading vote. From the brief debate on it, we did get a picture of the attitudes towards the issue of the two main parties.

The LNP rejected the idea entirely. They don't think pay secrecy clauses should be outlawed at all, and spent the vast majority of their time in debate ignoring the issue entirely, instead talking about other policies of the LNP.

Labor said it's good in theory, but noted concerns with the way the Greens Bill had been drafted which would mean it may not have had the desired effect. Rather than working with the Greens on an amendment, they spent the majority of their debate time emphasising how terrible the Greens are for having those flaws in their Bill, and how it means the Greens shouldn't be taken seriously compared to Labor. It's a pretty typical approach by Labor. They have a big case of NIH Syndrome, because they want to pass a Bill of their own and take the credit for themselves, rather than work with other parties to achieve a great outcome as soon as possible.