Employment Law for Animal Care & Service Workers Essay

Employment Law for Animal Care & Service Workers - Essay Example Better employment laws shall serve to provide legitimate guidelines for the allowance of a healthy working atmosphere for both employer and worker. Other major economic competitors have incorporated these inclusions into their prevailing national laws to adapt with the current flexible trends in the employment system. Legislators and capitalists are enjoined to work hand in hand to promote a better future for its workforce thereby allowing a broader expansion of Australia's economic goals. In 2005, the Howard Government and the Australian Parliament launched the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 2005 "Workchoices" guide that announced series of amendments to the Australian Labor Law. Effective last March 2006, the Workplace Relations Act 1996 took effect despite heavy protests from the labor sector and equally heavy expenditures. The Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade unions had originally described the amendment as "sugar-coating a poison pill" and a "representation of the old package". The Howard Government countered that reforms were necessary as step in the deregulation of the Australian economy. Andrews reasoned that the 1.7 million extra jobs created in Australia and the 14% increases in real wages were part of the reason "part of the reason for that is because of the reforms that we made in 1996".1 Accountably, the government claims that such reforms made a substantial impact on the present economic status and that 'Workchoices' "will h ave more choice and flexibility and this in turn will lead to a higher productivity".2 Laws and Provisions under Workchoices The creation of several minimum workplace system conditions in Australia has been equated by the government and the business sector in the effort to maintain the economic stability. Under the new unfair dismissal practices, companies with fewer than 100 employees are exempted from unfair dismissal. At the same time employees of larger corporations will not be protected if they are dismissed for 'operational reasons' that previously allowed them to claim compensation or reinstatement. This was done to alleviate the stifling penalties imposed by the Labor government of 1993 that according to the Howard government has slowed business growth and lesser jobs. If however the reasons do not fall under 'operational requirements'; claims under unfair dismissal practices will have some solid ground and as an alternative, the government "has offered pay $4000 to employees who were unlawfully dismissed to aid in the legal costs".3 For areas where unfair contract legislation allows dismissed emp loyees to seek compensation upon contract termination, 'Workchoices' has specifically excluded them from such legislation. This further explains that an employee under this area will no longer be allowed to seek remedy under this act. The grounds cited where an employee may claim for unlawful dismissal would include racial discrimination, family commitments and retaliations. The sovereign right to work in a job of choice that an employee has been trained and academically prepared will always remain under equal opportunity. Equal rights for