# Forum More Stuff Debate & Technical Discussion  Just another reason why I will never have employees again.

## Rod Dyson

This is just going too far IMO.  Safe Work Australia plan to cut risk for tired workers puts employers offside | News.com.au   

> *BOSSES will have to roster jobs around workers' social lives and check that staff who yawn or daydream aren't too tired to work safely.*  
> Those proposals are contained under national laws being drawn up to fight workplace fatigue.
> Employers are furious they will be turned into the "yawn police" under Safe Work Australia's draft code of practice for workplace fatigue.
> The government agency's checklist for employers to spot worker fatigue includes headaches, daydreaming, constant yawning, low motivation and moodiness.
> It has proposed that bosses "eliminate or reduce the need to work extended hours or overtime" so staff don't get too tired.  
> Read more: Safe Work Australia plan to cut risk for tired workers puts employers offside | News.com.au]

----------


## ringtail

I didn't read it, I don't need the aggro before going to bed. Suffice to say, its typical Labor Government union driven horse crap, say no more.

----------


## shauck

Perhaps if the poor fatigued buggers went to bed earlier rather than partying on with their mates.... 
Used to be a time when you copped heaps for yawning on the job. It was suspected you weren't putting your job before your social life.

----------


## johnc

This is probably a media beat up, it is only logic that a fatigued worker should not be placed in a dangerous position. On the other hand an employee who turns up regularly fatigued would just get the standard warnings and then be terminated. One of the more recent changes is that an employee that turns up with grog in the blood from a hard night out can be sacked on the spot. I think sometimes a bit of perspective  is needed current workplace laws are reasonable for small employers and aren't onerous.

----------


## intertd6

Its more than likely directed at the part of the sector that forces people to work ridiculous hours in adverse conditions, eg mining, transport, construction, medicine etc, 
try working 12 hrs a day for a couple of weeks in the sun doing say footing formwork, 34'C at six in the morning then 50'C + at midday then 38'C at knock off. It makes you tired. Doing an 18 hr stint in a 950 loader is a breeze after than
regards inter

----------


## activeman

all i can say is don't have a cardiac arrest or major accident /injury between 2-4 pm, cause medical and nursing staff won't be able to give medications  :No:

----------


## woodbe

> *FYI Checklist: Safe Work Australia's guide to worker fatigue*
> > Headaches and/or dizziness
> > Wandering thoughts, daydreaming, lack of concentration
> > Blurred vision or difficulty keeping eyes open
> > Constant yawning, a drowsy relaxed feeling or falling asleep at work
> > Moodiness such as irritability
> > Short term memory problems
> > Low motivation
> > Hallucinations
> ...

  _ _ Seems pretty reasonable to me. In fact, if your employees are turning up with these sorts of issues, time to send them home with a DCM slip. 
It's hard to replace common sense with legislation and regulation, but given the lack of it, worksafe is clearly having to try. 
woodbe.

----------


## markinoz

maybe the unions would like to introduce compulsory siesta time for the poor tired buggers

----------


## manofaus

> maybe the unions would like to introduce compulsory siesta time for the poor tired buggers

  they do already. Some mines stop work for 1.5 hours in the morning (2am-3:30am) to manage fatigue. 
Like mentioned before this is managed time so management can plan around it.   
But if you really want to work in a workplace where the guy next to you can be half asleep and operate equipment, or drive a car, or use an explosive nail gun go right ahead. Now you can do something about it. Especially given he doesn't care about your family or you at work. A DCM sounds fair to me to have a safe work place. 
Get off your high horse already...

----------


## johnc

The push for these rules came from a number of workplace related deaths and injuries both at work and from accidents on the way home that had been linked to fatigue, it is a recognised problem and needs to be addressed. This current release is unlikely to be much more than a discussion draft, it will be kicked around a bit, belted behind the ears and then squeezed into a different shape. I would hope the media discussion does not resemble the draft form that much if it does it will need a lot of kicking and squeezing to make it workable. It is well recognised that operating equipment while tired can be as dangerous as operating equipment after a few drinks so hopefully an intelligent response will be the result rather than a bit of hype and the usual union/employer bashing.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> ...so hopefully an intelligent response will be the result rather than a bit of hype and the usual union/employer bashing.

  All Hail the King of Wishful Thinking!!!   :Biggrin:

----------


## Rod Dyson

I am all for a safe working place.  However I will leave this legal minefield for others, (who are happy to put their house on the line), to negotiate. 
It will leave an employer exposed to all sorts of claims against them with practically no defence.   I'll vote with my feet and not employ anyone.

----------


## johnc

> I am all for a safe working place.  However I will leave this legal minefield for others, (who are happy to put their house on the line), to negotiate. 
> It will leave an employer exposed to all sorts of claims against them with practically no defence.   I'll vote with my feet and not employ anyone.

  It is unwise to make decisions on little more than a press release, there is no legislation nor are there enabling regulations. Sit back and relax nothings changed we are only in the commentary stage, there will be industry and community input and something may appear or it may not. There is already legislation and common law that has some impact but in the end if the employer takes reasonable steps to ensure safety that is all that is required it is important to realise that the employee also has obligations and it is unlikely that this foreshadowed change is going to make much difference to employer risk in the workplace.

----------


## ringtail

> I am all for a safe working place.  However I will leave this legal minefield for others, (who are happy to put their house on the line), to negotiate. 
> It will leave an employer exposed to all sorts of claims against them with practically no defence.   I'll vote with my feet and not employ anyone.

  
Yep, I'm with you  100 % Rod. I'll stick with managing my own duty of care, not others.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Yep, I'm with you  100 % Rod. I'll stick with managing my own duty of care, not others.

  Yes, regardless of the fact that it is not law yet it is the direction things are going and I don't think it is an acceptable risk for my family to be exposed like that.  
It all sounds nice and cosy but reality is that the small operator can lose the lot with one mistake and that doesnt need to be his mistake!! and thats my problem.

----------


## shauck

I guess I thought there were already guidelines/rules regarding hours on any job, etc. If this stuff is happening, those guidelines must be flawed or non-existent or not adhered to. That may not cover cause of worker fatigue in every case.

----------


## METRIX

*FYI Checklist: Safe Work Australia's guide to worker fatigue*
> Headaches and/or dizziness
> Wandering thoughts, daydreaming, lack of concentration
> Blurred vision or difficulty keeping eyes open
> Constant yawning, a drowsy relaxed feeling or falling asleep at work
> Moodiness such as irritability
> Short term memory problems
> Low motivation
> Hallucinations
> Impaired decision-making and judgment 
> Slow reflexes and responses
> Reduced immune system function
> Increased errors
> Extended sleep during days off work
> Falling asleep for a few seconds without realising
> Drifting in and out of traffic lanes _Source: Safe Work Australia draft code of practice on workplace fatigue_
This sound like a guy I used to work with every day,

----------


## woodbe

Despite the fact that Rod is quite probably prematurely reacting to a hyped media report (again) I agree with him. 
Employers have a duty of care for their employees safety, and if they are not interested in taking that responsibility seriously they should reconsider having employees in the first place. The message from government agencies (especially Victoria) has been clear for some time: If you don't look after your employees OH&S we will go after you. Directors of companies can go to jail in extreme cases, and if they escape that, fines are very high for serious breaches.  
woodbe.

----------


## David.Elliott

I read and cannot help seeing that what Rod is saying (PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong Rod!) is that in the workplace we are responsible for of employees safety. 
I have been an employer and agree that needs to be the case. I have sent hungover staff home, they are unsafe and a distraction to others in the workplace.
However, we are held to be accountable for our employee safety even when they take no responsibility for their own. 
If I was employed in the build trade, which can be inherently risky, I would do my bit to ensure I was sufficiently rested, at the expense of all other distractions, to do my job safely. Lets face it, we work to make the money we need to live and prosper. Putting all that at risk (and perhaps another[persons wellbeing) for a night out is foolish at the least.
If you want to work, work. If you want to party, don't work!

----------


## ringtail

But guys you're missing the point. Its not about ensuring a safe work environment, that goes without saying. Its about been held responsible for your employees private lives. If they turn up unfit for work ( other than sick - not hungover) they should be sacked, not sent home. How much productivity is lost or would be lost if the boss has to walk around with a clip board monitoring the wellness of his/her employees ? All employees  have a duty of care to their fellow workers and their boss and must carry out their work in a professional and efficient manner. If they are not capable of this then they should piss off and give someone more committed a opportunity.  The last thing small business needs is babysitting duties thrust upon it.

----------


## intertd6

If you going to work even as a sole trader these will be the rules you will have to adhere to, NSW has chain of resposibility regulations in place now & up 2 years in gaol if a death occurs from a work related neglegent action, they have been tested in court & people sent to the big house. Its not common because some things like fatigue are hard to prove & peoples thresholds are different like an owners ability to push their own boundaries further than a worker. And then you have the civil courts!!!!
regards inter

----------


## johnc

> But guys you're missing the point. Its not about ensuring a safe work environment, that goes without saying. Its about been held responsible for your employees private lives. If they turn up unfit for work ( other than sick - not hungover) they should be sacked, not sent home. How much productivity is lost or would be lost if the boss has to walk around with a clip board monitoring the wellness of his/her employees ? All employees have a duty of care to their fellow workers and their boss and must carry out their work in a professional and efficient manner. If they are not capable of this then they should piss off and give someone more committed a opportunity. The last thing small business needs is babysitting duties thrust upon it.

  Actually everyone has a duty of care in one form or another you have the various work place laws along with common law obligations. As an employer you should be aware of how your employees are faring, if they are unwell or over tired, that does not mean running around with some BS clipboard it means being obervant and aware. It means sending someone home if they are clearly unwell or over tired. That can simply be from a migraine or a young child at home, it is not up to the employer to intrude into the privacy of his employees homes or private lives but to ensure that the work place is safe.  
The momentum for these changes comes from amongst other things recognised issues from work place rosters that leave chronically overtired employees to drive home or operate machinery. From workplace accidents and other workplace problems. For most employers it will also come with the recognition that a rested employee is a productive one it can be a win win. An employee who is a chronic problem should be counselled and ultimately discharged (sacked) if they don't come up to standard. 
There is no point making bland closed statements about a law that doesn't exist, it is more prudent to see the final draft before getting to excited. often the final draft will be very different to the original once it has been through the consultation phase and parliamentary reviews.  
As an employer I don't see anything to get excited about, these proposals aren't a quantum leap and will make little or no difference to our hiring or workplace policies that already take most of these issues into account. However I do accept that some struggle to understand their obligations which should be no surprise there is no compulsory obligation to do a course on labour law to become an employer and really if you don't wish to upskill a little in that area than a decision not to employ is probably a reasonable one.

----------


## ringtail

We shall have to wait and see what happens I guess, if anything. It sounds to me like yet another nail in the coffin of productivity and a sure thing to add to rising costs.

----------


## johnc

I doubt it will make much difference to the majority of small employers long term for one main reason. Most when they employ get the part about annual leave, PAYG tax and work cover and that's about it. The rest is a mix of common sense and doing "the right thing" and 99% of the time that actually works. It is only when they fall foul of the system because they have failed to pay the correct rate, got caught with an unfair dismissal, dealt with a bullying or sexual harrassment claim etc that they suddenly find out what they may not know. Large employers will already have procedures in place that deal with most of what these changes propose anyway, the cowboys will do as they have always done and just ignore the lot. The media release will get some short term angst, a number of submissions will be made by various bodies, you absolutely will get some modifications then after the changes have been made we will all go back to business as usual. In the end we just get to busy to get our heads around everything and ignorance is bliss, so we concentrate on the known and life rolls on until we hit the next speed hump.

----------


## ringtail

I can see a continual round about of contract variations in the building industry. Time extension pages in contract packs will need to triple to account for the lost productivity with sending young party going tradies home constantly  :Biggrin:  :Biggrin:  :Tongue:

----------


## johnc

> I can see a continual round about of contract variations in the building industry. Time extension pages in contract packs will need to triple to account for the lost productivity with sending young party going tradies home *permanently*

  Edited for clarity :Biggrin: , 
put a breath test machine at the gate, trouble is you'd eventually run out of young tradies :Eek: .

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Despite the fact that Rod is quite probably prematurely reacting to a hyped media report (again) I agree with him. 
> Employers have a duty of care for their employees safety, and if they are not interested in taking that responsibility seriously they should reconsider having employees in the first place. The message from government agencies (especially Victoria) has been clear for some time: If you don't look after your employees OH&S we will go after you. Directors of companies can go to jail in extreme cases, and if they escape that, fines are very high for serious breaches.  
> woodbe.

  You have perfectly described why a small business operator should think very carefully before employing anyone.  You can can't be watching over your employees every minute of the day and run a business.  At some point the employee must take responsibility for their own actions.   
The small operator can lose his home and business or as you say go to jail, potentially for a mistake by an employee makes where he has not direct control.  
Many years ago I had over a hundered employees. We were doing a job at a Bendigo shopping center where we employed a foreman who had all the training required to do his and supervise others to do their jobs safely. 
For whatever reason he built a scaffold 6m high and did not use the kick rails and hand rails supplied with the scaffold.  He then worked on this scaffold while he had another employee drag the scaffold along.   
He was swept off the scaffold by a air con duct and landed head first on the concrete floor.  This employee suffered massive head injuries and never fully recoverd from a brain injury.  I have never felt so bad in all my life and for many years asked myself what else I could have done to prevent this accident.   
We were cleared of all responsibility at the time. 
I wonder how I would fare now? 
At the end of the day it is ulimately the individuals decision to evaluate the risk for reward in regards to employing people.   The risk side of the equation is forever increasing while the reward is not.  My choice is clear, I will not have a business that directly employes people.  Too often I have seen what can happen and how an employer can be blamed for the careless actions of an employee.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> I read and cannot help seeing that what Rod is saying (PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong Rod!) is that in the workplace we are responsible for of employees safety. 
> I have been an employer and agree that needs to be the case. I have sent hungover staff home, they are unsafe and a distraction to others in the workplace.
> However, we are held to be accountable for our employee safety even when they take no responsibility for their own. 
> If I was employed in the build trade, which can be inherently risky, I would do my bit to ensure I was sufficiently rested, at the expense of all other distractions, to do my job safely. Lets face it, we work to make the money we need to live and prosper. Putting all that at risk (and perhaps another[persons wellbeing) for a night out is foolish at the least.
> If you want to work, work. If you want to party, don't work!

  Yes David, you are right. 
What worries me is losing my home and business for the actions of someone that I do not have direct control.  I don't want to be a nursemaid to employees, forever worried if they are alert enough to do their job. The employer should be responsible to provide a safe working environment, correct training etc. That I don't have a problem with.  But from that point the worker should be responsible for their own well being and assement of their ability to perform the job asked of them.

----------


## SabreOne

Rod, as an employer of up to 130 people myself the way the world is going terrifies me, and I can only agree with your comments whole heartedly.... :What he said:

----------


## SilentButDeadly

It is symptomatic of the demise of personal responsibility and the rise of bureaucratic @@@@-covering to apportion blame in a litigous world. 
"It's not my fault...sue him instead" etc etc  
HOWEVER... 
As an employer, all one would have to do is (perhaps) add an additional procedure into your business/job safety manual (since you should have one anyway) saying that management staff will monitor pay slave fatigue etc etc. and have process for preventing pay slaves working whilst hammered or suffering after effects of said hammering. 
Plus add clause into pay slave contract about turning up on the job hammered or suffering after effects of said hammering along with appropriate penalties.   
In the event of accident or injury...when/if Worksafe ask...refer to clause such and such in your safety manual and provide some evidence that process got done (like a JSA - and if you don't know what one of these are then as employer then you deserve what you get) and ta-da all's sweet...employer has done the right thing. And your pay slave was an idiot. Too easy.    
In all, nothing to see here...move on.

----------


## Eastwing

> I'll vote with my feet and not employ anyone.

  
Don't forget it's almost impossible to have a sub contractor working for you, and not be breaking the law.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Don't forget it's almost impossible to have a sub contractor working for you, and not be breaking the law.

  Oh yes it is! 
We price our jobs labour and material. Then split the labour/material price.  The Builder pays the contractor for the labour and us for the material.  We gaurantee the job is done to the builders satisfaction and make good any defects and the contractors expense, that is, if the contractor cant or won't. Which rarely happens.  It is the best of all worlds where everyone wins.   
The contractor is a true contractor under current laws.

----------


## intertd6

"The contractor is a true contractor under current laws."
Would that be for the superannuation act, or the workers compensation act, or the workcover regulations or the ATO ruling.
regards inter

----------


## Eastwing

> The contractor is a true contractor under current laws.

  In your case yes but not for the builder. You should re read of the rules regarding contractors.
It's actually worse to only pay the contractor for labour. (unless they are pty-ltd)
I got audited for subcontractor fraud (and Fined) last year. Now I have 3 employees. Am I happy NO can I do anything about this NO.

----------


## Eastwing

> "The contractor is a true contractor under current laws."
> Would that be for the superannuation act, or the workers compensation act, or the workcover regulations or the ATO ruling.
> regards inter

  
None of the above!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## johnc

> None of the above!!!!!!!!!!!

  Quite correct, a contractor working under direction, for an hourly rate supplying themselves and tools is an employee for Workcover, Building LSL (Incolink) and Superannuation purposes. The fact that the supplier is providing material and rectifying any substandard work simply reinforces or strengthens that case. It would be the builder most likely though that will pay as they have paid the contractor in first instance unless they have paid under direction of the lead contractor in which case you are dealing in shades of grey. This is a very complex area as more often than not you are dealing with situations that are not clear cut and it can come down to interpretation, once caught though in an audit your avenues of appeal are very limited, you are also dealing with a group that are not inclined to look favourably on "shades of grey".

----------


## Daniel Morgan

* 
FYI Checklist: Safe Work Australia's guide to worker fatigue
> Headaches and/or dizziness
> Wandering thoughts, daydreaming, lack of concentration
> Blurred vision or difficulty keeping eyes open
> Constant yawning, a drowsy relaxed feeling or falling asleep at work
> Moodiness such as irritability
> Short term memory problems
> Low motivation
> Hallucinations
> Impaired decision-making and judgment 
> Slow reflexes and responses
> Reduced immune system function
> Increased errors
> Extended sleep during days off work
> Falling asleep for a few seconds without realising
> Drifting in and out of traffic lanes Source: Safe Work Australia draft code of practice on workplace fatigue  *   

> You have perfectly described why a small business operator should think very carefully before employing anyone.  You can can't be watching over your employees every minute of the day and run a business.  At some point the employee must take responsibility for their own actions.

  
Hello, 
How does the above guide actually work? 
Eg, what qualifications would an employer need to determine if an employee was having hallucinations, blurred vision or reduced immune system function?   
Think of employment agencies, (Nursing) 
The Hospital rings the agency and books a nurse for a certain shift, the agency rings a nurse and confirms/books them. 
The hospital pays the agency, the agency pays the nurse. 
The hospital is employing the agency and the agency is employing the nurse. 
So how does the agency make on site evaluations of their employees ability to function safely/correctly? 
The country is being run by people who are reducing the need for workers to have to think and be responsible for their own actions. 
No wonder it's stuffed.

----------


## SilentButDeadly

> The country is being run by people who are reducing the need for workers to have to think and be responsible for their own actions. 
> No wonder it's stuffed.

  
Alternatively..."The country is being run by people who are reducing the need for [S]workers[/S] citizens to have to think and be responsible for their own actions." 
I would of course argue that our Government reflects the apathy and ignorance of the people it claims to represent...not the other way around. 
By the by...your agency hire analogy doesn't work since the contractual arrangements between the hospital and the agency result in the hospital accepting all the duty of care requirements with respect to the agency employee as part of the conditions of contract.  Been there done that.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> In your case yes but not for the builder. You should re read of the rules regarding contractors.
> It's actually worse to only pay the contractor for labour. (unless they are pty-ltd)
> I got audited for subcontractor fraud (and Fined) last year. Now I have 3 employees. Am I happy NO can I do anything about this NO.

   It depends entirely on the % of the contractors income comes from that builder.  If they only work say 10% of their time for that builder???  If the contractor actually employs the tradesmen working on the job???  
I know the laws and how they are applied. If the contractor is working all the time for the builder on labour only for sure there is a problem.  However any one builder would be lucky to contribute 30% of the yearly income to any of our contractors.  Most of our contractors are Pty Ltd companies as well.  They also control their own start times days they work etc. etc.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> "The contractor is a true contractor under current laws."
> Would that be for the superannuation act, or the workers compensation act, or the workcover regulations or the ATO ruling.
> regards inter

  Our contractors may only work for a builder 2 or 3 times a year if that.  They all price their own work as well and do not work exclusively through our service.  Yes they are contractors in the their own right,for the superannuation act, workers compensation act and all workcover regulations.  
 They have to provide for their own employees. But from mine or the builders perspective we do not have to provide for them under any of these acts. 
Cheers

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Quite correct, a contractor working under direction, for an hourly rate supplying themselves and tools is an employee for Workcover, Building LSL (Incolink) and Superannuation purposes.

  Yes on this point you are absolutely correct.  But none of the above description defines the relationship between myself or the builder, with the contractor.   

> The fact that the supplier is providing material and rectifying any substandard work simply reinforces or strengthens that case. It would be the builder most likely though that will pay as they have paid the contractor in first instance unless they have paid under direction of the lead contractor in which case you are dealing in shades of grey. This is a very complex area as more often than not you are dealing with situations that are not clear cut and it can come down to interpretation, once caught though in an audit your avenues of appeal are very limited, you are also dealing with a group that are not inclined to look favourably on "shades of grey".

  No the contractor is not working on and hourly rate.  They are responsible for their own rectification, I only step in if absolutley required and then it is deducted from their contract. 
There are no shades of grey in how we operate, none whatsoever.

----------


## watson

Just a note from me............
I don't know the rules or "grey areas" or whatever.
I do know, however, that there have been some readers of the thread that are Institutions that could misconstrue what is being said here..........plain talk .............gubmint rrrrrrr'soles........so just be a little bit careful.
Big Brother just isn't a show on TV.

----------


## Eastwing

> It depends entirely on the % of the contractors income comes from that builder.

   Not anymore it doesn't, if that was the case. Then I want the money back I was fined last year.

----------


## Gaza

> In your case yes but not for the builder. You should re read of the rules regarding contractors.
> It's actually worse to only pay the contractor for labour. (unless they are pty-ltd)
> I got audited for subcontractor fraud (and Fined) last year. Now I have 3 employees. Am I happy NO can I do anything about this NO.

  
please explain what happened, as there is a million differnt points of view on this isssue.

----------


## intertd6

What separates the true contractors from everybody else is a contract to do an individual job & specifically not be under direct control, most others are "deemed workers". There was a test case where a large pre mixed concrete supplier in sydney had a contract owner driver injure himself badly, the insurer investigated it & found that the load directions given to the driver before leaving the plant were found to be classed as direct control which made him a "deemed worker" the insurer did not pay his claim, so then the contractor had a legal claim for worker comp', then the concrete companys insurer had a claim for all the extra workers comp' which it hadn't being paying for all its "deemed workers" for "X" amount of years. Just look in the public notices section of a city newspaper & see how many pty ltd companys are wound up by insurers under the workers compensation act.
I found the more I became formally educated in the building industry, the less I wanted to be in it.
regards inter

----------


## Gaza

> What separates the true contractors from everybody else is a contract to do an individual job & specifically not be under direct control, most others are "deemed workers". There was a test case where a large pre mixed concrete supplier in sydney had a contract owner driver injure himself badly, the insurer investigated it & found that the load directions given to the driver before leaving the plant were found to be classed as direct control which made him a "deemed worker" the insurer did not pay his claim, so then the contractor had a legal claim for worker comp', then the concrete companys insurer had a claim for all the extra workers comp' which it hadn't being paying for all its "deemed workers" for "X" amount of years. Just look in the public notices section of a city newspaper & see how many pty ltd companys are wound up by insurers under the workers compensation act.
> I found the more I became formally educated in the building industry, the less I wanted to be in it.
> regards inter

  
correct, 
in the past the basis of the employee / employer relationship was based upon this court case in 1986 "stevens v brodribb sawmilling" but the last few years has seen things change.

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Just a note from me............
> I don't know the rules or "grey areas" or whatever.
> I do know, however, that there have been some readers of the thread that are Institutions that could misconstrue what is being said here..........plain talk .............gubmint rrrrrrr'soles........so just be a little bit careful.
> Big Brother just isn't a show on TV.

  Thanks Noel,  I have no problem with our operation as the contactor relationship is genuine. 
Cheers  
Rod

----------


## Rod Dyson

> What separates the true contractors from everybody else is a contract to do an individual job & specifically not be under direct control, most others are "deemed workers". There was a test case where a large pre mixed concrete supplier in sydney had a contract owner driver injure himself badly, the insurer investigated it & found that the load directions given to the driver before leaving the plant were found to be classed as direct control which made him a "deemed worker" the insurer did not pay his claim, so then the contractor had a legal claim for worker comp', then the concrete companys insurer had a claim for all the extra workers comp' which it hadn't being paying for all its "deemed workers" for "X" amount of years. Just look in the public notices section of a city newspaper & see how many pty ltd companys are wound up by insurers under the workers compensation act.
> I found the more I became formally educated in the building industry, the less I wanted to be in it.
> regards inter

  There would be more to this I imagine, like maybe the truck carried the decals of the supplier, he may have worked exclusively for the supplier etc. 
But you are right direct control, has a lot to do with the determination.  Fortunately we do not have direct control over our contrators. 
Cheers  
Rod

----------


## Rod Dyson

> Not anymore it doesn't, if that was the case. Then I want the money back I was fined last year.

  If a conractor did 3 jobs a year, labour only, for a builder at a quoted fixed price, there is no way that contractor can be deemed an employee.  There may be exceptions if the builder contracted many contractors on a labour only basis where they dictated the price rather than the contractor bidding for the job.  This does happen in the industy and I wouldn't like to be defending this type of operation.  It is a messy area for sure, not simply cut and dried.

----------


## intertd6

> Thanks Noel,  I have no problem with our operation as the contactor relationship is genuine. 
> Cheers  
> Rod

  All will be ok untill something goes seriously wrong, then after the investigation if their insurer finds a fault in the contractor relationship which gives them an out they will go down that path, you would need extremely deep pockets to fight them. I know that when I was working on large commercial projects I was not permitted to give any verbal instructions to any contractors, I had to write & issue a site instruction which related to the contract, eg:  safety, workmanship, quality etc.
regards inter

----------


## ringtail

Again, its typical of how we have let bullcrap insurance driven laws dictate how/ when and who we can work / work for. Utter disgrace and total madness

----------


## intertd6

> There would be more to this I imagine, like maybe the truck carried the decals of the supplier, he may have worked exclusively for the supplier etc.  
> Rod

  thats yes to all that, plus a lot of trucks had the agitator bowls owned by the company & the trucks owned by the operators, after a few incidents like that the whole industry changed dramatically, one company ended up locking  the contractors trucks up one evening & slowly swapped the agi's over to their own company vehicles, it took months, meanwhile the owner operators still had their payments to make with no trucks or income.
regards inter

----------


## Marc

> This is just going too far IMO.  Safe Work Australia plan to cut risk for tired workers puts employers offside | News.com.au 
> [/COLOR][/LEFT]

  Dont you find it hilarious that the same people defending the indefensible in the "global warming" thread, are here defending the communist attacks on the " owners of the means of production bad rich exploiters of the masses? "
It's pathetic really. Guys why don't you move to Cuba? You will like it there! Plenty of pachanga, yawn galore and classic cars.

----------

