THE Government’s $37 million campaign to sell its workplace legislation was in tatters last night after allegations that an actor in a Workplace Authority advertisement was himself a bad employer who ripped off junior staff to the tune of thousands of dollars.
Workplace Minister Joe Hockey last night pulled the ad “Protection for under-18s” off air after The Age asked him about the history of one of the actors, Damien Richardson, who until recently had a painting business employing youngsters.
Mr Hockey also announced an emergency review of the background of all actors appearing in any Workplace Authority advertisement, to be carried out by the Workplace Ombudsman, a spokeswoman said.
Many thanks to another outspoken female for the heads up via the LP Facebook Group.
Elsewhere: More from An Onymous Lefty, Helen at Surfdom and Blogocracy.
This is a non-story – read the AM transcript.
Have you got a link, Razor?
Jon Faine on 774 skewered the AM report.
And the nominees are…
For best comedy performance: Joe Hockey. You have to admire his sense of humour, announcing an emergency review of the background of all actors involved in the Work Choices ads. Where will he stop? The Liberal Party’s ad agency for the election? Government advertising? There must be a cast of thousands given the endless stream of campaign propaganda in the media.
Labor View from Broome
http://laborview.blogspot.com/
I know it is an ABC link, and therefore as reliable as Green left Weekly, but the report linked sounds like Richardson (the guy in the Ad) has been caught in a fib. On AM he denied that the 18 year old was an apprentice and that he was a subbie who never lodged paperwork Now the father of the kid is claiming he has paperwork to show the kid was registered as an apprentice. If he can produce it, this is going to look really, really bad.
The irony is, indeed, delicious.
Hehehee.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer pack of arseholes. That unhinged Dutton outburst suggests they’re really starting to lose it, Latho-style.
And that’s the problem with faustian pacts, Rodent.
One day, the devil comes knocking.
PS Dutton reminds me of the uniformed meatheads who used to shoulder charge us in the late 80s for demanding basic democratic rights in QLD – eg far-out radical demands like as the right to demonstrate.
Sounds like a bit of a beat up. When did the actor employ the kid? Most probably pre-WorkChoices. In which case, it doesn’t follow that WorkChoices is bad – just the rather obvious conclusion that some people make bad employers, and there are bad jobs out there.
TimT, the Workplace Relations Act prior to WorkChoices was also the product of the Howard Government!
Apparently it was over 18 months ago – so, pre-WorkChoices.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/workplace-ad-pulled-over-bad-boss-claim/2007/08/06/1186252630021.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
That nice Mr Hockey promised that workers’ conditions are guaranteed by law.
How could this happen when Mr Howard assured Australians on numerous occasions that no one would be worse off under WorkChoices?
It’s clear that someone has misled both Mr Hockey and Mr Howard.
I hope that they find the person who misled Mr Hockey and Mr Howard so that he can be appropriately chastised.
(I also hope that the legislation designed to help Northern Territory Aborigines doesn’t contain some unintended nasties for Aborigines, like having their land confiscated. Does anyone know if Mr Howard has looked into that possibility?)
Mark, that sounds like a bit of a simplification to me – many of the current complaints of Labor, including AWAs and the creation of casual work (as opposed to part-time and full-time work) were positively encouraged by the Keating and Hawke Governments.
I’m sure many on Labor and the left would like to simplify the issue and make the election anti-WorkChoices and anti-Howard Government. Trouble is, they are also fighting against the legacy of the previous Labor Government.
AWAs certainly weren’t, TimT. There was no scope for statutory individual employment agreements legislatively in the federal jurisdiction until the introduction of the Workplace Relations Act in 1996. Similar agreements were used in several state jurisdictions and were vociferously opposed by Labor. In terms of casuals, it also didn’t become possible to employ casuals more or less full time until the WRA and many awards contained significant restrictions on the use of casual labour. It’s true that the trend to decentralised productivity based bargaining and the use of non union collective agreements were large features of Labor’s IR approach, but what you are saying is not right at all.
If you say so. I’ll have a look at the history of the issue in my own time.
You can take my word on this one, TimT and save your time. I did honours in IR in 97-98 and wrote my thesis on the Accord and previously and subsequently worked in IR consultancy and taught IR and employment law.
One thing I don’t think anyone has raised is the matter of them using actors to depict “real people”.
The obvious implication of this is that the words spoken aren’t authentic quotes at all, but are carefully scripted while trying to give the impression of a bunch of people endorsing work choice.
Another example of the people being deceived by this government?
I don’t doubt that what you’re saying is correct, just that 1) I’m sure there’s more to the history of trade relations in the past two decades than can be summed up in a comments thread, and 2) this all rather glosses over the issue that there exist such things as bad jobs, and these sort of jobs have been around for a lot longer than the Howard Government – and will be around for a lot longer than a prospective Rudd Government.
Yes, indeed, but the point is that the protections for employees against exploitation have been radically watered down in the Howard era.
I always get a giggle out of this. You think they’d at least be smart enough to give their ‘characters’ the same first initial as their actors, as it is the whole spell is broken as soon as the names of the speakers are listed at the end of the ad.
It’s hardly anything new though.
Indeed. That is why some people like regulation of the ‘labour market’ and some don’t like it at all. Some people believe that employee organisations are ’social partners’, worthy of respect and consultation, and some people think they are rent seeking, price gouging, distorters of the market. Some people think that the ups and downs of the business cycle, and the indigestion from a little ‘excessive financial exuberance’ will pass from the body politic like a burp, quickly forgotten, others think that the consequences may be more serious.
whatevs. The point is that it is the same ole same ole and $400,000 mortgages and super notwithstanding, lose your job and your rights, and you feel, well, a bit sh*tty. Bad karma for the government to repoliticise the workplace, just when its supporters had convinced themselves that the notion of a workplace at all in these times of virtual production, was, well, so very 20th century. What a shame. they nearly got there, they really did.
And it gets Worse for Shrek.
Phillip’s father, Stephen Graham, said Mr Richardson was abusive and threatening towards his son when he approached the contractor for payment.
Stephen Graham said his son and Erin Gebert were lifetime friends and Phillip introduced Erin to the contractor.
“There were lots of promises about indentures and a long-term future and becoming an integral part of the business, that sort of stuff, but that was all talk and didn’t amount to anything,” Mr Graham said.
“He was not paid properly and in fact to this day he owes an amount of money that has never been paid and should have been.”
Earlier today, Mr Richardson said Mr Gebert got a fair deal as a sub-contractor, but said the young worker had failed to invoice him as required.
Hang on – Razor said this was a non-story.
What’s everyone discussing?
Move on folks, nothing to see here, is the message I think, from the government and thir boosters everywhere. Problem is, the curtain has been twitched aside, and the paying customers have got a gander at backsatge. Cripes, I’ve seen him and her before! They were in that other production, the one that ended some time ago. You know the one where the baddies come and push the kids down the mine! Unsophisticated? Sure. Compelling? Well, just read their focus group work again. Rice bowls. hah ha ha. Hoist with their own very nasty petard. Couldn’t happen to a bigger bunch of smarty pants losers.
Even when you have a “bad job” (I’m not sure who is defining what that is) you are entitled to certain protections.
I don’t think the rise in precarious employment etc in the last few years is a non-issue.
From what I understand (and I could be wrong), enterprise bargaining was advocated during the Hawke/Keating years. A long way from AWAs.
BTW, I think people from working-class backgrounds shouldn’t forgot the hard work that has been done in the past to ensure they get decent working conditions. And when I say that I’m not suggesting that trade unions are all sweetness and light, but it is most strange when people feel the need to support policies that are detrimental to the sort of folks they grew up with.
It certainly is a very important issue, but TimT is wrong to suggest that Hawke and Keating encouraged it.
Yes, well I guess things really changed with the introduction of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.
Don’t you love Shrek.
The call follows controversy over a government ad, promoting protection for under-18s, which has been pulled off air while the Workplace Ombudsman investigates claims that actor Damien Richardson ripped off young employees at his painting business.
Ms Burrow said that unlike the Government, all the actors in the ACTU ads were legitimate.
“We (ACTU) would encourage Joe Hockey to go right ahead (run checks on actors),” Ms Burrow said.
“We are absolutely confident that the stories in our advertisements are legitimate. Most of our ads are actually stories told by working people or they’re the facts about the legislation
Mr Richardson’s comments also highlight another rort which has been around for quite some time but which has burgeoned since 1996: Calling your employees “subcontractors” and thereby trying to avoid all your employer obligations. The POS even dared to say he hadn’t paid young Erin because the quality of his work was so low. All perfectly OK if he had been a genuine subcontractor who is required to rectify faulty work – but he was a damn apprentice, even if he hadn’t been he was only 18 years old, and you would think that people like Richardson would remember that they probably didn’t do their work perfectly straight off the blocks when they were 18. It’s a complete failure of humanity to the younger generation. Anyone with half a brain could see a kid that age is not a self-employed “subcontractor”.
oh this is just tooo good.
I love it when a government is slowly dieing and no matter what they do everything just goes wrong…
And, Helen, WorkChoices deliberately over-rode the legislation in many states that allowed protection for employees who were falsely treated as “contractors” to escape legal obligations.
David on 7 August 2007 at 5:22 pm
Alleluia Brother
Alleluia
It’s sublime and poetic justice at its best–hoisted by their own petard. BwaaaHaHaHa. The public gets to shoot the messenger and perceive the stench of serfchoices (if they hadn’t already done so); the actor and the advertising agency and production company making the ad are in the shit, and taxpayer dollars are saved for now.
Sounds like a Hockey stick is soon to be rammed up its owner’s arse by the spectators.
Actors Equity (whatever they’re called here) is about to be faced with an interesting revised government /ad agency questionnaire for actors in future:
“….even dared to say he hadn’t paid young Erin because the quality of his work was so low.”
From what I heard Erin was later ‘handed on’ to work for the blokes brother. It is just a bit inconsistent to pass on a dodgy worker, who subsequently lasted for another 12 months, to a close relative.
Incidentally, from an unstudied understanding, “the rise in precarious employment” was test run by Jeff Kennett and fully endorsed, for all Australia, by Howard when he was given the chance. Victoria has lead the way downwards, for fair conditions, at the lower end of the work chain. And sadly, the unions sat back and watched.
I don’t think he was even a dodgy worker, either, because an 18 year old who is supposed to be trained and mentored and instead is treated like a disposable casual labourer shouldn’t cop the blame. He was supposed to be in training.
The whole Work (no)Choices has been a really expensive and disruptive cock-up from the beginning.
Given that is now with us, for better or worse, can someone please explain what changes will be made when Krudd gets in.
The Beazer promised to tear the whole thing up and chuck in the dumpster. Does that promise still hold true under Klever Kevin? – or is there to be yet another version of the same to placate our “trading partner(s)”?
I was under the impression that deregulating the workforce was part of our (their) international obligations where we get to eat more franchised junk food and help with wars in exchange for low wages and unlimited access to resources.
Well, Im reasonably familiar with employment law, and I can assure you there’s not a snowflakes chance in hell an Australian court would find young Mr Erin to be a subcontractor.
Oh, it just gets better and better…
The Beazer promised to tear the whole thing up and chuck in the dumpster. Does that promise still hold true under Klever Kevin? – or is there to be yet another version of the same to placate our “trading partner(s)â€??
Yes – it’s not really clear what Kevin and Labor are promising. This highlights the fact that the anti-WorkChoices drive by the left in general is by and large about managing perceptions. Once the election campaign kicks in, Labor will have to come up with a number of detailed proposals as to how they’re going to replace AWAs, the Workplace Authority, etc. Once they do, they’ll be in much more contested territory.
I don’t know what’s unclear – the ALP IR policy is freely available and fairly detailed.
http://www.alp.org.au/download/fwf_finala.pdf
As to the rise of more precarious forms of employment, all I can say is, my first few jobs were all casuals, and it provided me with a useful stepping stone into full-time work.
It seems to me that this must have been the case for hundreds of people who had previously been out of work, and since Labor’s brief is to help those who are disadvantaged, I’d imagine they’d want to keep these casual jobs, even if they are precarious.
Thanks for the link, Mark. Why don’t you focus on it more on this site? The trouble with the media so far is that it hasn’t looked at the details, it’s just concentrated on non-existent scandals, like the one with this actor. One would hope that at least LP and other blogs don’t buy into this media hysteria.
TimT, firstly I disagree that this scandal is either unimportant or non-existent.
Secondly, Labor won’t be getting rid of casual jobs.
Thirdly, I’m working on a policy paper for the CPD on IR which will be out before the election, and as part of that I’ll be critiquing the ALP policy (which I find disappointing in many respects) so no doubt there’ll be posts from me on that issue.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s1998319.htm
“DAMIEN RICHARDSON: There was no signing up. When you’re a subcontractor you have to invoice me and you also have to � you also have to provide me with an ABN number. Now, if you don’t provide me with an ABN (Australian Business Number) number I’m still able to pay you, and this is through the taxation law, I’m still able to pay you but I’m entitled to only pay you 50 per cent of what you’re owed.
TONY EASTLEY: Well, did he invoice you, or has he been paid?
DAMIEN RICHARDSON: He’s never invoiced me and he’s never actually ever asked me for money.”
To what degree was all this explained to him, though? The kid’s 18.
In any case, I suspect the law doesn’t enable him to escape his obligations under a contract that easily.
Guillame, the fact he didnt have an ABN is merely further evidence he wasnt an independent contractor.
As an employee, he doesn’t need to invoice for his wages.
Now the Business lobby Groups are going to flog a dead horse.
Business Lobby Anti Union Ad (Warning 7mb mpeg file.)
“I’m still able to pay you but I’m entitled to only pay you 50 per cent of what you’re owed.”
Also notice he doesn’t mention he is supposed to pay the rest to the ATO and provide his subcontractor with a PAYGW Statement. Bet he didn’t do either of those things either.
Thanks TimT and Mark for steering me
Mark- “I don’t know what’s unclear”…..no criticism, but a link on a blog for someone seeking information is not really clarity.
It’s a bit like “seek and ye shall find”, which is not what I would call clear and unequivocal, generally available information.
The PDF, as linked, provides a lot of spin and rhetoric, and some information – assuming one has the time and intellect to be interpretive. But for the average punter there aren’t enough specific “we will” and “we will not” statements in order to get a clear idea.
Again Mark B, I look forward to a link to your paper for information, which I assume will be spin-free (that’s not sarcastic!).
Point taken, mark, but I guess I get a bit frustrated with the line that the ALP’s IR policy is “unclear” as it derives from Coalition spin, basically.
But, yes, in many instances it doesn’t spell out well enough what will be different and what the implications will be.