Trust big business to look after employee welfare.
Why did this happen? Because Jobkeeper directed Government money into business coffers and left business to take care of their employees. Jobkeeper was designed that way to provide incentive to businesses to retain their staff.
But did that work? Did it prevent workers from losing their jobs?
If Jobkeeper had instead directed partial payments directly to workers instead, e.g business pays 2/3 and Govt pays 1/3 into employee accounts, the rort would not have happened. This is what happens when policy design were made with the primary purpose of focusing on economic statistics rather than welfare of employees/citizens.
In Germany, businesses that could not afford to pay workers apply for workers to work part-time and the Government tops up the income forgone by the worker, so business gets what they pay for and workers retain the same income. And the UK is looking at the same model.
I know of people in Australia who were forced to take 20% pay cut for 80% work while the company retains the Jobkeeper and the staff having to in reality work normal 100% hours (WFH) because the nature of work to be delivered cannot be completed working at 80% rate. So that business in effect gets the same staff productivity but only pays up to 60% pay.
This is why people need to understand the nuances of things, the devil is in the detail as they say. A policy may sound good, is good but implemented incorrectly. And I'd say this, the Victoria shutdown will turn out to be the appropriate strategy because the alternative would have been worse and more protracted. People think of how bad the Victorian shutdown is, but never imagine what the alternative could be- think UK, think Spain and worse think USA.
Same thing when people say look at tech stocks to buy, but we must choose the right tech stocks. APT is not even a tech stock for heavens sake. It is tech enabled but essentially a consumer finance stock. Qantas underpaid workers through JobKeeper misuse David Marin-GuzmanWorkplace correspondent
Sep 24, 2020 – 1.04pm
Qantas workers are owed thousands of dollars in backpay after a court held the airline had been misusing JobKeeper in way that has meant it is pocketing parts of the wage subsidy.
The Federal Court on Thursday rejected the airline's arguments that it could use workers' earnings paid in arrears to reduce the top-up amount it must make to get their pay to the minimum $1,500 a fortnight required under JobKeeper.
The landmark judgment, from a case brought by the airline unions, means Qantas will likely have to backpay hundreds of airline workers engaged during the pandemic.
The decision will have ramifications for all other companies receiving JobKeeper and paying staff in arrears and experts say it could affect their bottom line.
Transport Workers Union national secretary Michael Kaine said Qantas had been caught out taking taxpayers’ money while ripping off its workers.
“This is an important win for Qantas workers who have had their pay raided by senior management in a disgraceful abuse of the JobKeeper scheme," he said.
"These workers have endured systematic wage theft at the hands of an out of control management."
The airline had been paying penalty rates owed to cabin crew, baggage handlers and airport staff in fortnights they did not work, in line with requirements in its enterprise agreement.
The requirements meant that, for example, an employee can perform work and overtime that gives rise to earnings of $3000 but $1500 of that in overtime penalties would not be paid until the next fortnight.
In a case where the employee was stood down the next fortnight, the airline argued it could count the $1500 towards that fortnight's minimum $1500 JobKeeper payment rather than simply in addition to the earnings paid during the previous fortnight.
As a result, the employee would be paid just $3000, not the $4,500, he would be entitled to with the additional JobKeeper payment.
However, Justice Geoffrey Flick held that JobKeeper can only be set off against monies "an employee is contractually due to receive during any given fortnight for work performed during that same fortnight".
Penalties paid in arrears "cannot be 'set off' or otherwise called to account by Qantas to relieve it of its obligation to also pay the JobKeeper payment."
"All such inquiries as to the pay cycle of employers or the terms upon which an employer may pay an employee assume no relevance," he said.
Orders are yet to be drafted to reflect the decision but the judge said if his interpretation gave rise to employees receiving a windfall than "so be it".
"It remains a matter for the Legislature to “tweak” or adjust the scheme if it sees fit."
The judge noted the unions had not argued Qantas was "pursuing some ulterior objective of seeking (for example) to maximise the amount of the JobKeeper payments, and seeking to retain those payments for their own benefit".
However, after the ruling, Mr Kaine argued the underpayments were deliberate and occurred while CEO Alan Joyce and his team were paying themselves millions of dollars.
"The Federal Government and the Qantas board must hold Qantas management to account. This trashing of taxpayers money and attacks on workers and their pay must be stopped."
Australian Services Union assistant secretary Linda White, representing airport staff, said it was "the clearest example of wage theft we’ve seen in the aviation sector" and urged Qantas to accept the decision.
"This has cost workers who are paid fortnightly thousands of dollars at a time when they can least afford it,” Ms White said.
“Qantas have a legal and moral responsibility to pay workers their penalties, but it used tricky legal manoeuvres to dodge that responsibility."
A Qantas spokesman said the airline based all of its JobKeeper decisions on the legislation and guidance provided by the tax office and "made sure all employees receive a 'safety net' payment of $1500 per fortnight".
"That 'safety net' assurance is a central part of the Government’s JobKeeper policy. Today’s judgement appears to cut across that principle."
"The judgment will likely have adverse implications for all companies receiving JobKeeper, who are already reeling from the impacts of COVID."
The spokesman said the airline was "carefully considering whether to appeal the judgment to the full Federal Court".
It also claimed it was "misleading for unions to suggest employees should expect a sudden windfall out of today’s judgement".
The Fair Work Commission previously found that Qantas was unreasonably applying JobKeeper by splitting the pay of monthly-paid employees between fortnights in a way that reduced their JobKeeper payment.
However, Qantas had argued the same principles did not apply to fortnightly employees, which make up the vast majority of its workforce.
