JobKeeper – where to next, JobKeeper Mark 2
Jobkeeper has been a shambolic process. Here’s why:
- Paying people $1,500 when they were earning less was a mistake that no one wanted to own and then tried to sell as a plus.
- Denying casuals support (except ones that were to all intent and purposes permanent)
- Allowing organisations to qualify with one bad month became a cataclysmic mistake followed by series of threats about anti-avoidance deferral behaviours and what the ATO would do
- The $60B error. It is hard to make a mistake that big and
- Finally, trying to wrap everything up just as the recession bites at the end of September.
Our Treasurer gets it, I think, and has hinted that he will wind back the $1,500 payment for those who earn less to extend, at least in the battling industry sectors, after September. I think by then some type of JobKeeper, where consistent loss of earning can be demonstrated (not just once of as currently exists) will exist. The JobKeeper Mark 2 is being trialled before our eyes to see what is liked electorally and whether it is economically sustainable. So within the next few weeks we should see its architecture.
The key changes I suspect will be:
- No $1,500 a fortnight if you earn less (just what you normally get)
- Employer eligibility must be continually proved, not just once
- Specific industry protection
- Broader casual protection (trade of with ACTU for Accord Mark 2)
Perennial Pregnancy Blues – it really has to stop
Barely a week goes by and we have another opportunistic termination, by way of redundancy, of a pregnant worker. And, as I indicated last time, the employee always wins and the employer suffers reputational and financial damage.
In Goldberg v The Advice Spot, a 5 month pregnant bookkeeper received an email advising her she was redundant whilst holidays in the US. Once again the attempt to cast discussions around business performance with the team as a whole beforehand as consultation didn’t cut it.