For those that didn't know long term permanent casual employees have had a win in the federal court .
you can read about it here ...

me.cfmeu.org.au/news/workpac-v-rossato-federal-court-win-explained?fbclid=IwAR1s0tjFRNJcjTEHl60q6e1NmhQo5VJV7g5qsBt5o2-4cKEe6UoiZBWdc7w

Might just be a classic pyrrhic victory imo.

My understanding is that a casual worker gets paid a higher hourly rate than a full time worker, this higher rate covers them for most / all of the benefits of full time so why should they get extra again?

Time to take a pay cut then

Or have less hours offered

In August 2018, a full bench of the Federal Court agreed that Paul was owed leave entitlements, paving the way for other casual labour hire coal miners to also claim unpaid entitlements and effectively declaring the 'permanent casual' work model so commonplace in mining an illegal rort.

Absolutely a rort as if they did not already know.


The rort is happening in many other sectors too no doubt.

Selling your soul for the mighty dollar.

They are paid more to cover their entitlements. The unions are just being greedy.

Select to expand quote

Craig66 said..
My understanding is that a casual worker gets paid a higher hourly rate than a full time worker, this higher rate covers them for most / all of the benefits of full time so why should they get extra again?

Because in a lot of places they don't. The salary nominally has a 25% loading but is the same as market rate. I know people who have been made redundant from permanent positions and then been re-employed casually at exactly the same hourly rate which includes the 'casual loading'.

the reason so many employers do this is because its the cheapest option for them. There are plenty of ways to make this work in casual industry And small business, portable long-service leave legislation is a good example.

i'm a full-time worker and have spent quite a few years watching a lot of casuals get burned by this, can't take a day off if you're sick and won't take a holiday because they lose money and their job is uncertain. As a manager it is **** because people don't have security and leave more often.

Select to expand quote

bjw said..
They are paid more to cover their entitlements. The unions are just being greedy.

Unions have their place and good on then but....
They cant exist with out union members coughing up outrageous fees, so they need to be seen to be giving back to their members. (after they line their own pockets and lifestyles first)
Or more to the point its the employers paying out more than the work place agreement.


Funny thing is unions step up to bat for a member that is getting bullied, yet their tactics of growing members is outright bulling, harassment and scare mongering.

Go figure

Select to expand quote

bjw said..
They are paid more to cover their entitlements. The unions are just being greedy.

That is beyond idiotic

How about when this law was brought in,it was designed mainly at kids in the retail/fast food industry. That is until big business realise they could exploit this.

So you say 25% covers everything,no it saves businesses money. So if i am full time and take holidays the owner needs to replace me....you see where this is heading,or should I help you some more?

Also unions are just as dishonest as our politicians. The unions sold the worker out years ago to keep themselves in a lifetime slush fund

This is actually a snap shot of what happened to my old uncle who carted coal in the Lower Hunter many years ago.


My uncle was a happy lad, driving his little tipper making a few dollars when Mr Union said "if you and your follow workers join us we will get you more $$ per tonne.


So with the money he went for a bigger truck and made a few extra dollars, thanks Mr Union,

Next year Mr Union said we can do better again.


My uncle wasnt a greedy man but he upsized to a bigger rig again, life was good, money for holiday up the coast, brough a little fishing boat.
Thanks Mr Union


Now I know your thinking my Uncle owes a lot to Mr Union



No that was not his next rig.



A few years on and clever business man (not a hard working follow truck driver) put a proposal to the mine owners on how he could run a fleet of B-Doubles and sub contract the cartage saving the effort of many smaller operators. Mr Union backed this as the highly paid drivers were all made to be members.


Mr Union didn't care that my uncle no longer had a job as less drivers were needed. (lucky he was close to retirement)

Yes...... No thanks Mr Union







(all photos just random Googled)

Select to expand quote

chrispy said..

bjw said..
They are paid more to cover their entitlements. The unions are just being greedy.

That is beyond idiotic

How about when this law was brought in,it was designed mainly at kids in the retail/fast food industry. That is until big business realise they could exploit this.

So you say 25% covers everything,no it saves businesses money. So if i am full time and take holidays the owner needs to replace me....you see where this is heading,or should I help you some more?

Also unions are just as dishonest as our politicians. The unions sold the worker out years ago to keep themselves in a lifetime slush fund

I've never worked in a place where additional labour was put on when anyone went on holidays. Worked in small business, medium business, mining but never for the government. It this a government thing. Or is it propaganda put out by unions.

Business and chamber of commerce managed to twist this system to their individual liking over the years, so it no longer represented what the term casual employment meant.
Case in point, Nephew employed by large corporation after completing an apprenticeship than added to current workforce for 13 years as a casual still same shift work and forty hour week.
Now its turned and bitten them on the Russell.

Select to expand quote

mineral1 said..
Business and chamber of commerce managed to twist this system to their individual liking over the years, so it no longer represented what the term casual employment meant.
Case in point, Nephew employed by large corporation after completing an apprenticeship than added to current workforce for 13 years as a casual still same shift work and forty hour week.
Now its turned and bitten them on the Russell.

That's pretty-well how I see it as well mineral... it's Iike a big slap for exploiting a gaping hole in the fair work act.

Casual work force on mines is for insurance and safety
Casual worker gets killed on a minesite they are doing work for the minesite through third party this leads to an investigation on contract company, mining company washes hands of responsibilities.
Site work is 70-84 hours plus a week as a casual or full time however the full time workers get a retainer for their time off site, casuals do not.
in the Pilbara and nw there are thousands and thousands of "casuals" doing full time hours for years and decades on end.
I think it's good, the worker gets shafted hard already, it's ok if you work for fmbhrio or other big players as you don't get your hands dirty have to do hard or high risk work and get leave loading extra holidays and production bonuses .
Its the casual workers who do the real work,
I left a company where I was a full time employee and they sent me to India once for ten weeks no days off.........png 5 weeks no days off,,,,,,,did construction job near Karratha went for 2 weeks and stayed on site for 12 weeks straight................. **** them it's time they took safety mental health and social responsibility seriously.
charged out at $180 and hour and paid 60,,,,,,,,, The casuals would get charged out at 120-150 dependent on what site and get 53-60 hourly rate.
actual award rate for a fitter, boily, sparky, rigger, crane driver is around 24 an hour so as long as they paid a little more ie 30-50 then your not covered by fair work, as you have entered into a different agreement than what they cover henceforth you don't talk up or you lose your hours whether the job is safe or not, working three months straight or being sent to third world countries and getting malaria.

Select to expand quote

Craig66 said..
This is actually a snap shot of what happened to my old uncle who carted coal in the Lower Hunter many years ago.


My uncle was a happy lad, driving his little tipper making a few dollars when Mr Union said "if you and your follow workers join us we will get you more $$ per tonne.


So with the money he went for a bigger truck and made a few extra dollars, thanks Mr Union,

Next year Mr Union said we can do better again.


My uncle wasnt a greedy man but he upsized to a bigger rig again, life was good, money for holiday up the coast, brough a little fishing boat.
Thanks Mr Union


Now I know your thinking my Uncle owes a lot to Mr Union



No that was not his next rig.



A few years on and clever business man (not a hard working follow truck driver) put a proposal to the mine owners on how he could run a fleet of B-Doubles and sub contract the cartage saving the effort of many smaller operators. Mr Union backed this as the highly paid drivers were all made to be members.


Mr Union didn't care that my uncle no longer had a job as less drivers were needed. (lucky he was close to retirement)

Yes...... No thanks Mr Union







(all photos just random Googled)

Just to play the devil's advocate, what would have happened if the Union there had not existed at all?

My guess is that things would have gone pretty much the same way, except maybe for the incremental pay rises as they went, but almost certainly the b-doubles would have replaced the smaller trucks whichever way you go. Its just economics for the owner and the fleet operator.

The Union could have dragged their heels in and said no to allowing the b-doubles to take over, but how long would that have lasted? You can't blame unions for everything. Even if your uncle's rate had stayed the same, the bigger trucks with just one driver are always going to be cheaper.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

Craig66 said..
This is actually a snap shot of what happened to my old uncle who carted coal in the Lower Hunter many years ago.


My uncle was a happy lad, driving his little tipper making a few dollars when Mr Union said "if you and your follow workers join us we will get you more $$ per tonne.


So with the money he went for a bigger truck and made a few extra dollars, thanks Mr Union,

Next year Mr Union said we can do better again.


My uncle wasnt a greedy man but he upsized to a bigger rig again, life was good, money for holiday up the coast, brough a little fishing boat.
Thanks Mr Union


Now I know your thinking my Uncle owes a lot to Mr Union



No that was not his next rig.



A few years on and clever business man (not a hard working follow truck driver) put a proposal to the mine owners on how he could run a fleet of B-Doubles and sub contract the cartage saving the effort of many smaller operators. Mr Union backed this as the highly paid drivers were all made to be members.


Mr Union didn't care that my uncle no longer had a job as less drivers were needed. (lucky he was close to retirement)

Yes...... No thanks Mr Union







(all photos just random Googled)

Just to play the devil's advocate, what would have happened if the Union there had not existed at all?

My guess is that things would have gone pretty much the same way, except maybe for the incremental pay rises as they went, but almost certainly the b-doubles would have replaced the smaller trucks whichever way you go. Its just economics for the owner and the fleet operator.

The Union could have dragged their heels in and said no to allowing the b-doubles to take over, but how long would that have lasted? You can't blame unions for everything. Even if your uncle's rate had stayed the same, the bigger trucks with just one driver are always going to be cheaper.

Yes you are right, same result over time as we need to fill the ships sitting off the coast.
I guess for him it was the feeling of being let down and not supported in the end.

Apart from 2 very old trades machines have now mostly taken over from people power.

Great decision by the court. Give them the full time job they deserve, or be a bastard and keep them as casuals for years.....well then, you can pay them the casual rate AND give them full time benefits if that's your choice. Sounds fair enough to me.....unless someone was stopping the employer from offering a full time job?